Opinions on onlyfans and adult entertainment industry

YFlyer

Don't send pics. Simple.

anewme

YFlyer wrote: »

Don't send pics. Simple.

Could surface at any time!

anewme

anewme wrote: »

I’m not saying it’s my opinion. I’m saying that’s people are where people are (younger group) are protestingI was answering the person who thought I got my wires crossed.

It’s not just women, either, it’s all genders.

Thats why the vote should only apply to people 1 year younger than me

AndrewJRenko

YFlyer wrote: »

Don't send pics. Simple.

Same response to people who are burgled, right? Don't open windows. Simple.

Same response to people who are knocked down by dangerous drivers, right? Don't cross the road. Simple.

Or is it just something about young people being sexually active that brings out your victim blaming approach?

Wibbs

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Same response to people who are burgled, right? Don't open windows. Simple.

Same response to people who are knocked down by dangerous drivers, right? Don't cross the road. Simple.

Or is it just something about young people being sexually active that brings out your victim blaming approach?

"Victim blaming". Christ. As night follows day that lazy and banal excuse for nuanced reasoning gets rolled out. Just once it would be nice if that absolve all personal responsibility ballsology would not rear its thick head. Just once....

And no it's not the same response. There are no pics of my arse on the internet(thank all the deities), because a) I don't take pics of my arse and b) I don't upload them to the internet.

Better comparisons would be: Don't want to be burgled? Don't advertise your precious metals collection on a billboard outside your house, with all your doors wide open. Don't want to be run over? Don't run blindfolded onto a busy motorway at night.

Never mind that you do realise experts advise how to lower the risks of being burgled and how to safely cross roads? Or are they potentially "victim blaming" by their advice? Wouldn't bloody surprise me with the level of woolly thinking that does the rounds of late.

hatrickpatrick

Folks you're all conflating two entirely separate issues here. The main focus this week isn't copyright infringement of paid content, it's revenge porn - you send your nude selfie to someone, you subsequently have a fight or break up or whatever, and that person lashes out and shares your private sh!t around for others to see with the specific intention of embarrassing you out of vindictiveness.

The reporting around the issue this week has been exceptionally misleading. This isn't about content made public to a limited audience being leaked to a wider audience (OnlyFans, Facebook etc) - it's about photos texted exclusively to a tiny handful of specific people being leaked to others.

Personally I can't see why it would be controversial for people to ask for laws against this. Phone sex is fun, sexting is fun, and people should be able to engage in it without the fear hanging over them that their friend / partner / whatever could one day essentially use it to blackmail them in the future, without facing any consequences for it.

To put this another way: If you're having sex with someone and you secretly live stream it for others to see with a hidden camera or whatever, how is that any different? Nobody would argue that this shouldn't be illegal - unless there's been consent, of course filming sexual activity with someone for the purposes of sharing it with others is f*cked up. Why should it be any different if you made the recording with your partner's consent, but then shared it without their consent? It's ultimately the same thing.

Wibbs

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The women who sell their adult stuff to subscribers would have known the risks of it being shared without their consent. It's not the same as women who shared intimate images with a former partner having their stuff made public, equating the two is doing the latter no favours.

+1000. There is a huge gulf between some dickhead of an ex sharing intimate photos online for the world to see, or someone having their online accounts hacked and their intimacies shared online and someone willingly selling their intimate pics online. "I willingly sold pics of my bare arse to a few "patrons" on Onlyfans and now I'm shocked and violated because one of them shared them". Ehhhh.... You're a moron. Nothing to do with morals either, just idiocy.

And unless someone is a complete bloody moron, or a child that doesn't realise or know better(and the latter most certainly need protection and education), it should be clear by now that the world of the online digital is pretty much forever and daftly easy to spread.

hynesie08

Beat me to it, there's 2 separate issues at play here, unfortunately the situation is not helped by "content creators" trying to tack on their copyright issues to the actual emotional trauma suffered by girls who had their private photos shared.

Wibbs

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I can't see why it would be controversial for people to ask for laws against this. Phone sex is fun, sexting is fun, and people should be able to engage in it without the fear hanging over them that their friend / partner / whatever could one day essentially use it to blackmail them in the future, without facing any consequences for it.

Oh I agree, but laws or not, it's so easy to spread images and the like online. Everything you upload is at risk, willie pics or no. Now matter how fun phone sex or taking sexy pics may be it carries a large risk of exposure, either by a partner, or by hacking. Never mind that a law here, while offering some protection, will be of little use in the case of hacking, or even proving an ex partner actually shared said pics, particularly when shared across an otherwise public service. So my angle would be; know the risks in this kinda thing and don't be too surprised if you're one of the unlucky ones, so maybe think about it?

kippy

kippy wrote: »

There's a good few things that need to be separated out here and dealt with outside of the very obvious issue of your man sharing these types of images including underage girls with the world.

