Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Get paid to look at porn!

By anon868 in Culture
Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 12:29:50 PM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)
Internet

I spent nearly a year selling porn over the internet, and actually made money at it. This article is a pseudo-how to, a glimpse into my experiences selling porn, and the reason I ultimately gave it up for a dead end IT job.

Warning: This story contains direct links to explicit pornographic images. It would probably be a bad idea to click on ANY of the links from work, unless you have a very understanding boss.


Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with Adult Webmaster School or any of the companies listed in this article. Some of the companies listed used to send me a paycheck, but no longer do. Any links to TGPs or TGP lists are examples picked at random and I have nothing to gain from them.

So you want to be an Online Pornographer? This was the title of the story on Slashdot, and it had a link to a story of the same name on Salon.com. The story is about many laid off 'dot-commers' who have started selling porn online to make ends meet. Part of the article is about Philip Brandes, the self appointed dean of Adult Webmaster School. He discusses how very easy it is to make money selling porn over the internet, and how you can do it with only 1 hour a night's work. The only catch is you have to pay them $140 (US) for access to their web site, to find out their secrets.

So I thought about it for days. It's probably a scam, I thought. It would just be a waste of money. Finally I decided- I've wasted a lot more than $140 before, I might as well give it a try. So I warmed up the Visa and paid the price.

I spent that whole evening reading through the web site, and it was exactly what was promised. You don't actually sell the porn yourself, your job is to entice potential customers into buying a subscription to a pay porn site through your TGPs (Thumbnail Gallery Posts). A TGP is simply a page with 15-20 thumbnails on it. When you click on the thumbnails, it takes you through to the actual picture (usually about 640*480 resolution). On the TGP, you also have several banners or text links to a pay porn site, using your referrer ID. Hopefully the person buys a subscription to that site. The payouts are quite good- a month's subscription cost $40, and I would get paid $35 of that (I see the amount has now gone down to $25 per signup). I even got $35 a few times for the purchase of a $3.95 3 day trial. And you get paid every week, by cheque. The site gives you step by step instructions for setting up TGPs (Thumbnail Gallery Posts), and also provide a web based discussion forum, where you can talk to other students, and the "experts".

Easy right? The devil is in the details. First, you have to buy 'content' (pictures). You can't just use pictures that you have downloaded from the web or newsgroups, even if they have no obvious copyright. This is very important- if you use this kind of material, it will likely end up with your web hosting account cancelled, your account with the porn site cancelled and any money owing to you voided (it's in the agreement) and serious damage to your reputation. Reputation is VERY important when selling porn. There is a small amount of legal, free content to be had, but you're unlikely to be able to make any sales off of that because of the poor quality and over use.

So, you have to buy porn from companies that sell it for specifically this purpose. This means you end up paying $1 or more per picture. You should be building one TGP every day, and many sites don't allow you to re-use pictures, so content is your major expense. A week can easily cost you $140 for content, and that's assuming that all the pictures you buy are worth using (they come in packs of 20, 40 etc). One more thing- there are a limited number of companies selling content, so it can take hours of searching to find "fresh content" (pictures that haven't been over-used) or pay big bucks for exclusive content. Remember there are thousands of people out there doing this and you have to have some way of differentiating yourself. You can also take your own pictures, but you need to get all kinds of releases signed, it quickly gets more expensive than buying content, and they do have to be very high quality pictures (cheap digicam snap shots need not apply).

Now that you have the pictures, all you have to do is create a page with 20 pictures, a few links, and that's it right? Nope. It takes a lot of thought, and even some psychology to make an effective TGP. The idea is to entice the web browser to click on a link to take him to the pay site, and eventually to subscribe. You have to get the surfer hot and wanting more. Here's where questionable practices can come in to play. Some people do what is called blind linking. This would involve taking one of your thumbnails, and instead of linking to the actual picture, it would link to the pay site. Other examples are exit consoles, and banners with audio. Most TGP list operators (webmasters) will not tolerate these practices and the punishment from doing this ranges from just having your TGP rejected, to being blacklisted from the TGP list forever. If for example you are banned from The Hun, it could literally mean the end of your porn selling career.

Now, you've created an enticing page with great content. You have to take take this TGP, and submit it to many (40+) TGP Lists. You've probably came across these before, they are sites like The Hun, and Persian Kitty, which are just big lists of TGPs submitted by people who are doing the same thing you are. TGP list owners make money from banner ads on the main page, and through 'selling positions'- more on that later as well. Most TGP List owners require that you have a link from your TGP back to their TGP List, so, once you've created your page once, you have to create a separate version for each TGP list you're submitting to with their logo at the top. This means over 40 different versions of your page. It's nice to have a program which automates this, but there's always some manual work that needs to be done.

Once you've created your TGP, you have to upload the pages and images to a web host. Of course, this is not as simple as you would think either (noticing a trend here?). You can't use a regular web host for this kind of thing. Bandwidth requirements run upwards of 10GB/day and even a slow day is going to be around 1GB (on average, for a 150KB total size TGP submitted to 40 TGP Lists). Even if it wasn't against geocities acceptable use policy, they wouldn't want you anyway. Regular commercial web hosts are no good either, as you'd be hard pressed to find a hosting company that would want you, at an average of 300GB/month without wanting a fortune from you. Fortunately, there are a number of free hosting companies out there who specialize in adult web hosting. They will usually give you unlimited bandwidth, storage space and (hopefully) great uptime. In exchange they put their banner ads at the top and bottom of your TGP. Uptime is particularly important, because even 5 minutes of downtime can mean being permanently blacklisted from a high profile TGP list. There are a few commercial hosts that will do this for a price, without the banner ads, but there's not much point in using them, as the extra banners are expected by TGP List operators. Yet another problem- free hosts come and go, like anything else on the internet. Every TGP has a list of free hosts which they have banned, usually due to problems with the hosting quality, or shady dealings with the banner ads (virtual girl, and any kind of popups are considered particularly evil). The host you're using today might be banned tomorrow (I used to use Bestsexhost.com).

The last step is submitting your TGPs to TGP lists. This is easily the most time consuming task. There have been attempts to automate this that work to varying degrees, but it's still mostly a manual process. All TGPs have a set of rules for submitting, and everyone is slightly different. You might need a 10, 30 or 2 word description. Certain words (lolita) in the description might be banned. You may need to enter a username and for some you even have to be pre-approved to submit. What you do is go to each site's submit page, put in the URL of your TGP, usually a description, how many pictures, and your name (or a handle to identify you by), and submit it. Genrally there's some automated checks, to verify that all the links work, your images are of an appropriate size, the server is up etc. If it doesn't get rejected outright, one of two things happen. If it's a fairly small site, your TGP will be posted to the TGP list immediately. For the majority of sites though, the TGP goes to an approver. A human being will look at your TGP and decide if it is worthy of being listed on their page. This is time consuming and can take anywhere from a day to several months, for big sites like The Hun. (It is very difficult to get listed on The Hun, I only ever got listed there 3 times. But due to the sheer volume, getting listed on The Hun means well over 100,000 page views & several sales at least) This is why you must submit every day, you have to build up momentum, a backlog of sites to be accepted each day. Occasionally, some owners will begin to recognize you and if they like your work, they will approve your TGPs right away, but this is not the norm.

Don't forget to repeat this process 40+ times, once for each TGP list (Adult Webmaster School provides you with a list of sites to submit to) because the more sites your TGP is shown on, the more potential sales. Don't like the whole submit routine? Are your TGPs being rejected by sites like The Hun? There's another option. The Hun sells his top 5 listings on the page. These are a major source of traffic, and you would probably get 500,000+ page views in 1 day. When I was selling, the top listing cost $500, for 24 hours. 2nd, 3rd 4th and 5th were 400, 300, 200, and 100 dollars respectively. It would be very unusual if you didn't make your money back on any of those. Other sites sell top listings for considerably less, but The Hun is the undisputed king of TGP Lists.

The last step is to wait. You will do a lot of this. I used to refresh my stats page so often I could practically see sales happening in real time. It's easy to get discouraged and it's not abnormal to go your whole first month without making a sale. You have to submit every night without fail, a missed day can mean a huge decrease in traffic and lost reputation with TGP List owners. Throughout the first few months you see your traffic slowly increasing. 100 page views per day. 2000. 3000. 5000. 25000. By the end of 3 months I was at over 1 million total page views. On a well designed page, you will probably get about a 1:1000 clickthrough rate; that is, one in one thousand viewers will click on your banner ads. About 1 out of 200 of those people actually will buy a subscription. The numbers are terrible. It took me over a month and about 100,000 page views to make my first sale. After that the sales slowly went up as my volume went up. I actually made 4 sales in 1 day once. Traffic was ramping up, and eventually, I hit a break even point, I had spent about $1000(US) and had earned $1000 in sales. I could have kept going, and probably made about $500 profit the next month.

Instead, I chose to quit. Why? Was it the ethical implications of selling porn, of convincing people to subscribe to pay sites that I had never even seen myself, the possible exploitation of the models? No. Once I had got my pattern down, it was taking me about 3-4 hours a night (every night) to get the content, create the pages, upload them, and submit them. And there was no such thing as weekends off, on weekends, I'd have to spend 8-9 hours looking for fresh content in addition to building pages. All of this was on top of a full time job- I'm a laid off dot-commer. It turns out, there's practically no limit to the amount of money you can make, but it's really hard work. Let me repeat that. It's really hard work. I could have gotten a part time job at McDonalds, and it wouldn't have taken me 3 months to be making a profit (and I could tell my parents I was working there).

Do I have regrets now? Most definitely. It's now been almost a year since I quit. When I think about the kind of money I could be making now, there would be little reason for me to have kept my (much hated) day job. The next logical step from doing TGPs is to create your own TGP List (They were working on instructions for this around the time that I left), and from there, the sky's the limit on how much money you can make. The owner of The Hun is a rich, rich man. I'm still tempted every now and then to get back into it.

So there you have it. You really can make money selling porn. It's really no different than being a consultant: you can make a lot of money and there are great tax advantages for working for yourself. Just don't ever kid yourself that it's easy, or something that can be done in an hour a night. It's damned hard work, especially if you already have a day job.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Selling porn online
o No way I'd ever do that 34%
o Maybe 34%
o Sure, I'd love to 23%
o I have done it. 7%

Votes: 178
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Slashdot
o Salon.com
o Adult Webmaster School
o TGPs
o page with 15-20 thumbnails on it
o $25 per signup
o companies
o that
o sell
o The Hun
o Persian Kitty
o Bestsexhos t.com
o set of rules
o submit page
o They
o Also by anon868


Display: Sort:
Get paid to look at porn! | 266 comments (251 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden)
Cool (2.37 / 8) (#4)
by SanSeveroPrince on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 09:55:56 AM EST

Different, well written. +1FP when it get out of edit...

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


Hang on... (4.66 / 3) (#5)
by tombuck on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 10:06:01 AM EST

So, you give, say, $500 to The Hun and you have a pretty good chance of making it back? Why not simply buy advertisements for the whole of the time?

--
Give me yer cash!

Fight the monopoly (3.50 / 2) (#17)
by Ranieri on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 11:19:42 AM EST

The aim of the game is of course to displace the Hun as the king of Porn, and have people pay the $500/day to you! :)
--
Taste cold steel, feeble cannon restraint rope!
[ Parent ]
No (4.50 / 2) (#20)
by tombuck on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 11:36:05 AM EST

That's called having a fuckload of money in the first place to then attack seriously. Building up your money bit by bit with the aim of displacement is stupid - you're more than likely to fail and lose everything.

Use other people's money to take on the big boys, otherwise feed off 'em and make an alright living.

--
Give me yer cash!
[ Parent ]

Because (5.00 / 5) (#23)
by anon868 on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 11:52:10 AM EST

Once you are experienced, a well written TGP placed anywhere on The Hun can make you as much money as a $500 top place, without the expense. Or so I was told, I never actually got that far.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
a well written TGP (4.00 / 3) (#34)
by codemonkey_uk on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 12:38:11 PM EST

Define "a well written TGP". Isn't it just a bunch of pictures of naked people? What makes a good TGP?
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
A well written TGP (4.81 / 11) (#39)
by anon868 on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 01:03:16 PM EST

Fisrt of all, no broken links etc. The banners, text, and even the site you're selling have to match up with the pictures. The pictures have to be placed in an asthetically pleasing order, you need to pick the right number of rows and collumns for your content. You even have to go as far as picking the most appropriate colors, for the background, and text, and the right font size for the text.

The picture has to flow in such a way that you have the surfer thinking if they click on that banner, or text link, they're going to see more of the same. They have to be the right pictures of naked people. You can't give them everything they want, by about 2/3 of the way through you want them to be in that hormone-induced state of mind where they would spend any amount of money for instant gratification.

In a nutshell, it's advertising, and it's not as easy as it sounds.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]

Well, duh. (4.37 / 8) (#41)
by RobotSlave on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 01:06:51 PM EST

A "good TGP," for purposes of this argument, is one that sells lots of subscriptions.

"Good TGP writing" is likely an aggregate measure, given the rather wide range of personal tastes out there.

[ Parent ]

Great article, but I'm still puzzled. (4.95 / 20) (#13)
by Rogerborg on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 10:56:39 AM EST

I'm still finding it hard to get my head round... I mean, I'm struggling to accept... Sorry, start over.

I find it difficult to believe that people actually pay for porn, and still images at that.  $40 a month?  Billed to your credit card ("Honey, what's this charge to DaddysLittleGirl.com on your Amex bill?")?  Are you serious?  I mean, I know you are, and that people are (apparently) making big money at this, but who exactly is paying for it?  Someone with $40 a month to burn, that doesn't know about the plethora of video (and still, yawn) on gnutella or FastTrack or Kazaa?  Who are these people?

This really fascinates me.  I have a friend who paid for access to a porn site.  It was soft core garbage: empty eyed barbie clones doing solo shoots, basically Playboy with dildoes and no articles.  He knew about the availability of P2P porn (P2Porn?), but he actually preferred paying money to get galleries and thumbnails of stuff so tame that I'd rather beat off to a racy PERL manual.

Anybody out there paying for porn?  What's the attraction?  Convince me, or if you can't convince me, give me your credit card number.  I have many pictures of the horniest hottest Asian teens just waiting for you...

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs

I am under the impression (4.50 / 2) (#14)
by sasquatchan on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 11:02:10 AM EST

that a lot of the credit charges are with stolen or otherwise hacked/invalid credit cards.. My understanding is the porn industry is rife with credit card fraud.

That, and folks who do order services will call up amex/visa/MC when they get their bill to say "I didn't buy anything from hotasiansluts.com. Someone must have stolen my card!!" and thus remove the charges.  Then the operator of hotasiansluts.com doesn't get paid for services rendered.. (And the affiliate doesn't make his/her money either..) on what was a legal transaction.

I was fond of telling folks in the mid to late 90's, who were asking if I was going to be the next 'net millionaire (or how to be the next ...), how to make money on the 'net.. My stock answer was always "porn". Even though I agree with you -- why do folks pay for it, when there is much out there that is free.
-- The internet is not here for your personal therapy.
[ Parent ]

Fraud (4.66 / 3) (#16)
by anon868 on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 11:15:07 AM EST

That's what I've heard too. In the 3 months and about 30 sales I made, I never had a problem. See, when that happens, they will actually dock your next cheque the $35 commision. You did hear of occasional people talking about it happening to them on the discussion boards, but it didn't seem to be that huge of a problem (but I'm sure it is for the actual webmasters of those pay sites).
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
they use non-porn names on the cc bill (4.00 / 1) (#169)
by shivers on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 08:46:48 PM EST

they use external processing people - mostly they come up on the credit card bill as ibill or ccbill or whatever..

not that I'm an expert or anything, the sites just say that they do that before you get to the signup pages

[ Parent ]

Dead serious (4.40 / 5) (#15)
by anon868 on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 11:08:56 AM EST

I know, when I started out it was hard to accept that people actually pay $40 US (65 Canadian!) for access to a pay site. Granted, I was using one of the more expensive sites, but still. I can also speak as someeone who bought a subscription to a pay site, for one month. It was an 'niche' site though, the kind of stuff you're not going to find on any P2P network, and it was well worth the $30(US). As for a pay subscription to a mainsteam site, I don't understand that either, even though I managed to sell several.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
Huh? (4.50 / 4) (#19)
by Ranieri on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 11:25:44 AM EST

It was an 'niche' site though, the kind of stuff you're not going to find on any P2P network

Ok, this is spooky. I honestly can't think of any kind of stuff i haven't encountered at least once on a p2porn network... There must millions of perversions more to explore out there... Come on, give us a hint!
--
Taste cold steel, feeble cannon restraint rope!
[ Parent ]

Amish ankle voyeur cam? [n/t] (5.00 / 4) (#38)
by Rogerborg on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 12:57:36 PM EST


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Amish ankle voyeur cam (4.84 / 13) (#56)
by fullcity on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 04:16:23 PM EST

Doo dah, doo dah.

There's one fly in the ointment that we've swept under the rug.
[ Parent ]
a visitor (4.50 / 2) (#59)
by Wah on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 04:49:28 PM EST

from planet fark.  In a pr0n story too, how interesting.
--
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress. -- Joseph Joubert. ...
[ Parent ]
Never been to fark. (4.00 / 1) (#60)
by fullcity on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 05:02:26 PM EST

That one came to me from a musically-inclined college friend.  He also liked to sing "Clementine" to the tune of the Ode to Joy.

There's one fly in the ointment that we've swept under the rug.
[ Parent ]
well then (4.00 / 1) (#234)
by Wah on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 10:50:23 AM EST

you should check it out.  It's good for anyone that wants to feel superior about their own intelligence.  Kinda like watching Jerry Springer.
--
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress. -- Joseph Joubert. ...
[ Parent ]
Ha! (3.40 / 5) (#73)
by Rasman on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 08:33:33 PM EST

I think that's the funniest post I've ever seen!

---
Brave. Daring. Fearless. Clippy - The Clothes Pin Stuntman
[ Parent ]
Ummm (4.00 / 1) (#76)
by anon868 on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 09:21:38 PM EST

I can't really say. But I just did a search on Kazaa for an important keyword, and in 'pictures' I only had 5 matches. A search for that same keyword in 'video' returns 0 matches, as is usual (shit, except one Jackass video, which I'm downloading right now but is unilkley to be related). Although it's definetly not Amish Ankle Porn, it's certianly one large step away from mainstream.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
Don't keep us in suspense! (4.00 / 1) (#81)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 09:51:34 PM EST

Is it geriatric German grandmas spanking Spanish men? Bikers wearing diapers chasing nurses dressed like Smurfs?

Kazaa's probably not the best place to be looking either, it rather sucks.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

Frog Potato porn (5.00 / 2) (#118)
by mozmozmoz on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 06:16:06 AM EST

For some reason we once looked for this. There ain't none.

