Why do “some” porn stars avoid responsibility by calling all criticism “societal cruelty”?

This is not about shaming sex workers or ignoring coercion.

In India especially, “most” women in porn or prostitution are pushed into it by poverty, abuse, or lack of options. That’s a serious issue and deserves protection, not judgement.

But I’m talking about a different subgroup, “some” public figures who entered porn willingly, built brands around it, made money, fame, and global reach, and later reposition themselves purely as victims of society.

You see this pattern often by big names, full agency when it’s profitable, openly producing and selling content, followed by regret later and then demands that the internet forget, delete, or treat past choices as if they never happened.

The part I don’t see discussed enough is responsibility.

These people weren’t passive participants. They chose to produce content, market it aggressively, and profit by tapping into basic human impulses. That doesn’t make consumers innocent, users still get mocked, called “gooners,” addicts, and worse. But it does raise a fair question.

Why is it that when criticism comes, it’s framed only as society being cruel, and rarely as a consequence of choices made consciously and publicly?

In most industries, producers don’t get a free pass just because demand exists. If you design, sell, and promote something, some accountability comes with it. Porn often seems to be treated as an exception.

So why do “some” people get to claim full agency when it’s profitable, and zero responsibility when there’s backlash?

Where exactly should the line be?