Ok, I gotta start writing this down. This is getting too complicated to remember.
- Not paying her to have sex with you — OK
- Paying her to have sex with you — ILLEGAL
- Paying her to have sex with somebody else while you make a movie of it — OK
- Not paying her to have sex with you, but telling her that at some point you will pay her to have sex with somebody else while you make a movie of it — ILLEGAL
You may have broken laws by typing that.
And we are all breaking laws by reading it.
Tricking someone into having sex with you with the promise that they may see future employment of having sex with other people: RAPE
Tricking someone into having sex with you (transgender) under the promise that you are a member of the opposite sex: protected status, any outrage is cisgender hate
Tricking someone into having sex with you (AIDS victim) without disclosing the disease is headed toward protected legal status (the homofascist advocacy groups are working to repeal all such laws because of AIDS Pride and all that)...
If you were an underaged porn director who did this and used only underaged gals it’d be legal for everyone come Jan. 1.
Forgot to say - in California.
A camera in the mix usually changes the point of view.
...but of course! I don’t understand your confusion?? lol ;p
It is liberal logic. This is what happens when people think they’re smarter than everyone, they become fools. This is a good example.
That said, maybe your last one was meant to be “OK”? - I don’t think it’s illegal.