There's lots of comedy on TV too. Does that make children funnier?
[ Parent ]

Although... (4.00 / 2) (#121)
by Ranieri on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 06:50:08 AM EST

I'm fairly sure there is both frog and potato porn.
You'll just have to mix 'n match :)
--
Taste cold steel, feeble cannon restraint rope!
[ Parent ]
heh (4.25 / 4) (#18)
by Work on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 11:23:13 AM EST

they're typically called other things on the line items. most porn companies have really benign names... HotBeastFuckers.com is probably just part of something like "NCorp LLC"

[ Parent ]
I figure... (3.28 / 7) (#52)
by Eccles on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 03:16:49 PM EST

$40 a month? Billed to your credit card ("Honey, what's this charge to DaddysLittleGirl.com on your Amex bill?")?

I figure the guys who pay for porn are mostly guys who women wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. Thus there's no issue with who sees the charges, and the person spends long evenings downloading away in private. If you're that lonely and desperate, an intimate relationship with Jenna Jameson may be the best you can hope for...

[ Parent ]
Whoa (4.72 / 11) (#70)
by mayo on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 07:48:23 PM EST

If a guy had a ten foot pole it'd be no wonder if he had to resort to porn. Of course he'd be rich from porn cameos but there's no way a lady would let him plug her regularly with that behemoth. He'd probably have a nubile team of sexy masturbator ladies on call to do his bidding whenever the desire took him. Actually that doesn't sound like such a bad idea even if you DON'T have a ten foot pole. I'm so sorry, it's this thread, I don't know what's come over me. AGH! I did it again, that's gross...

[ Parent ]
Why isn't there a "Porn War on P2P"? (4.75 / 4) (#53)
by Spork on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 03:28:17 PM EST

It seems to me like a LOT more money would be flowing to the pornographers if only they managed to dry up P2P porn filesharing. Some people really need their porn fix, much more so than they need music and movies. Yet, the only people who seem to be fighting this war on P2P are the RIAA and the MPAA.

I think this is strange--it makes me think that once again, the pornographers are much more optimistic than the rest of the media companies and think that P2P helps drive the market. I'm not so sure, though. It seems to me that the porn market is the most likely to suffer from P2P, because its consumers probably care very little about the actual source of their porn files. (Unlike CDs and movies, where we are unwilling to accept a reasonable look-alike substitute for our favorite singer or actor. Also, going to movies is a social experience, and musicians don't only sell "recorded content"--they also play shows.)

Anyway, I suppose we can use internet porn as the canary--if it lives on with P2P in the air then so will music and movies.

[ Parent ]

P2P War (4.00 / 3) (#84)
by luserSPAZ on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 11:11:27 PM EST

It's going on as we speak.  Go search for anything remotely porn related on Gnutella, and you'll get 90% clips advertising some porn site.

[ Parent ]
Tell me about it (4.25 / 4) (#123)
by Rogerborg on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 07:37:00 AM EST

If I ever actually see the god damn Bangbus driving around, I'm ramming those bitches straight into the ocean. ;-)

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Not on Kazaa (4.00 / 1) (#138)
by tekue on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 10:40:39 AM EST

I didn't see that happening on Kazaa (a.k.a. FastTrack Network). Of course, I'm downloading movies >500MB, which would be expensive to spread around, especially if everyone is deleting them as soon as they download them, so one'd have to share them himself.
--
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
[ Parent ]
Hmm, great point (4.50 / 4) (#122)
by Rogerborg on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 07:35:32 AM EST

And I actually have a lot more respect for honest porn stars than for Britney Spears and her meat puppet kin miming whatever their studio masters tell them to, whether its generic crap produced in Pop-In-A-Box 2003 or commercials whining that we're stealing their stuff (sorry, did I blink and miss the bit where it says "© Britney Spears"?).

However, if Peter North came on the radio... erm, if he did a slot...  damn this is har^H^H^H difficult.  If Peter North said "Stop stealing my stuff, bitches!", I'd be far more inclined to listen.  He is, at least, honest about what he does for a living, and if Britney can whinge about performance anxiety, how must Peter feel having to deliver on cue day after day?

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Economics (4.00 / 1) (#187)
by leviramsey on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 12:17:49 PM EST

Pr0n is unbelievably cheap to produce (a photo shoot costs about $1000, tops; a feature-length video can be produced for c. $25K). If a site posts 30 new photosets a month and charges $20/mo, they break even at about 4,000 subscriptions. Everything above that is pure profit.

On the other hand, mainstream entertainment has painted itself into a corner of insane cost escalation and just plain bad business practices, especially the worship of raw revenue figures without regard to cost.



[ Parent ]
Only P2P? (4.83 / 6) (#58)
by Jorge Gutierrez on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 04:19:48 PM EST

Is everyone oblivious to the fact that there's ten thousand times more porn on Usenet than on P2P networks?

-- Jorge Gutierrez
K5 Liaison for Racial and Cultural Concerns.
Multicultural Diversity Consultant
[ Parent ]

Porn as a service industry. (4.80 / 5) (#75)
by it certainly is on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 09:19:43 PM EST

Many smaller porn sites, run for or by the girls themselves, often take suggestions for photo-shoots directly from the subscribers. They build up a subscribing community of fans. Imagine mixing blogging with porn...

Even when your tastes are satisfied by the alt.binaries.pictures heirarchy, getting a twisted form of dialogue with the porn star you're infatuated with is a compelling reason to subscribe,

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

keslin.com (nt) (4.00 / 1) (#77)
by kubalaa on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 09:32:22 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Ah! (4.00 / 6) (#24)
by rdskutter on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 11:53:00 AM EST

So the AutoPr0n listing is just links to TGPs.

It all beginning to make sense now.


If you're a jock, inflict some pain / If you're a nerd then use your brain - DAPHNE AND CELESTE

Wow (3.62 / 8) (#25)
by Rush Limbaugh on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 12:05:30 PM EST

I haven't seen so many people vote almost unanimously for an article for a long time. It seems that a lot of Kuro5hin readers really are considering making a porn site.

No (4.90 / 11) (#32)
by codemonkey_uk on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 12:33:25 PM EST

It's well written, original and interesting. That doesn't mean I have aspirations to become a pornographer.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
I do -nt- (2.50 / 4) (#98)
by mold on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 02:24:41 AM EST



---
Beware of peanuts! There's a 0.00001% peanut fatality rate in the USA alone! You could be next!
[ Parent ]
Me too, woo hoo! [ntfy] (2.00 / 4) (#104)
by Josh A on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 02:56:51 AM EST


---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
Any questions? (3.85 / 7) (#27)
by anon868 on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 12:13:03 PM EST

Sorry, I should have mentioned this before. I had to leave out at least 3 times as much as I actually put in the article. I've been trying to answer the questions as the come up, so if you have any questions, don't be afraid to ask.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
who wants to be a millionaire? (4.00 / 7) (#29)
by nex on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 12:20:54 PM EST

being both a software engineer and a web designer, i'm sure i could automate the processes described above fairly well and bring down the required human interaction to a minimum after about two or three weeks. even the descriptions can be automatically generated -- i mean, there's software out there that writes price-winning novels, it sure can compose three-liners for wankers.

and being a more or less talented photographer usign somewhat serious equipment, i surely could shoot pictures of sufficient quality myself.

so... are there some good-looking, unreserved models out there who'd like to make some money?

i guess i fill a niche, i'll do bullshit-eating parachuting amputated goth girls on crack, or something.

Bollocks (4.00 / 2) (#33)
by dipipanone on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 12:34:52 PM EST

i mean, there's software out there that writes price-winning novels

Really? Name me a single computer-generated novel that ever won a genuine literary prize?

Or am I being overly pedantic here?

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
no bollocks! (3.50 / 4) (#37)
by nex on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 12:55:58 PM EST

sorry, i'm at the office and don't have my bookmarks around. anyway, you're right in doubting the idea of fractal prose winning a genuine literary price -- the awards actually were for the artificial intelligence behind it. i do remember critiques stating that teh quality of the stories and the writing could easily compete with good selling pulp novels, but it is of course a shame that i'm not able to come up with the proper links now. it's embarrassing.

oh, wait, mr. google is my friend. just dug out one of the sites i had in mind: http://www.wetmachine.com/cheap/index.shtml

[ Parent ]

Price? (3.40 / 5) (#50)
by SPYvSPY on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 02:39:39 PM EST

Maybe one of those sophisticated AI programs could teach you how to spell 'prize'.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Heh (4.50 / 2) (#55)
by rusty on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 04:11:03 PM EST

Who gives out the prizes for credulity? :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
it's in the comment (3.00 / 1) (#92)
by nex on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 01:16:28 AM EST

well, if you had had a look at the link i provided, you could have easily verified the story.

[ Parent ]
Erm (4.50 / 2) (#96)
by rusty on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 02:06:39 AM EST

I know the guy who wrote that book. He hangs out here all the time. Name of johnny. I feel like the mean kid who tells everyone there's no Santa Claus, but he made all that up.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
sorry, i dodn't understand your comment before (4.00 / 1) (#105)
by nex on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 03:25:19 AM EST

oh! now i recall how i found that site in the first place :-)

anyway, the reason for my stupid, stupid answer is this: i thought the word "credulity" means the same as "credibility" and totally misunderstood what you said. english is not my first language.

so, have all the things you find when you search for, say, "computer generated novel" on google been made up? for example, i found this

For instance, two books have been registered at the Copyright Office which were written by computer programs: "The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed" (1984) and "Just This Once" (1993).
(here: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/joint/links/articles/wu.html)

i'm working on a knowledge-based system that reproduces decisions of medical technical assistants here, and a friend of mine is working on a system that learns how to determine the genre of musical pieces by examples given by human "teachers". i have used programs that generate setences that at least are syntactically correct. i think it should also be possible to construct software that generates coherent sentences that follow a plot.

but i don't know johnny or his work at all. just thought it was a good example. well, bummer.

[ Parent ]

It all becomes clear (4.00 / 1) (#142)
by rusty on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 11:12:22 AM EST

I see. I don't dispute the possibility (or even existence) of computer written works, just that the example you picked was an unfortunate one because it wasn't actually computer written. Other than that, I don't have a side in this debate. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
It doesn't work that way. (4.33 / 9) (#36)
by RobotSlave on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 12:52:31 PM EST

Here's what happens:

  1. You, the photographer, undertake the work of finding a model and convincing her you're not some sort of sicko.

  2. You, the photographer, pay the model a large sum to take off her clothes and loll about while you mess around with f-stops and lighting.

  3. You, the photographer, own sole rights to the photos.

  4. You, the photographer, do all the tedious work of rounding up clients, selling your photos to them, invoicing, tending to legal nuts and bolts, etc., meanwhile dodging all the questions from friends and family.

This, too, is a hell of a lot of work, and it rarely pays well. Needless to say, there are many porn photographers out there who do not do it for the money.

Vertical integration is an obvious goal in any industry, but in porn, as with other industries, it's well-nigh impossible for a single person to do it all ("cam girls" being the exception that prove the rule).

[ Parent ]

that profoundly brilliant idea ... (2.00 / 7) (#40)
by nex on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 01:06:23 PM EST

please excuse my ignorance, but i tend to consider people who use the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" without any idea what this actually means to be rather unintelligent.

furthermore, you failed to recognize that the presented plan doesn't involve paying anyone or selling photos to any clients at all.

besides that, you didn't quite get the actual seriousness of my comment, which i highlighted by presenting that profoundly brilliant idea of making the models eat bullshit.

[ Parent ]

Cocky blather doesn't cover ignorance. (2.18 / 11) (#43)
by RobotSlave on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 01:21:47 PM EST

Sort of pisses you off that you didn't stop to think about the way things might work in reality before firing off a "joke" worthy of a nervous teenager, doesn't it?

You can reject the idiom if you like. I'll bet you have problems with metaphor, too.

What you fail to realize, you cocksure little twit, is that a plan that doesn't involve paying anyone is unlikely to provide you with any pictures of naked women.

When a woman takes off her clothes in front of a camera, she's not going to take the chance of getting ripped off by some wanker who spins lofty stories of co-operative business ventures, and then uses the photos solely for his own amusement.

You gotta pay to play, funny boy.

[ Parent ]

i just don't know how to explain things to idiots (2.28 / 7) (#46)
by nex on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 01:46:51 PM EST

> Sort of pisses you off that ... doesn't it?
no, it doesn't. what do you mean, anyway? that the quality of a joke could be improved by ensuring the plausibility of every detail?

> You can reject the idiom if you like.
idiom? looked more like idiocy to me. just because many people are using the phrase doesn't mean it can't be nonsensical. ask mr. google about the phrase "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" and its etymology and its proper interpretation.

> What you fail to realize, you cocksure little twit, is that a plan that doesn't involve paying anyone is unlikely to provide you with any pictures of naked women.
firstly, i had no problem of photographing naked people in the past, without paying anyone, even without a plan, so i don't see a reason why it souldn't work out again. secondly, a statement that doesn't involve any comprehensible thought is unlikely to become valid due to the inclusion of verbal slander.

> When a woman takes off her clothes in front of a camera, she's not going to take the chance of getting ripped off by some wanker ...
as the comment didn't have anything to do with ripping off anyone, this argument is completely irrelevant.

[ Parent ]

Oh joy! (2.00 / 12) (#49)
by RobotSlave on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 02:33:42 PM EST

Oh Happy day!

Point-by-point rebuttal!

You, sir, are truly an argumentative force to be reckoned with.

I suggest the poverty of your joke is exacerbated by your ignorance of your subject. My apologies for failing to state that in a manner that would have been easier for you to understand.

I knew you'd reject the idiom. Literal-minded cocksure nerds always seem to have trouble with idiom.

The reason that the idiom persists, you knuckle-dragging server monkey, is that it is very appropriate when applied to instances in which a counterexample is so weak as to buttress the thesis rather than refute it.

You might have to read that twice.

I submit that the individual "cam-girl" business model is such a poor one that it only serves to support the assertion that the labor of many people is required to achieve high profits from vertical integration in the porn business. You're clearly completely ignorant of the industry, but don't let that stop you from arguing this point further.

This is not a verbal argument. It is a written argument. The word you wanted was libel, you ignorant little prat.

So you've had no problem taking pictures of naked people before. Bully for you. Now, have you tried selling those pictures? Or even putting them online for free? Did the models sign releases, Mr. enormous-brain?

You're digging yourself in deeper every time you respond. But don't let that stop you. You're clearly a man of tremendous wit and intellect, and it would be a shame to deprive K5 of your prodigious scrivener's gifts.

[ Parent ]

Re: Oh joy (3.33 / 3) (#68)
by butterbrain on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 07:06:13 PM EST

The reason that the idiom persists, you knuckle-dragging server monkey, is that it is very appropriate when applied to instances in which a counterexample is so weak as to buttress the thesis rather than refute it.

One inadequate counterexample does not prove the truth of the rule.

This is not a verbal argument. It is a written argument. The word you wanted was libel, you ignorant little prat.

Verbal, Expressed in words, whether spoken or written, but commonly in spoken words; hence, spoken; oral; not written.

In actual fact, this is a verbal argument. Your comment was slanderous and libellous; those descriptions are mutually synonymous.

Ignorant little prat. Tee-hee-hee!

[ Parent ]
Wishing doesn't make it so. (3.66 / 3) (#83)
by RobotSlave on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 10:08:09 PM EST

  • verbal 3. Expressed in spoken rather than written words; oral: a verbal contract.
  • slander 1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
  • libel 1a: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

And it only gets worse for you once you start looking at real dictionaries.

No, slander and libel are not "mutually synonymous." They're not synonymous, either.

In fact, in law, they are mutually exclusive. The term you are ignorant of, which in law and in common usage covers both libel and slander, is defamation.

[ Parent ]

slander == oral? yes, and i'm sorry. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
by nex on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 08:25:29 AM EST

> verbal 3. Expressed in spoken rather than written words; oral: a verbal contract.

i saw this. it also says so in the source i quoted. it is one of the possible meanings of this term. but it is not the applicable meaning in the original context, i.e. my comment you were attacking.

> No, slander and libel are not ... synonymous, ... .
webster's thesaurus lists them as synonyms (well, the verbal forms at least. oh, look! yet another meaning of the word 'verbal'!)

however, being a person who can admit mistakes instead of trying to talk myself out of unpleasant situations by attacking, insulting and berating points that prove me wrong, i acknowledge that i don't always manage to fully grok the current mainstream meaning of an english word when just having looked them up in a dictionary with its little ambiguities. english is not my first language.

'slander' does in fact have the connotation of being something exclusively oral. i should've used another word above.

[ Parent ]

For shame. (3.00 / 2) (#151)
by RobotSlave on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 02:03:18 PM EST

Let me see if I understand this.

You are not a native english speaker, yet you are comfortable enough with the language to attack another english speaker for what you think is incorrect usage.

Then, when it has been shown that the usage in question was, in fact, correct, and that your attack was baseless, you play the language card.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[ Parent ]

sometiems you're reasonably reasonable (3.00 / 1) (#155)
by nex on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 03:28:35 PM EST

> You are not a native english speaker, yet you are comfortable
> enough with the language to attack another english speaker for
> what you think is incorrect usage.

not being a native speaker has disadvantages and also advantages. when i don't know the correct translation for a thought i'd like to express, i have to resort to bilingual dictionaries, which aren't 100% reliable, as there are so many pitfalls and ambiguities. i can't look up every word i use and check meta-information like connotations, collocations, etc., but i try to do so every time i'm not sure what's correct and what's incorrect. in some tricky cases, i might not be aware of a gap in my knowledge, e.g. because i'm confusing two words that are exactly the same in my native language, and i make a mistake.

on the other hand, i hardly ever make mistakes where native speakers slip up every time. you'll likely never catch me confusing its/it's, there/their/they're, then/than, letter/latter, etc.; to me the differences between the terms are much bigger, because in my native language, they aren't homophones or whatever the particular pitfall it is that causes native speakers trouble.

when criticising others, i don't intend to atack them; i try to make them aware of their mistake and hope they won't make it again. of course i only do this if i'm sure that i'm right and if i have a source i can trust, e.g. an up-to-date monolingual dictionary. so, to answer your question: yes, i am comfortable enough with the language to correct another english speaker for what i know to be incorrect usage.

> Then, when it has been shown that the usage in question was, in fact, correct, and that your attack was baseless, you play the language card.
to what exactly are you referring? you were wrong in most cases. you didn't know all the possible meanings of "verbal", you didn't know all the possible meanings of "slander" (it may be used synonymously with "defame", which was what i meant). i didn't want to "play the language card". i just wanted to carify that i don't know how common every dictionary definition that i find is. it's perfectly possible that every time a typical american hears or reads "slander", it's supposed to mean "a false and defamatory oral statement about a person", and consequently every typical american would say, "i know for sure that this is something oral, and i ought to know, it's my language." however, that's not in the dictionaries, and sometimes there are even mistakes in the dictionaries.

so, if i make a mistake, i'm really sorry, but there's no reason why i should be ashamed of myself. by the way, i assume (i can't know that, but i'm sure, based on your thoughts about language and linguistics) that my english is better than your german, french, esperanto or japanese will ever be.

> Let me see if I understand this.
i earnestly hope that you do now.

[ Parent ]

Shame. (1.00 / 1) (#167)
by RobotSlave on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 08:02:26 PM EST

Context:

"verbally slander"

The meaning of this phrase is unambiguous to anyone familiar with the various meanings of each word. You've apologized for it already. I was right. You were wrong. Now drop it.

