Girls and OnlyFans

Pat_bottom

Purple is a Fruit wrote: »

Nobody is telling people not to earn via OnlyFans but they also have the freedom to give their opinions about such work and sex work in general. These are just opinions, which aren't being forced on anyone, just expressed. Those who throw out allegations of misogyny and being backwards are the forceful ones.

I generally always feel its the ones that do the accusing are the worst offenders and then when challenge get defensive .

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Do you watch onlyfans?
Ever?

I've seen it. Why?

One eyed Jack

KyussB wrote: »

Do me a favour and don't quote me in the thread again - third time I'm having to repeat that isn't what my post was saying - and that being ignored so the same misrepresentation is repeated.

I'm going to just report that if it keeps going - I know it's deliberate.

I’m already doing you a favour by assuming you’re not actually trying to argue prostitution and legitimate forms of employment should be considered in the same context. I was questioning what you are actually trying to argue, as it wasn’t, and still isn’t clear.

Take the example of Matty whatever his name is that’s been mentioned already in the thread - started on tiktok, moved to OnlyFans, is probably on numerous other social media platforms. I’d regard what he’s doing in the same context as the many influencers producing online content aimed at adults for the entertainment of adults. Saying OnlyFans is a legitimate form of work isn’t actually saying a whole lot.

In the context of the thread where you mentioned the morality of roles and argued that people prostituted themselves in regular jobs, it piqued my curiosity because I do actually know you’re more intelligent than to attempt such a stupid argument. I wasn’t trying to misrepresent your opinion, I was trying to understand it, because it didn’t make any sense is all.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

Do me a favour and don't quote me in the thread again - third time I'm having to repeat that isn't what my post was saying - and that being ignored so the same misrepresentation is repeated.

I'm going to just report that if it keeps going - I know it's deliberate.

In fairness, I don't think you are being misrepresented. I just think you don't like how your words have come across.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've seen it. Why?

Just wondering, did you enjoy it?
Would you be interested in watching it again?

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Just wondering, did you enjoy it?
Would you be interested in watching it again?

No.

I was shown it by a friend who wanted to let me see a girl we both knew.

I've no interest in paying for pornography.

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.tiktok.com/@mattygilbert91/video/6948149054954147078?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1

BorneTobyWilde

bubblypop wrote: »

Just wondering, did you enjoy it?
Would you be interested in watching it again?

Have you an onlyfans, would you do it ?

BorneTobyWilde

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Have you an onlyfans, would you do it ?

I've never seen it, personally I wouldn't have a my interest in paying for that, but I wouldn't look down on anybody in it.
In fact, if they can make 50K a month, I say fair play to them, make hay while the Sun shines!

Listened to a woman being interviewed on the radio a while back, she makes thousands a month, farting for fellas. Who knew!

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I've never seen it, personally I wouldn't have a my interest in paying for that, but I wouldn't look down on anybody in it.
In fact, if they can make 50K a month, I say fair play to them, make hay while the Sun shines!

Listened to a woman being interviewed on the radio a while back, she makes thousands a month, farting for fellas. Who knew!

Were you open-minded up enough as a 12-year-old to appreciate the extra holidays your mother earned by masturbating for strangers online? Open-minded enough to take the slagging and ignore those other backwards kids? Your morals here seem to be that people, even children, should just accept something as long as it's profitable enough.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Were you open-minded up enough as a 12-year-old to appreciate the extra holidays your mother earned by masturbating for strangers online? Open-minded enough to take the slagging and ignore those other backwards kids? Your morals here seem to be that people, even children, should just accept something as long as it's profitable enough.

I never gave 2 ****s what anyone said to me as a kid. I was well able to look after myself.
I'm not sure where you're going with the morals? Is onlyfans immoral to you?

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I never gave 2 ****s what anyone said to me as a kid. I was well able to look after myself.
I'm not sure where you're going with the morals? Is onlyfans immoral to you?

I'm sure you were. Kids are notoriously self reliant and capable of growing up to be well rounded individuals after being subjected to torrents of abuse.

Define "moral". Then I can let you know if immoral is the correct word. It certainly isn't honourable.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm sure you were. Kids are notoriously self reliant and capable of growing up to be well rounded individuals after being subjected to torrents of abuse.

Define "moral". Then I can let you know if immoral is the correct word. It certainly isn't honourable.

Yep, that's right I was that kid.

I don't need to define moral, the other poster said that it was not moral.
It's not 'honourable '? Why not exactly? How is it not honourable?

