Girls and OnlyFans

Purple is a Fruit

I don't think it's a good indictment of a society when selling one's sexuality is normalised, but the message is even contained in kids' dolls (Bratz) and the singers little girls like, and TV stars, clothing ads... shur no wonder. Such a confusing message when they're also being warned often about paedos.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

Isn't it far more damaging to society, to have widespread acceptance of involuntary unemployment which pressures people into exploitative/undignified work in general? (and incentivizes others into doing the exploiting)

There's little forcing anymore, except in the more extreme cases of trafficking, and such.

The simple truth is that people have options now. The internet provides a massive resource (a lot of which is free) to obtain the skills/knowledge to start all manner of payable work, whether that's online or offline. Someone could learn most aspects of webdesign in less than a month, become comfortable with hosting within the next month, then throw in database administration... and there you have someone with a solid foundation for work for the foreseeable future. And that's one simple example. There is heaps of work in data processing, and other low skilled work, which while not paying a ton, does still pay enough to live on.

The problem is that some people don't want to work, and (don't want to) recognise the advantage of constantly improving themselves, which in turn, opens up further opportunities.

The moral standard expressed, emphasizes 'individual responsibility' and blames many who are victims, absolving responsibility from the rest of us for solving the problem (of involuntary unemployment, driving people into work like OF) - when it's really a problem we have collective responsibility for, which creates many victims, that we have a collective responsibility for solving.

That's a perfect example of a circular led argument where you lead with the belief they're victims (somehow), when, there are plenty of options for supporting oneself (These people already have access to the internet... ), but passing it off on to society for their own circumstances.

The truth is that society is not responsible for the situations these people have placed themselves in, because society, (and technology), has provided a wide range of alternative options for people who are willing to take responsibility for their own lives.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

If OF work came back to haunt someone (as it may do), I'd view that as a societal problem, much like discrimination against people who are outed as gay.

Okay then, you'd like complete acceptance for everything sexual, and their presence in society... (so that condemnation and discrimination is removed) Where do you draw the line?

Also, as all of these behaviors become acceptable, do you also believe that men/women who abuse, harass, sexually assault, others due to their exposure to these ideas, be forgiven? Do you recognise any association between the normalising and exposure of sexual acts, and a possible rise in the negatives? Should sexual activity be allowed to be shown in public? On advertising billboards for everyone to see, including children?

Society needs to have boundaries regarding what is acceptable. When you relax the boundaries of what is considered acceptable then there are going to be consequences that occur elsewhere..

Also... being gay affected a huge number of people, and was a massive social injustice for a very long time. I really wish people would stop trying to link what happened to gay people to whatever social movement they're advocating. There's no serious comparison here.

Legally, OF work is already normalized. It may be sex work, but its exploitative side shares more in common with exploitation in the labour market in general - than it does with exploitation in the wider sex industry around the world.

Legally yes. Socially, and morally, it isn't. The activities that camgirls engage in is not normalised, nor should it be.

notAMember

I think we need to think about where we came from as well, and where we are going.

It’s not that long ago that being sexually active before marriage was shameful. So shameful we effectively incarcerated people without trial for it in those laundries or mother and baby homes. Those wee still running into the 90’s.

Societal attitudes have changed remarkably in my lifetime. Nowadays, it’s almost unheard of for people to be virgins before marriage. That is a complete 180 in attitude. I see it continuing to change, where women being openly sexual on their own terms is slowly becoming more acceptable. Where that will lead, I’m not sure.

In general, I think open communication and self-confidence are both positive. Not needing to hide what you do for a living for example. The ideal would be good communication between sexual partners, where they are able to articulate what they enjoy and don’t enjoy in a relationship, and can appreciate each other.

notAMember

notAMember wrote: »

I think we need to think about where we came from as well, and where we are going.

That would be nice. I get the feeling that the focus is entirely on the past, rather than what will come next.

It’s not that long ago that being sexually active before marriage was shameful. So shameful we effectively incarcerated people without trial for it in those laundries or mother and baby homes. Those wee still running into the 90’s.

Ahh.. err.. they were still running, but it wasn't even remotely widespread in the 90s. I was a teenager in the 80s/early 90s.. and there was plenty of sex going on, with some very open minded attitudes displayed by teens/adults. I had teachers who were very outspoken about sex, and even one religion teacher (a nun) who spent most of the time giving us sex advice. The point being that there were a wide range of opinions, and attitudes. Times had changed, and the country was catching up.

Societal attitudes have changed remarkably in my lifetime. Nowadays, it’s almost unheard of for people to be virgins before marriage. That is a complete 180 in attitude. I see it continuing to change, where women being openly sexual on their own terms is slowly becoming more acceptable. Where that will lead, I’m not sure.

It was rare for anyone to be a virgin before marriage for my generation too. Oh, it happened, but there was enormous pressure to have sex in college/university... I think you might want to take a decade or so, off your estimate as to when things started changing.