Idiom:

"The exception that proves the rule."

I used it correctly. You didn't realize this. You attacked me for using the phrase in a very specific and completely appropriate manner.

You assert that I was "wrong in most cases," even though you have admitted I was correct on every substantive point. How does that work, pray tell?

You are free to be proud of your understanding of english, but to assume that your mastery of the language is superior to any native speaker you encounter is the height of arrogance. In fact, it borders on cultural bigotry (particularly given your conflation of "english speaker" with "American").

If an educated American belligerently objected to your correct usage of your native language, and then attempted to justify it with the fact that most speakers of your own language are not masters of it, how do you suppose you would react?

Again, you should be ashamed.

Deeply ashamed.

[ Parent ]

explanation? (3.00 / 1) (#179)
by nex on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 03:04:52 AM EST

please, can you try to reply in a credible way just once? all i see are assertions, insults and blatant perversions of the facts. you keep on repeating "i was right. you were wrong. i used it correctly. you didn't realize this.", without giving real explanations.

so far, i have only expressed accusations in this comment. but in contrast to you, i will go on to explain and prove my points:

you asserted that i assume that my master of the english language is superior to any native speaker i encounter. this is a fact, everyone can see the assumption in your comment titled "shame" above. then you went on to say that such a behaviour is the height of all arrogance and borders on cultural bigotry, which is perfectly true. everyone would agree that such a behaviour is really bad. so, first you get readers on your side by accusing me of very criticisable behaviour and when you go on to bitch at me and call me names, it looks like i deserve it.
however, to the more aware reader it is apparent that your assertion i described above is a blatant lie. i never said, nor implied that my mastery of the english language is superior to any native speaker i encounter. this is also a point that can be proved easily, because when you read through the previous comments in this thread, you just don't find a sentence from me that alleges i feel superior to native speakers. or do you find one? can you cite it? or just throw baseless, ill-founded accusations at me?quite to the contrary, you will discover that i provided points in which i am handicapped compared to native speakers, where i said that there are things i cannot learn as quickly, e.g. facts about collocation, connotations etc.

so, that attack against me turns out to be nothing but shady rhetorics, likely employed because you can't find any reviewable, verifyable facts that prove me wrong.

have you seen that? that's what i'd like you to do, just once: when you claim, for example, that you used the phrase "the exception proves the rule" correctly, prove it, for fuck's sake. show me a credible reference that explains it's proper meaning and present verifyable facts that show how you used it in the proper sense described there. don't just prance around with your "i must know, i'm the native speaker here" attitude---how arrogant is that? oh, and by the way, i never argued that you didn't use said phrase in the sense everyone else does, i.e. i never argued you didn't accord with the common usage. all i said was that i think the idea you expressed with the phrase is stupid.

man, i arrived at a point where i'm providing long-winded explanation as if i'm talking to a three-year-old, but i still try to be reasonably friendly. if all you can retort is equivalent to "you are an asshole, fuck off", then you should be ashamed.

[ Parent ]

advice for success in life (2.50 / 2) (#182)
by adequate nathan on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 07:29:00 AM EST

Spend more time reading and thinking about it and less time posting your manual diarrhea.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Shame. (1.00 / 1) (#188)
by RobotSlave on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 12:32:28 PM EST

The exception that proves the rule

You really should have looked at more than the first link you found on google.

You also should have read that link more carefully.

Here is one reference that supports my usage of the phrase. "The nature of its exceptions indicates the quality of a rule."

Though many sources make precisely the same criticisms of the phrase that you have repeated, this does not mean that I used the phrase in the obnoxious manner cited.

Note, particularly, that I pointed out the exception in question, not you, so the claim that I've deployed it in a facile attempt to dismiss a point made by an opponent in argument is untrue on its face. Yet this is precisely what you suggested.

I don't deny that the phrase is commonly misused. I do claim that it has valid and precise meaning when used correctly, and I have explained this meaning in detail. Your refusal to understand this does not reflect well on you, or your ability to learn.

You have not mastered the english language.

When writing, your phrasing is frequently redundant as well as inelegant, and you fail to take context into account. You also fail to understand context when reading, and your understanding of idiom lacks nuance. Furthermore, you are incapable of distinguishing between a writer with a poor grasp of the language and one with a more advanced understanding.

Your ability with the english language is on a par with that of an average British fifteen-year-old. It is sufficient for any communication you will likely require in life, but it is inadequate for artistic expression, and in apprehension falls well short of the requirements of academic criticism or diplomacy.

You have a long way to go before you are qualified to stand in judgement over others' mastery of the english language.

But judge you do.

Alone, this is mere unfounded arrogance. When justified with a crude negative portrait of Americans and their use of language, however, it is bigotry.

You have reminded me of a fact that I had forgotten: bigots have no shame.

Furthermore, when their bigotry is exposed, they will always deny it and point angrily at bigger bigots, real or imagined.

For this dismal lesson, I thank you.

[ Parent ]

don't call us, we'll call you (4.00 / 1) (#197)
by nex on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 02:22:27 PM EST

i asked you to come up with something that would support your personal opinion, and all you came up with, except for a further couple of personal, unjustified, arbitrary accusations, is a link that supports my position as well as yours, as it says that
"The best rules are mathematical or logical, and really do have no exceptions at all."
(which does not really contradict the opinion you presented, but also doesn't contradict my postulate that this opinion is stupid.)

i could still say a lot about this topic and others we addressed without repeating myself, but i wouldn't see any point in doing so, because you either refused to do what i asked you to---present verifyable explanations and logical reasoning instead of arbitrary assertions and insults---or you tried and failed. i'll just stop reading the poor secretions from your deficient brain here, like i did in the other sub-thread. you didn't turn out to be able to contribute anything interesting to the discussion. i've had it.

[ Parent ]

Finally. (1.00 / 1) (#200)
by RobotSlave on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 03:16:08 PM EST

Good. You've finally given up.

I have, repeatedly, offered you descriptions and usages of the idiom that belie the simplistic understanding that you cling to.

You refuse, categorically, to consider them.

You want the phrase to mean only one thing, so that you can dismiss anyone who uses it without further thought.

The evidence, however, even the evidence which you yourself have linked to, clearly shows that there are other meanings, meanings less readily dismissed.

You are either incapable of understanding the distinctions, or you refuse to make the attempt.

My own arguments do not consist of "mere assertions" any more than yours do (and what argument does not consist of assertions?). The difference is that I have carefully described the precise intended sense of the phrase, demonstrated that it is a valid and well-understood sense, and shown how my usage is in fact an example of that sense, rather than the one you suggest.

While you have indeed provided evidence that the sense you object to exists, you have failed to show that my usage is an example of your preferred simpler meaning.

Moreover, you will not be able to, even if you try, because my usage was, as I have shown, demonstrably more complex.

You have asked me to back up my assertions with evidence, and I have done so. I have challenged you to show that my usage was an example of that which you so vociferously object to, and you have failed to even understand the task you've been presented with.

You have, indeed, had it.

[ Parent ]

Here's a joke for you all. (4.50 / 2) (#201)
by it certainly is on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 03:31:08 PM EST

What's the difference between RobotSlave and a leech?

Answer: You can remove the leech before it drains the lifeblood out of you.

Hey RobotSlave! Black is white, try and prove me wrong! Oh, I forgot, you already cower from my superior pedantry and have to prey on lesser mortals. What a satisfying existence that must be.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

here's a better joke: (3.00 / 2) (#202)
by adequate nathan on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 04:08:31 PM EST

Involving dongs.

A guy goes up to another guy and says, "Fat queer angry cocks from outer space that glow and make a noise"

Get it?

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Your other joke (4.00 / 2) (#204)
by it certainly is on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 04:20:45 PM EST

was funnier.

Nevertheless, you have amused me. On a scale of User Friendly to Red Meat, consider yourself Space Moose.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

dear sir (4.00 / 2) (#207)
by adequate nathan on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 04:34:15 PM EST

Yr link to Space Moose is broken. Please accept this correction.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Why am I rewarding you people (5.00 / 1) (#228)
by jvance on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 03:30:23 AM EST

for this inane prattling? You! Go make phones do stuff. And you! Saw on that fiddle some more.

---

This is taking too much of my time. I've gone away. You can reach me at john_a_vance atsign hotmail dot com if you wish.
[ Parent ]

Not for much longer. (4.00 / 1) (#231)
by it certainly is on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 05:02:18 AM EST

Scandal! Nortel makes 200 out of 250 people at the lab redundant, replaces entire TDM department with people in Turkey. I finish at the end of November, although they pay me off until the end of February.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Holy crap man! (4.00 / 1) (#233)
by jvance on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 10:17:46 AM EST

I'm sorry to hear that. I must have passed the curse on to you somehow. I'm actually employed now, now working for the Military-Industrial Complex, helping the US Air Force figure out why its fine young men splatter themselves on motorcycles, crack up 40 million dollar planes, and break their legs jumping from their commander's wife's bedroom window.

Much PL/SQL is involved. PL/SQL which generates HTML and JavaScript, which in turn calls more PL/SQL. It's evil on so many levels, which is probably why I like it.

I hope your job search is short and fruitful.

---

This is taking too much of my time. I've gone away. You can reach me at john_a_vance atsign hotmail dot com if you wish.
[ Parent ]

Jesus Christ. (none / 0) (#245)
by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Sat Nov 02, 2002 at 06:02:23 AM EST

I suppose this goes out to 'Slave, Jvance, Nathan, and Isn't.

I've sincerely missed you folks and your inane prattling. Honest. Thanks for the giggle on an otherwise fucking dismal day.

Cheers
IB
---

I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
[ Parent ]

Hey IB, (none / 0) (#249)
by jvance on Sat Nov 02, 2002 at 10:03:34 PM EST

Sorry, but my memory isn't what it used to be. But then again, how would I know, eh?

So who were you on Adequacy?

---

This is taking too much of my time. I've gone away. You can reach me at john_a_vance atsign hotmail dot com if you wish.
[ Parent ]

Well spank me hard and call me an idiot! (none / 0) (#250)
by jvance on Sat Nov 02, 2002 at 10:12:58 PM EST

Illiterate Bum, right?

I may be slow, but I make up for it with my obtuseness.

---

This is taking too much of my time. I've gone away. You can reach me at john_a_vance atsign hotmail dot com if you wish.
[ Parent ]

You're an idiot. (5.00 / 1) (#253)
by it certainly is on Sun Nov 03, 2002 at 05:35:28 PM EST

I'm so glad I bought that paddle. So many uses.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

I miss you, too. (3.00 / 2) (#205)
by RobotSlave on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 04:24:42 PM EST

You never call. Would it kill you to pick up the phone? I know it ended badly, but there are still so many beautiful memories. Beautiful, leathery, humiliating, swollen memories.

You can't just throw all that away, don't you see?

[ Parent ]

Pay your phone bill. (4.00 / 2) (#206)
by it certainly is on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 04:31:57 PM EST

Then the phone company will reconnect you. You're not swindling me out of any more collect calls from fucking Angola, sweetheart. You get me?

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

I quite agree with you. (4.00 / 1) (#71)
by Dr Wily on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 07:59:21 PM EST

But you ought to know (from your post I could not glean whether or not you do already) that the word "prove" once meant "test," and it is from this meaning that the idiom derives.

[ Parent ]
i can prove you wrong (2.75 / 4) (#94)
by nex on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 01:26:54 AM EST

i read this opinion in several places already, but it's wrong. as i stated above, the original quote is latin, and the word used there ('probat' -- i guess 'probare' is the infinitive form, but i don't know, i don't really speak latin) also means 'to test' indeed. however, you have to consider the original context of the quote if you want to interpret it, and it was totally different.

a good explanation can be found there:
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxtheexc.html

The common misconception (which you will find in several books,
including the Dictionary of Misinformation) is that "proves" in
this phrase means "tests".  That is not the case, although "proof"
does mean "test" in such locutions as "proving ground",
"proofreader", "proof spirit", and "The proof of the pudding is in
the eating."
   As MEU says, "the original legal sense" of the "the exception
proves the rule" is as follows: "'Special leave is given for men to
be out of barracks tonight till 11.0 p.m.'; 'The exception proves
the rule' means that this special leave implies a rule requiring
men, except when an exception is made, to be in earlier.  The value
of this in interpreting statutes is plain."
   MEU2 adds: "'A rule is not proved by exceptions unless the
exceptions themselves lead one to infer a rule' (Lord Atkin).  The
formula in full is exceptio probat regulam in casibus non
exceptis."  [That's Latin for "The exception proves the rule in
cases not excepted."]


[ Parent ]
Sorry, fuckwit. (1.75 / 8) (#112)
by RobotSlave on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 04:26:22 AM EST

You really have no fucking idea of how language works, do you?

The fact that the phrase has persisted lo these many centuries is entirely irrelevant before the might of your irrefutable empirical assault, eh?

even though you don't fucking understand latin?

All you've proven, you pitiful half-ape, is that you can't cope with language that evolves, ever so slightly, over time.

Quoting a buch of shit that you don't understand isn't helping you.

How about we take a little extract from the holy text you link to, Mr. Omniscient?

"The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted."

Notice, peanut-noggin, that this is precisely the sense implied in the form of usage that I delineated in my earlier comment.

If that's too hard to figure out, feel free to post angry denials.

You may have missed the warning that you were digging yourself in deeper with every ignorant comment you posted, so I urge you to take notice of it now, if it slipped by you before.

Your failure to address any other illustrations of your ignorance has been taken as acknowledgement of your failings. I thank you for these unassuming acquiescences.

It would be one thing if you were protesting a recent and appositely opposite locution such as the misquote "lead on, Macduff," but you've chosen a particularly malapropos toehold for your assault.

The etymology does, in fact, support the contemporary usage, and the passage of thousands of years, rather than mere decades, allows for the slight variation which has cased such frustration and irritation to your hopelessly literalist nerd-brain.

Here's a bit of news that you might want to make some personal adjustment to: The phrase "The exception that proves the rule" is not going to go away in your lifetime. Furthermore, the rather precise and trenchant meaning that it has acquired, at least among the better-read, is not going to vaporize simply because it violates your rock-headed adherence to a "logical" ideal that even Bertrand Russell eventually realized was problematic.

Ah, but I forget. While you've demonstrated a laughable ignorance of linguistics, it's likely you don't know a damned thing about philosophy, either. One of these days, I should get around to suppressing the impulse to assume that any interlocutor has at least a passing familiarity with the only subject that attempts to address the basis for what we loosely term "knowledge." Until then, it looks like I'm stuck with tossing yet more argument that you can't understand at your uncomprehending feet. Have fun gnawing on it, cur.

[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, fuckwit. (2.83 / 6) (#125)
by mrbo on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 08:17:52 AM EST

I mean not to troll, but perhaps its time you came down from the perch of superiority you've set yourself upon, RobotSlave. I doubt anyone is impressed. Your vocabularly is sufficiently verbose, yet personally I get the impression that your childish insults (nerd-brain?) come from a somewhat limited mind.

Your arguments become no more valid when accompanied by the venom you direct at nex, and whilst he too has spoken in anger he has been able to make some kind of point around it.

I don't want to argue with you, I am just pointing this out because whilst I don't particularly care about either one of you and previously had no opinion on the matter you were arguing over, I now find myself leaning to his position, merely because of the way you expressed yourself. Rational arguing is an important social skill, and should never be overlooked in favour of self-righteousness and name-calling.

I think with this post I've managed to bring this thread even further off topic, so thats something at least.

>>
The above comment is entirely my own opinion, and as such is completely random.
[ Parent ]

The myth of civil debate. (3.25 / 4) (#146)
by RobotSlave on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 12:31:58 PM EST

I like insults. I like to dish them out, and I can take them, too. I like ascerbic humor. I like vitriolic writing. HL Mencken is one of my idols.

The failure to cope with hostile argument is a failure of education. Even in the US, teachers were once allowed to berate their students, to call them stupid, and to give them grades below B.

American education was much better then.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying. You think mean people suck. You're inclined to defend the victims of bullying. you'd rather debate were conducted with drawing-room propriety. You find insults intrinsicly vulgar.

Good for you. I think such an outlook is delusional, and quite often a smug façade deployed by those who sense their opinion is that of the majority, but this is merely my personal opinion. We can agree to disagree, I think.

[ Parent ]

Only pussies (3.00 / 2) (#157)
by CodeWright on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 03:59:49 PM EST

Agree to disagree.

Pussy.

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
illustration of ignorance (1.16 / 6) (#129)
by nex on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 08:39:39 AM EST

one last, quick reply, before i will lose the last bit of interest---if you want to, you can take this as an acknowledgement that all of your points that i heven't addressed are perfectly correct; i don't care---in trying to explain things to someone who is not willing to alter his opinions even the slightest bit and still calls others ignorant:

i do know that meanings of words and phrases change. i do know that you can't use ancient dictionaries when interpreting current texts. i have no problem with reading an article and determine the correct meaning of, say, the word "billions", even though it changed during the last century (in the US). in this case, it's irrelevant that i find this change silly and that i'd prefer to use the old meaning (1,000,000,000,000) instead of the new one (1,000,000,000)---i know what the author means and that's okay. there would be no point in arguing that i'd have liked the old meaning to prevail and i wouldn't even want that. i'm absolutely able to cope with language that evolves over time.

hey, i'm even able to use words that have several different meanings and manage to determine the correct meaning most of the time! unlike you, who argued that 'verbal' means nothing other than "spoken rather than written".

for many people, however, "the exception proves the rule" is something you say to confound your enemies when your argument has been shot out from under you by some pesky counterexample. from the point of view of advancing the debate, this is about as helpful as "yo mama". for example: "and i say, all sheep are white! okay, there's a black one over there, but that's just an exception, and they say that the exception proves the rule, so this black sheep actually reinforces my standpoint! all sheep are white!". i have no problem with the language, i have no problem with the fact that for many people phrase A has meaning A'. however, if i know that someone says A and means something completely idiotic, i'll likely categorise him as an idiot. so the pure sight of A makes me conspicious. consequently, i said: "whenever i read A, i tend to believe the author is an idiot."

all you did in order to make yourself look less of an idiot was something equivalent to "but this black sheep is rather smallish and ill and will die soon. it's such a weak counterexample that it proves my point even more than if there was none."

sure, "The exception proves the rule" also has a meaning that can be used in completely non-idiotic ways. however, that meaning still is the same as in the original context (which makes a good example when explaining the phrase, because it has ofetn been discussed already), so it hasn't really changed over time.

> even though you don't fucking understand latin?
i don't understand the latin original of the original speech "cicero pro balbo", which probably is the first known example of application of this kind of logic. but i do understand the phrase i quoted, i do understand its translation, i do understand the explanation of its meaning.

> "Your failure to address any other illustrations of your ignorance ..."
huh? do you mean to imply that you addressed my assertion that your whole "i know how the porn industry really works"-argument didn't make any sense, that your "this is not a verbal argument"-argument was wrong, or that you frequently perverted the facts to suit your need? no? so you mean, you just ignored that?

<RobotSlave parody>
hmm, i think my arguments aren't convincing enough yet. i should reinforce them with something really profound: you bloody fucking idiot, you cunt, you motherfucker, you cocksucker, you cretin, you retard, you asshole, you prick, you bastard, you bitch, you imbecile, you moron, you twat, you dickhead, you douchebag, you asswipe!  
</RobotSlave parody>

[ Parent ]

At last. (3.00 / 2) (#150)
by RobotSlave on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 01:49:10 PM EST

Finally, you've lost interest. You are not, then, reading this comment.

That's probably a good thing. Reading my comments, for you, has most likely been an experience that, if it does not corrode the "self-esteem" which your well-meaning but lazy educators misguidedly instilled in you, in all liklihood places you in a mode of discourse which conflicts radically with your murky conception of civil society.

This is entirely deliberate, but like most, you will probably have to experience it several times before you start to learn from it.

Thank you for conceding the final point of our little dustup. Your whinging about people who misuse the phrase is all well and good, but you ignore the fact that I didn't use it in the manner you specify. In fact, I used it precisely as it ought to be used.

You, however, in your haste to shore up your bruised ego, overlooked the correct usage entirely, and decided to accuse me of not knowing what the idiom meant. Once confronted with the fact that I knew exactly what it meant, you thought to prove me "wrong" with an ill-advised foray into etymology, the fruit of which was yet further evidence that my usage was entirely appropriate.

It's not a very good idea to keep calling your opponent "stupid" or "ignorant" while your own points are being systematicly demolished, and your argument consequently eviscerated. I enjoy being insulted, when when the insult is accurate, or at least amusing, but repeatedly calling a man "stupid," when he is clearly anything but, is boring.

You are welcome to castigate people who misuse a phrase, or who deploy it incorrectly in argument. In fact, I encourage taking people to task for such things. In the future, however, you will hopefully be a little more careful to first ascertain that a particular phrase is in fact being misused before attacking the user.

Incidentally, "verbal" was used in a specific context, to wit, "verbal slander," in which it could only be interpreted as meaning "oral" as opposed to "written," due to the fact that slander is, by definition, oral. Note, further, that the usage was therefore redundant.

Hope that helps.

Have a nice day.

[ Parent ]

oh happy day, he did it again (2.60 / 5) (#99)
by nex on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 02:29:35 AM EST

> I suggest the poverty of your joke is exacerbated by your ignorance of your subject.
all i had said was that my original comment wasn't supposed to be taken dead seriously and that this should have been made clear by its last paragraph. criticising it under the assumption that it was supposed to be a very funny joke was your idea, so i'm not really interested in how poor exactly that joke, that only exists in your imagination, really is.

> The reason that the idiom persists, you knuckle-dragging server monkey,
> is that it is very appropriate when applied to instances in which a counterexample
> is so weak as to buttress the thesis rather than refute it.
it seems i guessed right when i said i'm not good at explaining things to idiots. the idea of using a counterexample for the purpose of buttressing the thesis is so rediculous that i just don't know where to begin. yes, there are so many people out there who use the phrase meaning exactly what you describe here that it can definitely be considered common usuage, i.e. if someone utters it, you know he very likely has the meaning you described in mind. but that doesn't make it really "very appropriate", because, firstly, the whole idea of inverting the meaning of a counterexample because it turns out to be weak is ridiculous (if 'weak' is supposed to mean 'only applicable to a few special cases', that doesn't mean that there are no other counterexamples for those other cases, and it 'weak' is supposed to mean 'not valid', it's no ground to base any reasoning on anyway), and secondly, "the exception proves the rule" just meant something entirely different originally. consider this excerpt from http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxtheexc.html :

As MEU says, "the original legal sense" of the "the exception
proves the rule" is as follows: "'Special leave is given for men to
be out of barracks tonight till 11.0 p.m.'; 'The exception proves
the rule' means that this special leave implies a rule requiring
men, except when an exception is made, to be in earlier.  The value
of this in interpreting statutes is plain."
   MEU2 adds: "'A rule is not proved by exceptions unless the
exceptions themselves lead one to infer a rule' (Lord Atkin).  The
formula in full is exceptio probat regulam in casibus non
exceptis."  [That's Latin for "The exception proves the rule in
cases not excepted."]

> You're clearly completely ignorant of the industry, but don't let that stop you from arguing this point further.
i have to admit that, unlike you, i don't have an all-embracing knowledge of the porn industry. i also have to admit that you're perfectly right in stating that the possibility of achieving a vertical integration in the porn business with minimal effort resulting in high profits is really remote. however, as you're arguing against the literal meaning of an ironical statement (as in "i know how to become a millionaire, but instead of doing it i'm describing my cunning plan in a comment on k5! come on and join me, it's really gonna work!"), it doesn't make any sense in this context.

> This is not a verbal argument. It is a written argument. The word you wanted was libel, you ignorant little prat.
oh! okay, i'll tell the editors of the oxford / webster's dictionary that they're all wrong and that they should change their works so they reflect the unerring knowledge of mister RobotSlave. consider this excerpt from webster's:

verbal: 1 a : of, relating to, or consisting of words ("verbal instructions") b : of, relating to, or involving words rather than meaning or substance ("a consistency that is merely verbal and scholastic -- B. N. Cardozo") c : consisting of or using words only and not involving action ("a verbal protest"

> Now, have you tried selling those pictures?
no. i'm not really in the porn business, you see? i didn't really suggest making money using pictures of naked models. boy, i really thought you'd gotten that by now. by the way, the idea involved using the pictures as bait to lure people into subscribing to paysites in the first place; not selling them.

> ... and it would be a shame to deprive K5 of your prodigious scrivener's gifts.
this thread dangles off a non-existing story, i don't expect anyone but you to read these comments and i only wrote them because i found it amusing, not because i assert they're so witty and intelligent that everyone should read them.

now it stops to amuse me anyway, due to your unreproducible sense of humour (or rather lack thereof).

[ Parent ]

Thanks (2.33 / 3) (#108)
by kholmes on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 03:53:01 AM EST

'A rule is not proved by exceptions unless the
 exceptions themselves lead one to infer a rule'

I did not know that before.

I knew there was a reason I was reading this thread.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]

it's cool that someone ... found it useful (2.33 / 3) (#111)
by nex on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 04:14:45 AM EST

oy, and i really thought, as i said above,
>> this thread dangles off a non-existing story;
apparently i confused it with another one i contributed to yesterday. but it's cool that someone read through this stupid argument and actually found it useful :-)

another important point is that exceptions that lead one to infer a rule prove the existence of the rule in a context like the example given above, i.e. when 'rule' means something like "legal precept or doctrine". they don't prove the correctness of a rule when 'rule' means something like "usually valid generalization".

[ Parent ]

Sarcasm. (3.66 / 3) (#152)
by RobotSlave on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 02:43:40 PM EST

It's a difficult concept, isn't it?

I'd just chalk it up to the fact that you're a non-native english speaker (and a remarkable arrogant one, too) had you not been so proud of your own initial "tongue in cheek" post.

I'll have to assume, then, that your failure to spot it is just another instance of you being a little less perceptive than you think you are.

[ Parent ]

Nobody likes an smartass, either. (4.11 / 9) (#57)
by xtal on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 04:18:33 PM EST

What you fail to realize, you cocksure little twit, is that a plan that doesn't involve paying anyone is unlikely to provide you with any pictures of naked women.

What you fail to realize is that finding "models" for soft core pr0n isn't very hard at all. It isn't even that hard for hardcore pr0n. Do you think the chicks in those shots are educated? That they have agents? Are you a fool? For a moment, I'm going to completely throw out any sort of moral spin on this - it is pornography - just as the original poster of the story did.

When a woman takes off her clothes in front of a camera, she's not going to take the chance of getting ripped off by some wanker who spins lofty stories of co-operative business ventures, and then uses the photos solely for his own amusement.

One, I don't think you know very many women (or all the women you know are very intelligent). Lots of women don't care, need the money to feed themselves or their children, or hell, actually enjoy what they're doing. What you use the photos for becomes moot after they sign the release form. Their only concern would be that the environment is reasonably neutral and safe, and that's why hotel rooms are popular locales. Your only concern here would be appearing professional.

Anyone who has gone to a major university anywhere in North America will tell you they all have Campus papers, and in those campus papers, almost without exception, are ads for "adult models". Everyone knows what those "adult models" are doing, including the intended audience. Depending on the content, it isn't going to cost you more than $250 to $500 a shoot, some money for legal fees (usually one time for the contract) and a hotel room to get going. Yes, that's it. You don't need to convince anyone you're not slime, because get this - you are slime! You're a pornographer.

That's assuming you want this above board. If you really want to get "models" on the cheap, cruise for prostitutes in a large center. That is a little distasteful even for me.

One you have the content, you can either sell and handle billing yourself (easiest), or resell the rights to larger companies who then distribute to the sites as outlined above. You are absolutely correct, it's not free. But a modest capital outlay of say $10,000 will get you content and a site to host that content on. Enough to get started.

The hardest part in the industry is finding a niche to supply content for, and possibly, keeping a lawyer on retainer depending on what part of North America you decide to set up shop in.

And finally, although not directed at your post in particular, who the hell cares what your parents think. Grow up. People want, it's more or less socially acceptable, and someone is going to provide. Welcome to capitalism.


[ Parent ]

Who are you arguing with? (4.40 / 5) (#80)
by RobotSlave on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 09:42:29 PM EST

I said it would cost money. The guy I was arguing with said it wouldn't.

Try to figure out what's going on before you jump in, genius. I said it would be hard to find a model who would work on spec for a cut of sales. Models who will take cash up front are another matter entirely.

The costs you cite seem to be about right. As does the amount of work involved. You seem to start out claiming it's not all that hard, but by the time you're done, you've outlined a lot of effort.

And it's not even smart effort. The money to be made from stills pales in comparison to video. The costs are a little bit higher, but the returns are much better.

[ Parent ]

Who says "cocksure"? (1.66 / 3) (#102)
by Josh A on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 02:50:31 AM EST

The ref says "Use of the word cocksure, automatic rating of 1!"

---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
I can't say it either? (none / 0) (#254)
by Josh A on Sun Nov 03, 2002 at 06:35:13 PM EST

Can I get some explanations as to the modding down of my previous comment? Did I get an automatic 1 for putting the word in the post? Or was it because I didn't spell out all the reasons RobotSlave deserved his 1. He's lucky I didn't give him a zero.

PS: An automatic 1 is given upon use of the word. Use is defined to mean more than mere utterance. I won't mention the word here, however, since some readers may not understand this and may be inclined to vote this comment down through misapplication of said rule.

---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
Exceptions don't prove rules. [nt] (3.40 / 5) (#103)
by xriso on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 02:55:34 AM EST


--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
[ Parent ]
Supply side more profitable (4.16 / 12) (#31)
by bc on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 12:30:14 PM EST

Farl is in the supply side, if you like - he takes thousands of pictures every week of naked women doing despicable acts.

I understand his main source of revenue is the TGP mugs, there are thousands of them desperate for content rights.

So although his margins are small, with thousands of sluts out there and a decent digital camera he can rack up a few thousand dollars a week, especially as he can liscence each pic multiple times for different rights and usages.

He was telling me about it once quite extensively, it's very interesting.

♥, bc.

must be a repressed x-ian (2.00 / 3) (#134)
by dirtmerchant on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 10:08:31 AM EST

must be a repressed x-ian (is there any other kind?) if he thinks sex is despicable
-- "The universe not only may be queerer than we think, but queerer than we can think" - JBS Haldane
[ Parent ]
there is sex (5.00 / 1) (#158)
by CodeWright on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 04:05:06 PM EST

...and there are despicable acts...

...and then there are despicable sex acts.

One does not have to be Xtian to find certain sorts of non-consensual depravity despicable.

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
The Hun (3.40 / 5) (#35)
by bayankaran on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 12:39:01 PM EST

Wow...I am surfing porn for the last three or four years and I never got into The Hun...this proves that I have seen just a speck of dust in the universe of porn.

The funny thing about the Hun.. (4.33 / 3) (#74)
by Inoshiro on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 08:34:03 PM EST

And other TGP sites, is that (AFAIK) most of the used to be adult XXX password sites. You'd go there to get a shared account, leech porn until it was removed, and move on to the next one.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.00 / 3) (#86)
by Emissary on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 11:33:04 PM EST

The same thing happened to me... I usually don't click links on porn sites, because I'm afraid of pop-ups (or was until I started using Moz) so I didn't really see a network like you do in sites dealing with other topics. I was actually told about The Hun by a bisexual nymphomaniac whom I used to have long conversations with about where to find porn online.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
Porn sites (3.75 / 4) (#87)
by luserSPAZ on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 11:41:17 PM EST

I've found myself poking around the free sections of more porn sites ever since Mozilla got popup blocking.  I'm no longer scared to have a look around, since I know I won't be trapped in popup hell.  The web is a lot less scary without popups.

[ Parent ]
Definitely (4.33 / 3) (#88)
by Emissary on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 11:55:46 PM EST

Of course, there are still sites without pop-ups in the first place.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
TGP lists (4.00 / 3) (#42)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 01:11:36 PM EST

So you're saying that these TGP lists are where the real money is at. Where does the money come from, the top 5 advertising TGPs, banner ads, where? Can you get free bandwidth from these adult webhosts on your own hornyredheadeddevilsminions.com, or do you have to buy the bandwidth and/or domain?

I would imagine going through all the submissions daily would be even harder (ahem) work than putting up TGPs, btw.

--
Life is like a box of chocolates. Fat people finish it first.


TGP lists (4.66 / 3) (#47)
by anon868 on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 01:49:59 PM EST

Actually, only the best TGP lists are able to sell the top spots on their lists. Most, especially startups, are so desperate for TGPs that they'll accept anything. The money comes from the same place it does from TGPs, selling subscriptions to sites through banners & text ads. It's just that you get alot more exposure and traffic. As for hosting, you pretty much have to pay for a host (most of the free hosts won't allow you to run a TGP list on them, just TGP's), but it's not so bad, because your bandwidth reuqirments are actually much lower than just doing TGPs. This is because you actually host very few images, just a few text pages.

As for checking the submissions, yes I think that would be hard (pun!) work. Usually once a list gets busy, the admin will pick a few of their best submitters, get them to do the approvals too, in exchange for garunteed posting of their TGP's (or cash, if you're making tons of money).
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]

How to get large chunks of porn free (3.88 / 9) (#44)
by Meatbomb on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 01:37:24 PM EST

You are planning (wink, ahem, nudge) to become a TGP king, real soon. Any site you find that you like, well you want to promote and work for that site, right?

It's usually an easy automated process to sign up to be a TGP farmer, they'll send you your password and billing number, and the address that they'll send the cheques to, plus the address to their promotional content files. For now, until you get your TGP site happening, they can just send those cheques to 123 Anystreet USA. They want to know your website address, so before you actually have your site up, direct them to the Library of Congress. You can always let them know your real TGP list address later.

But for now, while you get your site organized, you can go log in to their place as a webmaster now, and download their thick MB of offerings, all in nice big zip files for quick easy download. No more page by page clicking and saving.

Now, before I get started on that website, let's just have a lookie at these materials I'll be working with. Hmmm, very interesting...



_______________

Good News for Liberal Democracy!

Duhhh... (4.33 / 3) (#45)
by Meatbomb on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 01:43:19 PM EST

Library of Congress

_______________

Good News for Liberal Democracy!

[ Parent ]
Evil explained (4.50 / 4) (#48)
by tetsuwan on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 01:58:22 PM EST

I now understand why there isn't any free findable non-P2P porn on the net anymore, why the things you find are always of lousy or annoying quality. Five years ago, you could find things at sites like fuzzbutt. The sheer amount of crap and pop-ups one encounters today has turned me away from porn-surfing.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance

Dude (5.00 / 2) (#64)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 05:36:16 PM EST

Dalnet

/join #xxxpassworld

@find natalieportmannakedandpetrified.com

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

All im going to say is (2.00 / 1) (#226)
by AKA10 on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 02:07:53 AM EST

THANK YOU!

[ Parent ]
There's tons of free porn (4.66 / 6) (#124)
by frawaradaR on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 08:04:00 AM EST

A few tricks:

1) Go to http://www.privoxy.org/ and download and install their filtering proxy. Away goes banners, popups and ads.

2) Identify hosts with TGP:s of good quality and try to recognize their picture URL patterns from the free stuff. The free stuff is often mildly disguised.

2) Learn how to use curl (in a UNIX shell or similar):
curl "http://thatsite.com/pic[001-250].jpg" -e "http://thatsite-com/" -o pic#1.jpg
This will fool the server that your referrer is valid (and the referrer is almost always the only check they have) and download the entire series of 250 pics (say 40 such galleries) to your disk for later review.

3) Learn the names of the models and pornstars you develop a liking to, and use Google in a sensible way to find more stuff (you need to filter out all the spam magnets... pattern recognition again).

Now you have potentially 24 TB of free porn to download, without intruding on password sites and other illegal stuff.

You could also actually pay to good and legal (licensed material) sites like http://www.ultimatecovergirls.com/ and its many identical siblings. I don't since I have no credit card... but I would if I could, since it's definitely value for the money (they are spam free).

Galleries at such places are later stolen and placed on free rip-off sites such as seymorebutts.com and similar, so the poor or greedy porn customer will always find some good stuff.

frawaradaR anahaha islaginaR!
[ Parent ]

Way to destroy the mysticism (4.28 / 14) (#51)
by Tatarigami on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 02:41:16 PM EST

Here I thought pornographers were modern gods, jetsetting around the world to exotic locations in private planes upholstered in mink fur, surrounded by women for whom the sight of a tuft of chest hair is an irresistable aphrodesiac.

Now I find out they're just ordinary people like me. One more treasured myth exploded...

TGP lists? (3.50 / 4) (#54)
by heng on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 04:03:02 PM EST

Why not just set up a thumbnail list? It seems like far less hassle. All you have to do is get some banners up and some TGP sites to list (which apparently people are queing up to do).

Re: TGP lists? (4.50 / 6) (#63)
by 216pi on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 05:10:49 PM EST

I think you can't imagine how much work it is to look at THOUSANDS of sites submitted per day. You have to program software that keeps the trolls away. You have to program software that checks the availability of the posted site. You have to check the quality of the posts (you only want to link good quality sites). You have to check if the poster's hoster is on the blacklist. You have to check if the material is legal. You have to check if the poster has a (c) to post the material. You have to build a black- and white list of posters.

And this is only what I can think of without having a TGP-List.
collecting pr0n? use this.
[ Parent ]
Yup (4.00 / 3) (#67)
by anon868 on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 06:50:32 PM EST

all of that and more, I'm sure. THe only thing is, they don't actually check if you have the (c) for the material. It's usually only checked if they're suspicious & means an instant blacklist (without proof in most cases).
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
Neat (3.66 / 3) (#97)
by Josh A on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 02:20:45 AM EST

That doesn't sound too hard. Better than programming weird custom shopping carts and crap.

---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
ah, multilevel marketing (3.10 / 10) (#61)
by dr k on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 05:04:44 PM EST

What, the guys on the bottom are doing all the hard work? No surprise there. Of course you can make money selling porn if you work real hard -- and you can make money stuffing envelopes, too. But if you think about it for just, oh, five seconds, you realize that a money making opportunity that doesn't take any real knowledge or talent -- like most of the real estate kits sold on infomercials -- means you will be competing against hordes of other untalented people and the odds just aren't very good. Work hard at it today, and you'll still have to work hard at it tomorrow.


Destroy all trusted users!

Naval intelligence? (4.61 / 13) (#62)
by seebs on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 05:06:46 PM EST

A friend of mine works in U.S. Naval intelligence, and is forbidden from saying anything more about what he does than "I look at pictures."  (A relative does the same sort of thing, only her line is "I listen to the radio a lot.")

I think you've finally explained what he does.


These jobs exist (4.50 / 2) (#107)
by Quila on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 03:50:30 AM EST

I know one person whose job is, in part, looking at kiddie porn. The rest of his job is nailing the bastards.

[ Parent ]
erm... (4.87 / 8) (#132)
by Hillgiant on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 10:02:05 AM EST

The rest of his job is nailing the bastards.

Well thats a narrow fetish....

=]

-----
"It is impossible to say what I mean." -johnny
[ Parent ]

homepage.nu (4.50 / 8) (#65)
by dipierro on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 06:01:34 PM EST

One month in '98 (or maybe it was '99) I made $3000 providing people with a static webpage address (yourname.homepage.nu) and putting some crappy Fortunecity ad at the bottom. I used to shut down the really bad porn sites, and anyone who got accused of spamming. Damn, those were the days. Oh yeah, it must have been '99, cause that was the year I got screwed to hell in income taxes. I don't even own the address any more, but the people who do are doing basically the same thing as I was.

While we're on the subject ... (3.75 / 4) (#66)
by floydian on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 06:30:13 PM EST

... why dontcha tell us more? Like, why did you eventually quit it, and stuff.

[ Parent ]
Well... (4.50 / 2) (#147)
by dipierro on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 12:36:23 PM EST

Fortunecity pulled its ads one fine day, and our revenues dropped to about $300/month. Around that same time there was a venture capitalist interested about a different idea of ours (actually with the same partner), and so I moved on to the dot bomb phase of my career. For a few months I left homepage.nu up without any maintenance except to delete a few spammers, but then I ran into a few technical problems and decided to ditch the whole thing since I was working 12, 14, 16 hour days at Portalvision. The free homepage market was already shrinking by that time, and the ad market probably had peaked as well (though the media didn't start talking about the ad market collapse for another year or so).

[ Parent ]
You forgot to mention the hidden dangers (3.37 / 8) (#69)
by mayo on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 07:21:34 PM EST

You forgot to mention the hidden dangers like RSI, severe dehydration and bruising that result from excsessive, well ridiculous really, amounts of masturbation. Wow that's really kinda kinky, it never even occurred to me to jerk the gherkin at work before, probably because I work in the IT section...

Oh (4.33 / 3) (#79)
by anon868 on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 09:35:11 PM EST

you've been doing it all wrong then... ;)
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
I think you're right (4.33 / 3) (#91)
by mayo on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 12:59:38 AM EST

I'll have to hire a cute little lass as an OH&S consultant. The athletic solo positions probably didn't help either...

[ Parent ]
Models (4.00 / 4) (#72)
by egg troll on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 08:05:37 PM EST

I know that you may not have done this directly, but what's the average rate to hire a model for adult photos?

He's a bondage fan, a gastronome, a sensualist
Unparalleled for sinister lasciviousness.

Don't know (4.33 / 3) (#78)
by anon868 on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 09:34:11 PM EST

Actually, I have absolutley no idea. Expensive, I always assumed. I recall that one content provider would do a custom photo shoot for you, with models wearing t-shirts (or other) with your site's logo, but that was hundreds of dollars per hour.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
Does "other" include tattoos? [n/t] (none / 0) (#241)
by haflinger on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 10:58:28 PM EST



Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
About $500.... (4.75 / 4) (#117)
by hughk on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 05:38:41 AM EST

To get a usable set with a model release (vital) can cost $300 to $600 through an agency. A better class model may cost up to $1000 (or even more) for a session. A session may take 1 to 3 hours. But that is reputedly in CA. Other states and away from the big city, rates can be cheaper.

If you want to travel, you can find much cheaper models by travelling to Eastern Europe.

[ Parent ]

Similar personal tale of working in porn (4.00 / 5) (#82)
by fraying on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 10:00:50 PM EST

Just wanted to chime in with a link to an old {fray} story about working in the porn biz from the personal angle: Interesting by Alex Massie.

Stealing your hard work (4.90 / 10) (#85)
by luserSPAZ on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 11:18:38 PM EST

Yeah, I steal from people like you.  I wrote a nice perl script to scrape The Hun and its ilk for links, filter based on description, and download the contents of the TGPs.  It then thumbnails and categorizes them, and presents a clean interface for viewing.  I can view some 100+Mb of porn a day without so much as seeing your banner ads.  Still working on image matching technology to filter out duplicates (It uses MD5 checksums right now, but that won't handle differently compressed jpegs).

I almost feel bad, except I don't.  If you didn't want me to view it, you wouldn't put it up on the web.

Well... (4.50 / 4) (#89)
by Anonymous 34538 on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 12:24:46 AM EST

Lets see the code!

[ Parent ]
Sorry (2.40 / 5) (#126)
by luserSPAZ on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 08:21:13 AM EST

But I'll have to pass.  If this became too widespread, they would either change the way things work, or otherwise cut off my source of porn.  In addition, using it for anything but personal use would be a source of copyright violations.

It's a shame really, because it's one of the nicer things I've ever written.

[ Parent ]

Duplicate finding (4.00 / 3) (#90)
by stormpunk on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 12:31:40 AM EST

I'd personally love to hear what if anything you figure out for detection of differently compressed duplicate jpegs.
I use crc32 right now, and that gets most of them, but there's a few that slip through. Of course, I just add those sites that are likely to have duplicates to the MySQL db and it gets skipped.

Good to know that I'm not the only one that wrote a perl script to handle the job of fetching pr0n.

[ Parent ]

Suggestion (5.00 / 5) (#114)
by codemonkey_uk on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 05:20:33 AM EST

If you just want to filter out differently compressed JPG, try the following: Desaturate, scale down to 64x64, and compare. That should be enough to eliminate compression artefacts. If desaturating isn't enough try also quantizing the colours to say, 32 levels of grey.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
Duplicate found (4.00 / 2) (#130)
by eriktar on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 09:08:47 AM EST

gqview for linux has a find duplicate function. Lets you set treshold for image "likenes", and different algorithems for deciding if the images are alike. Works on different imagesize, croping filetype etc.

[ Parent ]
Thanks (4.00 / 1) (#141)
by luserSPAZ on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 11:07:39 AM EST

I'll definitely have a look at that and see how they do it.

[ Parent ]
There was a textad (3.50 / 2) (#93)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 01:17:43 AM EST

For something called ImageDupe which was supposed to do this, but it's payware and I have no idea how well it works.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

that's frightening (4.00 / 2) (#137)
by Wolf Keeper on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 10:39:32 AM EST

You know, I've been meaning to do some programming outside of the grunt stuff at work.  You've definitely given me an incentive to dust off the old perl skills and start playing around.  

I know some would say that you've got too much free time, but I am reminded of a saying by Robert Heinlein.  It's something like, "Laziness is the true mother of invention."  If I may say so, that's a truly convenient - and brilliant - invention you've come up with.

The scary part is, according to your web page I work about ten minutes away from you.  Are you certain I can't convince you to burn the thing to CD and sell it to me for $20?  Just kidding.

[ Parent ]

Porn Link Scrapers :) (4.50 / 2) (#173)
by Mike Hunt on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 10:16:09 PM EST

I wrote one of these as part of a project that my flatmate and I were kick-starting.

What it boiled down to is that I scored myself an old HP Netserver LX (the quad PPRO 200 model) with 12 18 gig disks, and we needed something to put on it.  Conveniently, we also happened to have a 2 megabit microwave link to the internet as part of a different project he was working on.

The system I developed (I'm not sure if it was complex enough to be worthy of the name 'system') basically did a 'wget' on the main page of thehun.net and others (inc. picpost.com, and i forget who else) and according to a set of per-site configuratble sed scripts grabbed all the TGP links.

These links were then fed one by one into wget, which downloaded the html.  Any <A HREF...<IMG>.../A> sequence that linked to another image was followed, and the result stored in a directory which was named after the title of the link on the parent site.

I think the whole thing wound up being something like 45 lines of C, 3 or 4 regexps, and a couple of bash scripts which held the whole thing together with strings and mirrors.

The upshot was that we didn't wind up filling up anything like the 198-odd gigs of raid we had before we had a falling out with the guys who were providing us with the 2 megabit microwave link (nothing at all to do with porn, basically they were wasting our, and our company's, time) and had to go back to 56k dialup.  Sure, I _could_ keep the script running and get it to dialup at 3am, but why bother?  Porn's cheap anyhow, and the 'cool hack' value of the thing has more or less worn away to nothing :)
I used to have a .sig, but the government told me it would cause cancer.
[ Parent ]

Problem of waste management (5.00 / 1) (#237)
by sydb on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 11:53:40 AM EST

I can view some 100+Mb of porn a day

So, how do you handle all the semen this must generate? At least, I don't go dry, anyway...
--

Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did - Linus Torvalds
[ Parent ]

It seems (3.66 / 3) (#95)
by auraslip on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 01:58:59 AM EST

to me that as making money on the internet (and the rest of the world) goes following a set path will only get you what everyone else makes.
The real money makers, those are the people that do new and differant things that fill a niche so to speak.
Following the path tread by thousand of other "entreupneaurs"(sp) will get you just what they promised, and not much more. Much like in real life.
Go to college so you can get a job, but don't think it'll make you a millioner
124
like in real life??? (4.00 / 2) (#113)
by toadi on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 04:57:20 AM EST

Selling guns and dope are the biggest trades in the worlds. You can get your first million quite fast doing this. And a lot of people did it before you!!

No college education needed, just find people with good eduction(accountants, lawyers) and have the wits not to get conned by your accountant or lawyer ;)

[ Parent ]
Kind of missing the moral to the story (3.50 / 16) (#100)
by kholmes on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 02:30:29 AM EST

"Instead, I chose to quit. Why? Was it the ethical implications of selling porn, of convincing people to subscribe to pay sites that I had never even seen myself, the possible exploitation of the models? No."

Somehow I was hoping you'd discover the evil in the whole business, but instead fretted on how hard the job was and how much money we could all be making.

Its very disturbing, in the same way that people willingly taking jobs as phone telemarketers is disturbing--the trend that enough money justifies all evils.

If I might be offtopic for a bit, what form of ethics allows one to be comfortable in this?

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.

What evil? (4.00 / 2) (#106)
by Quila on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 03:44:44 AM EST

Somehow I was hoping you'd discover the evil in the whole business,

He already stated certain tactics that are considered immoral, etc., but how is the whole business inherently evil?

[ Parent ]

Porn is of the devil!!!! (3.60 / 5) (#109)
by kholmes on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 04:07:51 AM EST

"He already stated certain tactics that are considered immoral, etc., but how is the whole business inherently evil?"

I meant that phrase in a different way than you interpretted it. I don't know if you remember a previous K5 story about this guy's experience as a professional gambler, and eventually he found the evil in the system--which was his conclusion. That was what I was kind of looking for in this article, but didn't find it.

As far as the title to this post, haha made you look. :)

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]

The big problem with porn (4.00 / 3) (#119)
by Quila on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 06:18:40 AM EST

is that it is generally considered "underground" and not socially respectable; therefore, you usually get the less-than-honorable people running it.

[ Parent ]
That's a perspective (3.20 / 5) (#120)
by kholmes on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 06:48:17 AM EST

"it is generally considered 'underground' and not socially respectable; therefore, you usually get the less-than-honorable people running it."

I suppose that's a valid perspective. Another valid perspective is that the whole "taking pictures of people during sex acts" thing is in itself dishonorable and that's what attracts the the less-than-honorable people who run it as well as the lack of social respectability. The only question is which is the cart and which is the horse. In this case, I take the more conservative perspective since it makes more sense to me. I really don't think our values are all socially constructed.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]

A good example (4.00 / 1) (#181)
by Quila on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 03:19:44 AM EST

Is the Private company. It was founded by the standard sleazeball and later taken over by his alienated banker son, who turned it into a respectable above-the-board business. It's kind of like the Disney of the sex business.

This hang-up about and special placement of sex is one of the strangest things I've seen about our Western culture ("Sex is dirty, so share it only with those you love."). It really seems to concentrate in places dominated by the Abraham-based religions.

The more respectable and above-the-board the sex industry gets, the fewer chances there will ever again be a Linda Lovelace, who was forced to do it at gunpoint.

[ Parent ]

Concession and intrigue (none / 0) (#246)
by kholmes on Sat Nov 02, 2002 at 06:15:31 AM EST

"Is the Private company. It was founded by the standard sleazeball and later taken over by his alienated banker son, who turned it into a respectable above-the-board business. It's kind of like the Disney of the sex business."

I don't respect a business because of its advertising, but rather for what it does.

"This hang-up about and special placement of sex is one of the strangest things I've seen about our Western culture ('Sex is dirty, so share it only with those you love.'). It really seems to concentrate in places dominated by the Abraham-based religions."

I don't see it as strange. Supposedly, having intercourse eventually leads to pregnancy. So it makes sense that, to be ethical, you initiate some sort of permanent bond to raise the child before you have sex.

Now, of course, we have birth control and condoms. But we still have the same problem, since every time you do it, it's like pulling the lever on a slot machine. Eventually you're going to hit jackpot. That's what 99.99% effective means.

In my humble opinion, you just need to have an honor system. That if, by some chance, you impregnate a girl, that you agree to help raise it. So beforehand, you want to make sure you at least like the girl. So already we have outlawed prostitution, in this ethical code.

But what do we actually see? Teen pregnancy and single moms. Is this all fine and dandy to you? Its not only is the temptation so great, but the responsibility is so little.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]

Cos Jesus says so! (2.00 / 5) (#110)
by enterfornone on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 04:08:35 AM EST



--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
The moral of the story (4.40 / 5) (#140)
by anon868 on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 10:44:06 AM EST

Yes, the moral of the story was not about the evil of porn. It was that you really can make money selling porn, but that it's no different than any other self-employed job, hard work & large potential rewards.

Actually, I can't say I find porn particularly evil, but I also wouldn't have a problem doing tech support for Microsoft if they paid me enough money. It's not like I was tricking these people into buying porn, they are the ones looking for it, clicking on the banners and buying the subscriptions. I have no doubt there are some pretty bad things going on in the porn industry, but from what I saw of it, I was pretty impressed. Let me explain... When you bought content, you got a copy of the signed release from the model (often by snail mail!). Copyright issues were very strongly respected, and very strongly dealt with (as I mentioned in the article), similarly child porn was very strongly dealt with, basically anything that was sligtly suspect was immediatley forwarded to the police & all accounts cancelled. People talk about popup hell, but in the sites I was submitting to, they were very strict about that kind of thing (no popups, EVER), same with spyware, dialers, and other evil porn industry things.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]

Thanks (4.00 / 1) (#161)
by kholmes on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 05:20:54 PM EST

"Actually, I can't say I find porn particularly evil, but I also wouldn't have a problem doing tech support for Microsoft if they paid me enough money. It's not like I was tricking these people into buying porn, they are the ones looking for it, clicking on the banners and buying the subscriptions."

There's nothing wrong with tech support. You're right in that you're not being dishonest, but you're certainly exploiting a human weakness. Would we be searching for pornography if none was offered? I don't know.

"Copyright issues were very strongly respected...child porn was very strongly dealt with..."

Do you think these are to prevent punishment (since they are all against the law) or out of good conscience?

Thanks for replying.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]

good concience? (4.00 / 1) (#163)
by anon868 on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 05:56:51 PM EST

"Do you think these are to prevent punishment (since they are all against the law) or out of good conscience?"

I would imagine it's probably mostly to prevent punishment. When I was doing this, the Hun had no problem posting bestiality TGPs (can't check if he's still doing it because I'm at work), because it wasn't illegal where he lives.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]

Yep, still bestiality (4.00 / 1) (#174)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 11:25:14 PM EST

What? I heard it was still there from a friend....

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

er, what? (4.00 / 1) (#149)
by EriKZ on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 01:09:49 PM EST

You know, sometimes you just have to work and earn a living. I was a telemarketer in college because I was sick of the fast food business and how they treated me like garbage.

I was the worst telemarketer the company had.

But according to you I became evil. Well what would you have me do? Live on the street? You prefer people starve instead of earning a living?

So I ask you, what sort of ethics turns common everyday activity (sex) into something evil?

A friend of mine is looking into starting her own porn site. I'm probably going to help her do it, especially if I can make some money out of it.


[ Parent ]

Then (4.00 / 1) (#160)
by kholmes on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 05:06:44 PM EST

"You know, sometimes you just have to work and earn a living."

So you are saying what I postulated as true, that money justifies all evils. For some, it is better to starve.

"But according to you I became evil. Well what would you have me do? Live on the street? You prefer people starve instead of earning a living?"

I don't think any one thing turns someone evil. But if you learned to enjoy telemarketing, then I suppose you are well on your way. And how else can you learn to enjoy telemarketing other than by doing telemarketing? I know some people who have done telemarketing, past and present; this is why I used the example. They aren't evil either.

"So I ask you, what sort of ethics turns common everyday activity (sex) into something evil?"

I somehow doubt you're interested in my form of ethics. But do you really think taking photographs or videos of sex acts is a common everyday activity?

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]

Not everyday (4.00 / 1) (#166)
by hershmire on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 07:45:51 PM EST

But do you really think taking photographs or videos of sex acts is a common everyday activity?

No, it's not; but looking at these pictures is a very common activity for a hell of a lot of people. There's a large demand driving the pornography industry. Humans are sexual beings, and some people get their kicks looking at pictures of naked people. I don't blame them.

Don't take this as an attack on your ethical beliefs. This is just the truth. A lot of people look at porn. And if it's what the people want, and the models are willing and of age, I can't seem to see the "evil" in it. This, of course, excludes child porn, which is evil, in my view, for obvious reasons.

Oh, and telemarketing is not evil, it's just fucking annoying, and profitable (unfortunately).
FIXME: Insert quote about procrastination
[ Parent ]
Looking, perhaps not (4.00 / 1) (#172)
by kholmes on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 09:47:04 PM EST

"No, it's not; but looking at these pictures is a very common activity for a hell of a lot of people."

I think we need to be clear in our thinking and of exactly what I am saying that you are responding to. Lets say that under the topic of pornography there are at least three acts: first is the photographing of sexual acts, second is the selling and distribution of the photographs, and the third is the person at home or some other private place studying the pictures.

While I was talking about the first act and the article is about the second, you are replying as if I had something against the third--which I may or may not, but haven't spoken about yet.

"Don't take this as an attack on your ethical beliefs."

I don't see anything in ethics as beyond question.

"And if it's what the people want, and the models are willing and of age, I can't seem to see the 'evil' in it."

I suppose it is the models who I wonder about the most. What an accomplishment it must be to be featured by a pornographer, to be sold for your most superficial value. And then, what of those who choose this as a career?

"This, of course, excludes child porn, which is evil, in my view, for obvious reasons."

What if I say that any age is an artificial boundary? Eighteen is the legal age of the adult in the U.S. yet what is this age based upon? Many of the troubles you have with children will persist in some of them well into their twenties, while this is not true of others. The evil of pornography will change from girl to girl and no one can sort them, unless you believe that the pornographers really have their model's best interests at heart.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]

That's an interesting point (4.00 / 1) (#175)
by andrewm on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 11:26:09 PM EST

You've got a boss who values you as a human being, and is actually serious when he/she says "our employees are our most valued asset"?

Wow. I didn't realise there actually were companies like that still in existance.

Personally, I've found business owners to have about as much respect for their employees as any pornographer - employees are resources to be used for as little cost as possible, and to be thrown away as soon as they're not providing value for money.

If I relied on my job for my self esteem, I'ld have some serious problems. I'm certainly not valued for anything that I'ld call deep and meaningful.

If you have a boss who actually respects you, then there's probably someone high above him in the management chain who only cares about lowering your wage as much as possible.

Btw, the point to an arbitrary age limit is that by the time you're the age, you're probably mature enough to make your own decisions, and your own mistakes. (ie: an 18 year old is entitled to make any mistakes they want to, but a 17yr old probably needs to grow up a bit.) What's needed is an unbiased effective maturity test, then anyone can apply for their 'I'm an adult now' card as soon as they qualify. Unfortunately, a commonly accepted definition of 'mature' other than 'agrees with me' is extremely unlikely.

[ Parent ]

My employment and my employer (none / 0) (#247)
by kholmes on Sat Nov 02, 2002 at 06:32:01 AM EST

"You've got a boss who values you as a human being, and is actually serious when he/she says 'our employees are our most valued asset'?"

I suppose it is better that you like at least some of what you do and not your boss, than the reverse.

"What's needed is an unbiased effective maturity test, then anyone can apply for their 'I'm an adult now' card as soon as they qualify. Unfortunately, a commonly accepted definition of 'mature' other than 'agrees with me' is extremely unlikely."

Remember that, when you say "unlikely" you're not speaking about probability, since you're not pulling a marble from a bag or anything like that. There isn't an objective likelyhood of something such as that coming about. But we do know that if no one comes forward with an alternative to "agrees with me" then we are certain it will never happen. The best way of predicting the future is to change it, said Alan Kay, I believe.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]

Question (none / 0) (#259)
by ThreadSafe on Mon Nov 04, 2002 at 09:29:12 PM EST

"If I relied on my job for my self esteem, I'ld have some serious problems. I'm certainly not valued for anything that I'ld call deep and meaningful. "

So you rely on the value others place on you for your self esteem?

Make a clone of me. And fucking listen to it! - Faik
[ Parent ]

And I quote: (4.00 / 2) (#176)
by hershmire on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 12:03:45 AM EST

"Lets say that under the topic of pornography there are at least three acts: first is the photographing of sexual acts, second is the selling and distribution of the photographs, and the third is the person at home or some other private place studying the pictures."

Ok, let's say that.

"Somehow I was hoping you'd discover the evil in the whole [pornography] business,..." (from your first comment)

Ok, sounds like a good declarative statement. But what's this coming up...?

"While I was talking about the first act and the article is about the second, you are replying as if I had something against the third--which I may or may not, but haven't spoken about yet."

Seems like you already have spoken about it, and given your opinion. I was replying to all of the ideas you presented on the thread. If you want to make a good argument, you have to stay consistant. Let's move on, shall we?

"I don't see anything in ethics as beyond question."

A good epistimological view. One not shared by most modern philosophers, but a good one nonetheless.

"I suppose it is the models who I wonder about the most. What an accomplishment it must be to be featured by a pornographer, to be sold for your most superficial value. And then, what of those who choose this as a career?"

Wonder all you want. Many models are very proud of their bodies. Hell, if they weren't, then they wouldn't be in the business. This is their job. They recieve money for this. While I agree that it is quite superficial, it does not make the business evil in any sense.

"But what about those who are forced into this type of position due to financial reasons?" you may ask. While this is a pity, it is certainly not the only option any person has, as there are many job prospects for anyone who is willing to work. It is the ultimate choice of the person to be photographed. This, again, does not make the business evil.

"What if I say that any age is an artificial boundary? Eighteen is the legal age of the adult in the U.S. yet what is this age based upon? Many of the troubles you have with children will persist in some of them well into their twenties, while this is not true of others."

When I refer to child porn, I refer to pictures taken of children. Children are traditionally considered by law as unable to make rational decisions. Hence the inability to make a business deal with a minor (one under the age of 18) or the concept of juvenile court systems.

Adults above the ages of 18 will usually have the capacity to make rational decisions. The rare instance where an adult does not have this capacity is usually identified early on, much before he/she is even presented the chance to decide whether or not he/she wants to pose nude.

Even if this event does occur, where a photographer takes pictures of a person who is unable to make rational decisions, then it is the morality of the photographer that comes into question, and not the morality of the business of pornography.

Remember, just because some people decide to kill others with automobiles (i.e. hit and runs), the act of driving an automobile does not become inherently evil.

"The evil of pornography will change from girl to girl and no one can sort them, unless you believe that the pornographers really have their model's best interests at heart."

No one has the model's best interest at heart except the model. These are business deals. The model makes a rational choice to pose nude, in the expectation to recieve money for such services rendered. Just as you recieve your Whopper at Burger King, so does the clerk expect to recieve money for it. Though business is impersonal, it is not evil.

Next, please.
FIXME: Insert quote about procrastination
[ Parent ]
Response (4.00 / 1) (#180)
by kholmes on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 03:10:35 AM EST

"'Somehow I was hoping you'd discover the evil in the whole [pornography] business,...'"

Try reinterpreting this as an honest statement, not one where I presumed there was evil in the pornography, and certainly not the kind of evil we are talking about here. I hope my meaning is now clear.

"Many models are very proud of their bodies."

There we go, two vices: vanity and false pride. I'm sure the former is clear while the latter is because you can't be proud of something you haven't accomplished, and you can't accomplish something you were born to become.

"This is their job. They recieve money for this."

Capitalism is no God and actions should be judged regardless if they can make a living from it, or even a lot of money.

"While I agree that it is quite superficial, it does not make the business evil in any sense."

So far we have two possible vices, which are a type of evil. But I have a problem I can't escape from at this point is that this applies to all models as well as those featuring in pornography and I'd hesitate to say that the two occupations are evil in the same degree. So while I believe I have satisfied the criteria of evil, I haven't done so in a satisfactory way.

"Even if this event does occur, where a photographer takes pictures of a person who is unable to make rational decisions, then it is the morality of the photographer that comes into question, and not the morality of the business of pornography."

This is why I divided the topic of pornography into three parts, since to generalize anything specific in the business to the whole industry would be a fallacy. The acts of the photographer can not be excused because he is not the entirety of the business.

"The model makes a rational choice to pose nude, in the expectation to recieve money for such services rendered."

If it was a rational choice, and only a rational choice, I'd agree with you. But I see a different story. One of a girl, desperate for money; of a pornographer trying to replace an older model who just doesn't cut it anymore; and of a guy, who wants pornography so much he would pay for it. In all cases, we're dealing with natural human weaknesses. And capitalism is no salvation, greed and desperations are also weaknesses. Capitalism itself isn't evil, but only if we put our greed or desperation before our ethical choices. The same can be said of modeling, not to contradict what I said above, that while modelling you have the opportunity to become vain but never is it certain. But it is far easier to become vain if you model.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]

Hrm, I don't know. (4.00 / 1) (#240)
by loucura on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 05:56:05 PM EST

"There we go, two vices: vanity and false pride. I'm sure the former is clear while the latter is because you can't be proud of something you haven't accomplished"

I don't think that of themselves vanity and pride (false or otherwise) are wrong. Certainly if vanity gets to the point where it consumes the person's life it could be said to be wrong, but enjoying your own appearance is not a morally or ethically improper act.

Nor is being proud of something that you've done or that you are. Certainly pride leads to actual social problems, but it cannot be said (without evidence) that pride is a vice of itself.

"You can't accomplish something you were born to become."

If you cannot accomplish something you were born to become, you cannot also demonise it. If someone was born to become a pornographic model, then there is nothing inherently wrong in their becoming one.

"In all cases, we're dealing with natural human weaknesses."

Indulging natural human weaknesses cannot be called evil either, indulging them to excess can, indulging them at the cost of everything around you can, but you cannot blame those who provide the outlet to indulge the weakness for the actions of those who choose to engage in the indulgence.

[ Parent ]

Sure they are (none / 0) (#244)
by kholmes on Sat Nov 02, 2002 at 05:45:28 AM EST

"I don't think that of themselves vanity and pride (false or otherwise) are wrong. Certainly if vanity gets to the point where it consumes the person's life it could be said to be wrong, but enjoying your own appearance is not a morally or ethically improper act."

Consider what I believe to be a straight-forward definition of "vain" in my dictionary:

1. Filled with or showing undue admiration for oneself, one's appearance, etc.; concieted.

In other words, being vain, in this sense, is having too much admiration for one's appearance. While there is a good wholesome amount of admiration, as well as a deficet, too much admiration is a vice as well. Certainly, it sounds like a form of self-destruction.

"Nor is being proud of something that you've done or that you are. Certainly pride leads to actual social problems, but it cannot be said (without evidence) that pride is a vice of itself."

By false pride, I meant taking pride in participating in a craft that one did not participate in. Since the model did not actually construct herself, it isn't proper to take pride in its construction. You may make the argument that by eating the right foods or exercising, she did affect her own development. Notwithstanding that this is not true of all models, this can only make her closer to a potential ideal of beauty that she had no hand in.

"If you cannot accomplish something you were born to become, you cannot also demoni[z]e it. If someone was born to become a pornographic model, then there is nothing inherently wrong in their becoming one."

Unless there is something inherently wrong in certain aspects of pornography itself, which is what I thought we were discussing. Always going back to "pornography isn't evil" does not help your case. If this is common intuition to you and I assure you it is not common intuition for me, then we should find who's intuition is more correct.

"Indulging natural human weaknesses cannot be called evil either, indulging them to excess can, indulging them at the cost of everything around you can, but you cannot blame those who provide the outlet to indulge the weakness for the actions of those who choose to engage in the indulgence."

Why not? Who says I can not? But first, your first point.

The whole point in saying there are human weaknesses is that they are a path towards our internal destruction. Fear, for example, can be a great weakness or it can be a great strength. The weakness we call cowardice, or at the other extreme, brashness. The strength, if we can control fear at the proper amount, is courage.

So lets consider the situation I outlined before. I said I see a desperate girl looking to model for pornography. Lets consider other motivations that are possible: greed, and of course vanity and false-pride, that we already discussed above. I suppose a fair objection would be that I refuse to use the most obvious motivation: money, and I'd rather box up any obvious notions of economy in the motivations of desperation or greed.

To that I would respond that a job shouldn't be merely a means to an end, but also an end in itself. In other words, a good carpenter should work wood just to pay the bills, but also because he likes carpentry. A carpenter who does not like carpentry, must be desperate--since I don't think the job usually pays well enough to do it for the sake of greed. But in the end, this carpenter will end up hating his job, and hating what you do I see as a form of self-destruction.

So it must follow that the good pornography model must also like modelling for pornography, in which the above vices of vanity or false-pride must be present. Otherwise, she is either desparate or greedy, and end up hating her job. Again, I see hating what you do as a form of self-destruction and therefore, evil.

So here's the point, perhaps a little too drawn out, at which I say that desperation is not only a weakness, but one that can not be indulged in too often. Every now and then, sure, to err is human. They certainly can not be said to be good, nor neutral, so the only alternative is evil.

To your second point, can I blame the pornographer for having people model for them? At this time, I can't prove the affirmative. So perhaps being a pornographer isn't a vice. But certainly, being a pornography model is.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]

You don't explain why... (none / 0) (#248)
by loucura on Sat Nov 02, 2002 at 01:27:32 PM EST

Why is feeling vain toward your appearance self-destructive? The mere act of taking pleasure in one's pleasant appearance does not cause one harm. Who are you --or I-- to say that someone's taking pleasure in their appearance is undue them? Further, who are you to say that taking 'undue' pleasure in one's appearance is self-destructive?

"Unless there is something inherently wrong in certain aspects of pornography itself, which is what I thought we were discussing. Always going back to "pornography isn't evil" does not help your case."

Always? I just entered the argument. You have not sufficiently proven that there is something inherently wrong with pornography itself, we cannot go into this argument assuming it. I'm not sure anything can be inherently wrong or right, though. I mean, would the world be significantly worse off if everyone was a pornographic model?

I postulate that it wouldn't be, people would be more open with their sexuality, and pornography would be cheaper, which would kill the necessity for pornography--an outlet for our Victorian morality which demonises sex.

So in a world where everyone was a pornographic model, there would be no pornography, which to me says that there is nothing inherently wrong with being a pornographic model.

Further, you make the assumption that the only pornographic models are female. By that you bias your entire argument. There are male pornographic models, both heterosexual and homosexual, just as there are female.

Further, you assume that a pornographic model who is not desperate for money is vain. Unless you have objective evidence that pornographic models are by nature vain, we cannot assume this. They may just find pleasure in someone else seeing their body. Is this a 'weakness', or a path to self-destruction?

I don't think so, I think that if everyone enjoyed others seeing their body, that people would be healthier, more physically fit, and would be more open with their person.

[ Parent ]

Is vanity evil? (none / 0) (#251)
by kholmes on Sun Nov 03, 2002 at 02:19:32 AM EST

"Why is feeling vain toward your appearance self-destructive? The mere act of taking pleasure in one's pleasant appearance does not cause one harm."

My argument is that it does cause harm to one's self.

So consider this. I think we both can agree that there is a certain amount of admiration of your own appearance, and other traits you possess, that is both proper and good. Here, vanity is admiration well beyond that. A pretty woman in midlife may think of herself as she did in her prime; a pretty girl in her prime may think herself nothing short of a goddess. So if we can assume that the whole in judging something is as good, evil, or not judge-worthy, which of the three can this be?

Furthermore, isn't it so that the vain would expect others to see her as she sees herself? Wouldn't she be oblivious of the error in her expectations? And if a friend, as I'd expect a true friend to do, tries to set her right would she see her friend as a fool? What do you think this does to a friendship?

Do you understand now what I mean by self-destrustion?

"Who are you --or I-- to say that someone's taking pleasure in their appearance is undue them? Further, who are you to say that taking 'undue' pleasure in one's appearance is self-destructive?"

Who must I be to be allowed to inquire about human law?

"I'm not sure anything can be inherently wrong or right, though."

Do you mean you don't conduct your behavior to a system of ethics? If otherwise, what system have you chosen?

"I mean, would the world be significantly worse off if everyone was a pornographic model?"

If you haven't noticed, I'm not a utilitarian. But if I adopted that system, I would say that the world would be better without pornography.

"Further, you make the assumption that the only pornographic models are female. By that you bias your entire argument."

If you have followed my arguments at all, you would know that all my arguments apply equally to men and women. I hope that simply using a female in my examples didn't throw you off.

"Unless you have objective evidence that pornographic models are by nature vain, we cannot assume this. They may just find pleasure in someone else seeing their body."

Doesn't this pleasure come from vanity?

As to objective evidence, I've made one assumption so that it isn't required: that all human beings have a similar nature, and that my subjective experiences are similar, if not the same, as anyone else. I can only know what it means for others to be vain by my own vanity. And vanity is a wretched condition to be in, for any long length of time.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]

Mirror mirror on the wall... (none / 0) (#252)
by loucura on Sun Nov 03, 2002 at 10:07:18 AM EST

" So consider this. I think we both can agree that there is a certain amount of admiration of your own appearance, and other traits you possess, that is both proper and good. [...] Do you understand now what I mean by self-destrustion?"

I have been saying this all along.

"If you haven't noticed, I'm not a utilitarian."

If you aren't a utilitarian, how do you determine ethical actions? Why is utilitarianism so 'bad'?

"But if I adopted that system, I would say that the world would be better without pornography."

I have adopted the system, and feel that in a world where everyone was a pornographer, there wouldn't be pornography. Further, as a utilitarian, I don't feel we should try to morally legislate actions which have no harmful nature of themselves.

"[...] Doesn't this pleasure come from vanity?"

Exhibitionism doesn't have anything to do with vanity usually. If it does, it is usually vicarious, as the exhibitionist is getting pleasure from the pleasure of the voyeur, or at least in my experience.

Let us play a game, I'm going to make two assumptions, feel free to correct them if they are incorrect, I doubt that they are, even in your moral worldview, from this, I am going to construct an argument synonymous with what you're telling me.

P1: Photography is not a morally wrong act.
P2: Sex is not a morally wrong act.
 .: Therefore photographing sex is a wrong act?

You see the logical inconsistency with this? Unless you believe photography is morally wrong--a strange thing to believe in my humble opinion--or you believe that sex is--also strange but has precedent--you should not be able, logically, to come to the conclusion that pornography is wrong.

[ Parent ]

I suppose (none / 0) (#255)
by kholmes on Sun Nov 03, 2002 at 08:43:56 PM EST

"If you aren't a utilitarian, how do you determine ethical actions?"

See virtue theory.

"Why is utilitarianism so 'bad'?"

The single quotes have saved you from a tautology. Utilitarianism seems to have the following problems:

1. Consequentialism. If, having weighed all the possible options, I look to do a certain ethical right act, that there may be unforseen consequences to what I did. In other words, I commit evil for trying to do good.

2. As I've come to understand it, utilitarianism tries to do the most good and the least harm. Yet I find these notions of "good" and "harm" undefined and ambiguous. I suppose this is part of the problem we're having in this discussion, deciding whether or not pornography is causing harm for the model. Utilitarianism tries to take an objective stance on ethics, which is probably why you have asked me for objective evidence. Yet there can't be an objective standard for good and harm, since these values are based upon personal values, character, and a sense of human dignity--also an ambiguous concept.

"Exhibitionism doesn't have anything to do with vanity usually. If it does, it is usually vicarious, as the exhibitionist is getting pleasure from the pleasure of the voyeur, or at least in my experience."

You're probably right in this. So let me adapt the statement such that the evil of modelling for pornography depends on the person. In other words, you're right and I'm wrong :)

"P1: Photography is not a morally wrong act.
P2: Sex is not a morally wrong act.
.: Therefore photographing sex is a wrong act?"

I don't believe this is the form of a syllogism. My concern was for the public exhibition of sex.

I hope you haven't seen this as a waste of time. While it has been proved that modelling for pornography isn't inherently evil, I think it would be easy for me to convince you that not every pornography model is a natural exibitionist. Thus, there is still grave problems in the business. Can models learn to be exibitionists? I don't know because of my shy nature.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]

No waste of my time... (none / 0) (#256)
by loucura on Mon Nov 04, 2002 at 12:14:21 AM EST

"See virtue theory."

