Social media sexualization of western women

Tacitus Kilgore

nullzero wrote: »

I can agree that someone doing physical work is selling their body.

Someone sitting in their home in front of a computer is not.

We all get paid for our time, we don't all sell our bodies.

As for the grandstanding about having lost an argument on a forum. You're the one using the word "silenced", you're the one declaring victory and you think you have the moral high ground here?

If anything a reasonable middle ground would be to say that everyone sells their time whilst some sell their bodies on a sliding scale.

You're not interested in compromise, again your on your high horse about me wanting to die on this hill. You're engaged as much as me, stop the moral grandstanding and take ownership of your own behaviour.

OK, I'll dance with you - riddle me this - how does one sell their time without being present for the duration of the time that they are selling?



If you can answer this without some sort of presence by that person - I have a great deal on some time that I can sell you, really good price sir.

Tacitus Kilgore

nullzero wrote: »

That's not the point is was making.

The employer pays you for your time doing what they need you to do. You can gain experience of all manner of things depending on what you do for a living that was not intended by your employer, you make friends, you interact with people and have the potential to grow as a person.

The notion that somebody actively engaged with real people doing useful things is the same as arranging your social media presence to ensure you sell more pictures of your naked body whilst sitting in a room on your own are both offering a rich life experience isn't reasonable.

subjective.

Overheal

EddieN75 wrote: »

On one hand you have women saying respect us and don't sexualise us like cat calling or creepy behaviour while on the other women are getting their bits out for a euro.

Can't have it both ways

'on the one hand you have people saying we deserve time off to rest and on the other they are going to work for a few euro. Can't have it both ways.'

More silly false dichotomies.

Overheal

Snooker Ace wrote: »

I would say jobs have risks and being stalked or harassed is probably something you should consider before making online porn.

They do.

Tacitus Kilgore

Overheal wrote: »

'on the one hand you have people saying we deserve time off to rest and on the other they are going to work for a few euro. Can't have it both ways.'

More silly false dichotomies.

"If she didn't want to be raped she shouldn't have been so damn sexy"

Tacitus Kilgore

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

I don't know, why did I reference the regular users of CA/IMHO in relation to white supremacy?

As a diversionary tactic in this thread. I dunno.

Overheal

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

"If she didn't want to be raped she shouldn't have been so damn sexy"

"If you want due process then don't be suspected of a crime"

jill_valentine

nullzero wrote: »

I can agree that someone doing physical work is selling their body.

Someone sitting in their home in front of a computer is not.

We all get paid for our time, we don't all sell our bodies.

As for the grandstanding about having lost an argument on a forum. You're the one using the word "silenced", you're the one declaring victory and you think you have the moral high ground here?

If anything a reasonable middle ground would be to say that everyone sells their time whilst some sell their bodies on a sliding scale.

You're not interested in compromise, again your on your high horse about me wanting to die on this hill. You're engaged as much as me, stop the moral grandstanding and take ownership of your own behaviour.

You're quite deliberately misrepresenting the poster's meaning there, and it's the kind of wordgame that suggests you're uncomfortable about not having a substantive response.

He/she was pointing out you didn't have a meaningful comeback to the point. Which you didn't, given your previous response was to pretend was "wonderful counterargument", with no actual rebuttal.

So a page later you're still pretending you thought they intention was to somehow prevent you being heard, which the poster couldn't possibly do.

Now, I know that wasn't what was meant, and you know that wasn't what was meant, so who is the showboating meant to benefit? Are you hoping people will only read your most recent post and take it at face value?

KeepItLight

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

OK, I'll dance with you - riddle me this - how does one sell their time without being present for the duration of the time that they are selling?



If you can answer this without some sort of presence by that person - I have a great deal on some time that I can sell you, really good price sir.

Getting bogged down on semantics. Yes, sex work and manual labour are both work and technically selling your body. But there is more to than that.

As a thought experiment for those who think they are direct equivalents: would you be as happy with your daughter having a career in porn vs working some other office job if there was a guarantee of no harm coming to them in either scenario?

I think those who are honest with themselves would say no.

nullzero

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

OK, I'll dance with you - riddle me this - how does one sell their time without being present for the duration of the time that they are selling?



If you can answer this without some sort of presence by that person - I have a great deal on some time that I can sell you, really good price sir.

You're reducing the discussion to a level below what's already been discussed.