As for where these changes will lead, nobody knows. That's the problem. Few are asking the questions, and willing to listen to ideas that run contrary to their view of an enlightened society.

In general, I think open communication and self-confidence are both positive. Not needing to hide what you do for a living for example. The ideal would be good communication between sexual partners, where they are able to articulate what they enjoy and don’t enjoy in a relationship, and can appreciate each other.

Yup. But.. tbh... that was there in my parents time. There was the expectation that sexual activity was a private thing done behind closed doors... that didn't mean that they didn't communicate or were aware of each other ****. Few people really cared what went on in the privacy of someones home. Whereas now, the desire is, apparently, to air your activities for everyone to see.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes..

Yes, it is..

No, it isn't.

A person on OF has control over their work and income, receiving compensation for their work - a person on an exploitative workfare program, is either trying to keep hold of merely the dole, and/or having to work for free in the hope of getting actual paid work (in many cases this hope was futile).

A person working at somewhere like Paddy Power is doing something far more morally compromising - prostituting their morals (in the "to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes" definition of the word, not sex work) by willingly taking a job that involves exploiting others. Something that is actually immoral/unethical - whereas work on OF is not.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

There's little forcing anymore, except in the more extreme cases of trafficking, and such.

The simple truth is that people have options now. The internet provides a massive resource (a lot of which is free) to obtain the skills/knowledge to start all manner of payable work, whether that's online or offline. Someone could learn most aspects of webdesign in less than a month, become comfortable with hosting within the next month, then throw in database administration... and there you have someone with a solid foundation for work for the foreseeable future. And that's one simple example. There is heaps of work in data processing, and other low skilled work, which while not paying a ton, does still pay enough to live on.

The problem is that some people don't want to work, and (don't want to) recognise the advantage of constantly improving themselves, which in turn, opens up further opportunities.



That's a perfect example of a circular led argument where you lead with the belief they're victims (somehow), when, there are plenty of options for supporting oneself (These people already have access to the internet... ), but passing it off on to society for their own circumstances.

The truth is that society is not responsible for the situations these people have placed themselves in, because society, (and technology), has provided a wide range of alternative options for people who are willing to take responsibility for their own lives.

In practice, everyone is expected to work in order to be able to earn a decent living - and even that basic standard is being eroded, by todays massively distorted cost of basics like accommodation, where even working people can barely get by.

Is is true that people who are left involuntarily unemployed, and who e.g. have kids to look after or other dependents, or otherwise are unable to or feel it would be undignified to settle with basic social supports - are forced to work, or be left involuntarily unemployed.

When there aren't enough jobs to go around, or the jobs are of such poor quality/treatment - that will turn people towards stuff like OF. This has happened on a large scale during the pandemic.

In practice, people can not just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when there are not enough jobs to go around - when unemployed is high, it is a zero-sum game, and no amount of 'individual responsibility' is going to make enough jobs available for everyone - it's a problem with how the economy is run, not with individuals. Involuntary unemployment is real.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

A person working at somewhere like Paddy Power is doing something far more morally compromising - prostituting their morals (in the "to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes" definition of the word, not sex work) by willingly taking a job that involves exploiting others. Something that is actually immoral/unethical - whereas work on OF is not.

haha.. I love it. You're trying to say that working for Paddy power would be more morally comprising than getting naked, and masturbating online? have you really thought this through? Now, for a moment, consider the range of conditioning we have already received from society, religion, education, etc. Anyone who is doing sexual material online is far more likely to be compromising the morals they've been taught than working for paddy power.

Anyway.. you're missing a second very obvious point... anyone on OnlyFans seeks to manipulate their customers to make money. Whether that's through sexual acts, suggestive language, or whatever.... so they're already exploiting the interests and vulnerabilities of others for gain. But you think Paddy power would be worse. Hilarious.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hilarious.

It really is..
Astounding really..

Achebe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

:pac: I dunno I guess I would have higher aspirations for my kids than to be repeating something someone else says in a different language. I would rather that they be the ones saying something worthy of being interpreted

This is a really bizarre stance to have on such an important and skillful job.

SnuggyBear

How long until prostitution is normalised?
Seeking arrangements is basically prostitution with an app on the app store already.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

In practice, everyone is expected to work in order to be able to earn a decent living - and even that basic standard is being eroded, by todays massively distorted cost of basics like accommodation, where even working people can barely get by.

The basic standard you mention isn't anything new, and rising costs have been part of society... forever. Your first sentence doesn't match your second sentence. The first is a simple statement of living for most people.. the second suggests that the first is a standard that has been changed, but it hasn't actually changed.

Is is true that people who are left involuntarily unemployed, and who e.g. have kids to look after or other dependents, or otherwise are unable to or feel it would be undignified to settle with basic social supports - are forced to work, or be left involuntarily unemployed.

