a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by kleinbl00

    Money is empowering. Being debt-free is empowering. Having a college education from Duke is empowering. Ideally, she'll be three for three.

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.

    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.

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.

    I don't know what else to say.

Clearly.

    Why's it sad?

Because a reasonably intelligent girl thinks that somehow it's unreasonable to suffer stigma for participating in a profession based on stigma.

    The stigma exists, so she can a) bow to it and leave porn

"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?

    b) make quite a bit of money.

Right, 'cuz porn is a growth industry.

    EDIT: let's see if hubski falls for my repetition-as-a-rhetorical-device.

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.





user-inactivated  ·  3684 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    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.

kleinbl00  ·  3684 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    I have no idea what your point was, so I gave it a pass.

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.

    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.

...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.

    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.

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:

    I hope we are gradually moving toward a culture where that doesn't matter

and

    Per hour I bet she does pretty damn well

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.

    If there was a social stigma on paying for college by being an athlete would we blame the athlete? Please elucidate.

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.

    It seems to me you're using anecdotes and non sequitur examples to cloud the issue, which from you hubski tends to eat up.

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.

user-inactivated  ·  3684 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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:

    I don't know what else to say.

    Clearly.

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?

kleinbl00  ·  3684 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    EDIT: let's see if hubski falls for my repetition-as-a-rhetorical-device.

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.

    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."

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?

user-inactivated  ·  3684 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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).

    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.

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.

    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 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 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.

kleinbl00  ·  3684 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    That was a joke, perhaps ill-timed.

Then I apologize. Misunderstandings happen.

    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.

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:

    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.

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.

    So the crux of my argument: there shouldn't be a stigma against porn stars,

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.

    and even without it she'd still be making some money (and every little bit helps in college!)

Right. She could be waiting tables. No stigma there, not very much money. Again, rational marketplace.

    and thus she has a reasonable right to complain when she's called a slut and so on.

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.

user-inactivated  ·  3684 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Then I apologize. Misunderstandings happen.

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.

    The only reason for the money to be any good is the direct risk of being "called a slut and so on."

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.

kleinbl00  ·  3684 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    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.

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.

    I can't get past supply filling a demand here.

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.

    With prostitution, I would again go back to demand causing a supply.

Prostitution is service. Pornography is performance. Prostitution is individualized attention. Pornography is generalized exhibition. There is no comparison.

user-inactivated  ·  3684 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    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.

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.

    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.

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.

kleinbl00  ·  3684 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    I mean, the articles you linked earlier put hard and fast prices on porn work and it was comparable to $1000 a night

That was top-of-your-game, billing-at-porn-conventions money. Not "I was featured once for twenty minutes on Youporn" money.

    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.

I don't believe this girl is that level of pro. I mean, fuck. She's in NC.

user-inactivated  ·  3684 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Without hard numbers it's impossible to run a true cost-benefit. I would bet she makes somewhere in the 400-500 range, but I haven't a clue.