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.