1. Our younger people seem somewhat naive do they share these pictures of themselves in any manner and assume they will stay 'private'. You are relying on the security of the medium or moreso the intentions of the person or people you have sent them to. This has always been the case however nowadays it is so easy to do this, the downsides really need to be published, maybe this case will help but I doubt it.
2. If people are being photographed without their consent or knowledge and it is possible to identify the photographer there should be ramifications for the photographer. But again this is difficult to achieve I would expect. This type of behaviour is again much easier to engage in due to technology advances over the past decade or more.
3. If sites like only fans are hosting and facilitating the dispersal of nude images of underage kids the full rigours of international law should be directed at them as would be the case for other sites hosting child porn. They were obviously have not done their job if underage pics are available there.

More broadly people need to realise that technology and communications have greatly increased the viability of taking and distributing pictures and videos over the past decade or more at this stage. We have a generation or two of people now who have been brought up in this age and the age of social media and the potential ability to live off an income generated from an online presence.
Are we letting down our young people? Is there enough information being given to them on these topics? Should we have harsher penalties for those that take and share pictures without the subjects expressed consent?
Are we miles behind with out laws,policies and abilities to handle these challenges?
Should we care if adults who sell their pictures start banging the abuse drum if their pictures get hacked or released for free?

kippy wrote: »

Just on the 'revenge porn' thing which works both ways, let it be said.
There are two things that are slightly connected:
I don't think 'people' get the fact that prosecuting someone in this area would be extremely difficult for a number of very obvious reasons and indeed relatively easy for someone to avoid prosecution in this area. It'll require a shed load more specialists and will provide lucrative gigs for solicitors.
People, in general, need to made aware that posting images in a digital format, even privately is not something you should be doing unless you'd be happy for your granny or parents to see those images. There are so many avenues open to have those images made public or even exposed to more than the intended recipient, it's scary.
This is not 'victim blaming' before anyone hits me up on it. It's asking for people to have a bit more cop on.
I said it earlier but as good as things generally are nowadays there are many pitfalls of increased technology usage.

kippy wrote: »

I suppose the timing is convenient however I'd hope it's a warning/reminder to those that need it most that sharing nude pictures of yourself in any digital format is risky......
(Of course I know there are allegedly lots of pictures of people who did not know they were being photographed, that is a totally different issue but unfortunately the damage done is far greater now due to technology) - this area is also very difficult to prosecute in, one would think.

Some of my thoughts so far on this.
It's key to realise that there are a multitude of issues here (not one very broad issue), that need to be tackled seperately.
One needs to be careful who they are calling "Victim blamers" and what "victims" are being blamed.

anewme

hynesie08 wrote: »

Beat me to it, there's 2 separate issues at play here, unfortunately the situation is not helped by "content creators" trying to tack on their copyright issues to the actual emotional trauma suffered by girls who had their private photos shared.

The laws are outdated on this country in a lot of areas, especially in relation to all digital media platforms. For example if you send a photo to a person via your phone, they are the receiver and have rights to the image. I did not know that- laws defo need to change there.

Should sharing of a persons sexual content without their consent (either paid or unpaid) be categorised as a sexual crime or copyright infringement?

That seems to be the argument. Not sure it is all from the content creators either. My niece brought it to my attention and her and her friends have nothing to do with only fans but do see it as a consent issue rather than just copyright and would be backing the it as part of the overall campaign.

kippy

anewme wrote: »

The laws are outdated on this country in a lot of areas, especially in relation to all digital media platforms. For example if you send a photo to a person via your phone, they are the receiver and have rights to the image. I did not know that- laws defo need to change there.

Should sharing of a persons sexual content without their consent (either paid or unpaid) be categorised as a sexual crime or copyright infringement?

That seems to be the argument. Not sure it is all from the content creators either. My niece brought it to my attention and her and her friends have nothing to do with only fans but do see it as a consent issue rather than just copyright and would be backing the it as part of the overall campaign.

I think you need to be very clear on the definition of "Consent" and the definition of "Sexual Content" - either are extremely open to interpretation.
"Young people" probably need to make sure they pick their battles well in this area.

Wibbs

deleted poster so..115370352 wrote:

Wait, I thought women wanted equality? Why are they demanding the right to act like children with no self-responsiblity?

1) it's not just women who are affected by this kinda thing. Men and children are too.

2) It's not women who are "demanding the right to act like children with no self-responsiblity" that's much more modern feminist philosophy.

anewme

kippy wrote: »

I think you need to be very clear on the definition of "Consent" and the definition of "Sexual Content" - either are extremely open to interpretation.
"Young people" probably need to make sure they pick their battles well in this area.