You're drifting and seeking to shift the goalposts of the discussion. Stick with your original points (and my response) before trying to introduce unrelated opinions.

When there aren't enough jobs to go around, or the jobs are of such poor quality/treatment - that will turn people towards stuff like OF. This has happened on a large scale during the pandemic.

Some people do... and many of them didn't engage in sexual content. It's a lot like the blogging craze that hit the internet after the Banking crash... in any case, there are still plenty of other options other than what you suggested.

In practice, people can not just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when there are not enough jobs to go around - when unemployed is high, it is a zero-sum game, and no amount of 'individual responsibility' is going to make enough jobs available for everyone - it's a problem with how the economy is run, not with individuals. Involuntary unemployment is real.

These people already have turned to the internet to provide them with an income... so I don't know why you're returning to talking about physical employment. As I said earlier, there are heaps of jobs online for someone willing to learn a new skill or obtain new knowledge... there's little logic in choosing Onlyfans, with an aim of doing sexual content, instead of those other options... and you haven't managed to show that there is. Except possibly that it's simply easier to get their kit off, and manipulate their audience. Sex sells.

But that would quickly erode your stance that they're victims who have been pushed into these roles due to a failure by society.

SnuggyBear

SnuggyBear wrote: »

How long until prostitution is normalised?
Seeking arrangements is basically prostitution with an app on the app store already.

Prostitution is still done behind closed doors... there's a difference.

Besides, even in countries where prostitution is legal for decades or longer, it hasn't become normalised. Society still tends to condemn those who engage in it.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay then, you'd like complete acceptance for everything sexual, and their presence in society... (so that condemnation and discrimination is removed) Where do you draw the line?

Also, as all of these behaviors become acceptable, do you also believe that men/women who abuse, harass, sexually assault, others due to their exposure to these ideas, be forgiven? Do you recognise any association between the normalising and exposure of sexual acts, and a possible rise in the negatives? Should sexual activity be allowed to be shown in public? On advertising billboards for everyone to see, including children?

Society needs to have boundaries regarding what is acceptable. When you relax the boundaries of what is considered acceptable then there are going to be consequences that occur elsewhere..

Also... being gay affected a huge number of people, and was a massive social injustice for a very long time. I really wish people would stop trying to link what happened to gay people to whatever social movement they're advocating. There's no serious comparison here.



Legally yes. Socially, and morally, it isn't. The activities that camgirls engage in is not normalised, nor should it be.

I wouldn't say everything sexual, present throughout society. I'll just stick within the confines of OF here.

I don't think stuff on OF is likely to negatively influence society any more than e.g. video games. The main change I could see OF causing, is more respect for sex workers in general - which would be a good thing.

The main abusive views I see are towards sex workers by people promoting a moral panic over OF - that's the main negative I see, and that's a societal problem not an OF problem.

The workers on OF are in control of their content and how they allow people to interact with them, so I doubt there is promotion of abuse, harassment, or sexual assault (inevitably there will be people who roleplay, but people know roleplay is not any more real than acting in a film).

I agree there should be boundaries that society sets, on what is/isn't acceptable - but the lines people are trying to draw around sex workers (placing individual responsibility on them, for many of their circumstances), just disguise the unacceptable ways that workers overall are treated (which place collective responsibility on us all, for the circumstances of many sex workers and workers overall).

Social attitudes towards sex workers, and that they are discriminated against professionally and in society, do mirror the treatment of gay people and the past professional/social risks of being outed.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

haha.. I love it. You're trying to say that working for Paddy power would be more morally comprising than getting naked, and masturbating online? have you really thought this through? Now, for a moment, consider the range of conditioning we have already received from society, religion, education, etc. Anyone who is doing sexual material online is far more likely to be compromising the morals they've been taught than working for paddy power.

Anyway.. you're missing a second very obvious point... anyone on OnlyFans seeks to manipulate their customers to make money. Whether that's through sexual acts, suggestive language, or whatever.... so they're already exploiting the interests and vulnerabilities of others for gain. But you think Paddy power would be worse. Hilarious.

Yes, of course it is? A person on OF is doing nothing wrong - a person working for Paddy Power is contributing to exploiting others.

Religious morals aren't the standard here? That's a pretty low bar.

Heh So if someone is on OF due to e.g. involuntary unemployment and needing to support dependents/kids - they are not victims of circumstance, they are really the ones making victims of their customers?

That's stretching things beyond breaking point, really. I mean, compulsive gambling is a real predatory thing known to ruin peoples lives - what life ruining compulsion are OF customers suffering from?

Ok no..huh...

This conversation came up in my workplace. I work close to people in a fast pace environment so we yap away and all things come out

Anyway I was working with a guy early 30s and a 20 year old and their general views were of disgust but also seemed really interested in that they brought it up and had a lot to say about it.

I didn't really say much but just that there is a platform there and people/women will use it and they are not using/gaining from it without any audience.

