I've been thinking a lot about this. The following is a bit all over the place - a response to the article and other comments in this thread. This has been bothering me. I am okay with nude photos. I'm okay with the photos and videos I have of myself and my past partners. I'm okay with porn in general. I watch porn. I like porn. I don't think anything less of people who have photos or videos out there, but I do look down on people who perform in porn. And something about this girl and this article is really unsettling. So what is the difference between the photos on my iPhone and porn? Even porn photos (like those in magazine or professionally taken stills)? I think it is more socially acceptable to have naked photos out there. I would guess that a very large portion of people, especially the younger generations who grew up with iPhones and digital cameras, have nude photos - whether it's just for themselves, their partner or for a larger audience. But the major difference between that and porn is the that sexy photos (or videos) are typically for personal use. The girl (or guy) is in control and, without diving into the psychology of why people like to take nude photos of themselves, its typically for personal pleasure. Once you transition from photo sets on iPhones to photos or videos produced for profit by a company, you are now creating something purely for the pleasure of someone else. As much as the author of this piece would like to believe she is in complete control of her choices and she gets pleasure from it, the entire porn business revolves around pleasing an outside audience (for money). The more common something is, the more relatable it becomes and the less people hate and judge it. On another forum, I recall an older woman (~60) commenting that if she could've taken nude photos easily when she was 20, she probably would have. Unfortunately, having photos developed at the store wasn't a realistic option. She has a few topless photos from the 70s when she was briefly dating a photographer who developed his own photos. I don't think that reasons we take sexy photos of ourselves has changed - it has just become much easier to do so. However, doing porn is never going to be relatable. Even as we become more open minded, sex is still a fiercely personal thing. Sex isn't typically put on display because it loses what makes it amazing. At least for me, amazing sex happens when I can let my guard down and have an intimate/sexual connection with another person. Even drunk sex, or sex with someone I am not completely connected to, has these elements. Sex is as much about making your partner feel good as it is about feeling good - I can orgasm but I get a lot of pleasure by making my partner orgasm. I’m not just talking about vanilla sex either. Gay, lesbian, bi, rough, gentle, threesomes, orgies, s&m, with a person you love or a person you just met, it doesn’t matter. The end goal is still to give pleasure, receive pleasure, and experience a big load of sexual release. If you get more pleasure from being spit on or having sex with other couples, then that’s fine. I won’t pretend to understand why some guys like to watch their wife get banged by another guy, but I can understand the concept that it gives them pleasure. Even voyeurism, even those who get off on knowing someone is watching them, is lost in porn. Porn is created with the sole intention of getting someone - someone they will never met or talk to - get off on what they created in the past. I don’t hear porn actors saying that they get off by having sex with someone (or someones) they briefly met, under bright lights, while making sure their hair and o-face are attractive enough, in a room with 5-20 other people who are deriving no emotional or sexual pleasure from the acts being performed. When a girl does porn, for whatever reasons, she must accept that the sex she is having is different. You can't chose your partner in porn, you can't let your guard down, you can't have that connection. Everyone has their kinks, but most of us don't stand on a pedestal and tell the world about them. The fact that she seems surprised that people don't understand her choices or her way of thinking is probably the most unsettling thing about this article. If you do make the decision to put it on a pedestal, then accept that not everyone is going to understand. I wouldn't expect my parents or my boss to understand my personal decision to have naked photos on my phone. You can blame society or patriarchy or whatever but it comes down to most of us don't want our personal interactions to leave the bedroom. Not because it would make us a slut, but because it would take away from what happens in the bedroom. Similarly, I don't repeat amazing conversations I've had with friends. It takes away from the interaction, it takes away from what makes friendship special, and it degrades the value of the conversation. Plus, if I knew that someone else would be hearing every word of the conversation, I would be more selective and thoughtful about what I said. Once that happens, the conversation can't be completely open or in the moment and the greatness of the conversation is lost. It is now made with the assumption that you are no longer talking to your friend across the table - you are talking to everyone. I know this is kind of a mess with a bunch of half thoughts. Oh well.