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Your morals here seem to be that people, even children, should just accept something as long as it's profitable enough.

That does seem to be a theme alright. The earnings, imaginary or no are to the fore in this debate. So long as the money is good, or good enough, play ball. It does somewhat remind me of this narrative:

Would you sleep with me for ten million quid?

Mmmmm, that's very tempting. Yes

Would you sleep with me for ten quid?

How dare you!! No! What do you think I am??!!

Oh I think we've established what you are, we're just haggling over the price.

It does seem one's moral position and attitudes to something can shift depending on the payout involved. I suspect the attitudes would be less comfortable if playing hide the French tickler to an audience of online onanists only paid a couple of hundred quid a month.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

That does seem to be a theme alright. The earnings, imaginary or no are to the fore in this debate. So long as the money is good, or good enough, play ball. It does somewhat remind me of this narrative:

Would you sleep with me for ten million quid?

Mmmmm, that's very tempting. Yes

Would you sleep with me for ten quid?

How dare you!! No! What do you think I am??!!

Oh I think we've established what you are, we're just haggling over the price.

It does seem one's moral position and attitudes to something can shift depending on the payout involved. I suspect the attitudes would be less comfortable if playing hide the French tickler to an audience of online onanists only paid a couple of hundred quid a month.

So, people have a price? That's fair enough I would imagine!

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Yep, that's right I was that kid.

I don't need to define moral, the other poster said that it was not moral.
It's not 'honourable '? Why not exactly? How is it not honourable?

Good for you.

If you are asking if something is immoral, it's handy if you would let us know what your definition of moral is.

It can mean a lot of things to different people based on the individuals perception of morality.

I'll flip this on you, why do you think it is moral and honourable?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Good for you.

If you are asking if something is immoral, it's handy if you would let us know what your definition of moral is.

It can mean a lot of things to different people based on the individuals perception of morality.

I'll flip this on you, why do you think it is moral and honourable?

I don't think about it as moral or honourable, those words wouldn't come into my head.
It just is what it is, people making money from doing things that others want to pay for.
I don't judge the people on it!
They are not hurting anyone, nor doing anything illegal, so no problem.

It's gas that so many posters admit to watching it, but then judge the people making money off it. Maybe that's what gets them off? Watching something they see as wrong?
Perhaps they are jealous?
I don't know, but seems weird to judge those providing the entertainment you enjoy.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I never gave 2 ****s what anyone said to me as a kid. I was well able to look after myself.

Good for you. But you must know that doesn't represent the average teenager who gets slaughtered when their mum shows up in porn.

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're going with the morals? Is onlyfans immoral to you?

No, it isn't. Not at all. But you just keep talking about the money. You're fascinated by it. It makes me wonder how you'd feel if you supported your girlfriend doing onlyfans but she made pennies on it. Would you still want her masturbating on camera for two euro.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Good for you. But you must know that doesn't represent the average teenager who gets slaughtered when their mum shows up in porn.



No, it isn't. Not at all. But you just keep talking about the money. You're fascinated by it. It makes me wonder how you'd feel if you supported your girlfriend doing onlyfans but she made pennies on it. Would you still want her masturbating on camera for two euro.

No, don't know where you get that idea, I'm not fascinated by money at all. The people doing it are not doing it for free, are they? It's their job or side job is it not?
I don't care how much anyone makes it doesn't make doing it.
That's their own business, I wouldn't judge them on it.

Purple is a Fruit

bubblypop wrote: »

I never gave 2 ****s what anyone said to me as a kid. I was well able to look after myself.

If that's true, you must feel quite unusual - seeing as that does not apply to most children. Verbal abuse is bullying and it's rare that a child would not give two sh1ts about it.

Purple is a Fruit

Purple is a Fruit wrote: »

If that's true, you must feel quite unusual - seeing as that does not apply to most children. Verbal abuse is bullying and it's rare that a child would not give two sh1ts about it.

What can I say? I'm don't feel unusual, I feel like myself.
No-one gave me much abuse when I was a kid. I didn't care less what people said or thought.
Way off topic though.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

No, don't know where you get that idea, I'm not fascinated by money at all. The people doing it are not doing it for free, are they? It's their job or side job is it not?
I don't care how much anyone makes it doesn't make doing it.
That's their own business, I wouldn't judge them on it.

You don't sign up and suddenly make thousands. You have to promote yourself all over the place and eventually you might make good money. Most won't. And yes, I'm sure plenty do it for what is effectively free.

