Gavin McInness, founder of the hipster Vice magazine and cultural magnate for the young(ish) hedonist with disposable income and loads of unfocused, low brow creative energy, also writes for Taki’s Mag. His newest piece is “The Problem With Hipster Porn,” and it assaults the somewhat trendy phenomenon of perfectly college bound (and gagged!) young women and their fascination with porn, to the point of starring in one. The thrust – no pun – of his article is that these female youngsters are getting the wrong idea about pornography. It’s about abused and damaged women with little else to help pay the bills, not Girl Power. McInness suggests the blowback for these weekend warriors of porn (though some are full-time, like Dana DeArmond) may come in the form of a jaundiced attitude toward men and a future as a lonely Cougar, as evidenced by his experience living with some punk chicks in his twenties who made a living as phone sex operators.
At one point he illustrates the difference between “real” porn and hipster porn by saying that real porn pays. $1,500 vs. $100, damaged girls vs. normal girls respectively. I doubt these figures are completely accurate, but more or less a ballpark figure. This raises the question: If these hipster porn chicks are really the nice-girl-next-door types (at least compared to the mainstream of the porn industry) with an urge to slum it, why wouldn’t they command far more in monetary compensation than the damaged goods with little else to offer? Is it because the latter “do more stuff”? Is this a market failure?