Comments on: $1300 double penetration in Standard B/G rates

$1300 double penetration in Standard B/G rates

Kickstart70 — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:45:35 -0800

So you want to do porn but you want to be sure you get paid for your efforts? Kink.com posts detailed listings of what acts pay what amount. (if you don't understand that this is NSFW, this may be your only career option)

By: humannaire

humannaire — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:50:13 -0800

I like kittens.

By: Mr_Zero

Mr_Zero — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:52:08 -0800

Wow, the pay scale is much lower than I thought it would be. Not that I ever put any thought into it, I have to say I was surprised.

By: lonemantis

lonemantis — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:53:04 -0800

DVDA rates must be pretty high, they're not listed.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:55:28 -0800

You can get paid without doing any porn. $150 per referral.

By: Mr_Zero

Mr_Zero — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:57:21 -0800

It would be more interesting if they had some weirdo acts listed.

By: vito90

vito90 — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:00:33 -0800

I see my value on the market is $500. That's about what I'd put it at too.

By: Firas

Firas — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:05:04 -0800

It's per scene. So multiply the rate by 6 or so for 30 mins I'd think.

By: Firas

Firas — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:14:00 -0800

Surprised that the guys are being paid as much (and better) than the girls. It's not standard in the industry I think...

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:23:56 -0800

It would be more interesting if they had some weirdo acts listed. Well if it's weird then by definition you can't have a "standard" rate. Probably everything is negotiated individually. Surprised that the guys are being paid as much (and better) than the girls. It's not standard in the industry I think... I don't know if it's standard or not, but I'm pretty sure that it would be, like, completely illegal to pay men less then women. Maybe things have changed in the past few years.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:26:57 -0800

(Well, I dunno I guess you could say that the guy part would be a "different job" then what the woman does, still, since most porn makers are generally pretty careful to make sure everything is legal, since there is a real risk that some prosecutor might try to find anything they can. Of course, wage discrimination is a Tort, rather then a crime, but still. On the other hand IANAL.)

By: Kickstart70

Kickstart70 — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:31:22 -0800

Prosecution: My client claims he was paid less for his work in the porn industry and therefore deserves to be justly compensated. Defense: Well, he wasn't able to do the same job! Prosecution: How so? Defense: We tried and tried to do a genital-anal double-dong penetration on him, but there isn't enough lube in the world to get it up his urethra.

By: Mr_Zero

Mr_Zero — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:34:44 -0800

Defense: We tried and tried to do a genital-anal double-dong penetration on him, but there isn't enough lube in the world to get it up his urethra. I don't know about that. The other day somebody posted a link to someone cramming a banana into their dork. I was afraid to click on the link so I am not sure.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:37:48 -0800

If you reimburse by orgasms per hour, females would be paid more.

By: chrominance

chrominance — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:48:46 -0800

It's per scene. So multiply the rate by 6 or so for 30 mins I'd think. If you read the model rights release, you'll see that scene length is variable, and as a typical length they throw out four hours. Unless you actually think they're getting paid thousands of dollars for a half-hour's work. Porn may be profitable but I doubt it's THAT profitable.

By: Tenuki

Tenuki — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:07:42 -0800

Well kink.com just bought the San Francisco Armory for $14.5 million. They must be doing pretty good.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:53:24 -0800

*is already winning at her Monopoly mod*

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:54:53 -0800

Jeez, practically anybody could swing these rates of far better on an one-on-one basis. Well, maybe anybody but pornwhores. I find them slimy and skeezy, myself.

By: Firas

Firas — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:13:32 -0800

Ambrosia, prostitution is so not a direct substitute for pornographic performance, if that's what you mean. The latter is way safer and structured for most people, wouldn't you think?

By: Samizdata

Samizdata — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:14:24 -0800

Man, no ass to mouth? Of course, it's never my idea...

By: aeschenkarnos

aeschenkarnos — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:33:04 -0800

Wouldn't porn, being films and pictures, come under the same rules as acting, for which discrimination on the basis of physical appearance and gender is justifiable?

By: monkeyx-uk

monkeyx-uk — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:30:51 -0800

If you reimburse by fake orgasms per hour, females would be paid more. fixed.

By: Ynoxas

Ynoxas — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:35:50 -0800

If I were a woman, and assuming I was attractive, there is simply no way I WOULDN'T be a sex worker of some kind. Work 4 hours for $1000+, don't do anything the rest of that week. Add a day or two of stripping at a high profile club, and you're well over 100k a year working 3 days. A friend of mine in college made something on the order of about 1500 in a day and a half every weekend at a strip club. She'd leave class friday afternoon, do a full shift friday night, then 1 shift saturday, 1 shift saturday night, come home sunday on average 1500 richer.