I'll look into that, I don't like Plato and Socrates much, though, because they like to make deductive arguments out of things that should (rightly) be inductive arguments. I'm more an Epicurean though.

"You're probably right in this. So let me adapt the statement such that the evil of modelling for pornography depends on the person."

Which I feel was the form I was trying to make. So we were both right. Yay, relativism.

"I hope you haven't seen this as a waste of time. While it has been proved that modelling for pornography isn't inherently evil, I think it would be easy for me to convince you that not every pornography model is a natural exibitionist. Thus, there is still grave problems in the business."

Oh, this has definitely not been a waste of my time, I hope the same for you, that arguing with me hasn't been like arguing with a brick wall. Yes, there are several problems with the business,  coersion, (which Paley might argue is in every business, so all businesses are equally problematic).

"Can models learn to be exibitionists? I don't know because of my shy nature."
 [lecherous pornographer voice] Oh, but you'd be a natural...[/voice]

[ Parent ]

rational? (none / 0) (#260)
by ThreadSafe on Mon Nov 04, 2002 at 09:37:05 PM EST

"If it was a rational choice, and only a rational choice, I'd agree with you. But I see a different story. One of a girl, desperate for money; of a pornographer trying to replace an older model who just doesn't cut it anymore; and"

You don't really explain why this is not a rational choice. And what does capitilism have to do with it, it is a free wxchange of goods is it not?


Make a clone of me. And fucking listen to it! - Faik
[ Parent ]

Don't use philosophy terms you don't understand. (3.00 / 1) (#242)
by haflinger on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 11:07:47 PM EST

Well, first off, the word's epistemological.
I don't see anything in ethics as beyond question.
A good epistimological view. One not shared by most modern philosophers, but a good one nonetheless.
It's not an epistemological view at all. It has nothing to do with the theory of knowledge. Read this if you want to know a bit more about epistemology.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
My position (none / 0) (#261)
by hershmire on Tue Nov 05, 2002 at 02:35:07 PM EST

The way I understand it, there are two camps in the philosophical world in relation to truth (and knowledge): epistemology and metaphysics.

Metaphysics is the idea that there are certain inalienable truths (i.e. the earth is a sphere, and the Rocky Mountains exist, etc). These things do not become true because someone believes them, and likewise do not become untrue when someone does not believe them.

Epistemology, on the other hand, suggests that we all can be mistaken. Not just about the Rocky Mountains or the shape of the Earth, but also the very existance of our world. Are you really reading this comment, or are you just dreaming it? Are we just a brain that is being manipulated by some mad scientist and our body doesn't exist? Think of "The Matrix".

The same thinking can be applied to ethics. One can believe there are inalienable ethical rules that exist in the universe, such as the respect for life. On the other hand, one can also take an epistemological view in that everything in ethics can be questioned, as the author of the previous comment stated.

I do not claim to be a philosopher. If you think I am wrong, please explain why, and I will take your point into consideration (call it "self-edification"), instead of throwing texts at me and saying I'm wrong.

And on another note, don't attack a person's spelling to counter his/her argument. Epistemological isn't a very common word, and is easy to slip in typing.

FIXME: Insert quote about procrastination
[ Parent ]
it is said... (1.50 / 16) (#101)
by johwsun on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 02:35:00 AM EST

..that all sins are against others, but porn is the only sin that is against yourself....

anyway...what else can I say about porn? I think I cant say anything else...

Well, that's a stupid saying. (3.40 / 5) (#128)
by derek3000 on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 08:35:28 AM EST

I can think of a better example in Pride. You don't necessarily have to let someone know that you think you are better than them, you can just think it. And you are only hurting yourself. What do you think about that, mister?

-----------
Not too political, nothing too clever!--Liars
[ Parent ]

well.... (4.00 / 1) (#178)
by johwsun on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 02:35:58 AM EST

I dont think I am better than you, my brother. I think we are equals.

Soul is the only thing that matters, and the only think that remains.  You have soul, and I have also. And souls are equals, thats why we are equals.

Unless you lose it, or I lose it.

[ Parent ]

So if all souls are equal... (4.00 / 1) (#184)
by synaesthesia on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 08:54:38 AM EST

...will I be joining you in Heaven, or will I be joining you in Hell?

Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
simple question.. (3.00 / 1) (#189)
by johwsun on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 12:38:37 PM EST

If my soul is good and yours is good too, we will join in Heaven.
If my soul is bad, and yours is good, we will not join.
If my soul is good and yours is bad, we will not join again.
If my soul is bad, and yours in bad too we will both go in Hell, but we will not join again.

what else?

Souls are of course equals, and every human has soul, but this does not mean that a soul cannot be lost. And if you keep following porn, this leads to the lost of your soul (and of your freedom). So if you cannot stop following porn at least try to reduce it. You will not regret it!

Porn is actually an initial value of your(my) mind, after your(my) fall from Heavens, and this is a task for you(me), to destroy all the initial values of your(my) mind, in order for your(my) mind to become a free mind, and your(my) soul to become a free soul. And free souls (votes) go in Heavens.

If you have any other question in that , ask me. I will try to answer, if I think I know the answer.

[ Parent ]

It doesn't seem simple to me (3.00 / 1) (#192)
by synaesthesia on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 01:27:26 PM EST

If your soul is good, and my soul is bad, our souls are not equal! There is no way in heaven for regaining lost souls.

Death is also the loss of soul because there is no soul without vote. Therefore our souls are equal only upon death because our bodies are no longer different in any important way.

What I consider the soul is not substantially different from the animus of an animal and therefore the porn orgasm is irrelevant.


Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

This conversation... (5.00 / 1) (#232)
by derek3000 on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 09:36:57 AM EST

is so interesting, especially since they had a James Brown tribute last night at the 700 club. I danced my ass off and thought about what had been discussed here; I've come to the conclusion that Mr. Brown out-souls all of us. Thanks.

-----------
Not too political, nothing too clever!--Liars
[ Parent ]

alive souls(votes) are good souls(votes)... (none / 0) (#257)
by johwsun on Mon Nov 04, 2002 at 01:49:18 AM EST

as long as you are alive, your soul(vote) is good.
If your soul(vote) is a dead soul(vote), then it is a bad soul(vote).
A dead vote(soul) is not of course equal to an alive vote(soul).

So think about yourself, what kind of soul(vote) you have?

[ Parent ]

interesting to learn (1.77 / 9) (#115)
by mami on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 05:24:11 AM EST

that geek pimps have to work hard to become dysfunctional.

had to change my mouse to left handed... (1.64 / 14) (#116)
by obyteme on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 05:37:17 AM EST

cause the right hand is busy!

---------------------------------------:-p
To err is human, or I could be wrong.
If you can't poke fun at it, get a sharper wit.


poor souls (3.50 / 2) (#131)
by dirtmerchant on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 09:58:32 AM EST

poor non-ambidextrous people. i really do pity you. but then, i have put years of practice and study into the matter.
-- "The universe not only may be queerer than we think, but queerer than we can think" - JBS Haldane
[ Parent ]
WHY CAN'T YOU JUST WANK WITH YOUR LEFT HAND? (3.00 / 2) (#203)
by it certainly is on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 04:11:11 PM EST

Just asking. The Subject Line Guy wants to know.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Actually an encouraging picture... (4.66 / 3) (#133)
by rkent on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 10:03:57 AM EST

I actually found this story to be *encouraging* about the prospects of making money as a porn-pusher. Sure, it's "hard work," but let's look at the details:
  1. it cost you all of $140 for the "training" necessary to break into the biz, and
  2. you had to go "over a month" without seeing any return on your investment.
Now, I know if you're otherwise jobless, that could hurt, but it's a DAZZLING rate of return as businesses go. Thing about starting a restaurant, where you almost certainly won't profit for at least 3 years, and then very little. This is WAY better! Basically you give up 2 months of nights and weekends to learn the ropes, and then you start breaking even and can pay off the expenses incurred over the first couple of months.

Also, a real entrepreneur would seriously consider hiring a $20-per-hour lackey to do the repetitive manual submission to the various lists. Of course this cuts into your profits, but it virtually eliminates your time obligation and enables you to pursue other opportunities while you're still making (admittedly just a little) money.

No (4.75 / 4) (#156)
by autopr0n on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 03:36:20 PM EST

Also, a real entrepreneur would seriously consider hiring a $20-per-hour lackey to do the repetitive manual submission to the various lists.

A real entrepreneur would higher a $20/hr lacky to write him code to submit the galeries, and then never do a day of work in their lives again : P


[autopr0n] got pr0n?
autopr0n.com is a categorically searchable database of porn links, updated every day (or so). no popups!
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't (2.50 / 4) (#135)
by karjala on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 10:12:30 AM EST

I would get paid to look at corn. But porn? No, thanks...

Click Through (4.00 / 2) (#136)
by craigtubby on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 10:26:55 AM EST

So am I right in thinking that only 1 out of 200,000 page impressions will result in you making a sale.

A sales site that I help look after (not porn related at all) converts maybe 1 out of every 30 unique hosts into a sale - Just out of curiosity what purchase rate do other people get?

try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die.

* Webpage *

Yup (4.00 / 2) (#148)
by anon868 on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 12:52:46 PM EST

But I remember the day I had three sales, I had over 1/2 million page impressions.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
Heh. (3.00 / 1) (#154)
by autopr0n on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 03:23:56 PM EST

At AP I've managed to make back about $1 for every thousand visitors, with just a little text ad mostly.

I'm not sure what you were selling, but no one pays for porn when they can get it all for free.


[autopr0n] got pr0n?
autopr0n.com is a categorically searchable database of porn links, updated every day (or so). no popups!
[ Parent ]
Nice Piece. (3.75 / 4) (#139)
by a2800276 on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 10:43:53 AM EST

All the obvious joking about getting paid to wank off, having a go with the models, getting rich etc. etc. aside, this was really an excellent story. One of the best I've read here in a long time. Nicely written, grabs your attention, keeps you interested. A topic that most people (well most guys anyway) have probably wondered about to some extend and about which very few insightful articles exist. Too bad this kind of thing isn't of much use on your CV if you're still out looking for a job. Good Luck with that and keep up the good writing.

Thanks. (n/t) (none / 0) (#145)
by anon868 on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 12:30:57 PM EST

Nothing to see here, move along.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
Usenet, people! (4.85 / 7) (#143)
by JohnnyBolla on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 12:15:41 PM EST

Anyone who pays for porn is either in a hurry or not very knowledgable in the ways of the net. With a news robot you can get as much porn as you want, free, everyday.

well yeah... (4.00 / 1) (#162)
by xbradx on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 05:31:09 PM EST

A sucker is born every minute. Just because paying for porn is not the best way to do it does not mean nobody will :).

[ Parent ]
Or... (4.00 / 1) (#164)
by faustus on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 06:49:43 PM EST

...you can lurk in the basement of IRC to get any password for free.

[ Parent ]
Heh. um... (3.00 / 1) (#177)
by gromm on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 12:46:41 AM EST

Alt.binaries.* is on the brink of collapse my friend. It's worth noting that only the very largest ISP's can carry the binaries newsgroups well enough that you can download an entire mp3, let alone an entire 57 M mpg. To do so takes shitloads of money. And time. And irritation on the part of the sysadmin tasked to do it. And you know what? Only about 5-10% of the people on the internet today even know what usenet is. Probably much, much less than this, given what experience I have. I work as a sysadmin for an ISP. Since it's a small ISP, I also do tech support and set people up on the net. I have had roughly three (yes, three! maybe four, but I think that's a stretch) people ask me for our news server address. A couple of our ADSL customers cancelled their accounts with us because of our extraordinarily poor support of usenet, and we get said access from our T1 provider, which isn't at all small. I called them up about this after said ADSL customer went away (I had long since noticed this, and wanted to bring it to their attention myself), and they basically told me about how it would cost them roughly $100,000 to keep up with the binaries groups, and about $100,000 more to provide that level of service for more than a month before it started to degrade again. And the binaries posted are only getting larger. You have exactly two options when it comes to usenet: you either get an account with $evilmonopoly, or you buy usenet access from someone. And pretty soon, you'll have only one, especially if $evilmonopoly dies a nasty death because of a combination of the above and trying to become $evilmonopoly++ by selling broadband below cost.
Deus ex frigerifero
[ Parent ]
knowledgeable in the ways of the net (2.00 / 1) (#185)
by tofucigarettes on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 08:56:29 AM EST

Seems to me that 99% of the people who use computers to "surf the net" have no idea what they are doing. They have no ideas about the reasons they are seeing the pages, nor do they understand that internet explorer is _not_ the internet.

People frequently say that they are dialing-up to Netscape. These are the people that think the internet is magic inside the web browser window and nowhere else.

These are people, the sheepish majority, that may never find out that there is anything else, like irc or usenet, and may never grasp the concept of clients and servers.

There is money to be made.



[ Parent ]
Don't mock them (4.00 / 1) (#186)
by stud9920 on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 10:41:37 AM EST

They are getting sex on a regular basis.

You and I know that when a web page is requested, the user agent makes a tcp connection to port 80 of the web server and sends a GET /path/page.

Which position (no pun intended) are you rather in ?

Linux Zealot fan fiction. Post yours !
[ Parent ]

Mockery (3.50 / 2) (#198)
by luserSPAZ on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 02:41:03 PM EST

Plenty of us are getting sex on a regular basis AND know the inner workings of our internet connection, from HTTP on down.

You assume too much.

[ Parent ]

USED to be.... (3.00 / 1) (#195)
by General Lee on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 01:58:46 PM EST

I don't even know any ISPs that have free alt.binaries news groups anymore.

[ Parent ]
Any UUNET subsiduaries (5.00 / 1) (#196)
by it certainly is on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 02:13:48 PM EST

like Pipex in the UK. And no, they're not bankrupt yet.

The problem I have with a.b.p porn is that there's just too much of it download on my 512kbs downstream ADSL. If I wanted all the articles on my favourite 20 picture groups, I'd spend 20 hours a day downloading them.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

No problem (4.00 / 1) (#238)
by sydb on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 11:59:40 AM EST

If I wanted all the articles on my favourite 20 picture groups, I'd spend 20 hours a day downloading them.

Last time I looked there were 24 hours in each day. Where's your issue?
--

Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did - Linus Torvalds
[ Parent ]

I spend 10 hours a day downloading warez, (4.50 / 2) (#239)
by it certainly is on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 01:33:37 PM EST

that's the problem.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Business suggestion (4.33 / 3) (#144)
by ebatsky on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 12:29:13 PM EST

Seeing as you have a lot of information and are able to put into a nice, readable form, why don't you create a new website, www.superioradultwebmasterschool.com which will charge $100 instead of $140 for access and become rich that way?

AHAHAHAHAHA (4.42 / 7) (#153)
by autopr0n on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 03:16:57 PM EST

If you thought you were selling porn, you were sadly mistaken. What you were selling was traffic. From TGPs to pay porn sites (or other services), woven though an army of TG monkies.

I can't belive you spent $140 to learn that stuff. I set up two or three TGs back in highschool (with stolen images I guess) on XOOM once and got over 20k hits. When I only got one conversion, I realized it was a waste of time.

(This was after I ripped off Xpics for about $3600 by setting up my computer to log off the 'net and back on, getting a new IP each time and 'clicking' a bunch of ads. It didn't violate their TOS so what the hell :P)

Anyway, that process should have been obvious to anyone who ever surfs for porn. For $150 you could have hired a hooker, taken pictures of her, and sold them to some pay sites or TGP monkies or something.

No. Once I had got my pattern down, it was taking me about 3-4 hours a night (every night) to get the content, create the pages, upload them, and submit them. And there was no such thing as weekends off, on weekends, I'd have to spend 8-9 hours looking for fresh content in addition to building pages. All of this was on top of a full time job- I'm a laid off dot-commer. It turns out, there's practically no limit to the amount of money you can make, but it's really hard work. Let me repeat that. It's really hard work.

See, TGP monkey. This a job for a computer, not a person.


[autopr0n] got pr0n?
autopr0n.com is a categorically searchable database of porn links, updated every day (or so). no popups!
You're an ass. (none / 0) (#262)
by Moosechees on Tue Nov 05, 2002 at 06:23:09 PM EST

But you're probably right, and if you are the owner of autopron.com, you rule.  The only reason I haven't been there in... quite a while is that it was unbelievably slow.  Has it got any faster?

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for the free porn.

[ Parent ]

What a load of crap (2.50 / 2) (#159)
by dirvish on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 04:54:00 PM EST

The real way to do it is to have the crappiest site possible. Just throw up a couple really lame pics.

The keys are to carefully select your banner ads and to somehow drive massive amounts of traffic to the site.

The shittier the site is, the more likely it is that visitors will click on the banner ads. You don't want them to stay on your site!

If you are worried about repeat visitors you can change up your lame pics every day (it easy to create a script to do this for you).

Technical Certification Blog, Anti Spam Blog
Interesting links... (4.50 / 2) (#165)
by faustus on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 06:54:39 PM EST

...in the realm of porn.

God forbid you have to work hard. (3.50 / 4) (#168)
by tacomacide on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 08:34:55 PM EST

I've "dabbled" in internet porn previously. I wrote widely used TGP and CJ scripts, and ran a TGP that was getting appx. 50k unique hits a day with a conversion ratio (one sponsor) of 1:500 at $5/pop. The internet porn industry is very saturated, so how could I get those kind of numbers? It's called niche porn. Target your audience and they will target their money. But I doubt they tought you this at porn school. Of course, providing tips and tricks to adult webmasters is as much of a niche as ebony anal. You're a consumer.

God forbid you actually have to work hard for the money you bring in. Heaven forbid you have to sit on your ass, surf the net, and look at porn 8 hours a day. After all, what would mommy think?

She would think "Wow, my son is making 6 figures. Nice BMW, son, and thanks for the daimond earrings."

*** ANONYMIZED ***

Gee (4.50 / 4) (#171)
by anon868 on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 09:46:11 PM EST

I'm sorry for wanting to enjoy my life, for not wanting to work 11 hour days (work+porn), and I am sooo sorry for not wanting to work hard- clearly this has offended you. And no, I don't have to buy my mommy's love, with my family, it's OK that I only make five figures.

Niche porn? I've heard of it. As a matter of fact, that's mostly what I was selling. And yes, they did tell us about that at porn school. Oh, and I'm a consumer? Of course I am, so are you. Who the hell cares? So I spent $140 and made $1000, has that hurt you personally in some way I am not aware of?


Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]

You're a failure. (none / 0) (#263)
by tacomacide on Wed Nov 06, 2002 at 01:51:20 AM EST

Oh, you had a niche? Which niche? Sounds to me like you were stealing any unbranded content you could find, probably breaking a few database protection and copyright laws in the process. When you run galleries and tgp lists, you aren't selling anything but traffic to your bosses, who are most likely 20 year old kids who had the sense not to get suckered into the Adult Webmaster club, and decided to exploit the suckers who did for massive profits.

