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.