I don't think you're allowed to say this. She explicitly says she gets pleasure/enjoyment from it (yeah, I know, she's young, but...). Additionally, she gets some of the money you're talking about -- so I don't think she's the "victim" here; I'm not sure there is one. I agree, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on what I wrote below about that.Once you transition from photo sets on iPhones to photos or videos produced for profit by a company, you are now creating something purely for the pleasure of someone else. As much as the author of this piece would like to believe she is in complete control of her choices and she gets pleasure from it, the entire porn business revolves around pleasing an outside audience (for money).
The fact that she seems surprised that people don't understand her choices or her way of thinking is probably the most unsettling thing about this article.
And the Branch Davidians explicitly said they were in Waco by choice. The overwhelming majority of victims at Jonestown voluntarily drank poisoned kool-aid; 100% of the victims at Heaven's Gate OD'd on sleeping pills. Is porn a cult? Of course not. But there's a level of diminished capacity involved in persuasion of any kind. Anyone who thinks that being fisted and called a bitch is empowering has gone through some mental gymnastics to get there. I 100% support the right of any woman to do any sort of porn she wants. I support the right of any porn star to say "don't look down on me because I'm a porn star." That does not mean I find her arguments honest or compelling.
Yeah. Cognitive dissonance, as you said. But are you creating a gradient? So it's more empowering to do softcore than bondage? Because assuming the money's not terribly nonequivalent, I don't know if I can agree with that. In both cases it's a case of a woman putting herself through college, beating the education system at its own game, by using her body, which is hers to use. One is seen as "insulting" and the other isn't. Why? Because of leftover Puritan morals about sex. If she truly enjoys bondage or whatever, then the bottom line is she's making bank doing something she likes. Now, if she's lying to herself about what she enjoys and doesn't fully understand the consequences of her actions (and she's 18 so who knows), then there might be a problem. That I'm less sure about.Anyone who thinks that being fisted and called a bitch is empowering has gone through some mental gymnastics to get there.
The only way porn is empowering is if the act and associated stigma of taking money for being filmed performing sexual acts is empowering. There is no gradient. There is no justification. There is no "third way." A woman who puts herself through college by winning Final Jeopardy hasn't beaten "the education system" she's taken money for appearing on television. A woman who puts herself through college by deploying her incredible fast pitch hasn't beaten "the education system" she's taken money for performing physical acts for someone else. A woman who puts herself through college through her exceptional debate skills hasn't beaten "the education system" she's taken money for arguing at someone else's behest. None of those women face a social stigma. Here's the relevant paragraph of the essay in question: This is a person pretending that filmed entertainment revolving around degradation isn't degrading, and that one of the most heavily-regulated forms of filmed entertainment isn't regulated. Really, it's one long, naive complaint that a heavily stigmatized profession is heavily stigmatized. What's sad is that the author does not recognize that the money paying her college is due entirely to the stigma. Flash your tits? Girls Gone Wild will give you a t-shirt. Let a man shove a coke bottle up your vagina? Now we're starting to eke away at the tuition payments. "If she truly enjoys bondage or whatever" then she shouldn't give a shit that the rest of the world thinks she's a kink. And honestly, the rest of the world doesn't. The rest of the world has noticed that she does it for money which is now and shall always be a line in the sand.Of course, I do fully acknowledge that some women don't have such a positive experience in the industry. We need to listen to these women. And to do that we need to remove the stigma attached to their profession and treat it as a legitimate career that needs regulation and oversight. We need to give a voice to the women that are exploited and abused in the industry. Shaming and hurling names at them, the usual treatment we give sex workers, is not the way to achieve this.