The notion that a person working in manual labour is selling their body is reasonable. The notion that a person sitting at home in front of a PC selling their body isn't reasonable.

One job requires physical activity. The other requires the person to walk from their bedroom into another room and sit down.

You are setting the parameters of a physical presence as being the same as physical activity during the working day.

I won't acquiesce to that being a reasonable set of parameters. If you want to employ outlandish humour as a means of gaining moral superiority in an argument that's up to you, however you wanting that to be taken seriously doesn't mean it will be.

Eric Cartman

Snooker Ace wrote: »

Why? They should view it as an occupational hazard. Same way a man choosing to work on an oil rig should consider being burned or crushed by machinery an occupational hazard.

Thats it, the type of man who would pay to subscribe to an onlyfans would have questionable intentions and morals to say the least.

Overheal

KeepItLight wrote: »

Getting bogged down on semantics. Yes, sex work and manual labour are both work and technically selling your body. But there is more to than that.

As a thought experiment for those who think they are direct equivalents: would you be as happy with your daughter having a career in porn vs working some other office job if there was a guarantee of no harm coming to them in either scenario?

I think those who are honest with themselves would say no.

Hard sell, because the office job could pay less and office jobs have surprising stats on worker mortality.

EddieN75

Overheal wrote: »

'on the one hand you have people saying we deserve time off to rest and on the other they are going to work for a few euro. Can't have it both ways.'

More silly false dichotomies.

On a personal level then. I don't respect a female who shows illicit images or videos of themselves . Most doing it for a few euro or free.
I would have zero respect for that person as I don't think they respect themselves.

And considering many tiktok and Snapchat users are on the young side I wouldn't be talking myself into a corner if I were you. Im not sure how it works in America but here in Ireland it's not a good look. Ok

You can have your own opinions. Enjoy yourself

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

"If you want due process then don't be suspected of a crime"

How the fcuk did we get onto that. From this thread.

KeepItLight

Overheal wrote: »

Hard sell, because the office job could pay less and office jobs have surprising stats on worker mortality.

Then you're definitely an outlier.

nullzero

jill_valentine wrote: »

You're quite deliberately misrepresenting the poster's meaning there, and it's the kind of wordgame that suggests you're uncomfortable about not having a substantive response.

He/she was pointing out you didn't have a meaningful comeback to the point. Which you didn't, given your previous response was to pretend was "wonderful counterargument", with no actual rebuttal.

So a page later you're still pretending you thought they intention was to somehow prevent you being heard, which the poster couldn't possibly do.

Now, I know that wasn't what was meant, and you know that wasn't what was meant, so who is the showboating meant to benefit? Are you hoping people will only read your most recent post and take it at face value?

They said they had silenced me. I pointed out they were wrong.

I have addressed the topic in detail and you're picking out how I took issue with one part of their post whilst completely ignoring the rest of what I said.

My argument is that all workers get paid for their time, not all workers are paid for their body. That is the meat of what I said and you're making out the reference to them saying they had silenced me was all I said?

Posting in bad faith there.

KeepItLight

EddieN75 wrote: »

On a personal level then. I don't respect a female who shows illicit images or videos of themselves . Most doing it for a few euro or free.
I would have zero respect for that person as I don't think they respect themselves.

You can have your own opinions. Enjoy yourself

Don't let the few defenders of the porno industry on this thread put you off, whorish behaviour is frowned upon by most people on the planet.

jill_valentine

nullzero wrote: »

You're reducing the discussion to a level below what's already been discussed.

The notion that a person working in manual labour is selling their body is reasonable. The notion that a person sitting at home in front of a PC selling their body isn't reasonable.

One job requires physical activity. The other requires the person to walk from their bedroom into another room and sit down.

You are setting the parameters of a physical presence as being the same as physical activity during the working day.

I won't acquiesce to that being a reasonable set of parameters. If you want to employ outlandish humour as a means of gaining moral superiority in an argument that's up to you, however you wanting that to be taken seriously doesn't mean it will be.

I could sell "my time" if I could somehow satisfy their contract with minutes and seconds of my lifespan traded like cryptocoins.

I sell them "my body" because the actual physical vehicle I'm integrated into is dedicated to the work they want from me. I can't send it off for a jog while I stay working because it is/I am engaged in the job I'm hired for. I'm using it. It's at work.