At least if you're a stripper, you're guaranteed eyes on you and a good wage. And it's really no different if it's a safe club. You could be on onlyfans sticking Barbie dolls up your arse for months trying to fill that niche but ultimately fail.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You don't sign up and suddenly make thousands. You have to promote yourself all over the place and eventually you might make good money. Most won't. And yes, I'm sure plenty do it for what is effectively free.

At least if you're a stripper, you're guaranteed eyes on you and a good wage. And it's really no different if it's a safe club. You could be on onlyfans sticking Barbie dolls up your arse for months trying to fill that niche but ultimately fail.

Ok.

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

I've never seen it, personally I wouldn't have a my interest in paying for that, but I wouldn't look down on anybody in it.
In fact, if they can make 50K a month, I say fair play to them, make hay while the Sun shines!

Listened to a woman being interviewed on the radio a while back, she makes thousands a month, farting for fellas. Who knew!

It could have been the same woman (or maybe not, I’ve no doubt an online community exists ), but there was a woman interviewed on This Morning who earned her living doing exactly as you describe. Phil and Holly couldn’t keep a straight face, I couldn’t keep a straight face, because it was both bizarre and hilarious at the same time that there’s actually market for this kind of behaviour. I wasn’t shocked by it, I just thought it was hilarious. She did mention though that she has to keep it a secret from her family (God only knows how! :pac:), but she claims she earns around £3,000 a month.

To be honest with you “fair play” is not the first thought that came to mind, but rather “that’s disgusting, hilarious, but disgusting”, and I couldn’t imagine myself in a relationship with someone who thought it should be acceptable, regardless of how much her earning potential is for that particular activity.

It’s not quite as disgusting though as someone who imagines it should be acceptable that they are willing to provide sexual services online for less than the price of a cheeseburger to fulfil strangers sexual fantasies. I don’t think that sort of behaviour or attitude should be encouraged, it should be discouraged, because I wouldn’t be comfortable at all with anyone thinking so little of themselves that they imagine all they’re worth is the price of a cheeseburger. It’s exploitative, but OnlyFans isn’t, and has never been the only avenue to accommodate such exploitation. OnlyFans are just more successful than their competition in the market they’re competing in.

Mister Vain

She must go through a lot of baked beans.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't think about it as moral or honourable, those words wouldn't come into my head.
It just is what it is, people making money from doing things that others want to pay for.
I don't judge the people on it!
They are not hurting anyone, nor doing anything illegal, so no problem.

It's gas that so many posters admit to watching it, but then judge the people making money off it. Maybe that's what gets them off? Watching something they see as wrong?
Perhaps they are jealous?
I don't know, but seems weird to judge those providing the entertainment you enjoy.

The question was, would you be in a relationship with someone who does it. Many responded no and had their reasons. People who have the same opinion as yourself then jumped on and asked us to expand on why and accused us of being backward and pearl clutchers.

Almost all people who wouldn't be in a relationship with an only fans creator have said they are absolutely fine with them doing what they want, but they would have no interest in a relationship with someone who isn't exclusive with their intimacy.

That's the crux of it.

LillySV

I have more respect for full out prostitutes

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The question was, would you be in a relationship with someone who does it. Many responded no and had their reasons. People who have the same opinion as yourself then jumped on and asked us to expand on why and accused us of being backward and pearl clutchers.

Almost all people who wouldn't be in a relationship with an only fans creator have said they are absolutely fine with them doing what they want, but they would have no interest in a relationship with someone who isn't exclusive with their intimacy.

That's the crux of it.

Yes I get that.
I just think it's hypocritical, if people are happy to watch it, but wouldn't want anyone they know doing it, just seems very judgy and double standards, and yes, a bit old fashioned sex is wrong kind of thing. #shrugs#

But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
It wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

SnuggyBear

Wibbs wrote: »

That does seem to be a theme alright. The earnings, imaginary or no are to the fore in this debate. So long as the money is good, or good enough, play ball. It does somewhat remind me of this narrative:

Would you sleep with me for ten million quid?

Mmmmm, that's very tempting. Yes

Would you sleep with me for ten quid?

How dare you!! No! What do you think I am??!!

Oh I think we've established what you are, we're just haggling over the price.

It does seem one's moral position and attitudes to something can shift depending on the payout involved. I suspect the attitudes would be less comfortable if playing hide the French tickler to an audience of online onanists only paid a couple of hundred quid a month.