Money is empowering. Being debt-free is empowering. Having a college education from Duke is empowering. Ideally, she'll be three for three. And I say good for her for turning something she enjoys into a money-making activity, which to me is literally the definition of fiscal intelligence. I don't know what else to say. Why's it sad? The stigma exists, so she can a) bow to it and leave porn, or b) make quite a bit of money. ... (She's wrong about regulation and I don't know why she needed to throw that point in.) EDIT: let's see if hubski falls for my repetition-as-a-rhetorical-device.The only way porn is empowering is if the act and associated stigma of taking money for being filmed performing sexual acts is empowering.
What's sad is that the author does not recognize that the money paying her college is due entirely to the stigma. The rest of the world has noticed that she does it for money which is now and shall always be a line in the sand.
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. 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. Clearly. Because a reasonably intelligent girl thinks that somehow it's unreasonable to suffer stigma for participating in a profession based on stigma. "Trying to get dirty pictures off the Internet is like trying to get pee out of a swimming pool." - NewsRadio Here's some pictures of Dr. Laura nude. You think the lady in the link was thinking about the lady behind the microphone? Right, 'cuz porn is a growth industry. 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.Money is empowering. Being debt-free is empowering. Having a college education from Duke is empowering. Ideally, she'll be three for three.
And I say good for her for turning something she enjoys into a money-making activity, which to me is literally the definition of fiscal intelligence.
I don't know what else to say.
Why's it sad?
The stigma exists, so she can a) bow to it and leave porn
b) make quite a bit of money.
EDIT: let's see if hubski falls for my repetition-as-a-rhetorical-device.
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. 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. 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.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.
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. 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.
Clearly. Which is why you're still arguing. Here, let me break it down further: There is no inherent skill involved in shoving a coke bottle up your ass. Note that this is a hypothetical - I have no idea what this girl did; it doesn't matter. The fact remains, she was remunerated for doing something that does not take any particular knack, that does not take any training, that does not take any experience. The sole basis of her compensation is the violation of taboo. Consider that: there used to be taboo associated with being a lingerie model. There is no longer. We are now comfortable with women who pose in their underwear for money - after all, beauty pageants have had swimsuit competitions for decades. In order to be a lingerie model, however, one must look like a lingerie model. Lingerie models that pose nude are compensated far more than lingerie models that don't pose nude... but they also lose their appeal in lingerie shoots. Again, it's a taboo. Halle Berry was paid a million per breast to be topless in Swordfish - not because she has a tremendous rack, but because she was violating a taboo. There remains a powerful taboo associated with shoving a coke bottle up your ass for money (for example). Pay is commensurate with risk and impact - this is, after all, a rational marketplace. So this girl, who has not chosen (to the best of our knowledge) to avail herself of any stigma-free achievements, is paying for college by risking stigma. And now she's bitching about gambling and losing. ...this is a woman who took money in order to appear in "rough porn." "Rough porn" is a case study in "hateful, rude and creepy" scenarios. She's empowered by being abused on camera. Her fans, meanwhile, are empowered by continuing the fantasy. Note that we're still in the realm of verbal abuse here - the difference is she's not being compensated for the forums. The thing that amazes me is she's pretending to be surprised. Again - you're willfully dismissing the reality that her compensation is directly commensurate with the risk of this very scenario playing out. If Mommy and Daddy and House Mother and Boyfriend and Pastor were cool with you shoving a coke bottle up your ass for money, you'd get a lot less money for it. She gambled that she could have her cake and eat it too. She lost the wager. If there's less of a wager, there's less money on the table. Again, it's a rational marketplace. By the way, speaking of cognitive dissonance: and Are statements at cross-purposes. 20 years ago she probably could have paid her way with straight porn. I did some installs in that world once, long ago - I was in Seth Warshavsky's circles. Nowadays I watch the Vivid Entertainment building being converted floor-by-floor to mixed office space. The money's gone. Porn is not a growth industry. Taking your clothes off for money used to involve "lots of money" whereas now, it involves upvotes. When cameras become ubiquitous, so do naughty bits and the only way to get a real paycheck out of it is to get graphic. Here's the rates for pornography among in-demand performers. Here's SAG-AFTRA minimums for television. Take a look at that - you get about as much for a girl-on-girl scene (at the top of your game) as you get for uttering one line in a Movie of the Week. The SAG chick, by the way, gets residuals and a pension. And we're not talking about that shit you find on Redtube. This is top-of-their-game porn convention headliners. Yes, we would. That's the nature of stigma. Friend of mine paid for college by working in a morgue. Why? It made more money than working in a dentist's office. Why? Because it was a morgue. That's an insult. You're saying I don't have to be right because I'm me. But once more, just for you - Porn pays based on stigma. Take away the stigma, take away the pay. This is a woman bitching about the stigma while bragging about the pay. That wasn't so hard, was it? Certainly wasn't worth getting ad hominem about.I have no idea what your point was, so I gave it a pass.
