Saturday, February 23, 2008

Hugh Grant Should Have Brought A Camera

If prostitution is illegal, then why isn't pornography?

(This article should bring me some new search engine referrals. If that's how you wound up here, sorry. You're probably going to be disappointed. But by all means feel free to stick around and browse. I'll be here all week. Try the veal, and don't forget to tip your waitress.)

It pretty much has to be admitted that the participation at least some pornographic "performers" is motivated primarily by money. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that this is true of almost all of them without a Y chromosome.

That having been established, these then are people engaging in sexual activity in exchange for financial renumeration. I'm pretty sure there's a word for that. I won't repeat it here, because my Mom might read this blog someday.

So, my real question boils down to this: is there any other criminal activity that suddenly becomes legal when a camera is introduced? And why is that true of this particular criminal activity?

Please note that I'm not raising the issue of whether pornography should be illegal, or prostitution legal. I could (but probably won't) write a post about either or both of those debates, but this isn't it. I'm just a bit bewildered by the whole "but-if-you-film-it-then-it's-OK" issue.

Enough rambling. Here's a picture of the edge of my kitchen table. Beyond that, the abyss.


Anonymous said...

Ever read "Pornified?" Very interesting, but not for the faint of heart, although you don't strike me as that type.

Anonymous said...

Oh, forgot to leave the reference: