Girls and OnlyFans

Chacha97

completedit wrote: »

It's so sad that this is becoming normalised.

I worry what will happen with these "content creators" when society opens back up. Granted sone have a large following so will be ok but there will be numerous who can't make a career of this and will have put themselves out there

* I also see quite a lot of young girls in particular trying to become instagram famous. I've seen quite a few sponsored posts that they've paid for in the hope of gathering followers. While I understand it for the likes of fitness pages that are offering a service these girls are just trying to become famous with no service and hope that they will just be paid by companies for posts etc.

completedit

completedit wrote: »

It's so sad that this is becoming normalised.

It really, really is..

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It really, really is..

Because many people don't like the idea of consequences. People should be able to behave any way they wish, but consequence shouldn't be a consideration. Just as the movement to approve sexual behavior as being commonly acceptable, (in ways like OnlyFans or Youtube), will have an effect on society, and how people behave "normally". These same people will only look at the changes they approve of, disregarding the negative changes as being unrelated to what they wanted... The increase of freedom, and the reduction of sexual taboos/morality, is all that matters, even though it also will affect the boundaries and social boundaries that served to minimize more aggressive or dangerous behavior... because these people only see what they want to see, believing that their changes will only extend to the people they're concerned about. Alas, that's never been the way the people or the world works.

To me, that's what's really sad. This social movement that promotes the lack of appreciation for consequence focusing on one issue, while disregarding what arise from it.

KyussB

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)

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.

One eyed Jack

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)

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.

There’s no widespread acceptance of involuntary unemployment, and unemployment during the current economic circumstances certainly can’t be used as an excuse to justify anyone choosing to prostitute themselves when there are numerous other opportunities available to them to contribute to society and earn a living for themselves from legitimate employment in areas where they are protected by employment legislation.

In any case, no, it’s nothing to do with involuntary unemployment, and everything to do with social media companies not wishing to promote prostitution on their platforms, hence why there were a number of prostitutes complained when their incomes were threatened by celebrities such as Bella Thorne having an account on OnlyFans, and that came hot on the heels of their accounts being banned on tiktok for promoting adult content in violation of tiktoks terms and conditions, leaving them with only Twitter as one of the last major platforms where they could still promote themselves -


Sex workers blame Bella Thorne for changes at OnlyFans that harm their income

OnlyFans Creators and Sex Workers Are Getting ‘Purged’ from TikTok


How long that lasts is anyone’s guess before the next platform emerges and prostitutes are all over it. What victims exactly? I don’t see any prostitutes offering discounts to the involuntarily unemployed? The responsibility for addressing their involuntary unemployment is ultimately the individual’s responsibility, it’s not society’s responsibility to accommodate prostitution.

KyussB

Just to note, I disengaged from replying to the above poster many pages ago.

Purple is a Fruit

KyussB wrote: »

Where does the problem lay, if a person on OF is doing the work to pay for their kid/kids?.

Being forced into sex work I mean. This is one of the problems with sex work. You gave the example of of people doing OF because they have no other option to put food on the table.

I'm not trying to stop people from doing the work - the way I see it, if they're adults and want to do it and have safe, secure homes, that's entirely up to them. But I don't think "fair play to them", I think it could come back to haunt them and they really should have a plan B for the future.

I also disagree with normalising sex work because of all the horror it causes around the world.

And I really don't think crappy jobs compare because at least you keep your clothes on/don't engage in sex acts.

Wibbs

KyussB wrote: »

Just to note, I disengaged from replying to the above poster many pages ago.

Well then maybe stop engaging? One eyed Jack stop replying to KyussB's posts. The schoolyard bickering between the two of you is getting tiresome for all concerned.

KyussB

Purple is a Fruit wrote: »

Being forced into sex work I mean. This is one of the problems with sex work. You gave the example of of people doing OF because they have no other option to put food on the table.

I'm not trying to stop people from doing the work - the way I see it, if they're adults and want to do it and have safe, secure homes, that's entirely up to them. But I don't think "fair play to them", I think it could come back to haunt them and they really should have a plan B for the future.

I also disagree with normalising sex work because of all the horror it causes around the world.

And I really don't think crappy jobs compare because at least you keep your clothes on/don't engage in sex acts.

Is it a bigger indignity to take your clothes off on OF, than it is to be forced to work for free on e.g. job bridge or such? Is it more morally compromising to take your clothes off on OF, than it is to work for e.g. Paddy Power?

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.

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.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

Is it a bigger indignity to take your clothes off on OF, than it is to be forced to work for free on e.g. job bridge or such? Is it more morally compromising to take your clothes off on OF, than it is to work for e.g. Paddy Power?
.

Yes..

Yes, it is..

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.