Up till now I've looked at adult performers as grossly underpayed, considering they are basicaly selling their dignity. After comparing porn economics to a mainstream acting economics, I'm no longer so sure.

It sounds like a silly question (whether porn pays better), but maybe its not. Let's suspend disbelief for a moment and presume that an adult performer could actually land a leading role in a mainstream production at the SAG minimum rate. Perhaps they would be surprised that they would have to take a pay cut.

The typical production cycle for a mainstream movie would take 20 weeks. During that period a leading actor will get paid $655 a day or $2,272 a week. This is based on the SAG minimum rate. So lets assume that the mainstream performer works 5 days a week for 20 weks or 100 days. That would be $65,500 at the SAG day rate or $45,440 at the weekly SAG rate.

Now how many adult scenes would even a barely average looking 18-20 year old (and there are quite a few) shoot during a 20 week period? Let's use a conservative number and say 4 scenes a week or 80 scenes. during a 20 week period.

According to AVN's cover story, the average B/G vag rate is $1000 (I find that a little high). so those 80 scenes would pay $80,000. Considerably more than the SAG day rate and nearly double the weekly rate.

This isn't factoring in residuals, which I believe are 3% of net under SAG. But this also doesn't factor that a mainstream actor's chances of getting a role are infintesimally slim, whereas just about any cute to average 18 year old can get off the bus in porn valley and shoot scenes.

This leaves me to conclude, that as a matter of economics, Porn pays better for a new performer than Hollywood.