(Untitled)

[beatniknight]

So, my favorite porn site, www.tylersroom.net (obviously, this link is not work safe), this month has a series of videos featuring very very attractive men having sex with a ridiculously ugly old man.

Ethan:

Comments

[gregstevenstx]

I think that it's not so much illegal, as what some would call: amazingly innovative and clever. It's the perfect loophole!

Plus, I think that the movies probably would have a target audience.... that target audience simply isn't you. I imagine it would appeal to old/fat/ugly etc guys, who then can identify with the "Jake" character, and fantasize about themselves having sex with a boy like Ethan. Sounds reasonable.

Either way, props to Mr. Cruise for finding a more creative way to make prostitution legal than the traditional "oh, I just wanted a massage" alabei.

[beatniknight]

That's true, but even though I'd like to think of myself as reasonably attractive, I know that I'm simply not Ethan caliber. But, when I watch porn, I like to imagine that I am one of the two (or three or four or twelve), not only in the way that I'm having sex with the other, but in the way that I look. I like to imagine that I am as hot as Ethan.

Am I alone in this fantasy?

[gregstevenstx]

Hmm.... I'm not sure. When I fantasize, I usually imagine myself as myself. But I also don't tend to feel like the people that I fantasize about are "out of my league", either. So I don't know how that would affect things.....

[phoenixredux]

Technically, Jake Cruise isn't paying for sex. Jake Cruise Productions, Incorporated is paying for an ACTOR to ACT like he's *enjoying* sex with Jake Cruise.

This is similar to the way I once talked my way past the Minneapolis Police and Fire departments, proclaiming protection under the First Amendment. It wasn't arson, trespassing and larceny - it was PERFORMANCE ART. But I'm sure I've told you that story already.

[beatniknight]

Ok, so do you think it would be legal if it wasn't "Jake Cruise Productions" but was instead just Jake Cruise (I wonder what it says on their checks....)?

And no, I don't believe you have told me that story.

[phoenixredux]

I thought I had it in my "memories" folder, but what is there is merely an encapsulated version, without the four-part harmony and feelin'. It happened long before my blogging days. I am going to need to post that in my journal. It must be written up properly, and I don't have time to give it justice right now. But it's a good one. :)

[anonymous]

Pornography is considered art, filmed for distribution to an audience (thereby making the audience the customer), which is protected by the first amendment. In essence, most state statutes (and court precedence) distinguish the two by taking the position that prostitution involves a customer who pays a prostitute for providing sexual services to that customer, while pornography involves a customer paying an actor for providing sexual services to another actor.

In other words, prostitution is considered a bilateral trading of sex for money, and pornography involves the customer of an adult film paying money to watch other people have sex with each other, while receiving no sexual favors him/herself in return for his/her money.

Make sense?

Technically, one could escape most solicitation charges in most states by simply ensuring that the act is taped for supposedly future commerce. Though, one would probably be charged more...

Anonymous Layman-Jurist and Voyeur

[mayuke]

The fact that he is filming it makes all the difference. Pornography is protected under the First Amendment - it's that simple, but if a case were to be brought against the owner of the site, Jake Cruise Productions, then I reckon the contextual definition of pornography will be debated.

I think this falls somewhere in the gray areas of pornography.