Girls and OnlyFans

cloudatlas

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.

I think it goes without saying that without the exchange of money the women would not consent.

It's quite clear that women who are objectified see themselves through the lens of that objectification, they are reduced to a sexual object, they are not a person they are self conscious and experience humiliation, it can cause a person long term psychological harm.

It's a question of personal free will when it comes to onlyfans. They are consenting to the objectification and receiving comments, it is in a sense welcomed.

Rational choice versus economic coercion is also a factor. There is a clear difference between comments on an onlyfans live feed versus a woman who has a fitness instagram who receives unwanted comments about her body and whether she is ****able or not.

Understand?

mcsean2163

cloudatlas wrote: »

I think it goes without saying that without the exchange of money the women would not consent.

It's quite clear that women who are objectified see themselves through the lens of that objectification, they are reduced to a sexual object, they are not a person they are self conscious and experience humiliation, it can cause a person long term psychological harm.

It's a question of personal free will when it comes to onlyfans. They are consenting to the objectification and receiving comments, it is in a sense welcomed.

Rational choice versus economic coercion is also a factor. There is a clear difference between comments on an onlyfans live feed versus a woman who has a fitness instagram who receives unwanted comments about her body and whether she is ****able or not.

Understand?

I worked in a factory doing a job a robot could do. I guarantee nobody would have done it unless they were paid.

[Deleted User]

cloudatlas wrote: »

Understand?

Oh, I understand that it's utterly retarded logic. They're objectified when they don't want the attention, and it's their due, when they do want that attention.

Anyway, the cries about objectification tends to come from people taking offense over what happens to other people. Which is why they wanted to end the Formula One girls, even though those women themselves loved their work.

As for choice, women have the choice in how they dress, and what manner of jobs they take on... the choice remains regardless of your example above. As I said before... double standards are the rule now.

cloudatlas

klaz wrote: »

Oh, I understand that it's utterly retarded logic. They're objectified when they don't want the attention, and it's their due, when they do want that attention.

Anyway, the cries about objectification tends to come from people taking offense over what happens to other people. Which is why they wanted to end the Formula One girls, even though those women themselves loved their work.

As for choice, women have the choice in how they dress, and what manner of jobs they take on... the choice remains regardless of your example above. As I said before... double standards are the rule now.

Yes people want attention they don't necessarily want to feel humiliated though. Can men not control themselves, it's always the fault of the women, they put the words in your mouth and cause you to act no doubt.

Literally all work out tracksuit bottoms for women are skin tight, so if they complain they are told 'you shouldn't be wearing that'. Well what the hell is acceptable? A black plastic bin liner a burka? Your logic is retarded.

Okay a woman is lifting a weight in a photo. If you can't tell the difference between complimenting someone on something their body can do versus how ugly or ****able you think that body is then I can't help you.

cloudatlas

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I worked in a factory doing a job a robot could do. I guarantee nobody would have done it unless they were paid.

Yeah I was replying to a comment I wasn't just plucking that out of thin air, this is a discussion that is straying into the area of ethics as we are essentially discussing what is right or wrong so economic coercion applies.

[Deleted User]

cloudatlas wrote: »

Yes people want attention they don't necessarily want to feel humiliated though. Can men not control themselves, it's always the fault of the women, they put the words in your mouth and cause you to act no doubt.

The simple fact of humanity is that you can only control what you do yourself. Your actions have consequences, and you cannot control what others think, feel, or do. Any belief system that promotes the idea that this is not so, is completely unrealistic.

If a woman dresses provocatively, then she will receive a wide range of attention. Some of that will be welcome, because that's what she wants. A lot will not be welcome because, in a free society, you cannot force people to conform their behavior, and people become more individualistic, in that how they respond will be less based on social norms, and more on their own beliefs, and how their personal experiences have shaped them.

Personal responsibility has importance. It's important to be aware of the possible reactions of those around you. If you, as a woman, dress provocatively, then you should be aware, and accept that you will receive attention that you don't want. It's the same as if a man was to wear a "I hate feminists" T-Shirt. He'll receive positive attention from those with similar attitudes, and negative attention from feminists. That's basic common sense.