I honestly think with these things, people just get caught up...flattery, money, lust etc.

I don't judge anyone on it or who use it tbh. If it's there people will use it.

There is a part of me that doesn't like how much people are sharing on the internet nowadays but I'm guilty of it (not to the same extent) as much as anyone so I don't really know how to feel.

One thing I feel is that I don't have the level of anger/disappointment towards the women using it that the guys I was talking to did.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

The basic standard you mention isn't anything new, and rising costs have been part of society... forever. Your first sentence doesn't match your second sentence. The first is a simple statement of living for most people.. the second suggests that the first is a standard that has been changed, but it hasn't actually changed.



You're drifting and seeking to shift the goalposts of the discussion. Stick with your original points (and my response) before trying to introduce unrelated opinions.



Some people do... and many of them didn't engage in sexual content. It's a lot like the blogging craze that hit the internet after the Banking crash... in any case, there are still plenty of other options other than what you suggested.



These people already have turned to the internet to provide them with an income... so I don't know why you're returning to talking about physical employment. As I said earlier, there are heaps of jobs online for someone willing to learn a new skill or obtain new knowledge... there's little logic in choosing Onlyfans, with an aim of doing sexual content, instead of those other options... and you haven't managed to show that there is. Except possibly that it's simply easier to get their kit off, and manipulate their audience. Sex sells.

But that would quickly erode your stance that they're victims who have been pushed into these roles due to a failure by society.

The basic social contract is that you work for a decent living - and involuntary unemployment breaks that contract (no work) - as does rising cost of basics like accommodation, that even those with good jobs can barely afford (work no longer pays for a decent living). So no contradiction between my sentences or goalpost shifting, there.

Unemployment is a zero sum game - individually there are other job options if you out-compete others for them - collectively there are not other job options, because there are a limited number of jobs to compete for.

Collectively, the alternative to people going on OF was less jobs and staying unemployed for many - because there are a limited number of jobs available - and the people who went on OF are actually self-employed, creating jobs that would not exist otherwise.

When they've got dependents and/or bills/rent to pay, they don't have time to spend learning web design etc. - they had OF and money available for bills etc. straight away.

It absolutely is a failure of society when a lack of jobs leads to involuntary unemployment, and it can and does lead to victimization where people are pushed into work like this.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

I wouldn't say everything sexual, present throughout society. I'll just stick within the confines of OF here.

I don't think stuff on OF is likely to negatively influence society any more than e.g. video games. The main change I could see OF causing, is more respect for sex workers in general - which would be a good thing.

Let's get specific here. When you say sex workers, are you including those involved in prostitution/escorting... or simply referring to those who enact sexual behavior online ie, porn?

As for more respect being generated, how would that happen, since there has been no campaign to change the perception of society towards this behavior? Instead, any change would happen through the eyes of those who purchase the services... and their opinions are likely not to represent mainstream society.

The main abusive views I see are towards sex workers by people promoting a moral panic over OF - that's the main negative I see, and that's a societal problem not an OF problem.

As for the main negative, I think you need to expand your thinking by a rather large margin, to include those who view and interact with these sex workers....

As for a moral panic... that's pure drama. However, those of us who are concerned with a wide range of changes in society, not only OF. It's easy to dismiss such concerns when you only focus on one individual change, and ignore everything else that is connected.

The workers on OF are in control of their content and how they allow people to interact with them, so I doubt there is promotion of abuse, harassment, or sexual assault (inevitably there will be people who roleplay, but people know roleplay is not any more real than acting in a film).

Not a point I made. I referred to the perspectives of those who engage in abuse, harassment, or sexual assault. Not the victims.

I agree there should be boundaries that society sets, on what is/isn't acceptable - but the lines people are trying to draw around sex workers (placing individual responsibility on them, for many of their circumstances), just disguise the unacceptable ways that workers overall are treated (which place collective responsibility on us all, for the circumstances of many sex workers and workers overall).

Huh? I think I've shown that I'm trying to understand your pov in a reasonable manner, but that paragraph just didn't make much logical sense.

Social attitudes towards sex workers, and that they are discriminated against professionally and in society, do mirror the treatment of gay people and the past professional/social risks of being outed.

Only if you feel that being gay was a choice, and part of being a profession... Which it isn't.

Society discriminates against all manner of behaviors which are deemed to be negative for society.... sex workers fall into that category, because the boundaries of sexual behavior are broken. Previously the focus was on marriage being important (thereby regulating sex), but that's been decided to be too old-fashioned and unsuitable for people to be bound by. Without the boundaries that society places on us, the people who commit abuse/assault/etc are given more freedom to engage their views. The boundaries in society were not to limit the expression of people, it was to limit the negative aspects of human behavior... by removing those boundaries, you will see an increase of such negative behavior, because deviancy becomes acceptable. You can't pick and choose what consequences arise...

YellowLead

Don’t forget about the potential for abuse in terms of abusive partners forcing their girlfriends to do it.

Not to mention the teenagers starting up accounts (disclaimer I don’t know how common this is but I’ve heard there isn’t proper DOB verification and plenty of underage posing as older, in particular with the help of older boyfriends).

I just think it’s a bit naive of some people to be all like oh it’s empowering for women etc etc. It might be in some cases - those who would be claiming the dole otherwise and who trek to Spar in their pyjamas. But for others it isn’t and it will be regretted further down the line.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

Yes, of course it is? A person on OF is doing nothing wrong - a person working for Paddy Power is contributing to exploiting others.

A person on OF is manipulating their audience, since they're seeking returning viewers, as they pay the most over time. And they're seeking to manipulate those interests and vulnerabilities that their viewers have...

Religious morals aren't the standard here? That's a pretty low bar.

I listed a variety of factors, and you chose one to focus on... and religious morals would actually be a pretty high standard compared to modern thinking. I'm not even remotely religious myself, and even I can see that.

Heh So if someone is on OF due to e.g. involuntary unemployment and needing to support dependents/kids - they are not victims of circumstance, they are really the ones making victims of their customers?

Twist much? You really need to repeat, at every opportunity, the view that they're victims. They lost their jobs. Whooptie do. We've all been there. As I said there are plenty of other options out there, both online and offline, other than sex work. You have still to prove how they've had no option except to turn to this kind of work....

That's stretching things beyond breaking point, really. I mean, compulsive gambling is a real predatory thing known to ruin peoples lives - what life ruining compulsion are OF customers suffering from?

I take it you haven't read much about just how much money many of these viewers have spent on their girls? Addiction and compulsion comes in many forms... and those on OF have a direct connection with their viewers, as opposed to the mass advertising of the gambling industry.

I'm getting the feeling that you're skimming over my responses, looking for things to reply to, and ignoring anything that doesn't fit... because you've passed over a lot of points, just so you can repeat your own views again.

SnuggyBear

If you say bookies are preying on people with gambling addictions you can also say OF preys on lonely men.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's get specific here. When you say sex workers, are you including those involved in prostitution/escorting... or simply referring to those who enact sexual behavior online ie, porn?

As for more respect being generated, how would that happen, since there has been no campaign to change the perception of society towards this behavior? Instead, any change would happen through the eyes of those who purchase the services... and their opinions are likely not to represent mainstream society.



As for the main negative, I think you need to expand your thinking by a rather large margin, to include those who view and interact with these sex workers....

As for a moral panic... that's pure drama. However, those of us who are concerned with a wide range of changes in society, not only OF. It's easy to dismiss such concerns when you only focus on one individual change, and ignore everything else that is connected.



Not a point I made. I referred to the perspectives of those who engage in abuse, harassment, or sexual assault. Not the victims.



Huh? I think I've shown that I'm trying to understand your pov in a reasonable manner, but that paragraph just didn't make much logical sense.



Only if you feel that being gay was a choice, and part of being a profession... Which it isn't.

Society discriminates against all manner of behaviors which are deemed to be negative for society.... sex workers fall into that category, because the boundaries of sexual behavior are broken. Previously the focus was on marriage being important (thereby regulating sex), but that's been decided to be too old-fashioned and unsuitable for people to be bound by. Without the boundaries that society places on us, the people who commit abuse/assault/etc are given more freedom to engage their views. The boundaries in society were not to limit the expression of people, it was to limit the negative aspects of human behavior... by removing those boundaries, you will see an increase of such negative behavior, because deviancy becomes acceptable. You can't pick and choose what consequences arise...

I don't lump all sex work together - I think OF stuff is far less controversial than many other types of sex work - and that normalization of OF stuff will indirectly lead to greater respect for other sex workers as well.

OF type work is already legal, and it's only going to grow and become more normalized. There are many campaigns among sex workers in general, for better recognition and treatment - it will continue making progress like many other social movement from the past decades.

Skipping over some points - societal/professional discrimination with outing of OF work is a valid comparison to societal/professional discrimination with outing of gay people - the issue of 'choice' just begs the question (assumes the point) that OF work is wrong, which I obivously don't agree with - and I've also disagreed about the level of choice involved, due to involuntary unemployment.

guy2231

SnuggyBear wrote: »

If you say bookies are preying on people with gambling addictions you can also say OF preys on lonely men.

It's true the women on OF largely prey on lonely men giving them false feelings of emotional attachment to keep getting more and more money from them.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

A person on OF is manipulating their audience, since they're seeking returning viewers, as they pay the most over time. And they're seeking to manipulate those interests and vulnerabilities that their viewers have...



I listed a variety of factors, and you chose one to focus on... and religious morals would actually be a pretty high standard compared to modern thinking. I'm not even remotely religious myself, and even I can see that.



