If it was misleading to the extent that it clearly was, I'm at fault. Happy to move on. Just wanted to clear up any confusion. -- Now, I still quibble with your no stigma, no money point. Porn exists because it's in demand. The moral hazard, as it were, may make you earn more than you might otherwise, but take that out and you're still doing better per hour than a waitress. I could quote the rest of your post bit by bit but that's my essential response to all of it. The money's good, and not just because what she's doing is taboo, but also because "people who will fuck on camera" are apparently in demand. I'm not sure removing the stigma would change that -- maybe I'm wrong there. I can't get past supply filling a demand here. (And yes, the free porn industry is huge and growing; but the subscription porn industry is still a factor for now.) Would you say that the reason prostitution in certain places is so lucrative is the "red light" stigma? (I ran both sides of the argument by a friend because I'm genuinely confused by our inability to find common ground here and that's the metaphor I got.) With prostitution, I would again go back to demand causing a supply.Then I apologize. Misunderstandings happen.
The only reason for the money to be any good is the direct risk of being "called a slut and so on."