Yep but this way its legal and they get paid a lot more.

I have a friend who is in porn and the difference she says, for her, is that it's performing. She'd never be a prostitute because 'that's offering services; a man taking what 'he' wants of me or me doing things 'for' him and I don't do that. I'm a performer first and foremost.' Now I know some people will still say there's no difference, but there really is. It may 'look' like the same thing but the reasons can be different.

my understanding is porn stars are paid for being filmed, not for the acts they do. one of those legal issues

Well if you go by the definition of prostitution then yes but in the long run I feel they are not. My only reasoning is that they are being paid by a corporation or company for their services and not by the individual the are having sex with. Although I could be wrong and I will ask Ab what they think keeps porn stars from getting arrested for prostitution.

Getting paid for sex is getting paid for sex. We are always putting labels on things to try and figure out what the differences are. Were the actresses of yesteryear who got their roles on the casting couch prostitutes?

Not really, porn stars are payed by the video producer to have sex with another porn star, and a prostitute is usually paid by the client to have sex with client. While a prostitute may go through hundreds or thousands of clients throughout he career, a porn star has a limited number of men to have sex with.

There are male porn stars too! If the women are prostitutes so are the men!

No. Not the ones I pay to watch. ☺

From a legal stance, no but from the point of money being exchanged for sex, yes. Not matter how you try and play with the wording, they are getting paid to have sex with someone else. i have read a few answers that claim things like "they are getting paid to perform" and i think that's bullshit porn stars tell themselves to feel above prostitutes but it's a weak argument. Nobody gives a crap if these men or women can "perform". They care if they can suck a dick, ride a dick, take it in the ass and take a load in the face. If it is a guy they only care if they can get and stay hard on cam while another guy's penis is nearby during a gangbang. This is not Shakespeare. I also don't buy that bs about it being a matter of what they have to do or how many men. There are prostitutes who have a small clientele of regular, upscale clients and there are porn stars having 200 men gangbangs. With that said, I don't have any problem with prostitution whether it is sold in private or taped and mass marketed.

No of course not...and if they were, good luck to them if that is what they truly want for themselves. Moral judgements be damned, i know a few prostitutes and they are pretty happy. Though when people do it from desperation or coersion its a completely different story.

essentially yes. Money for sex, I guess they would classify themselves differently but lets not lie to ourselves... soon escorts wont be hookers either.

Not on streets, but earn plenty just with one movie, yes thaey are prostitutes.

ofcourse

for lack of a better word, yes

Are we all selling ourselves one way or another?

I really don't think a prostitute would want to see herself lowered to the status of "porn star."

Yes they are because people are paying them to have sex.

"Some legal jurisdictions consider commercial pornography a form of prostitution, though most commercial sex film performers do not regard themselves as prostitutes for various reasons, but rather as artists. Most notably these performers are not paid directly by their sexual partners for the sex, but both are paid through a studio. Some sex film performers do not receive money at all for their inclusion in such films. In this instance, they do so for promotion of their other works, such as artistic paintings and sculptures, or they have no sex in some films, such as repeat performers in the famous Girls Gone Wild film series." "Attempts were made in the 1970s to outlaw pornography in the United States by prosecuting porn stars for prostitution. The courts in California were where the case was initially made, and stopped short of advancing the case to the United States Supreme Court for a final decision. It was this decision and acceptance to let stand whereby the California Court made a legal distinction in the case of People v. Freeman between someone who took part in a sexual relationship for money (prostitution) versus someone who takes on the act of merely portraying role where a sexual relationship was engaged in on-screen act as part of their acting performance. It is this specific legal distinction between pornography and prostitution in California law that has allowed California to become the porn center of the United States. At present, no other state in the United States has either implemented or accepted this legal distinction between commercial pornography performers versus prostitutes as shown in the Florida case where sex film maker Clinton Raymond McCowen, aka "Ray Guhn", was indicted on charges of "soliciting and engaging in prostitution" for his creation of pornography films which included "McCowen and his associates recruited up to 100 local men and women to participate in group sex scenes, the affidavit says." The distinction that California has in its legal determination in the Freeman decision is usually denied in most states' local prostitution laws, which do not specifically exclude performers from such inclusion. In some cases, some states have ratified their local state laws for inclusion to prevent California's Freeman decision to be applied to actors who are paid a fee for sexual actions within their state borders. One example is the state of Texas whose prostitution law specifically states: An offense is established under Subsection (a)(1) whether the actor is to receive or pay a fee. An offense is established under Subsection (a)(2) whether the actor solicits a person to hire him or offers to hire the person solicited." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornographic_actor

*Actors

Nope. The definition of prostitute is a woman who 1) Solicits sex, and 2) Accepts payment for sex. I dont think porn stars solicit sex, they just sell it and perform acts as part of a job. Otherwise you could classify a housewife as a prostitute - or even a woman who allows you to pay for dinner and then shags you at the end of a date!

no there is a small difference there, but some pornstars are both, in that they are escort services.

They are actresses and actors like in any stage show or movie. They work very hard for what they do, and they are not the only people there; it takes anywhere from 10 to 20 people to shoot a scene just like any movie does. then there are others waiting to film their scene or have just finished shooting. It is very hard and taxing work to twist into the positions for the photographers to get the proper prospective and shot; there are usually more than one photographer. A prostitute on the other hand only offers her or himself for sexual enjoyment for a fee. Many of the porn stars are married and have children and a home life just like you or me. They come home and fix dinner clean house buy groceries and mow the grass. So no, porn stars are not the same as a prostitute although they both do sexual things.

yea i dont c the difference except for the camera and they get tested for every shoot