Twist much? You really need to repeat, at every opportunity, the view that they're victims. They lost their jobs. Whooptie do. We've all been there. As I said there are plenty of other options out there, both online and offline, other than sex work. You have still to prove how they've had no option except to turn to this kind of work....



I take it you haven't read much about just how much money many of these viewers have spent on their girls? Addiction and compulsion comes in many forms... and those on OF have a direct connection with their viewers, as opposed to the mass advertising of the gambling industry.

I'm getting the feeling that you're skimming over my responses, looking for things to reply to, and ignoring anything that doesn't fit... because you've passed over a lot of points, just so you can repeat your own views again.

I mean, OF customers know what they're there for, right? How can they be manipulated?

Advertising/marketing/business-lobbying departments manipulate people to a far more insidious level - which easily makes many of those roles more morally questionable than OF work.

You think religious morals are a high standard? Seriously? I've (thankfully) never had to bother debating how shittily the average religion views women in general for one - but do I really have to do this now, on an Irish forum, after all the shit the church as done to this country?

Again - high unemployment is a zero sum game, and collectively it is not true that there are more job options - collectively there is only competition for a limited pool of jobs, and there is involuntary unemployment.

You're basically talking about porn addiction - which is viewed as pseudo-science.

KyussB

SnuggyBear wrote: »

If you say bookies are preying on people with gambling addictions you can also say OF preys on lonely men.

Bookies ruin lives through preying on gambling addictions, and it's fundamental to their business - they actively seek such people out and keep them coming back.

There's no such thing as porn addiction (which would have been the closest analogous thing to gambling addiction) - and given the prevalence/ubiquitousness of porn through society, I doubt there's anything special about OF that would limit it to men who have such severe problems that their custom amounts to them being exploited.

The few men who do have such problems though, I'd view that as a societal problem with circumstances that lead to loneliness, not a problem with OF.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

Bookies ruin lives through preying on gambling addictions, and it's fundamental to their business - they actively seek such people out and keep them coming back.

There's no such thing as porn addiction (which would have been the closest analogous thing to gambling addiction) - and given the prevalence/ubiquitousness of porn through society, I doubt there's anything special about OF that would limit it to men who have such severe problems that their custom amounts to them being exploited.

The few men who do have such problems though, I'd view that as a societal problem with circumstances that lead to loneliness, not a problem with OF.

You'd prefer your daughter would masturbate to strangers for a fiver than work for Paddy power?

Amazing.

I hope you aren't a parent.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Let's get specific here. When you say sex workers, are you including those involved in prostitution/escorting... or simply referring to those who enact sexual behavior online ie, porn?

As for more respect being generated, how would that happen, since there has been no campaign to change the perception of society towards this behavior? Instead, any change would happen through the eyes of those who purchase the services... and their opinions are likely not to represent mainstream society.

…

Only if you feel that being gay was a choice, and part of being a profession... Which it isn't.

Society discriminates against all manner of behaviors which are deemed to be negative for society.... sex workers fall into that category, because the boundaries of sexual behavior are broken. Previously the focus was on marriage being important (thereby regulating sex), but that's been decided to be too old-fashioned and unsuitable for people to be bound by. Without the boundaries that society places on us, the people who commit abuse/assault/etc are given more freedom to engage their views. The boundaries in society were not to limit the expression of people, it was to limit the negative aspects of human behavior... by removing those boundaries, you will see an increase of such negative behavior, because deviancy becomes acceptable. You can't pick and choose what consequences arise...

There actually have been a few campaigns over the last couple of years alright which have invoked the language of social justice in an attempt to frame prostitution as an immutable characteristic of a person and thereby argue for decriminalisation as a human rights issue, Amnesty International being one of the largest organisations behind the attempt to reframe prostitution as ‘sex work’ and prostitutes as ‘sex workers’ in an attempt to legitimise their arguments in favour of decriminalisation of prostitution.

As you point out though, in countries where prostitution has been decriminalised for decades, it hasn’t had any effect on the perception of prostitution or prostitutes in any given society. It hasn’t led to increased respect for prostitution or prostitutes, it’s simply increased demand, and legislation which was intended to prevent exploitation of people in the industry has largely been ineffective. In Germany for example, of the estimated 400,000 people engaged in prostitution, only a handful are actually registered, and they have considerable issues with attempts to regulate human trafficking in the industry, as well as in the current economic climate the fact that many people working in prostitution are now unemployed -


Germany: Prostitute protection laws proving impotent

German lawmakers call for buying sex to be made permanently illegal


Sites like OnlyFans aren’t the only avenues for online prostitution, they’re just one of the more popular ones with one million creators (and again only a handful of them producing sexual content aimed at adults), but contrary to the narrative of these sites empowering plucky young entrepreneurial women, the reality doesn’t be long setting in that OnlyFans fans are not quite the gift that keeps on giving, or giving people who are unemployed back their dignity or any of the rest of it. It’s becoming more and more apparent that online prostitution isn’t any safer than physical prostitution for the people who choose to engage in it thinking that it’s a viable means to provide for themselves or their families -