Are you saying that your mother and the rest of your family wouldn't love you if you ran a link list? Is your family really that fucked up? My mother loves me because I am her son. It brings me joy to be able to give my mother nice things and show her that I'm appreciative of all she's done for me.

I know it's your right to give whatever advice you want, but in my mind, you having only made $1k off of porn qualifies you to say nothing but "I failed."

Nothing about your article offended me. I do, however, think that it would have been better posted as a diary entry. This is not article quality.

*** ANONYMIZED ***
[ Parent ]

Bite me. (none / 0) (#265)
by anon868 on Thu Nov 07, 2002 at 04:20:13 PM EST

That is all.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
skip the middle man (3.00 / 1) (#170)
by bofn101 on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 08:54:13 PM EST

What is keeping someone from putting up his/her own site with quality content leeched from other sites ?
putting in a credit card members area.
and become an 'independant' porn site making money of the monkeys, with out putting much efford into maintainting the garbage bin.

Or will the cyber maffia knock on your gateway telling you they will strangle your T3 and kill all your family laptops !?

//bofn

Do it yourself (4.00 / 1) (#227)
by pacc on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 03:24:08 AM EST

So you don't want to be used, well instead you would have to confront the business of using and abusing people to get the pictures in the first place...

[ Parent ]
No one in the biz leeches... (none / 0) (#258)
by vraptor on Mon Nov 04, 2002 at 02:53:49 PM EST

because strangely it's a business about trust.  The feds *hate* the porn business.  In the face of that, they all stick together, otherwise it'd be a domino effect.

Everyone in the chain is responsible for everyone else's adherence to federal law concerning the models.  For example, the author of the article, had to keep copies of all the model releases on file for all the content that he *bought*, even though he did not produce the content.  If he were auditted by the feds, and did not have this paperwork, he would be in violation of the law--and not having paperwork is a defenseless position.  

Example: A husband & wife team in Texas ran an adult web site, and did not collect all the required paperwork (they did not produce content).  They were found guilty of >200 counts, each of which had a mandatory sentence of 2 years.  Do the math--they are not going to be released anytime soon.  This story came from their lawyer who spoke at an adult  entertainment conference.

There are a number of web sites devoted to legal information about the adult entertainment business--go google if you want to read the real scoop.

I suggest that those of you who think that the models are exploited, attend an adult entertainment convention and *ask* them.  A lot of the models are now running their own content production companies.  It's a lucrative business, and those of you who think that an old fat guy with a cigar is the only one cashing in are falling for a stereotype.

=Velociraptor=

[ Parent ]

Thank you! (none / 0) (#264)
by anon868 on Thu Nov 07, 2002 at 04:19:15 PM EST

I'm glad to see someone else gets it. This is what I have been trying to get across. Despite what many people would think, trust and respect are very important in the buisness.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
I Make Porn Sites and make alot of $$$ (3.00 / 6) (#183)
by BBoyStance on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 07:50:33 AM EST

Hey everyone.. this thread was pointed out to me by a friend so id thought id input in to the conversation since i'm in the industry and im doing very well for myself.

Firstly, id just like to say that TGP traffic IS the worse possible traffic that you can every have for an adult site. All the surfers that go to TGP sites are all there looking for FREE porn and it is very unlikely that they would pay for it. Same with all the people that get porn from newsgroup. They all know about free porn and are very unlikely to buy a membership.

Theres no point in sending 10 millions unique hits to a site when none of them want to buy porn or even want the porn that is displayed on your site.

The way to actually make more money from adult sites is to get traffic that is more likely to convert. Some of my best sites convert at 1:60. The only problem is getting that converting traffic and this is what sets good adult webmasters a part from others.

You'll also need content that will convert people. No one wants to see the same old pics that have been posted everywhere all over the net for free. Take this site for example M.I.L.F Search. It converts very well.

Once you understand the market that you are selling your porduct to, you then will start making money.

Some people that I use to work for now drive around in BMW M3s all day and live in VERY nice penthouse suits. I know the potential of the market and there is no way that im gonna stop.



Obvious zombie marking, new user. (3.00 / 3) (#190)
by General Lee on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 12:50:26 PM EST

What I want to know is how much you get paid to spew your horseshit in forums like this? Web porn is nothing more than the Amway of the 21st century.

[ Parent ]
Then again (4.00 / 1) (#194)
by Tatarigami on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 01:58:24 PM EST

Maybe there's a simpler answer, like he's a long-established user who wanted to contribute to a discussion, but didn't want to become known as one of the 'porn guys'?

[ Parent ]
nah it works, or it used to. (4.50 / 2) (#213)
by majik on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 06:46:24 PM EST

I did it for well over 2 years while I was in school. I was making avg 1.5K net / month for a long time. This was a part time side thing I worked on maybe 3-4 hrs a week once it was all set up. I know it sounds like one of those work from home things. Not everyone can do it like that. I had alot of things on my side. I got co-lo for free, and cheap bandwidth (friend own's local ISP). I did my own sys admin and site maintenance. So costs were low.

I started doing it w/ a friend, and then we split it. Both of us came to the conclusion that its really a function of how much time you put into it. If I worked more, I had a 2 or 3K month. When it died, I was still pulling in a few hundred each month for probably 4 or 5 months.

Why did I quit? Well... I went to Japan for a year, so I was focusing on other things. And there's the ew factor. The gf at the time had trouble with it. The 'rents were initially not happy, but I convinced them it was ok. Really though, most people would think its not ok. If I lost my job, I'd do it again. I'd imagine its much harder now, but I'm sure I could pick it back up. (this all started maybe around '98).
Funky fried chickens - they're what's for dinner
[ Parent ]

Legal Age (4.00 / 1) (#236)
by screwdriver on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 11:47:11 AM EST

You said in your post that you did this when you were in school.  Was it high school?  Where you of legal age when you were doing this?  I once got a bartending gig and had to leave because the owner got complains that I was too young to work there (I was 21, but looked younger).  We never got in trouble (I just had to produce my id to the inspectors) but it happened so often that I had to stop working there.

Or perhaps nobody ever found out about you.

[ Parent ]

hehe no then my parents would really be on my case (none / 0) (#243)
by majik on Sat Nov 02, 2002 at 02:43:32 AM EST

i was in college
Funky fried chickens - they're what's for dinner
[ Parent ]
Nah im serious (2.00 / 1) (#230)
by BBoyStance on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 04:20:10 AM EST

nah man i don't get paid any horseshit for spewing. ?!?! hehehehe internet porn probally is the Amway of the 21st century. I make the majority of my money from acutally designing stuff and selling it.

[ Parent ]
why this story sucks goats (2.80 / 10) (#191)
by turmeric on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 12:51:10 PM EST

i am not against sexuality, i am not against pictures of people having sex, i am not against love and kindness and eroticism and spirituality and marriage and good male-female relations.

however, i am disturbed by this story as well as the comments. the story and the comments are completely focused on tgp and porn galleries. not only do they fail to address any sort of issues involving the first amendment, hypocrisy, etc etc etc, they even go so far as to say 'who gives a shit'. even the most basic consideration, the most basic 'question asking', the foundation of logic, science, and philosophy themselves, the ability and right and respect for the asking of questions, for the analysis and the 'digging deep' into a subject, they have all be trashed and treated badly by this story and by the comments here.

it is like any boss in a factory, there are those who could care less about their workers toiling on the line: in this case the workers are women. or better it is like someone trading chinese goods in a western port: they could care less where the goods come from or how they were made? or best: it is like lenin, who when was challenged on his orders to slaughter thousands of people, was not only dismissive, but acted 'puzzled', as in 'why would you give a crap about death? what is the matter with you'?

and here i sse the same attitude displayed towards the people who do the work: the porn models.

not only do they get crapped on by society for being 'dirty' and 'low', they also get crapped on by not being payed in any relation to the revenue they generate. 'the hun' boss is nothing more than andrew carnegie or so forth, reaping huge profits by exploiting labor.

furthermore there is a big issue in the industry about age, and consent, and so forth. drugged out people in porn movies are not consenting, and in fact are being assaulted. it is no different than extras on a movie being hurt unwittingly. this issue is important and if you go into the business without givign a crap then guess whose side you are supporting? the evil one. a drug addict whose dealer/whoever makes her pay back by doing porn, that is not consent either, and taking part in that 'transaction' is not some innocent consumerist act. . . but in reality arent we are all connected to each other. . .

. perhaps industrialization and automation can fool our senses andour instincts to make us feel separate but arent we really just like we were there in real life?



Right. (4.75 / 4) (#193)
by Perianwyr on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 01:31:26 PM EST

As much as it's good to look at the "deeper issues" (sadly, one of those deeper issues is how you're letting your entire argument get driven by stereotypes and outliers) let's stick to the topic, Truth Warrior. The topic *is* porn sites and TGPs, and the business of such. If you have a concern about drugged models, labor relations, and the State Of The World As We Know It, the queue is waiting.

[ Parent ]
i disagree (2.00 / 2) (#199)
by turmeric on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 03:08:59 PM EST

the choice of topic, and the harshness of 'sticking to that topic', is actually a form of tyranny

[ Parent ]
Wouldn't Godwin's law just occur repeatedly? (3.50 / 2) (#208)
by Dephex Twin on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 04:43:45 PM EST

If we always had to discuss the underlying issues surrounding the topic being discussed, wouldn't that inevidably mean a debate on morals, freedom of speech, poverty, addiction, etc.?

I mean, let's say I talk about the sandwich I had at lunch.  It was made by an Italian immigrant lady, and the bread, cheese, and meat were probably processed in a factory where labor may or may not have been mistreated... but they also were in a building and wearing clothes and using machinery and I'm sure somewhere in there there was some sweatshop labor in asia.  Not to mention the way the animals might have been treated in general which probably means the meat and cheese is inherently a bad thing.

Sometimes you just have to focus or you can't talk about anything.

I wouldn't call it tyranny unless your comment was deleted.

If people wanted to discuss the underlying moral problems with porn, they would have/will.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

which people (1.00 / 2) (#209)
by turmeric on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 06:11:43 PM EST

i must ask which people. fill the room with a random sampling of people and most of them will want to discuss other aspects of the issue, esp the porn models and/or feminists and/or first amendment lawyers and/or etc etc etc. however our 'random sampling' on k5 has just about 1 perspective: techie 'wow' ism

[ Parent ]
These people, of course. (5.00 / 2) (#222)
by Dephex Twin on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 01:10:33 AM EST

I'm not sure what you are expecting here.

Yes, you could find a sampling of people that would want to specifically talk about these other issues you are interested in.  The K5 people don't happen to want to discuss this.  But you come to K5 for the K5 crowd... there are plenty of other places to go for more perspective.

And maybe at another time these people on K5 would want to talk more about those other things, but there is no obligation to do so just because they are more "important".

If the people here want to talk about the wrongs of porn, sooner or later it'll come up.  I don't see a lot of reason to be disgusted with them if they don't right now.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

Reply (4.75 / 4) (#214)
by anon868 on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 06:53:50 PM EST

I chose to write an article on something I have known about. I had to leave quite a bit of stuff out. I could have gone into the philosophical issues of it, into the abuse that undoubtedly goes on in the industry, but the story was nearly too long as it is. I welcome and invite anyone to write a story on that, I would probably vote for it, that kind of stuff concerns me too.

Admittedly, I have had a fairly small exposure to the porn biz, but from what I saw, it was run very ethically. Likley that just had to do with the people I associated with. I got signed copies of the model releases when I bought the content. I didn't buy any pictures of models obviously in distress. I let it sit there, should I have flown to the cities the pictures were taken in and checked with the models themselves, and asked them personally if they were OK with the pictures being taken? If that's the case, do you know where all the parts in your computer were made? I bet some were made in sweatshops in mylasia, where the workers are beaten and paid pennies a day. How about your shoes, are they Nikes? Is that fair trade coffee you're drinking? Designer label clothes from a sweatshop?

innocent consumerist act. .? Sorry, no such thing.

Listen, I work in IT, and I can tell you a thing or two about being exploited, about being a commodity to just be disposed of when they're done with me. I do it in exchange for money, plain and simple.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]

Mylasia (none / 0) (#218)
by fook on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 08:48:59 PM EST

Where?

[ Parent ]
er (none / 0) (#219)
by anon868 on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 08:55:39 PM EST

Damn. K5 must have messed up the spelling again. I blame Jim. Malaysia
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
sorta like the factory tours given by nuke plants (1.00 / 2) (#223)
by turmeric on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 01:19:23 AM EST

" I have had a fairly small exposure to the porn biz, but from what I saw, it was run very ethically"

yeah sure. all our workers are happy. 'i just love to suck cock'. nothing to see here, move along, move along.

[ Parent ]

Wait (4.00 / 1) (#235)
by anon868 on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 11:02:51 AM EST

Didn't you read this diary?
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
commodity revolt (1.00 / 2) (#225)
by turmeric on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 01:34:43 AM EST

then why not unionize with the strippers and overthrow the government.

[ Parent ]
Cite for Lenin statement (3.00 / 2) (#220)
by Cantara on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 08:55:46 PM EST

I'm a little shallow on my Russian history and I'd love to read more about "it is like lenin, who when was challenged on his orders to slaughter thousands of people, was not only dismissive, but acted 'puzzled', as in 'why would you give a crap about death?"
I'm not being sarcastic, I'm honestly curious.
Thanks

[ Parent ]
ok actually i dont have one (1.00 / 2) (#224)
by turmeric on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 01:33:12 AM EST

i was reading a book about the russian revolution
and have no quote stating that. oops!

the book was this book, 'a concise history of the russian revolution'.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679745440/qid=1036132664/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2 1/103-0095374-2591032

and it was the author talking about oen of lenin's
associates stories about lenins coldness and coolness.
yeah ok so my source is shaky.

but how about this?
http://www.ibiblio.org/pjones/russian/Kulaks.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/ad2kulak.html

Comrades!  The revolt by the five kulak volost's must be suppressed
without mercy.  The interest of the entire revolution demands this,
because we have now before us our final decisive battle "with the
kulaks."  We need to set an example.

      1) You need to hang (hang without fail, so that the public
         sees) at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the

         bloodsuckers.

      2) Publish their names.

      3) Take away all of their grain.

      4) Execute the hostages - in accordance with yesterday's
         telegram.

      This needs to be accomplished in such a way, that people for
hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out:

let's choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks.

Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this.

Yours, Lenin

P.S. Use your toughest people for this.

 _____________________

 TRANSLATOR'S COMMENTS: Lenin uses the derogative term kulach'e in reference to the class of prosperous peasants. A volost' was a territorial/administrative unit consisting of a few villages and surrounding land.

[ Parent ]

not true (none / 0) (#266)
by signal15 on Wed Nov 20, 2002 at 07:31:22 PM EST

not only do they get crapped on by society for being 'dirty' and 'low', they also get crapped on by not being payed in any relation to the revenue they generate. This is not true. I know 4 girls who have had photos taken for porn sites, and they got paid an up front fee, and a percentage of revenue from the pics for the next 6 months, which amounted to a couple grand a month each. None of them felt exploited in any way, and a couple of the girls are very smart individuals and were just looking for a way to make some quick cash. They were not forced into it, and they were not forced to do anything they didn't want to do. It's possible that some places may not pay any percentage of revenue, but there are places that do.

[ Parent ]
Funny how this scorched to the front page (1.00 / 4) (#210)
by S1ack3rThanThou on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 06:16:02 PM EST

Guess we can all see now how "the migration" has affected K5.

It's not particularly challenging in any manner nor does it raise any issues or arguments, except by their omission. It is no better or worse than any other "introduction to", yet it appeared on the front page through the democracy of K5. As I have said before,though maybe not on K5, democracy only works when the right people vote. (I hope the "right" people are people that don't just vote with their penis.) The argument is how to determine who is right. I'm not concerned by this story being voted up, I think it is fine as a section story, my concern is how fast and without competition it appeared.

"Remember what the dormouse said, feed your head..."

Actually (4.00 / 1) (#211)
by anon868 on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 06:35:08 PM EST

I was quite shocked too. I hardly had time to read the comments once it hit the voting queue. But I'm not complaining! I guess lots of people were just interested in it, that's all. Like someone else said, selling porn is something we've all wondered about, at some time.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
Funny I hadn't (2.00 / 1) (#212)
by S1ack3rThanThou on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 06:41:22 PM EST

In a similar manner to that I haven't wondered about being a pimp, a pusher, a soldier or a lawyer. It's just something some people do. It truly is no better or worse than any other "introduction to", guess the /. contigent just like their free porn.

"Remember what the dormouse said, feed your head..."
[ Parent ]
Hmm (4.00 / 1) (#217)
by anon868 on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 07:00:24 PM EST

Then I'd bet your in the minority, at least on the male side, of which most of us are here. I haven't came across a single person yet who wasn't fascinated when I told them I was selling porn.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
Has anyone considered.... (3.80 / 5) (#215)
by psyconaut on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 06:55:29 PM EST

...that the links on this might be a deeply trolled form of advertising for said sites? ;-)

-psyco

They're not (4.00 / 1) (#216)
by anon868 on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 06:58:41 PM EST

although there's no way I can really convince you. Other than, do you think anyone from this site is going to buy a subscription through those links? I seriously doubt it.
Open a window. No, not that one! One made from actual glass, set in an acual wall, you dork.
[ Parent ]
Oh so wrong... (4.00 / 1) (#221)
by psyconaut on Thu Oct 31, 2002 at 08:55:58 PM EST

I bet Rusty bought a subscription ;-)

[ Parent ]
Bait N' Switch - Value Added (4.50 / 4) (#229)
by Blarney on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 04:01:00 AM EST

I think I understand this. Your job is to drive traffic to various adult sites by creating and distributing attractive, effective advertising. Now, if it was my job to create a commercial for Product X I'd generally get some Product X from my employer, take pics and video of Product X, and design some written or spoken slogans and exhortations to purchase Product X. Yet you don't do that!

Instead of creating Thumbnail Galleries out of material from the sites which you are paid to promote, you have to go out and buy OTHER pornography to use in your ads. This cheats the customers because they might buy a membership expecting to see more stripping cheerleaders and find nothing but old ladies making coffee while naked or similarly unexciting material.

Why don't the people who you advertise for give you promo material? Because their photos are not in infinite supply - they want to keep at least a few to sell for themselves without giving them out to hordes of entrepreneurs like you - and they'd end up giving out the same ones to 100 TGP posters and not getting good advertisement variety. I see why - but you end up basically tricking people into buying a pig in a poke, an undisclosed commodity. That might be part of the reason for the low conversion rate - you've already given out your quality, new photos for free, and why waste money on something that is being sold sight unseen?

This reminds me of the Boomtime stories of "turnkey" businesses - you could contract a website builder, an advertising agency, an order fullfillment company, and an outsourced customer service facility. Put them all together and it's instant e-commerce business for you! But none of this ever made anybody money, because the people who were doing this weren't adding any value. Sure, the contractors made money, but competition forced the margins down to zero for the entrepreneur who bought into this scheme. Your instant-porn business sounds a lot the same. Yeah, you can make a little money, but you could make a little money at a crummy retail job and not work yourself to death.



Get paid to look at porn! | 266 comments (251 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!