Even then in your own terms though, you've tied yourself up in knots - if a physical labourer is selling their body in a way somebody on a Zoom call isn't, your argument is that the brickie is body selling and the camgirl isn't, seeing as all she's doing is at a laptop.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

They said they had silenced me. I pointed out they were wrong.

I have addressed the topic in detail and you're picking out how I took issue with one part of their post whilst completely ignoring the rest of what I said.

My argument is that all workers get paid for their time, not all workers are paid for their body. That is the meat of what I said and you're making out the reference to them saying they had silenced me was all I said?

Posting in bad faith there.

I disagree with you on that one, the mind isn’t really separated from the body, and of course a manual labourer is selling his body. Just not for sex, which is what the euphemism generally means, but in a literal sense everybody is selling their body.

Every worker anyhow.

SnuggyBear

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thats it, the type of man who would pay to subscribe to an onlyfans would have questionable intentions and morals to say the least.

I think the general consensus is that most of them are sad and lonely seeing as there has never been so much free porn available. Now that doesn't mean their intentions couldnt turn bad infairness.

Tacitus Kilgore

nullzero wrote: »

You're reducing the discussion to a level below what's already been discussed.

The notion that a person working in manual labour is selling their body is reasonable. The notion that a person sitting at home in front of a PC selling their body isn't reasonable.

One job requires physical activity. The other requires the person to walk from their bedroom into another room and sit down.

You are setting the parameters of a physical presence as being the same as physical activity during the working day.

I won't acquiesce to that being a reasonable set of parameters. If you want to employ outlandish humour as a means of gaining moral superiority in an argument that's up to you, however you wanting that to be taken seriously doesn't mean it will be.

Not at all. You asked me to engage on a level, I did, I asked a question, instead off answering the questikn you have deliberately ignored it and started rambling on about one job versus the other and moral superiority. The only thing that isn't reasonable here is your ability to distinguish opinion from fact.

Eric Cartman

Overheal wrote: »

Hard sell, because the office job could pay less and office jobs have surprising stats on worker mortality.

probably not though. If you look at income over ones lifetime

Someone on 10 euro an hour in a shop full time making 400 a week, 50 weeks of the year is pulling in 20k a year and can do that from 18-65 (47 years) lets say, thats lifetime earnings of 940,000 euro.

Someone doing onlyfans from say 18-30 and then on the dole from 30 to 65 is going to make 188 a week for 35 years, so 342,160 euro for that portion. so in their 12 years on onlyfans they need to make 597,840 euro to break even with the minimum wage worker. Thats 49,820 euro a year every year for those 12.

according to this : https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-top-0-1-1-and-10-earn-on-OnlyFans , you have to be in the top 4.5% of creators to pull $2000 a month, so in order to exceed the lifetime earnings of a 10 euro an hour shop worker you'd need to consistently be in the top 3.5% of earners on onlyfans.

I don't fancy those odds for many.

jill_valentine

jill_valentine wrote: »

It makes no difference. Its not the point of work. My employer doesn't give a rats what I learn or don't beyond what makes me more immediately useful to them for less money. If I get more out of it than that, it's irrelevant. If I have happen to like the view from my desk or if I enjoy the work, that's neither here nor there either in the abstract sense - the contract is, they buy me for eight hours and then afterwards I clock out and go where I actually want to go and do what I actually want to do instead.

You mention communication, which is ironic - OnlyFansers have to rely on their social media communication entirely to market themselves. It's not as simple as taking off clothes in a room, again, the only way they make any money at all is building a presence and a rapport with subscribers. You may not consider those skills valuable, but they are skills in exactly the same way as composing a particularly efficient Excel formula. I don't consider an overhead volley an especially valuable skill in the grander scheme of things, but they're not easy either and people get paid plenty for being able to do those.

Employment is a transactional arrangement, not a moral one. You pay me to be here so you can use me to get x done. Nobody's sitting on a factory production line to better themselves, should we be decrying that as some proof of wider degeneracy too?

Everything has a moral aspect. Even only insofar as it relates to one's own moral idea of oneself.
You are painting sex work as a completely value neutral activity. That is extreme moral relativism, which is very modern, so you are on point.

