Even assuming that nobody would actually want to work in porn [which -although I'm willing to concede the point for the sake of argument- is a falacious assumption], how is working in porn any different than any other job that people do strictly for money? I don't like waiting tables... but my physical labor is exploited and I'm compensated monetarily. In what substantive way is performing in porn different? Is the primary difference that the "labor" consists primarily of performing sexual acts? And are we to assume that performing sexual acts is necessarily more degrading or exploitative than other forms of physical labor? And is it only degrading to women? I notice the focus is almost always on the supposed misery of the women performing. Is doing porn less degrading for men? And if so, how come so many men seem more than willing to do it? I think this whole argument is founded, on the one hand, on an antiquated notion that sex -particularly for women- is somehow sacrosanct, and not just a simple biological process... and on the other hand, on an archaic double-standard that says promiscuity is a vice when exhibited by women, but somewhat more acceptable when exhibited by men.
As I stated before, working in porn offers a lot of these performers the opportunity to make much more money than they'd earn doing anything else. As Nina Hartley has said, "These women do not have a choice of Harvard or porn. It's porn or white paper hat, porn or double-wide trailer". If there are cases where working in the industry leads to personal misfortune, I can only conclude that in many, if not most of those cases, it arises not from horrible emotional scars left by promiscuous sex [which a lot of these girls were having long before they entered porn], but by the reckless self-indulgence so common when people acquire wealth and a measure of fame overnight. Despite the stereotype, substance abuse, financial ruin, and misery is not the rule by default in porn. Performers have a choice. Porn can be a blessing or a curse. What people in the industry make of it is largely a matter of personal character. But to blame porn or pornographers like Holly for the self-destructive behavior of some performers, is rather like blaming producers, agents, and sports team owners for the self-destructive behavior of actors and pro athletes. Is there any difference? Should these people feel morally responsible because they profitted from other people's misery? Of course not, because there's absolutely no need for misery. The baseless and false assumption underlying Kaiser's argument, is that all performers in porn [at least the female ones] enter the industry under duress, out of "desperation", and are invariably "victims" of the industry... not willing participants.
Finally, why attack those who produce rather than those who consume? You can point the finger at pornographers all you want, but the industry would be non-existent if it weren't for an insatiable public demand. So why should Holly or anyone else in the business feel guilty for giving us all exactly what we want? If you find pornography personally objectionable, don't watch it. But please don't try to impose your moral viewpoint on the rest of the world. Many of us don't share it.