What is the difference between...

[Sacman]

Porn stars appear in pornography.

A whore sells sex.

Pretty simple, really.

Porn stars don't sell sex?

No. They don't sell anything. They star in pornography.

Both are having sex in exchange for money though.

The question is what's the difference.

One has sex with a paying customer.

One stars in pornographic film.

Quit simple.

Could we state, then, that all porn stars are whores, but not all whores are porn stars?

No, because a whore sells sex.

A porn star doesn't sell anything.

One is a service.

The other is a job.

Your little argument reminds of that scene from Meet The Sniper, where said Sniper is talking to his parents...

 

[Naheal]

Porn stars appear in pornography.

A whore sells sex.

Pretty simple, really.

Porn stars don't sell sex?

No. They don't sell anything. They star in pornography.

Both are having sex in exchange for money though.

The question is what's the difference.

One has sex with a paying customer.

One stars in pornographic film.

Quit simple.

Could we state, then, that all porn stars are whores, but not all whores are porn stars?

No, because a whore sells sex.

A porn star doesn't sell anything.

One is a service.

The other is a job.

But selling a service is a job, that's my point. You can sell haircuts, and your job is still a barber (or stylist, if you prefer).

The difference, then, isn't the act itself, since a porn star is essentially being paid to have sex on camera with another porn star, but, rather, the existence of a product, in this case, the actual video.

One can say that one is a "craftsman", creating a product to sell, while the other is a "serviceman", selling a service. Both are jobs and both involve having sex for money, but the former involves creating something in the process.

 

[Treefingers]

Porn stars appear in pornography.

A whore sells sex.

Pretty simple, really.

Porn stars don't sell sex?

No. They don't sell anything. They star in pornography.

Both are having sex in exchange for money though.

The question is what's the difference.

One has sex with a paying customer.

One stars in pornographic film.

Quit simple.

Yeah exactly my point. There's essentially not that much of a difference.

 

[Brutal Peanut]

Both sell their bodies for something, money or drugs, or both in some cases.

One is just able to become famous for it and make a lot of money by showing her lady area for everyone to see for a profit. Porn is considered an art, that is protected by Free Speech, and I think that's a load of horse-crap. I don't think they should become famous and make that much money- but that's my opinion again, getting in the way; don't mind it.

Where as a 'Lady of the evening' that walks around street corners, will never be famous. They also have a far more dangerous 'job'. They run the risk of being kidnapped and being murdered because they try to keep it secret, since they'll be arrested because they aren't considered 'artists'.

Then again, you don't get diseases from wanking it in your bedroom to pornography. Not to say that porn stars, and streetwalkers alike, haven't gotten their fair share of diseases.

If you are talking about high-class broads who only do men for money, well, that wouldn't make them that much different. A camera is the only thing missing in that equation.

Actually all porn-stars get screened for STD's and the like so you're wrong there

Perhaps you should actually look up Porn stars and diseases before you start calling me wrong. They are tested, and that helps keep the disease rate down, but, there have been 'famous' porn stars, and other lesser known pornstars who've contracted STD's and HIV from their 'job', John Holmes being a famous case, but that was back in 1980's when AIDS knowledge wasn't rampant like it is today.

 

[King Toasty]

Porn stars are expensive.

So are Escorts...not that I know or anything
O.O
.>
O.O

But BEAR escorts are pretty cheap. Those godless killing machines.

 

[Magners]

Both sell their bodies for something, money or drugs, or both in some cases.

One is just able to become famous for it and make a lot of money by showing her lady area for everyone to see for a profit. Porn is considered an art, that is protected by Free Speech, and I think that's a load of horse-crap. I don't think they should become famous and make that much money- but that's my opinion again, getting in the way; don't mind it.

Where as a 'Lady of the evening' that walks around street corners, will never be famous. They also have a far more dangerous 'job'. They run the risk of being kidnapped and being murdered because they try to keep it secret, since they'll be arrested because they aren't considered 'artists'.

Then again, you don't get diseases from wanking it in your bedroom to pornography. Not to say that porn stars, and streetwalkers alike, haven't gotten their fair share of diseases.

If you are talking about high-class broads who only do men for money, well, that wouldn't make them that much different. A camera is the only thing missing in that equation.

Actually all porn-stars get screened for STD's and the like so you're wrong there

Perhaps you should actually look up Porn stars and diseases before you start calling me wrong. They are tested, and that helps keep the disease rate down, but, there have been 'famous' porn stars, and other lesser known pornstars who've contracted STD's and HIV from their 'job', John Holmes being a famous case, but that was back in 1980's when AIDS knowledge wasn't rampant like it is today.

Haha! Looks like I am beat you know more about the decadent world of pornography than I do

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Prositutes have sex for money and various other explicit(I think that is right word) sexual acts for money.

Porn Stars are actors who have sex and various other acts on camera.

Main difference one acts and only does it on camera with other actors while other does sexual acts with everyone and anyone(at their own discretion but not always) not on camera unless payed extra.

 

[Brutal Peanut]

Both sell their bodies for something, money or drugs, or both in some cases.

One is just able to become famous for it and make a lot of money by showing her lady area for everyone to see for a profit. Porn is considered an art, that is protected by Free Speech, and I think that's a load of horse-crap. I don't think they should become famous and make that much money- but that's my opinion again, getting in the way; don't mind it.

Where as a 'Lady of the evening' that walks around street corners, will never be famous. They also have a far more dangerous 'job'. They run the risk of being kidnapped and being murdered because they try to keep it secret, since they'll be arrested because they aren't considered 'artists'.

Then again, you don't get diseases from wanking it in your bedroom to pornography. Not to say that porn stars, and streetwalkers alike, haven't gotten their fair share of diseases.

If you are talking about high-class broads who only do men for money, well, that wouldn't make them that much different. A camera is the only thing missing in that equation.

Actually all porn-stars get screened for STD's and the like so you're wrong there

Perhaps you should actually look up Porn stars and diseases before you start calling me wrong. They are tested, and that helps keep the disease rate down, but, there have been 'famous' porn stars, and other lesser known pornstars who've contracted STD's and HIV from their 'job', John Holmes being a famous case, but that was back in 1980's when AIDS knowledge wasn't rampant like it is today.

Haha! Looks like I am beat you know more about the decadent world of pornography than I do

Mmmm'yes. *adjusts monocle*