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.
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.
I hope we are gradually moving toward a culture where that doesn't matter
Per hour I bet she does pretty damn well
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.
Okay, much clearer (to me) now. Let me summarize for my own benefit -- you say she's complaining about the stigma, which happens to be the very thing that's making her money. So in at least that sense she's either naive or a hypocrite depending how harsh you want to be. I get that. However, it seems to me that paid-for porn wouldn't exist if it weren't demanded. Can we not have the industry without the stigma? In the Business Insider article you linked, top agents are taking home 250k. Thus not unreasonable to imagine that this girl can at minimum take a significant chunk out of her (60k/yr) tuition. Don't know how much. Presumably she did some math before she started (hell, I hope). So yeah I get your point -- the stigma jacks up her profit. Straight guys go into gay porn for a reason. But "take away the stigma and suddenly she gets nothing" is wrong. Minus the stigma, she's still doing decently money-wise for a college student. So the crux of my argument: there shouldn't be a stigma against porn stars, and even without it she'd still be making some money (and every little bit helps in college!) and thus she has a reasonable right to complain when she's called a slut and so on. -- As far as insults -- let me be as clear as possible: I enjoy almost all of your posts. I don't mind being insulted particularly; how you type is how I tend to talk in real life. I like sarcastic verbal sparring, jokes with an edge, bluntness, whatever. But you can't accuse me of ad hominem when in your previous post you include this exchange: An insult is an insult is an insult. Especially when my insult was followed with "But I know you wouldn't do that without a point." It seems like cherry-picking to me, and I've seen you do this elsewhere. I choose not to take offense most of the time, but here you assigned my words meaning I didn't intend so I'm bringing it up. I think it's a shame, because our semi-frequent discussions on hubski would be a lot smoother and more efficient if you didn't jump to find insults in things. Can you assume in future as I do that any insults given are given in the spirit of humor/teaching or are caused by misconstrued meaning?I don't know what else to say.
Clearly.
What is that if not a swipe? And what did I do to deserve that swipe? More than that, it's a swipe that you used as an excuse to dodge my argument - it was the act of taking a debate from one of substance to one of slander. I don't "jump to find insults in things" I recognize them. That's because I've been sparring on the Internet since 1992 and I've long since learned that if you don't catch it early, it becomes a flame war. You may not have intended to insult me with your statement, but the end result was the same - you chose to ignore the argument itself and instead cast aspersions on my rhetorical style. Ask yourself this: 1) What would you have had me do? 2) What would that action have done to the tenor of the discussion? 3) Where would it have left my position? 4) Where woudl it have left yours? Let's say I let your swipe slide. Four things happen: 1) it becomes okay to win arguments by insulting each other. 2) You think you've made a point because I'm letting you slide, when in fact I'm just pampering your feelings. 3) The argument ceases to be about merits and becomes about who is willing to let the other person win. 4) Our further interactions now have some bullshit power dynamic behind them, rather than being based wholly on merit. You think I'll accept bullying instead of rhetoric and I know that in order to be civil, you have to be patronized. Instead, we're talking about it like adults. Pay close attention next time you see it. I think you'll find that things usually start with me pointing out that I've been insulted and then quickly adapting to the new battlefield. This is no good for anyone because, as stated, I've been brawling on the Internet since 1992. I'm a junk yard dog. I've learned to call for civility at the first punch because nobody wins a bare-knuckle brawl. Sure - some people fight prettier than others but there isn't a lot of point to it, particularly when the object is discussion, not scorched earth. I don't "jump to find insults in things." I "jump" to make sure they stop. You may very well have been kidding, but in your attempt at humor, you did ignore my argument and require me to (patiently) repeat it three different ways. Does that really benefit either of us?EDIT: let's see if hubski falls for my repetition-as-a-rhetorical-device.