Jobless, selling nudes online and still struggling


There’s nothing ‘empowering’ about the sex work on OnlyFans


As you suggested already, there are numerous ways one can become an entrepreneur by upskilling and availing of numerous opportunities which are already provided for them to do so, in legitimate employment contributing to society and being a positive role model for their families and people who look up to them, who’s opportunities in life aren’t limited by economic uncertainty or poor decisions they made when they were younger which leave them far more exposed online than they ever intended, but were unfortunately naive and bought into the hype and fantasy world portrayed online of so and so apparently earning easy money just for getting their kit off. Competing for attention online is a rough business which will inevitably take its toll on a persons mental and physical health as they begin to realise the novelty of online exposure and their five minutes of fame isn't all it's cracked up to be and can severely limit their opportunities in their future.

notAMember

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You'd prefer your daughter would masturbate to strangers for a fiver than work for Paddy power?

Amazing.

I hope you aren't a parent.

Is that what OF is? Just women masturbating on video? Or is that a bit reductionist? There are also musicians, artists etc.

Too be honest, OF has all the problems that come with monetising the human body. Cosmetic surgery, pimps , exploitation. But, it is more in control of the content makers. So, a step in the right direction, away from degradation?

Time will tell maybe.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

Skipping over some points - societal/professional discrimination with outing of OF work is a valid comparison to societal/professional discrimination with outing of gay people - the issue of 'choice' just begs the question (assumes the point) that OF work is wrong, which I obivously don't agree with - and I've also disagreed about the level of choice involved, due to involuntary unemployment.

I'm finished responding to you because you're not taking into account anything I've said.

There's no point discussing this with you because it's entirely one-sided, regardless of how much I write.

notAMember

notAMember wrote: »

Is that what OF is? Just women masturbating on video? Or is that a bit reductionist? There are also musicians, artists etc.

The focus of this thread has been consistently focused on the sexual content released on OF.

Too be honest, OF has all the problems that come with monetising the human body. Cosmetic surgery, pimps , exploitation. But, it is more in control of the content makers. So, a step in the right direction, away from degradation?

However, if you look at YouTube which has very strong rules against sexual content, you'll find that over the last few years, they've been allowing a rake of sexual content, from Naked yoga to clips of porn on the site.. because popularity for a platform wanes, and it's still a business.

Dunno about the tack that there's degradation involved, since the people involved are likely to be doing all this out of free will.

YellowLead

KyussB wrote: »

The JG is directly designed for supporting capitalist market economies, and is already entering the mainstream in the US. It's not for this thread - other than with one implemented, it removes the situation of people being pushed into work like on OF, due to pressures from involuntary unemployment.

And of course there won’t be OF content creators in the US...

mcsean2163

LMHC wrote: »

Really. Blokes having a tug to ur birds bits

**** gonna ****, who cares.

I'd be more worried about your possessiveness. You don't own a partner and if they're attractive how can you stop the **** and why would you even care?

The important thing is that you love the person you're with and if you don't why are you with them?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Let's stay on topic, please. I've removed some posts to this effect.

YellowLead

mcsean2163 wrote: »

**** gonna ****, who cares.

I'd be more worried about your possessiveness. You don't own a partner and if they're attractive how can you stop the **** and why would you even care?

How could somebody not care if their other half was doing exactly what kind of masturbating etc that was specifically requested by another person and that half the town can have a look/laugh at?

Each to their own of course, but those who would have their wife or serious girlfriend at this seem to be in the minority not the other way around.

KyussB

notAMember wrote: »

Is that what OF is? Just women masturbating on video? Or is that a bit reductionist? There are also musicians, artists etc.

Too be honest, OF has all the problems that come with monetising the human body. Cosmetic surgery, pimps , exploitation. But, it is more in control of the content makers. So, a step in the right direction, away from degradation?

Time will tell maybe.

If that other type of stuff is on it as well, then ya it's a bit reductionist.

I'd disagree about it having all of the same problems as other sex work - it gets conflated with sex work that involves physical contact with customers, when it doesn't - and because it's in control of content makers, it doesn't have pimps, and the exploitation more reflects exploitation people face in many regular forms of work.

OF has problems of course - someone said earlier it takes 17% of peoples pay, which is pretty extortionate, and it has a lot of the other problems of 'platforms' in general - and people face discrimination for having been on it (more of a societal problem, though).

mcsean2163

YellowLead wrote: »

How could somebody not care if their other half was doing exactly what kind of masturbating etc that was specifically requested by another person and that half the town can have a look/laugh at?

Each to their own of course, but those who would have their wife or serious girlfriend at this seem to be in the minority not the other way around.

Couldn't care less about the the town. People who only care about what others think of them need to get a grip.

The important thing in life is to help others and develop yourself. Who knows what OF may be facilitating the performers. Not everybody wants to be a computer programmer and the alternative is often really badly paid.

