[quote="RBE.VeganZeitgeist"][quote="xrodolfox"][quote="RBE.VeganZeitgeist"]In that case if your point isn't to be regarded as 'sloppy' or BS- you show us some more of this 'empiracle data' you refer too.Otherwise one might come accross as being a tad condascending and patronising wouldn't you say? And which specific point I've made lacks 'logic'?
Yes. I came off as condescending. It was likely because I was condescending.
I stated things that seem obvious. You stated things that need some backing up. If you don't think the sky is blue, well, you are the one who is going to have to provide the data.
Your arguing is sloppy. It's not just this thread. The fact that you cited "females you've talked to" seems absolutely absurd.
I study labor.
One of the facts about labor in a market economy is that people are regularly compelled to do many things against their will. Do you think boxers enjoy getting hurt? Or that garbage people all love picking up garbage? Or that actors got into acting because they are pretty? Porn actors are like other people: Surely some got into it because they have a high sex drive, or are exhibitionists, or a myriad of other assumptions that you are making (source: your posts). However, most porn actors "fell" into the work rather than sought it out. Not high sex drive. Not due to enjoying sex more than most. Not exhibitionism. Not many assumptions you are making. There are exceptions (christie canyon, for example), but most actors have had a totally different experience (Nina Hartley, Traci Lords, Linda Lovelace, Marilyn Chambers... and those are examples just from the 1980s'). Those examples are because they've got autobiographies or other interviews published well after their careers ended (and thus are more immune to industry backlash).
Meanwhile, you've "talked to females" and then made broad generalizations about pay inequality in the porn industry. That's sloppy. And yes, I'll be condescending until you use proper logic. Hopefully, that won't take too long. I prefer not to be a jerk.
So you quoting books that were written around 30 years ago constitutes 'data'. Things change- and some Women are obviously taking control as the articles suggest -. As for 'broad generalizations' regarding pay inequality I've given links that show this to be the case-
Are just continuing to be a jerk or is this your idea of 'logic'. ? Your whole 'thesis' is based on generalisations- no 'data' whatsoever.
Glad to see you are admitting to being condascending. And just because 'you' keep repeating something time and time again doesn't mean its neccessarily the case-it just proves you feel the accuracy of your point needs to be rammed home again-if it was accurate it wouldn't need to be repeated.