An insult is an insult is an insult. Especially when my insult was followed with "But I know you wouldn't do that without a point."
That was a joke, perhaps ill-timed. I thought it was clearly a joke because it was in an edit and irrelevant to the rest of my post, which had to do with the discussion at hand (that is, I made points related to my view of her choices, which is that the cost-benefit analysis approach swings in her favor). Nope. If there's one thing I will never do, it's dodge an argument that I'm scared of, or may be proven wrong by. I only use hubski to learn, so that would be lying to myself and wasting my own time. The only reason I brought up the ad hominem bit in the first place was that I didn't want you to think I would ever intentionally duck a part of a post that I had no answer to. I wasn't entirely sure what your point was in that opening paragraph (as I mentioned later), so I bypassed it and figured we'd get back to it. This led to a fundamental misinterpretation of the rest of our discussion, unfortunately. I addressed the rest of that post (regulation, stigma) and continue to do so to the best of my ability. I don't think your points 1-4 are an accurate breakdown of what would have happened to our debate, mostly because I wasn't trying to make a point with that aside. Anyway we'd be hard-pressed to be more off-topic than we are now. So in short, I certainly never meant to ignore your argument (nothing to gain). Also I asked you to clarify and you did (you didn't have to, of course; presumably we've both got better things to do than hash and rehash an article about a collegiate porn star), which certainly helped me understand more clearly what you were talking about. So in that sense it led to a more efficient discussion, where we were arguing based off concise thesis statements rather than quote-by-quote. If you want to continue the original argument (no obligation to), this is what I would consider the point of difference: So the crux of my argument: there shouldn't be a stigma against porn stars, and even without it she'd still be making some money (and every little bit helps in college!) and thus she has a reasonable right to complain when she's called a slut and so on.More than that, it's a swipe that you used as an excuse to dodge my argument - it was the act of taking a debate from one of substance to one of slander.
I don't "jump to find insults in things." I "jump" to make sure they stop. You may very well have been kidding, but in your attempt at humor, you did ignore my argument and require me to (patiently) repeat it three different ways. Does that really benefit either of us?
So yeah I get your point -- the stigma jacks up her profit. Straight guys go into gay porn for a reason. But "take away the stigma and suddenly she gets nothing" is wrong. Minus the stigma, she's still doing decently money-wise for a college student.