By: lupus_yonderboy

lupus_yonderboy — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:50:27 -0800

Somewhat disappointing -- the list seems to be far more aimed at S&M than anything I actually like. And man, those prices seem low!

By: psmealey

psmealey — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:29:05 -0800

The fact that DP only pays $200 more per scene than anal screams out for some sort of collective bargaining agreement.

By: hal9k

hal9k — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:01:04 -0800

The fact that DP only pays $200 more per scene than anal screams out for some sort of collective bargaining agreement. Financially and literally, they're getting reamed.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:03:38 -0800

Firas writes "Surprised that the guys are being paid as much (and better) than the girls. It's not standard in the industry I think..." It's based upon scarcity. There isn't any shortage of women who are able to get their clothes off and do the necessary when required in front of cameras and crew. It's actually much harder to find men who are able to perform in such a manner. In the old days, when it was much harder to find women than men who were prepared to do this, I think women were paid more, but over the years, that scarcity ratio has shifted somewhat. So there's still a disparity, but the difference, as I understand it, isn't so much in the payment for each shoot, as in their overall earning potential. Women are able to make much more out of personal appearances, selling photographs, website, underwear, etc. Men just make what they make at each shoot. The thing that I found most interesting was how the owner felt the need to tell us that he'd abandoned a PhD in order to set up his porn industry. It's a bit like the performers who tell us that they're only doing this temporarily, on their way to becoming a real actress or whatever. Even though I own the place, there's more to me than just a piece of meat!

By: dobbs

dobbs — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:47:39 -0800

the list seems to be far more aimed at S&M than anything I actually like. And man, those prices seem low! Well, it's an S&M site. Note that these are their rates, not the industry standard. I may be out of line here but I think many people doing BDSM porn are BDSM practitioners and are doing what they like, hence, the pay is a bit lower. Though of course there are porn stars doing what they like many people who appear in porn are doing it just because they need cash--those rates are higher. I saw a doc on porn a year or two ago and they asked a guy point blank why so many young girls (18, 19) were doing anal. He said, "They get paid $1500 for 20 minutes work. Simple as that." It's actually much harder to find men who are able to perform in such a manner. I don't agree. I think for standard porn, men are paid much lower. For this kind of porn, where pain is involved, the scale is higher because there's a level of skill involved. "Any" guy can get erect and fuck--and if they're not good at it nothing's lost but some film and cash. This site doesn't want any guy--they want someone who knows what they're doing--if they're not good at it, there's more at stake than cash and film.

By: jsavimbi

jsavimbi — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 07:17:57 -0800

I think many people doing BDSM porn are BDSM practitioners and are doing what they like, hence, the pay is a bit lower. I'm not an expert, but I think you may be correct in regards to BDSM porn, which in the past usually featured performers who were past their maturity date, as it was once regarded as unseemly. Looking at Kink's models page, I don't see many performers who also work mainstream. This isn't your classic Valley-style porn, and I'm willing to wager that a lot of these women work regular jobs in the San Francisco area.

By: goodnewsfortheinsane

goodnewsfortheinsane — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 07:45:20 -0800

if they're not good at it nothing's lost but some film and cash. Tape, baby. Videotape. I'm telling you, VHS is the future of porn.

By: goatdog

goatdog — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 07:50:05 -0800

I can't believe only one person has said IANAL in this thread so far. It's worth $1100!

By: psmealey

psmealey — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:05:50 -0800

if they're not good at it nothing's lost but some film and cash. And some precious bodily fluids.

By: afu

afu — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:10:18 -0800

Surprised that the guys are being paid as much (and better) than the girls. It's not standard in the industry I think... I don't think y'all are reading the chart right. I took this to be the rate for female subs. The difference between G/G and B/G is just the gender of the top. The rates for the tops are completely different and the rates for men are less than they are for women.

By: afu

afu — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:12:29 -0800

all shoots include up to $250 in style point bonuses Matt needs to implement that policy!

By: fungible

fungible — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:38:38 -0800

So what do stars get paid? Same amount?

By: Firas

Firas — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:42:27 -0800

fungible, these guys seem to be more commodity than boutique, I doubt they have too much space for variation in the acts being filmed or payscales.

By: Item

Item — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:36:35 -0800

It's actually much harder to find men who are able to perform in such a manner. You've obviously never heard of Viagra.

By: jason's_planet

jason's_planet — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:51:53 -0800

The thing that I found most interesting was how the owner felt the need to tell us that he'd abandoned a PhD in order to set up his porn industry. It's a bit like the performers who tell us that they're only doing this temporarily, on their way to becoming a real actress or whatever. Even though I own the place, there's more to me than just a piece of meat! I read that line differently. I read it as an assurance that the owners are not a bunch of coke-snorting, seventies-mustache scumbags. That line -- along with the references to their corporate values and ethics -- is meant to reassure potential models. He's marketing himself as an employer to people who -- I'll go out on a limb here -- probably aren't typical porn performers, people from good homes, people with some college background. His mentioning the finance industry and his grad school education is a way to demonstrate that he comes from a similar background and that the models will feel socially comfortable working for him.

