|
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The question one must ask is... if not for commiting the act to film would the production companies still pay these people to have sex? Clearly, they would not. As such, they are being paid to have their image used in a film rather then to simply engage in sexual acts, therefore, what they are being paid for is not sex, argo, not prostitutes.
I think the ultimate answer lies in law.... working in adult films does not qualify as prostitution under the legal definition (in Canada or the US anyway). |
Agreed. The question of what a person is being paid "for" is a question of motivation - in particular, the motivation of the person doing the paying.
In this case, the ultimate objective of the person doing the paying is not for the pornographic actor or actress to engage in intercourse, but rather it is to obtain profit through selling the product which is being produced. Consequently, it is not entirely accurate to say that the act of sex is what is being "paid for."
|