Not sure why you have “young people” in inverted commas?

People can back whatever campaign they want to, and call for changes to legislation without feeling they have to “pick their battles”.

As regards men vs women equality- it’s about inclusivity and equality for all genders.

hatrickpatrick

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree, but laws or not, it's so easy to spread images and the like online. Everything you upload is at risk, willie pics or no. Now matter how fun phone sex or taking sexy pics may be it carries a large risk of exposure, either by a partner, or by hacking. Never mind that a law here, while offering some protection, will be of little use in the case of hacking, or even proving an ex partner actually shared said pics, particularly when shared across an otherwise public service. So my angle would be; know the risks in this kinda thing and don't be too surprised if you're one of the unlucky ones, so maybe think about it?

I 100% agree with this and always have. However, it's pretty sickening that the people who choose to be scumbags about it aren't currently considered to be breaking the law.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I fully regard any legislation in this area as more of a symbolic victory than anything - the elephant in the room is of course that the nature of the internet makes cybercrime difficult to prosecute at the best of times and that's before you consider that the Gardaí are horrendously under-resourced in this area (ten years ago the cyber crime department involved a dozen or so specially trained Gardaí, for an island with our population connected via the internet that's an absolutely appalling lack of investment IMO) such that even if it was illegal, chances of actually getting anything done would be minimal.

Doesn't change how justifiably angry it must make some people to report this sh!t to the aforementioned guards only for those guards to have to tell them "sorry, but what your ex did isn't actually technically illegal at all, so we can't do anything about it". F*ck that.

hynesie08

anewme wrote: »

The laws are outdated on this country in a lot of areas, especially in relation to all digital media platforms. For example if you send a photo to a person via your phone, they are the receiver and have rights to the image. I did not know that- laws defo need to change there.

Should sharing of a persons sexual content without their consent (either paid or unpaid) be categorised as a sexual crime or copyright infringement?

That seems to be the argument. Not sure it is all from the content creators either. My niece brought it to my attention and her and her friends have nothing to do with only fans but do see it as a consent issue rather than just copyright and would be backing the it as part of the overall campaign.

Should leaking a sex tape be treated the same as torrenting fake taxi?

They are 2 separate issues, to me something sent privately and with an implication of trust should be treated as just that, no different to doxxing someone online, I would have no issue with this being brought under the same umbrella as sexual harassment....

OnlyFans is a different case, it is the creation of media for monetary gain, and as such my sympathy extends as far as it would for Daniel Craig if the next bond gets leaked.

anewme

hynesie08 wrote: »

Should leaking a sex tape be treated the same as torrenting fake taxi?

They are 2 separate issues, to me something sent privately and with an implication of trust should be treated as just that, no different to doxxing someone online, I would have no issue with this being brought under the same umbrella as sexual harassment....

OnlyFans is a different case, it is the creation of media for monetary gain, and as such my sympathy extends as far as it would for Daniel Craig if the next bond gets leaked.

I don’t know what torrenting fake taxi is though? Is it copying games?

coinop

I buy a DVD in Tesco for 10 euro.
I watch it at home by myself = fine.
I watch it with some friends = not fine because they didn't pay for it

These girls who try to wrangle money from desperate lonely men on adult sites are very naïve. Once someone buys your "intimate" photos they can do with them as they wish. Don't get mad if others see your photos because they didn't pay.

B.A._Baracus

I had to go back pages and pages to see what the guff is about. But well said here:

Limpy wrote: »

Women shows her snatch online for a few buck's is surprised a pic gets leaked. Spare me.

He's right folks.

knucklehead6

coinop wrote: »

I buy a DVD in Tesco for 10 euro.
I watch it at home by myself = fine.
I watch it with some friends = not fine because they didn't pay for it

.

No. That’s still fine, unless you charge them for being allowed watch the dvd

coinop

knucklehead6 wrote: »

No. That’s still fine, unless you charge them for being allowed watch the dvd

So how is it different to paying for pornographic photos and sharing them with friends?

.anon.

Wibbs wrote: »

"Victim blaming". Christ. As night follows day that lazy and banal excuse for nuanced reasoning gets rolled out. Just once it would be nice if that absolve all personal responsibility ballsology would not rear its thick head. Just once....

In the case of someone who sends a nude picture to a trusted partner, who then shares it afterwards, telling them "don't send pics. Simple" is absolutely blaming the victim.

Ash.J.Williams

anewme wrote: »

Yeah I asked how it works.

It is about consent.

Same as a sex worker can have sex for money, but can still be raped.

Not quite, regarding onlyfans it’s been around long enough to be available free like regular porn.

kippy

.anon. wrote: »

In the case of someone who sends a nude picture to a trusted partner, who then shares it afterwards, telling them "don't send pics. Simple" is absolutely blaming the victim.

