At the cost of notoriety. Which she's bitching about. Those three examples that you're ignoring - apparently because there's three of them - do not carry this penalty.

I think it's less a case of being known as the chick who does porn and more a case of tons of people are being extremely hateful, rude and creepy to her as a result. Which is stupid.

She's not enjoying it. The Universe found out who she was and got up in her grille about it. Now she's knee-deep in a rhetorical war in which she's accusing the world of being mean and paternalistic for disapproving of her choices.

She stated that she enjoys porn. She may not enjoy being judged for no reason and getting called a slut/cunt/etc by people she's never met on the internet. I wouldn't either. Paternalistic? Maybe, I don't fully buy it. Mean? Yes, and prudish and idiotic to boot.

You're right -- she can leave porn but it won't change the fact that her videos exist. I hope we are gradually moving toward a culture where that doesn't matter. We're not there yet. She stated elsewhere that she doesn't want to work anywhere that she would be discriminated against because she did porn. That's naive, but it at least shows she's thinking about her future.

Right, 'cuz porn is a growth industry.

Per hour I bet she does pretty damn well.

Probably not, as I used repetition to cite three examples and parallel structure to refine their impact. You, on the other hand, pretended I didn't make an argument at all.

I have no idea what your point was, so I gave it a pass. If there was a social stigma on paying for college by being an athlete would we blame the athlete? Please elucidate. It seems to me you're using anecdotes and non sequitur examples to cloud the issue, which from you hubski tends to eat up. But I know you wouldn't do that without a point so I'm asking for clarification of your rhetoric.