If you had the choice of OF and a enough money to buy a home or ****ty pay and a lifetime of rent? TBH, I'd not fancy doing OF at all but I've still got options and TBH nobody would pay to see me on OF I'm sure. I'd say they'd pay not to see me!

YellowLead

mcsean2163 wrote: »

.

The important thing in life is to help others and develop yourself. Who knows what OF may be facilitating the performers. Not everybody wants to be a computer programmer and the alternative is often really badly paid.
!

This makes no sense. Somebody leaves school and thinks ‘I don’t fancy being a programmer (albeit let’s face it, more than likely doesn’t have the brains for it) ...hmmm my only option is OF. Of course
Jobs outside of programming are badly paid. Well you need to announce this to all school goers and tell them not to bother with third level of its non a computer science degree!!!

Oh and also that it’s only fans and buy a house or any other job and rent forever.
‘If you had the choice of OF and a enough money to buy a home or ****ty pay and a lifetime of rent‘

I think without saying it what you are implying are the types of people making content are indeed the workshy lazy types.

BorneTobyWilde

Its becoming so mainstream that it's influencing kids growing up. I see that in own family, niece 14 impossible to get to school, my sister asked, ''what are you doing to do if you don't go to school'' and within a split second it was '' onlyfans!!!''
Then you have radio station in the middle of the day inviting on 18 years olds to discuss how they make so much money, with the host cheering them on, same with Claire Byrne basically promoting Matty boring as a bag of rocks Gilbert , who was on 50k a month, but after that appearance it's now 125k a month.
You really shouldn't be promoting it, especially on day time radio FFS.

https://youtu.be/5BXALFRMpCw

Mister Vain

God you know its an old chat show when you see people shmoking on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BXALFRMpCw

Quantum Erasure

notAMember wrote: »

Is that what OF is? Just women masturbating on video? Or is that a bit reductionist? There are also musicians, artists etc.

Too be honest, OF has all the problems that come with monetising the human body. Cosmetic surgery, pimps , exploitation. But, it is more in control of the content makers. So, a step in the right direction, away from degradation?

Time will tell maybe.

Degradation is where the good money is

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

....
You really shouldn't be promoting it, especially on day time radio FFS.

You cant see tits on the radio...

Quantum Erasure

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

You cant see tits on the radio...

But you can hear them...

Tubridy springs to mind

ArtyM

Mister Vain wrote: »

God you know its an old chat show when you see people shmoking on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BXALFRMpCw

Its such a shame the modern chat show has become a watered down event.
It was nice to watch some actual discussion in that clip, without someone flogging a DVD or upcoming movie.

ArtyM

ArtyM wrote: »

Its such a shame the modern chat show has become a watered down event.
It was nice to watch some actual discussion in that clip, without someone flogging a DVD or upcoming movie.

It really is a joy isn't it?..
Intelligent people being civil to each other having a discussion..
What has been lost in the intervening period?..

guy2231

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Degradation is where the good money is



You cant see tits on the radio...

Degradation is where the good/easy money is for women, for boys it is selling coke and cannabis.

YellowLead

guy2231 wrote: »

Degradation is where the good/easy money is for women, for boys it is selling coke and cannabis.

Good point

Ms. Newbie18

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Its becoming so mainstream that it's influencing kids growing up. I see that in own family, niece 14 impossible to get to school, my sister asked, ''what are you doing to do if you don't go to school'' and within a split second it was '' onlyfans!!!''
Then you have radio station in the middle of the day inviting on 18 years olds to discuss how they make so much money, with the host cheering them on, same with Claire Byrne basically promoting Matty boring as a bag of rocks Gilbert , who was on 50k a month, but after that appearance it's now 125k a month.
You really shouldn't be promoting it, especially on day time radio FFS.

I hear this way to often only replace onlyfans with Instagramer or YouTuber...

TomTomTim

Deleted User wrote: »

It really is a joy isn't it?..
Intelligent people being civil to each other having a discussion..
What has been lost in the intervening period?..

A slow or fast, defending on how you look at it, transition away from debate even being displayed in main stream avenues. This has led to only one side getting their views aired, which means that many people have not been normalized to back and forth debate, which has resulted in great ideological intolerance.

TomTomTim

Anyway. What happened to objectification? It was all the rage with feminists a few years ago, yet now many of them support female objectification, once the females get paid for it. It's all so confusing.

TomTomTim

TomTomTim wrote: »

Anyway. What happened to objectification? It was all the rage with feminists a few years ago, yet now many of them support female objectification, once the females get paid for it. It's all so confusing.

Double standards are the most popular fashion item for feminists, and activists.

You can see them applying double standards to just about everything these days, because it allows them to preach about female empowerment, while also complaining about unrealistic expectations of beauty from men (never mind that it's women, as much as anyone, who are pushing the overall movement of beauty in society)