Look.
The partner who shared the pictures afterwards is obviously a pr1ck, however it's also possible the partner didn't share the pictures intentionally. It's possible their device/account etc was hacked/password compromised etc (and this is usually the first defence)

BUT, one has to realise that the digitisation of pictures of oneself, in pictures that you wouldn't be happy showing your parents or grandparents, if only for "private use" never mind sharing them, is an extremely risky thing to do on so many levels.
Of courses "bad people" shouldnt hack, steal, share stuff that they shouldn't but this is the real world and even IF those "bad people" are prosecuted, very often the damage is well and truely done to that person.

kippy

anewme wrote: »

Not sure why you have “young people” in inverted commas?

People can back whatever campaign they want to, and call for changes to legislation without feeling they have to “pick their battles”.

As regards men vs women equality- it’s about inclusivity and equality for all genders.

Sorry, perhaps I was trying to make a few insinuations in one:
1. What are "young people"?
2. Is this just a "young peoples" problem?


Fair enough on your points - taken.

Wibbs

.anon. wrote: »

In the case of someone who sends a nude picture to a trusted partner, who then shares it afterwards, telling them "don't send pics. Simple" is absolutely blaming the victim.

Maybe your virtuous if hackneyed victim blaming position blinded you to my next post below that one.

Wibbs wrote: »

There is a huge gulf between some dickhead of an ex sharing intimate photos online for the world to see, or someone having their online accounts hacked and their intimacies shared online and someone willingly selling their intimate pics online.

But work away...

Regardless I've a pain in my arse at this stage with damned near everything being reduced to the moronically simple victimhood badges for all stuff.

AndrewJRenko

.anon. wrote: »

In the case of someone who sends a nude picture to a trusted partner, who then shares it afterwards, telling them "don't send pics. Simple" is absolutely blaming the victim.

Especially when person sharing was a child, under 18 years old.

coinop wrote: »

So how is it different to paying for pornographic photos and sharing them with friends?

What did the terms and conditions that you agreed to when you purchased say about sharing?

.anon.

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe your virtuous if hackneyed victim blaming position blinded you to my next post below that one.



But work away...

Regardless I've a pain in my arse at this stage with damned near everything being reduced to the moronically simple victimhood badges for all stuff.

I did read your next post, which is precisely why I found it odd that you took exception with that poster's use of the term 'victim blaming'. Perhaps you did so in your usual knee-jerk, oh-so-anti-woke way, I don't know.

coinop

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What did the terms and conditions that you agreed to when you purchased say about sharing?

Dunno, I have never paid for pornography and never will. It's a horrible, exploitative industry that demeans women despite their insistence that it's empowering. Yer wan all over the media crying about the OnlyFans leak wouldn't be my cup of tea anyway. Nose job, lip fillers, camera filers, an inch of make-up plastered across her face.

My point stands - if you buy a CD, DVD, magazine or even a photo, it's ridiculous to try to prosecute for showing it to your friends. For family movie night should we be expected to buy a separate DVD for each family member as we watch it alone on separate TVs in separate rooms?

coinop

coinop wrote: »

Dunno, I have never paid for pornography and never will. It's a horrible, exploitative industry that demeans women despite their insistence that it's empowering. Yer wan all over the media crying about the OnlyFans leak wouldn't be my cup of tea anyway. Nose job, lip fillers, camera filers, an inch of make-up plastered across her face.

My point stands - if you buy a CD, DVD, magazine or even a photo, it's ridiculous to try to prosecute for showing it to your friends. For family movie night should we be expected to buy a separate DVD for each family member as we watch it alone on separate TVs in separate rooms?

There appears to be a lack of understanding in this thread on this issue.

When you buy or rent a movie or music or any intellectual property, you are buying a single license to be used in a personal capacity. Within your home with others is fine for music or a movie. If however you share that item with others by lending it to them or allowing them to copy the CD for example, thats copyright infringement.

The same for a programme bought online or Windows on your computer. Its single use. Once you start allowing others to use the disc or serial number, thats copyright infringement aka piracy.

Thats why there are commercial licenses for pubs to show Sky Sports or companies to have hundreds of Windows computers using Office and so on and so forth. In the day, DVD rental via Xtravision was the same, they had to buy a rental version of the movie instead of the normal version.

and yes, I am aware that the world and its dog does these things in one form or another but its still a copyright offence.

There is also a large gap between someones made for commercial use nude images being shared by a legitimate purchaser and an ex sharing what was supposed to be intimate images for his eyes only. The Onlyfans stuff was produced knowing and with the esxpress intent that multiple strangers would view it. The victim is a victim financially only as the only problem is lack of payment. No different to someone watching a private lapdance through an open window.