Infairness I'd say the vast majority earn that.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Yes I get that.
I just think it's hypocritical, if people are happy to watch it, but wouldn't want anyone they know doing it, just seems very judgy and double standards, and yes, a bit old fashioned sex is wrong kind of thing. #shrugs#

But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
It wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Nobody is saying sex is wrong. People are saying that they would want the people they are in a relationship to respect their wishes and have some exclusivity with regards to their intimacy.

It's old fashioned to not actively encourage or find nothing wrong with masturbating for strangers for the price of a pint?

Then I'm glad to be old fashioned.

And honestly, if you would like/have no problem with your sister/daughter masturbating for your friends for a few quid, it's not as virtuous or progressive sounding as you think.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Yes I get that.
I just think it's hypocritical, if people are happy to watch it, but wouldn't want anyone they know doing it, just seems very judgy and double standards, and yes, a bit old fashioned sex is wrong kind of thing. #shrugs#

But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
It wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

It wouldn't be hypocritical (since you've changed the verb - watch/do)... People are fully capable of having a range of views that differ depending on personal circumstances vs the circumstances that apply to other people.

Now, if they said that they didn't want others to do it, but were doing it themselves, then that would be hypocritical.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nobody is saying sex is wrong. People are saying that they would want the people they are in a relationship to respect their wishes and have some exclusivity with regards to their intimacy.

It's old fashioned to not actively encourage or find nothing wrong with masturbating for strangers for the price of a pint?

Then I'm glad to be old fashioned.

And honestly, if you would like/have no problem with your sister/daughter masturbating for your friends for a few quid, it's not as virtuous or progressive sounding as you think.

I don't think anything is virtuous or anything else, I just think what I think.
Wouldn't bother me, would bother you, people are different.
That's all.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It wouldn't be hypocritical (since you've changed the verb - watch/do)... People are fully capable of having a range of views that differ depending on personal circumstances vs the circumstances that apply to other people.

Now, if they said that they didn't want others to do it, but were doing it themselves, then that would be hypocritical.

Yeah, I don't think so. It's ok for people to do it, if they want to watch it, but it's not ok if it's someone they know.
I thinks that's hypocritical.
But that's my opinion, it's ok if you don't agree.

YellowLead

bubblypop wrote: »

Yeah, I don't think so. It's ok for people to do it, if they want to watch it, but it's not ok if it's someone they know.
I thinks that's hypocritical.
But that's my opinion, it's ok if you don't agree.

The issue kind of is that just because people don’t agree with you on this you label them old fashioned people who think sex is wrong...

YellowLead

YellowLead wrote: »

The issue kind of is that just because people don’t agree with you on this you label them old fashioned people who think sex is wrong...

But that's just my opinion, we all have them right?

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't think anything is virtuous or anything else, I just think what I think.
Wouldn't bother me, would bother you, people are different.
That's all.

You think you would be fine/wouldn't bother you if your daughter/sister/girlfriend masturbated for strangers/friends for the price of a pint.

That's a pretty bold statement and you judged others as hypocritical and/or old fashioned for thinking otherwise.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

But that's just my opinion, we all have them right?

Yes and that's what we are discussing. Our opinions and how our opinions change how people see us.

YellowLead

bubblypop wrote: »

But that's just my opinion, we all have them right?

Fair point.
I think you are coming across as fake liberal and clueless about the real world based on your opinions. That’s just my opinion too

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You think you would be fine/wouldn't bother you if your daughter/sister/girlfriend masturbated for strangers/friends for the price of a pint.

That's a pretty bold statement and you judged others as hypocritical and/or old fashioned for thinking otherwise.

No it wouldn't bother me. I'm not sure why people are so surprised by that, lots of posters said it wouldn't bother them.
And I do think others are very judgy, but that's my opinion right?

YellowLead

YellowLead wrote: »

Fair point.
I think you are coming across as fake liberal and clueless about the real world based on your opinions. That’s just my opinion too

That's ok
I don't care what you think
#shrugs#

Purple is a Fruit

bubblypop wrote: »

What can I say? I'm don't feel unusual, I feel like myself.
No-one gave me much abuse when I was a kid. I didn't care less what people said or thought.
Way off topic though.

When someone suggested that children could face ridicule over their parents doing such work, your response was "I didn't give two sh1ts what people said to me when I was a child" (as if it's only about you) and then you say people didn't give you much hassle as a child anyway? Flawless logic.