By: jason's_planet

jason's_planet — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:53:53 -0800

And this, by the way: (if you don't understand that this is NSFW, this may be your only career option) is probably one of the best lines I've seen in a FPP.

By: samsara

samsara — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:53:54 -0800

So I take it this thread is NSFW unless you're already in the business?

By: sequential

sequential — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:03:00 -0800

You've obviously never heard of Viagra.

No matter what the advertising tells you, Viagra and it's ilk do not delay ejaculation or help a man deliver a worthy money shot. That said, Viagra did create an influx of male adult performers because having an erection in front of a film crew and being able to maintain an erection without the constant use of fluffers is, well, a skill that not many have without pharmacological assistance.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:45:53 -0800

Viagra? Fuck... cocaine does what you're describing and much, much more.

By: andywolf

andywolf — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:07:26 -0800

"Any" guy can get erect and fuck--and if they're not good at it nothing's lost but some film and cash. a few years ago hbo had a series of documentaries on porn and they discussed guys performance. they said it's alot harder then people think, cause a guy has to be able to get it up and cum on demand. not too early and not take too long, when the director wants the guy to pop he's got to do it right away. and not to mention being able to get it up continually throughout the day and not cum if needed. it's why ron jeremy was such a big name, not just due to size (i've actually never seen his "work"). it's not like guys are generally known for having complete control over their cock and that's what the documentary said was needed.

By: Item

Item — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:13:57 -0800

sequential, when Viagra's used by healthy guys without ED, it does in fact delay ejaculation. Trust me on this one.

By: lazaruslong

lazaruslong — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:14:17 -0800

item: pics or it didn't happen.

By: Item

Item — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:18:53 -0800

Email in profile.

By: cytherea

cytherea — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:21:43 -0800

Wow, andywolf. That sounds like really hard work.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:42:00 -0800

It would be more interesting if they had some weirdo acts listed. I think you've been on the net too long when this doesn't strike you as weird: * Pre-op transexual women dominate submissive bi curious men. * Secure bondage, gags, hoods, flogging, forced orgasms with vibrators. * Sex with our Fucking Machines.

By: sequential

sequential — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:30:13 -0800

item, I worked on the Viagra clinical trials. That some may experience does not strike me and my memory as unusual, but Viagra is indicated only for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. That some may believe it is an aphrodisiac, that it helps them delay ejaculation, or deliver larger quantities of ejaculate is, at best, anecdotal and is not based on any clinical evidence used to get FDA approval for Viagra. As you said: trust me. The tricky part here is not the physiological, but the psychological. Don't confuse the two.

By: Item

Item — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:49:42 -0800

Look: would it help if I told you that the anecdote I heard came straight from my crotch? Do you really believe that the drug isn't successfully used recreationally by scores of non-ED suffering males - and females.

By: Item

Item — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:50:25 -0800

er, ?

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:05:39 -0800

"Any" guy can get erect and fuck--and if they're not good at it nothing's lost but some film and cash. That might be true in the amateur industry, where a couple of pals are screwing around with a camera. In professional porn, you're paying people to do lighting, to do sound, you're paying for the location. All of those people are being paid pretty well. If they've all got to hang around waiting to see whether the guy *can* get erect and fuck, then it starts to get pretty costly. But it isn't just about getting erect. It's about getting erect with four or five people watching. I was watching a tv show recently, where they were interviewing guys for a potential shoot. Four guys being interviewed. All believed they could do it, all had bags of confidence. And the crew and co-star did everything that they could to put them at their ease. After twenty minutes of trying, three of them left the room, abject failures. The fourth managed to get it up and get it in -- flaccid. And then he came -- still flaccid -- about ten seconds later. Four guys, two hours, no useable footage. And then there's the business of actually making it look good and hot. Take a look at some porno sometime. There's a reason why you see the same guys, over and over again. It isn't because of their looks or their acting talent. And given the whole supply and demand thing, if every horny guy who wanted a free fuck *could* get out there and do it for free, they surely would. But the reality is, it's a job, like any other, just one that requires a certain skill set. And I'm pretty sure that the numbers of women who can demonstrate that skill set are actually far, far greater than the men in that industry.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:09:54 -0800