Then I apologize. Misunderstandings happen. You forget - I moderate a default sub. I've seen it all. It seemed out of character, but so did your willful misunderstanding. My apologies for assigning you intent that you did not wish to portray. Understand that my internet is a darker, seedier, clumsier place than yours, where people who remove pictures of PC towers from gaming forums not only get doxed, the cops get told they have a bomb and just shot their girlfriend. And now the original argument: You're missing the fundamental issue: the money only exists because of the stigma. My sister paid for some of college by being a fit model. No stigma there. My wife actually paid for some of college by being a gynecological model - a little bit of stigma there, but she was paid commensurately (and, bless her heart, she figured it gave her a better perspective when she examined her clients). The article is about a girl who found pretty much the most stigmatized thing she could find... and she's crowing about the money. No stigma, no money. People aren't going to pay some coed off the street phat stacks of bills to model gloves; they didn't pay my sister phat stacks of bills to model lycra. But you involve an act that really gets you in social jeopardy? Suddenly the benjamins are flying. But there is. And there was when she signed up. And there shall be no matter how many essays like this are written. She wants to have her cake and eat it too. Right. She could be waiting tables. No stigma there, not very much money. Again, rational marketplace. She signed up for employment where the direct risk is being "called a slut and so on." The only reason for the money to be any good is the direct risk of being "called a slut and so on." It's the very definition of hazard pay - sure, you're just driving a truck but there might be IEDs. Sure, you're just sticking a coke bottle up your ass but those acts might haunt you for the life of the Internet. This is a transaction. She signed the contract. She took the money. And now she's bitching that driving a convoy to Falludja might be dangerous.That was a joke, perhaps ill-timed.
I thought it was clearly a joke because it was in an edit and irrelevant to the rest of my post, which had to do with the discussion at hand.
But "take away the stigma and suddenly she gets nothing" is wrong. Minus the stigma, she's still doing decently money-wise for a college student.
So the crux of my argument: there shouldn't be a stigma against porn stars,
and even without it she'd still be making some money (and every little bit helps in college!)
and thus she has a reasonable right to complain when she's called a slut and so on.
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."
You quote this as a maxim but it's simply not true. Friends of mine once posted on craigslist: "Wanted: girls to give a yeti a blowjob on camera. There will be pizza." Three chicks showed up. On the other hand, a server at a nice restaurant can make a thousand a night. Exactly. If there were less stigma, there would be less money. That's why there's such a glut of amateur porn nowadays- the high end has gone away because acceptance has gone up. Prostitution is service. Pornography is performance. Prostitution is individualized attention. Pornography is generalized exhibition. There is no comparison.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 can't get past supply filling a demand here.
With prostitution, I would again go back to demand causing a supply.
"Wanted: girls to give a yeti a blowjob on camera. There will be pizza." Three chicks showed up. On the other hand, a server at a nice restaurant can make a thousand a night. Oh come onnnn, that's not a rebuttal. I mean, the articles you linked earlier put hard and fast prices on porn work and it was comparable to $1000 a night (which is high for waitresses I've known). I would guess that on the whole porn probably pays better than waiting tables per hour, but not cumulatively -- but if you're a busy college student time's not what you got. We may just have to agree to disagree on the sheer numbers of it. I would change 'has gone away' to 'is slowly going away'. I think you're right here but the pro industry clearly still pays something, whether or not you believe the 800-1000 per shoot number.You quote this as a maxim but it's simply not true. Friends of mine once posted on craigslist:
If there were less stigma, there would be less money. That's why there's such a glut of amateur porn nowadays- the high end has gone away because acceptance has gone up.
That was top-of-your-game, billing-at-porn-conventions money. Not "I was featured once for twenty minutes on Youporn" money. I don't believe this girl is that level of pro. I mean, fuck. She's in NC.I mean, the articles you linked earlier put hard and fast prices on porn work and it was comparable to $1000 a night
I think you're right here but the pro industry clearly still pays something, whether or not you believe the 800-1000 per shoot number.
This is the thing. There is a line. The line is when you accept money for having sex. It changes what sex is. So if I sleep with 80 guys to explore myself and my sexuality and enjoy it, that's one thing. It's an entirely different thing to have sex with 80 guys for a porn company because porn is no longer about me personally fulfilling my personal sexual desires and exploring my sexuality. It is about delivering what the people who pay me want me to deliver. Of course the girls think they are in control in porn and they get pleasure from it. If they didn't have that, they would be unable to perform because that would be rape. The reality is, porn's only goal is to get a good scene to be sold to make money. Porn doesn't care how sexually turned on she is or whether or not she wants to do it. But, porn will let her believe she wants to do it because that's going to help accomplish the goal (and not be rape). So when she say things like "porn empowers me" and "I enjoy it" it's a big pile of manipulated bullshit. Let's see her try to change the direction of the scene or walk off set. What do you think is going to happen? That's when she'll be empowered. But she also will no longer creating porn or getting paid.
