UPDATE: Jon Millward’s “Deep Inside” IAFD Study of 10,000 Porn Stars (and accurate information)

| 8 Comments

I have seen this on a few sites now, and while it’s definitely interesting, I found my information on the Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD.com–NSFW) to be inaccurate. But before I get ahead of myself…

Jon Millward of JonMillward.com (SFW) describes himself as an “Ideas Detective”.

“I choose interesting aspects of human life and investigate them, sometimes for months at a time, to present fresh insights into the way we act and think.”


His post Deep Inside: A Study of 10,000 Porn Stars and Their Careers pulls from the data of thousands of porn stars because the information is so detailed.

For instance, IAFD lists stage names, height, weight, number of movies, movie titles, scenes descriptions, hair color, birth place, ethnicity, and in some cases, what kind of scenes they are available to do as a current work-for-hire performer. Simply pulling from this information, Jon has made some interesting discoveries.

When he asks a male friend what the average porn star looks like, his friend replied with a typical answer: blonde, big boobs. Jon’s response?

“That’s what everyone says. And in fact, it’s wrong.”

According to Jon’s data results, the average porn star is brunette with 34B-cup breasts. All of the information is that kind of interesting.

Furthermore, Jon provides a narrative that asks questions beyond static information.

“Sometimes when I hear people railing against porn, declaring it as the downfall of society, a poison infecting masculine minds and demeaning female ones, I wonder what kind of porn they’re talking about. To me, porn seems a lot like sport. I don’t mean the sex in it looks like a sporting activity (maybe it sometimes does, but that’s a separate point), but rather that there are as many types of sex in porn as there are forms of sport. Take synchronised swimming. This could be seen as lesbian porn, or ‘solo scenes’, in which women casually masturbate for your viewing pleasure. Next consider a vigorous game of badminton: this might be your standard boy-girl scene. Pretty vanilla stuff, with maybe a dose of anal sex thrown in if the match is really heated. How about a gory mixed martial arts fight? That would be comparable to a 10-man midget gangbang, maybe. They’re all sports, all types of sexual activity, but they differ wildly in who’s involved and what they’re doing with, or to, each other.

So when I hear somebody claim that porn is ‘degrading’, I can’t help but ask: which porn? Is an anal scene involving three men and one woman more or less degrading than a scene in which three women have sex with strap-ons? How about a solo scene in which a woman appears alone? And if they’re equally degrading because they’re all part of a the same industry, is homemade porn that couples sell on their own personal websites part of the same monster? Much like sport, or violence in films, or cruelty to animals, I don’t think you can really drill down into the topic on an intellectually respectable level until you’ve strictly defined your terms.”

Quirky, interesting and definitely funny when you see data blocks with numbers and then text that reads: ‘Butts vs. boobs’ – as measured by each word’s appearance (inc. synonyms) in film titles. (lol)

Unfortunately, I commented on the article before I read it in its entirety. Upon seeing IAFD.com as the study, I checked my information under “Julie Meadows” and it appears some if it is incorrect.

[UPDATE: As of this posting my information has been corrected. Thanks to Jeff Vanzetti of IAFD.com for adding clarification in the comments below.]

It states my measurements are 36D-22-32. Now, he does mention that maybe some performers lie a bit about their info, but I’ve always been accurate.

From 1998 to the end of 1999 (pre-saline boobies), I was 34B-26-34. Post-saline boobies, 34C-26-34. And my height? IAFD has me at “5 feet, 3 inches”. I am and always will be 5′ 6″ (until age makes my back arch, and then I’ll just be 5′ 6″ at a curve).

Does this matter? Maybe not. I suppose it depends on how many performer’s information is inaccurate based upon who entered it, where they retrieved their information, and at what point during the performer’s career the information is reflected. The incremental differences may not alter the information enough to matter. At any rate, my comment merely stated some of my information as inaccurate, but is otherwise definitely interesting.

Also quoted is ex-gossip blogger, Luke Ford, who apparently has a line heavily used by anti-pornographers about porn stars entering and quitting the industry after one scene.

“Most girls who enter the porn industry do one video and quit. The experience is so painful, horrifying, embarrassing, humiliating for them that they never do it again.”

So Jon crunches the numbers.

“Using my data set I knew I could find out. The actual number of single film quitters is between 10% and 30%. It’s difficult to settle on an exact figure, because it differs depending on how you sample the women, but one thing’s for sure: most women don’t quit after one film—in fact, the majority (at least 53%) do three or more. So, to update the quote with the facts, do most women do three films and then quit because the experience is so humiliating and painful? Perhaps. Or maybe they just don’t like it and stop.”

Very interesting, indeed.


You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

Author: Julie Meadows

Francophile, oenophile, French Scrabble advocate and future zombie apocalypse survivor.

8 Comments

  1. The Internet Adult Film Database, from which most of the data for Jon Millward’s post were citied, noted yesterday in a series of tweets that Millward did NOT get their permission to use their data for his “analysis”. So, take that into consideration when surfing through.

  2. very cool report.

    analytics can be modern day alchemy, no doubt revealing all sorts of patterns. data guys know the score… you can make most anything look the way you want… depends how you slice the data.

    trapped inside a 34C-26-34 body… you’re funny :)

  3. Who knows. Maybe IAFD were embarrassed by it knowing their information is probably not 100% accurate.

    Alex–Hahaha!!

  4. I read this article a few days ago and thought it was really neat and interesting.

  5. Thank you for this post ma’am. Anymore this is the kind of stuff I find really interesting.

  6. I’ve visited IAFD several times in the past and found that some of their links, to performer websites, are dead. Usually when you find a site doesn’t update its links that often times you can find inaccurate data too. Also, through past experience, I’ve learned that you can’t take all information you’re given as 100% accurate, regardless of its source.

    Hopefully I’ll have a chance to read Millward’s entire article (and perhaps his other posts) because I liked what was quoted here.

  7. Your information has been corrected.

    As we know there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

    We tweeted out that he “stole” our data because that’s what he says in his article: “Fast forward a year and I’d found a way to (somewhat nefariously, but with honourable intentions) extract thousands of records from the database. ” So, he admits he knew what he was doing is against our terms of service. We ask that people use the data on our site, not suck our data down and make other databases from it. There’s nothing we can really do to stop people from doing it, but we ask them nicely not to; and this is mostly for reasons that Julie points out — if we correct an error, the data the guy has pilfered is out of date.

    (And since we corrected Julie’s info on her page, this article is now inaccurate; our site correctly reflects her information. :-)

    The other issue with his data is we have data on 120,000 performers, and he only chose 10,000 — so that’s less than 10% of our data sampled. A lot of variations might be discovered based on the other 110,000 performers.

    If you find dead links, the only way they get fixed is if you let us know. We’re a volunteer team of 13 guys and 1 girl. We can’t check every URL; but there’s a link on every performer’s page “Report Dead Links” and every page on the site has a “Submit Corrections” link, so please help us out and use them.

    We’re not embarrassed by our data. Every database has inaccuracies, and I’ll hold our data up against anyone’s. If we thought we were flawless we wouldn’t have “Submit Corrections” buttons all over the place. :-)

  8. Thank you, Jeff, for the clarification. I think overall people were amused and *happily* surprised by the unexpected results of his findings, but I understand that you prefer someone not dump the info into another place to present information that isn’t correct. I also thought the ‘only 10,000 performers out of 120,000′ a bit odd considering the difference, but I don’t collect numbers for statistics, so… what do I know?

    And thank you for correcting my information. I was going to do it myself, but then it would have made my post beside the point. lol At any rate, I will update this post to reflect that. :D

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.