Purple is a Fruit

Wibbs wrote: »

That does seem to be a theme alright. The earnings, imaginary or no are to the fore in this debate. So long as the money is good, or good enough, play ball. It does somewhat remind me of this narrative:

Would you sleep with me for ten million quid?

Mmmmm, that's very tempting. Yes

Would you sleep with me for ten quid?

How dare you!! No! What do you think I am??!!

Oh I think we've established what you are, we're just haggling over the price.

It does seem one's moral position and attitudes to something can shift depending on the payout involved. I suspect the attitudes would be less comfortable if playing hide the French tickler to an audience of online onanists only paid a couple of hundred quid a month.

That, and contorting oneself into all sorts of positions (heheh) to look the ultimate liberal.

Also, "woke" types chide others constantly for being judgemental - when you could not get more judgemental than a woke type. Their judging is the "right" kind though.

Purple is a Fruit

Purple is a Fruit wrote: »

When someone suggested that children could face ridicule over their parents doing such work, your response was "I didn't give two sh1ts what people said to me when I was a child" (as if it's only about you) and then you say people didn't give you much hassle as a child anyway? Flawless logic.

So, would it be ok if the people on onlyfans were not parents?

Btw, that's not actually accurate account of the conversation, but I'm sure you know that

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

No it wouldn't bother me. I'm not sure why people are so surprised by that, lots of posters said it wouldn't bother them.
And I do think others are very judgy, but that's my opinion right?

It's your judgement that people who disagree with your way of thinking are too judgy.

And we are the hypocritical ones...

Gotta love your logic.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's your judgement that people who disagree with your way of thinking are too judgy.

And we are the hypocritical ones...

Gotta love your logic.

No.
Nothing to do with them agreeing or disagreeing with me. It's nothing to do with me.
I just find their attitude hypocritical.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

So, would it be ok if the people on onlyfans were not parents?

Btw, that's not actually accurate account of the conversation, but I'm sure you know that

It's absolutely fine if they are or aren't parents.

They are strangers to me. They can do what they want.

That isn't what is in question here.

It's would you be ok with someone you loved/cared about doing it.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

No.
Nothing to do with them agreeing or disagreeing with me. It's nothing to do with me.
I just find their attitude hypocritical.

It's just a coincidence that the people you are judging happen to disagree with you?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's absolutely fine if they are or aren't parents.

They are strangers to me. They can do what they want.

That isn't what is in question here.

It's would you be ok with someone you loved/cared about doing it.

Well I was actually responding to the posters who say it's not fair to the children.
And yes, again, it wouldn't bother me if it was my.other half doing it!
I don't view it as anything like cheating, it's just a job.
But that's my opinion and how I see it.

YellowLead

YellowLead wrote: »

The issue kind of is that just because people don’t agree with you on this you label them old fashioned people who think sex is wrong...

There's nothing wrong with sex (I assume you didn't mean that, and didn't think to qualify the end of the statement).

The issue for most people is that we place some importance on the act of sex. It's a deeply intimate and personal activity. When a stranger does it on a camera, you can remove the intimacy because it is a stranger. When it's your girlfriend doing it on camera, she's revealing something that would normally be a very private activity, and a large part of why we have relationships is that we become exclusive with each other. We, typically, don't want everyone to see our girlfriends/boyfriends naked or in the act of having sex.

Now, perhaps that is old-fashioned, but I don't think it actually is. Open relationships are very rare, because they don't last. Jealousy is a very strong human condition, as is the possessiveness that comes with being in a serious relationship. Few people can love someone, while they're off having sex with others..

Now, we're in the age, where people claim all manner of open-minded stances regarding sex, but I seriously doubt that most people have left behind the importance of exclusivity for relationships.

There's a lot of blurring going on in this thread, where issues are being grouped together. Your girlfriend getting naked online is likely to be a very different issue than your girlfriend masturbating online, or even having sex with someone else online (with or without your knowledge).

And that's the problem really. The subtleties are being discarded, so that it's easier for people to claim being open-minded, and easier to call others old-fashioned.

RobbieTheRobber

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

It is hypocritical, if you are ok with someone else's daughter/sister/girlfriend masturbating for the price of a pint. And are happy to consume such material for your own pleasure then who are you to pass judgement on anyone else for providing this service.

Either the service only fans provides is wrong or it is right. If it is OK for you to consume then how can you judge any other provider of the same service.

It certainly isn't.

I don't care that someone I don't know has a daughter who takes heroin.

I wouldn't want my daughter doing heroin.

Am I a hypocrite? I don't have an onlyfans account.