I can't escape this dichotomy: this girl has two options -- a) let the stigma keep her from ever thinking about porn as a way to get out of debt, or b) make a profit while subverting society's expectations and being a voice for change in how we treat porn actresses. Would it be different in your opinion if she was doing "porn for women" softcore sets?
I think the only thing that would make it different is if she didn't write this article and state that "it's empowering." Like I said before, I like and watch porn. I don't typically think or have an opinion on the girls who perform in porn, until something like this occurs and I'm forced to examine the subject. If she had wrote an article saying "I perform in porn and I go to Duke and I accept that I'm going to be called a whore for doing so" then I would have zero problem with her and probably think pretty highly of her. Instead she (I like KB's wording of it) did a bunch of "mental gymnastics" to try to prove to herself/the audience that she is an innocent person who is 100% certain in the choice she made, and that choice shouldn't be stigmatized. Also, I would like to say that I do not look forward to the day where we don't look at porn starts any differently than any one else. That means that the stigma from sex as a private act has been removed and that a girl selling herself and her sex is just as normal as any other sex. If that happens, then the new "normal" sex will be so far removed from the sex I love to have today. It also means there won't be a market for pornography because part of what makes pornography, pornography is the taboo and stigma that comes with it.
We don't call 'em "private parts" for nothing. The basic, fundamental dynamic of sex is intimacy. Sex is, at a basic, sociological level, about sharing privileged body access. When you strip the sociological apparatus of sex down to its bare essentials, everything about sex is about sharing something that you don't share much. The negotiation of sex is a negotiation of sharing - the brokerage of a shared taboo. The only societally sanctioned sex is that within a marriage which, up until very recently, was seen as a vessel for procreation. All other sex, then, is an illicit deal for morally proscribed recreation. Thus the cultural baggage associated with pornography - the consumer gains proxy access to this taboo. The producer devalues the sanctioned act. And that's just within the social framework - take society out of it and there's still a pregnancy/disease risk to contend with. From any angle you choose to view it from, sex is a protected transaction and pornography is bootlegging. That's part of the allure of sexting or taking dirty pictures - you're "being naughty" with someone else and that will always appeal. But like you said - it's a private transaction and part of the negotiation. Part of the dance. You aren't "selling out." It comes down to intent - are you sharing photos to increase the intimacy? Or are you a mercenary looking to pad the bottom line? I wouldn't blame society. I wouldn't blame "the patriarchy." Pornography takes an exchange and turns it into a theft. If it didn't, it wouldn't be pornography.
I too am okay with sex but troubled by money. (only partly true I am a huge prude) Markets are far dirtier than Orgies.
What about females/couples that perform solo/have sex on a webcam site? In this case they're still pleasing an outside audience for money, and performing for their pleasure. But at the same time they have a lot more control of the situation, even if they are accepting requests on what to do next. There's also the immediacy of the situation - what is happening on camera is happening in real time, and whatever is happening at that moment in the bedroom (or wherever) is happening directly on the screens of whoever else is watching.But the major difference between that and porn is the that sexy photos (or videos) are typically for personal use. The girl (or guy) is in control and, without diving into the psychology of why people like to take nude photos of themselves, its typically for personal pleasure. Once you transition from photo sets on iPhones to photos or videos produced for profit by a company, you are now creating something purely for the pleasure of someone else. As much as the author of this piece would like to believe she is in complete control of her choices and she gets pleasure from it, the entire porn business revolves around pleasing an outside audience (for money).