People who work in the sexual services area - and OnlyFans is a sexual service - often have emotional and mental health issues. Low self esteem. Abuse issues. Unresolved trauma. Addiction. Selling access indiscriminately to one's intimacy is abrasive over time to one's self esteem. It also is inherently dangerous, even if only to some - that is a moral concern.

Also in spite of you bigging up the earning potential, or the skills learning curve, the vast majority of people who have pimped themselves out on camera with their negligee and sex toys earn shag all. The average earnings are 180 dollars per month. Per month!
That is very poor recompense for putting your intimate life on permanent digital record for strangers in any corner of the globe to **** over. It is poor recompense if you meet a potential partner who is not cool with your searchable database of public sex acts. It is poor recompense when your children can access your back catalogue in a few decades. It would also seriously undermine one's authority and credibility as a parent when it comes to your own children engaging in any future activities that might be dangerous for them, sexual or otherwise.

It is far from the value neutral activity you paint it to be. I know the brief rush of affirmation young women might feel, believe it or not, from personal experience of offers in youth. But there are lots of sensible and coherent reasons not to do it.

nullzero

jill_valentine wrote: »

I could sell "my time" if I could somehow satisfy their contract with minutes and seconds of my lifespan traded like cryptocoins.

I sell them "my body" because the actual physical vehicle I'm integrated into is dedicated to the work they want from me. I can't send it off for a jog while I stay working because it is/I am engaged in the job I'm hired for. It's at work.

Even then in your own terms though, you've tied yourself up in knots - if a physical labourer is selling their body in a way somebody on a Zoom call isn't, your argument is that the brickie is body selling and the camgirl isn't.

The brickie is selling his physical labour.

The cam girl is selling images of her body.

They are selling their bodies in different ways.

The person sitting at home at their PC cannot but be in their physical form as we are all physical beings but they are not selling their body, they are by any objective viewpoint selling their time whilst continuing to be a physical being.

nullzero

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Not at all. You asked me to engage on a level, I did, I asked a question, instead off answering the questikn you have deliberately ignored it and started rambling on about one job versus the other and moral superiority. The only thing that isn't reasonable here is your ability to distinguish opinion from fact.

You set parameters that weren't reasonable. That was an attempt to skew the argument in your favour.

Like you said you didn't answer the question put to you. You asked your own question after moving the goalposts.

According to you time is something that is immaterial to how workers perform their jobs. If that is the case how come we have the organisation of working time act?

You are grandstanding, constantly declaring yourself the Victor for some reason, I have a right to comment on it.

Overheal

fvp4 wrote: »

How the fcuk did we get onto that. From this thread.

Ridiculous false dichotomies.

Overheal

jill_valentine wrote: »

I could sell "my time" if I could somehow satisfy their contract with minutes and seconds of my lifespan traded like cryptocoins.

I sell them "my body" because the actual physical vehicle I'm integrated into is dedicated to the work they want from me. I can't send it off for a jog while I stay working because it is/I am engaged in the job I'm hired for. I'm using it. It's at work.

Even then in your own terms though, you've tied yourself up in knots - if a physical labourer is selling their body in a way somebody on a Zoom call isn't, your argument is that the brickie is body selling and the camgirl isn't, seeing as all she's doing is at a laptop.

'oh **** baby show me that pivot-table' :pac:

jam_mac_jam

It's not the same as any other work. There is a stigma attached to it. It can be damaging in regard to self esteem and how others see them.

I don't think there should be a stigma to it when there is none on men for buying it. We can pretend we live in a society that doesn't judge you for this work but we don't.

It could effect future relationships and future jobs. Whether it should or not is another argument.

nullzero

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's not the same as any other work. There is a stigma attached to it. It can be damaging in regard to self esteem and how others see them.

I don't think there should be a stigma to it when there is none on men for buying it. We can pretend we live in a society that doesn't judge you for this work but we don't.

It could effect future relationships and future jobs. Whether it should or not is another argument.

The part of men paying for it is huge. The men that engage in this stuff are what drives it, they need to wise up and fast.

I can't Imagine any bank being too happy with a person applying for a mortgage with a crippling Onlyfans addiction destroying their financial situation. It would be akin to a gambling addiction, but at least you have some outside chance of getting some of your money back from gambling. Paying for what's being discussed here is like setting your money on fire.

SnuggyBear

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I don't think there should be a stigma to it when there is none on men for buying it

Eh there is. You think any man tells someone they pay for onlyfans