I don't generally do "Alex Jones" conspiracy theories. But, I will drop two pieces of information that don't sit well with me.
1. As to Simeon's point on money laundering and the funding of porn production. I spent some time in the San Fernando Valley researching (primarily porn performers). My research partner and I had a lot of time to speak to crew and production people. We had a lot of time to see "how the sausage was made". We both come from mathematical backgrounds, and we could not figure out how the productions we were observing were profitable. I'm talking about a shoot that the producer tells us will net $ 13,000 in the first year, and then drop off after that. Then, we crunch the numbers on production and it's $ 20,000+. We joked about it for years afterwards. It was the sketchiest arrangement ever.
2. I've retired from the academy, but the guy I ran that study with is still an active researcher. He was recently subcontracted by a private think tank (think RAND) to draft a report on the technical feasibility of disincentivizing use of or preventing access to hardcore pornography for the adolescent male. So... good luck with that. But, the interesting part of the story is that the method and amount of funding lead him to believe that the source is US government. I thought that was interesting.
--------
Back to the subject of porn "star"lets. These girls are all over the place. But, in my experience, the one common theme with them is that something seemed "off" about them. I mean that their psychological situation was not robust. They were/are damaged goods. As to the hyper-sexuality, I had several girls tell me that they didn't have sex off camera. That is not a good indication of hyper-sexuality. Then, there are the girls who engage with antero-sex partners, while maintaining a primary relationship with the sex they are actually attracted to - so straight women who only do lesbian porn and lesbian women who only shoot straight porn. Again, not an indication (necessarily) of hyper-sexuality.
At this point, I am contented to say I will dispense with any "higher observations" of why porn girls do porn, and I will simply state that they do it because they can. Honestly, what is stopping them? Many, if not most, of the girls who make it out alive can find a "normal" guy who will wife them up and give them kids. There are several examples of ex-pornstars who have married pastors and become cornerstones of their "churches". If there is no percieved stigma, again, what is stopping them? They live in a self-reinforcing bubble of nonsense. The only downside is the mind/emotion/soul destroying aspect of the work. But to think the girls will observe that and walk away is assuming a level of insight that they simply lack.
With all that said, it is important to put this in to perspective. At any given time there is something like 1,500 women who are AIM medically certified to shoot porn. That is in the entire United States. That number is a rounding error compared to the number of generally sexually available women in the country.
1. As to Simeon's point on money laundering and the funding of porn production. I spent some time in the San Fernando Valley researching (primarily porn performers). My research partner and I had a lot of time to speak to crew and production people. We had a lot of time to see "how the sausage was made". We both come from mathematical backgrounds, and we could not figure out how the productions we were observing were profitable. I'm talking about a shoot that the producer tells us will net $ 13,000 in the first year, and then drop off after that. Then, we crunch the numbers on production and it's $ 20,000+. We joked about it for years afterwards. It was the sketchiest arrangement ever.
2. I've retired from the academy, but the guy I ran that study with is still an active researcher. He was recently subcontracted by a private think tank (think RAND) to draft a report on the technical feasibility of disincentivizing use of or preventing access to hardcore pornography for the adolescent male. So... good luck with that. But, the interesting part of the story is that the method and amount of funding lead him to believe that the source is US government. I thought that was interesting.
--------
Back to the subject of porn "star"lets. These girls are all over the place. But, in my experience, the one common theme with them is that something seemed "off" about them. I mean that their psychological situation was not robust. They were/are damaged goods. As to the hyper-sexuality, I had several girls tell me that they didn't have sex off camera. That is not a good indication of hyper-sexuality. Then, there are the girls who engage with antero-sex partners, while maintaining a primary relationship with the sex they are actually attracted to - so straight women who only do lesbian porn and lesbian women who only shoot straight porn. Again, not an indication (necessarily) of hyper-sexuality.
At this point, I am contented to say I will dispense with any "higher observations" of why porn girls do porn, and I will simply state that they do it because they can. Honestly, what is stopping them? Many, if not most, of the girls who make it out alive can find a "normal" guy who will wife them up and give them kids. There are several examples of ex-pornstars who have married pastors and become cornerstones of their "churches". If there is no percieved stigma, again, what is stopping them? They live in a self-reinforcing bubble of nonsense. The only downside is the mind/emotion/soul destroying aspect of the work. But to think the girls will observe that and walk away is assuming a level of insight that they simply lack.
With all that said, it is important to put this in to perspective. At any given time there is something like 1,500 women who are AIM medically certified to shoot porn. That is in the entire United States. That number is a rounding error compared to the number of generally sexually available women in the country.
Currently out of office.