Firas: just a reflection of my preference. The possible lack of safety in prostitution is a direct tradeoff to the exposure of porn. And jeez, imagining the money you can really get for a DP scene and all the trimmings in the "private sector," where you screen you clients and all that jazz, versus putting up with all the uncomfortable direction and playing to the camera and stopping all the time for a DP scene in porn, it just seems like the seemingly low rates for porn actresses must be the result of the glut of screen sluts in supply to demand. Just spitballing, here.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:10:12 -0800

Fuck... cocaine does what you're describing and much, much more. Unfortunately, John Holmes and numerous others since have rather discredited the use of cocaine as a valuable adjunct to the art of erotic cinema. See also: http://www.lukeisback.com/bloglukeisback/index.php/

By: Avenger

Avenger — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:52:55 -0800

The actual formula here is x-y=z, where "x" is the total amount of money made over your porn career, "y" is the amount of money you'll spend in your life on STD treatments and "z" is the final amount you have to blow on coke and meth.

By: pubblicitae

pubblicitae — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:50:17 -0800

i listen this: in italy site about travel are more wanted, more of sex site is true? Some one konw it?

By: sequential

sequential — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:31:47 -0800

Look: would it help if I told you that the anecdote I heard came straight from my crotch? Do you really believe that the drug isn't successfully used recreationally by scores of non-ED suffering males - and females.

item, the difference in what you're saying and what I am saying is that the drugs are not indicated for what you're saying they do. That means, clinically speaking, most people won't notice better control over ejaculation or increased amounts of ejaculate. Physiologically, there is no reason for this to happen. Psychologically, though, there are plenty of reasons. I'm not saying I don't believe you and your magical crotch. I am saying, however, that other people won't necessarily experience this. For what it's worth, I know that all ED drugs are used recreationally. That's not my point. They give you an erection. That solves a lot of problems for a lot of people who don't have ED.

By: Firas

Firas — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:19:57 -0800

Metafilter: You and Your Magical Crotch

By: Item

Item — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:58:27 -0800

I'm not saying I don't believe you and your magical crotch Speech - it was sucked right out of me...

By: Item

Item — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:59:04 -0800

...possibly through my magical crotch.

By: Item

Item — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:10:18 -0800

And since we're in this this deep, I'll explain to you why, at least in my case, drugs such as Viagra seem to delay ejaculation. It's really quite simple: the cock, it gets excited. Very, very excited, to the point that it gets numb. Hard and numb. What we're left with is a cock - penis, if you will - that gets a. hard and b. numb Which tends, at least in my case, to lead to delayed ejaculation. I am 99 point 110 per cent certain that this would be the effect even if some ugly bastard were to sprinkle a crushed tablet of Viagra into my daily portion of food-mush. The brain wouldn't be telling me that I'm supposed to believe that this crotch-magicing drug is allowing this to happen, yet lo! it is. Whatever the case, sequential, I'll go ahead and propose this to you and you only: if ever you find yourself in the greater North Texas area with a supply of Viagra and some time to kill, drop me a line. Please make sure to give me at least 6 hours notice so I can so some pre-marathon sex prepping on my ladyfriend. Bring a video camera and the kids. It'll be a meetup to be remembered.

By: Firas

Firas — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:37:01 -0800

item, you're acting silly. "You may have clinical trial data, but I have home-made nekkid vids" isn't exactly the most convincing of arguments.

By: Item

Item — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:56:38 -0800

Firas, you're being the silly one if you believe that homemade porn doesn't trump stuffy lab-coated virgins and their test-tube results.

By: Firas

Firas — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:08:53 -0800

*rolls eyes* getting more objective by the minute I see. What is this, a bar fight? Look dude, I don't know what you feel the need to prove but we're not doubting your awesome throbbing manhood here.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 06:23:15 -0800

Viagra may indeed cause some numbness about the dick, but it's recently been found to boost levels of a hormone linked with feelings of love. That's probably the last thing some of its recreational users wanted. Call it poetic justice.

By: LMGM

LMGM — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:15:16 -0800

So what about B/B rates? Word on the street was that man-on-man rates paid far better than str8 pr0n, and thus the term "gay for pay." Mind you, the whole "gay for pay" scene is also a fantasy theme for certain kinds of gay porn, so YMMV.

By: Target Practice

Target Practice — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:33:51 -0800

They don't list B/B rates because they don't do gay porn, unless of course you count the transsexual site. Speaking of: [i]* Pre-op transexual women dominate submissive bi curious men.[/i] Man, why are the sub guys in this paid so little? $500 seems pretty low, considering the regular rates they list for women.

By: Target Practice

Target Practice — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:34:12 -0800

...Whoops, used BBCode instead of HTML. Bah.

By: Tenuki

Tenuki — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:39:44 -0800

"So what about B/B rates?" Next to last listing... "Leatherdaddy.com / Male/male bondage S&M and sex / Starting at $1200"