The Prostitute and the Porno Star

“I am disappointed that my parents didn't give birth to a porn star” (Rufus Wainwright )

What’s the difference between a hooker and an adult entertainment actor? No, this isn’t the setup of a bad joke but a genuine question. Some might think this question is moot in a country where both are legal or both illegal, but I think there’s more to it than that (e.g. a moral difference). Let’s see if we can figure it out.

So, what do we mean when we talk about prostitution? Well, to keep things simple, let’s say prostitution consists of: a sexual act, participated in by at least 2 individuals, where at least 1 participant is financially compensated for his participation. And what about pornography? Well, that’s always been real tricky to define. US Justice Potter Stewart more or less gave up on trying to define it and just went with the now infamous “I know it when I see it” line. But let’s shoot for a little more. Let’s run with the following: pornography is a recorded sexual act, participated in by at least 2 individuals, where at least 1 participant is financially compensated for his participation; and where the recorded product is distributed to others. Note the similarity between these definitions, in addition to the crucial difference: that the services of the prostitute do not create a tangible product while the services of the porn star do. (Also note that this is a narrow conception of porn. It leaves out, for instance, the kind of porn depicted in such things as Playboy. But this is okay given the intent of what we’re talking about here.)

This definition of porn excludes the prostitute who fulfills his client’s fantasy of being filmed. This is excluded because, even though the act is recorded in this case, it doesn't count as pornography so long as the product never distributed. But were the client or the prostitute, whoever retains possession of the recording, to distribute it for consumption by others, then they are in fact participants in pornography. It’s also important to bear in mind that someone doesn’t need to consent to be a participant in pornography – a sex act can be recorded and distributed without the knowledge or consent of the participants; or someone can consent to having his participation in a sex act recorded but not consent to the distribution of that recording (a la Paris Hilton). Either way, porn is what they did. But, either way, let's set these cases aside. (Lastly, I also want to exclude those secret lil sex tape people make and genuinely keep private. I’m unsure what to call such things; but it doesn’t seem accurate to put them under the rubric of pornography… it seems as if they should count as something else…)

Anyway, so what IS the difference between the porn star and the prostitute? Well, when you boil it down, it might seem that the only things pornography has that prostitution lacks is: (1) the presence of active recording instruments; and (2) the distribution of the product of that recording equipment. If that’s the only difference between porn and prostitution, it’s not a difference that amounts to much. It’s certainly not enough to make a moral distinction between the two. And maybe this is why a lot of folks treat them both as having the same moral standing. But here’s a reason to think that we ought to regard them differently:

Prostitutes remain the proprietor of their commodity; porn stars do not. We can describe the actions of the prostitute as offering a service that doesn’t result in a tangible product; the same cannot be said of the porn star. We can describe the actions of the porn star as a service, but one that’s instrumental in the creation of a tangible product (something that’s distributed to others for consumption). That product, once distributed, is then out in the world and beyond the control of the porn star. Porn can’t be undone. The Internet exacerbates this since, once something is out there, it’s virtually impossible to regain control of it (say, to destroy it) and it probably won’t ever go away. So we can say that porn stars necessarily lose control of that which they produce through their work. The same can’t be said about prostitutes. Sure, a pimp might be “in control” of a streetwalker; or a hooker might lose control of a situation with his client. But such occurrences don’t always happen. Autonomous persons can consent to being a prostitute and always be in control. Such a prostitute, we can say, is always in control of his commodity; it isn’t necessary that the prostitute loses control of his service, but it is a necessary part of being a porn start that he loses control of the tangible end product that his services contribute to.

So the porn star seems worse off. The prostitute can walk away and it’s prima facie less likely that her time as a prostitute will “come back to haunt her”. 15 years down the road the kid of a porn star could stumble upon her mom’s video series online. A similar occurrence seems far less likely for the prostitute (the kid meeting a former client of her mom seems more like a plotline from some Latin Soap Opera). So is this enough to ground a moral distinction?

If anything, it seems as if this “worse off” status of porn stars gives more force to the notion that porn stars suffer “participant harms” (i.e. harms that are brought on by their participation in porno). So here one could say that the lose of control over the end product to which the porn star contributes is harmful to him, despite the fact that he consented to participating in porn and agreed to give up any control over the end product. This might seem like a stretch. But consider this: there are other things we can't do (morally or legally) irregardless of whether or not those involved consented. Assisted suicide is an excellent example. Euthanasia, like pornography, consent isn't the issue. So some of our hangups about assisted suicide might carry over and give us reason to consider pornography morally impermissible. If this holds up, in the end, it appears that we might have grounds for believing that prostitution is less morally problematic than pornography -- the business of Larry Flint is as morally dubious as that of Dr. Kevorkian. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.