[DuncanWaring]

Let’s see now ... the presence of a camera makes prostitution moral because it makes it more common/frequent, therefore it’s not moral?

[grey_whiskers]

Let’s see now ... the presence of a camera makes prostitution moral because it makes it more common/frequent, therefore it’s not moral?

That doesn't look like a response to #219.

I'd be tempted to say "Come again?" but it would be in poor taste.

I think your reply should have been a continuation of #197, in which you asked:

So somehow the presence or absence of a camera alters the nature of the activity?

To which I answered "yes" -- explaining both how the frequency and purpose of the activity (sexual relations for money between adults) changed: because the essential nature of the activity is not the sexual gratification of the recipient of the sexual favors, but earning money by people paying for the opportunity to WATCH the sexual activity.

I then pointed out that in the adult film industry, there are employees ("fluffers") whose purpose is NOT to bring the participant to climax, but merely to maintain that participant's state of arousal in order that said participant be ready to resume *filming* after a break, with minimal delay.

All these things are a COMPOUNDING of the immorality, not a justification.

Cheers!