The people who push objectification, and your paragraph above, want to ignore the realities of humanity. You want the benefits of a society that restricts behavior and forces conformity.. on men... but the freedom and ability to do as you wish for women.. without any negative consequences. You don't want to live in the real world...

Just look at the position of women in terms of society. We have a wide range of areas, (modelling, Instagram, porn, TV presenters, etc) through which women have a distinct advantage over men, based entirely on their physical appearance. In terms of fashion, women wear a range of clothing, accessories, and makeup, which were all intentionally designed to attract the attention of men on the most physical of levels. Perfume hits the hormones, Lipstick and high heels have both been proven to affect men on the physical level... which has been known for centuries. The manner in which women are perceived physically, has been conditioned into men for centuries... and that's supposed to end just because some women don't want it? It's completely unrealistic and just shows how infantile many people have become.

The logic is retarded because you can't control who will be interested, and how that interest will manifest. You can control your own appearance, and factor that into how you interact with others. Unless, of course, you would like us all to step back from freedom, and go back to a social system that forces people to conform to gender stereotypes... But I doubt you will.

Literally all work out tracksuit bottoms for women are skin tight, so if they complain they are told 'you shouldn't be wearing that'. Well what the hell is acceptable? A black plastic bin liner a burka? Your logic is retarded.

Actually, that's not my logic, that's yours. You're seeking to put words in my mouth. Which is common enough with people who don't want to accept that they're being unreasonable.

If you want to dress in a way that attracts the attention of men, then, you have to live with that. Simple.

Okay a woman is lifting a weight in a photo. If you can't tell the difference between complimenting someone on something their body can do versus how ugly or ****able you think that body is then I can't help you.

I don't recall asking for help, nor encountering that example in anything I've responded to. Once more, you're seeking to frame the discussion, in a way that makes me unreasonable. Perhaps stick to what was written?

There is nothing forcing women to dress a certain way.. they have the choice to dress in all manner of styles (women's fashion is far more varied and established than mens). Free will. There's no coercion. You choose, and bear the consequences for that choice.

cloudatlas

klaz wrote: »

The people who push objectification, and your paragraph above, want to ignore the realities of humanity. You want the benefits of a society that restricts behavior and forces conformity.. on men... but the freedom and ability to do as you wish for women.. without any negative consequences. You don't want to live in the real world...

The logic is retarded because you can't control who will be interested, and how that interest will manifest. You can control your own appearance, and factor that into how you interact with others. Unless, of course, you would like us all to step back from freedom, and go back to a social system that forces people to conform to gender stereotypes... But I doubt you will.

I live in the real world and it's clear what is happening. The men choose to make the comments and then are morally outraged when a woman screenshots it and forwards it to an employer (a negative consequence of that behaviour) or says that she will and all of a sudden the reaction goes from 'you stupid slut I can see your camel toe' to 'please don't do that I'm sorry'. So obviously there are social norms and ways of behaving that form an acceptable baseline of behaviour for men and if a woman objects nothing happens but if other males are involved then there is peer coercion and the behaviour changes. Other males listen to other males, they very rarely listen to women so it is up to other men to enforce what is normal and call out behaviours that humiliate or denigrate others.

[Deleted User]

cloudatlas wrote: »

I live in the real world and it's clear what is happening. The men choose to make the comments and then are morally outraged when a woman screenshots it and forwards it to an employer (a negative consequence of that behaviour) or says that she will and all of a sudden the reaction goes from 'you stupid slut I can see your camel toe' to 'please don't do that I'm sorry'. So obviously there are social norms and ways of behaving that form an acceptable baseline of behaviour for men and if a woman objects nothing happens but if other males are involved then there is peer coercion and the behaviour changes. Other males listen to other males, they very rarely listen to women so it is up to other men to enforce what is normal and call out behaviours that humiliate or denigrate others.

haha... you really do love to introduce unrelated examples, or ideas.. Shifting the goalposts on every response.

I'll wait until you decide to deal with what's written, as opposed to arguing with yourself.

cloudatlas

klaz wrote: »

haha... you really do love to introduce unrelated examples, or ideas.. Shifting the goalposts on every response.

I'll wait until you decide to deal with what's written, as opposed to arguing with yourself.

LMAO :pac: Yeah, no substance.

o1s1n

klaz wrote: »

There is nothing forcing women to dress a certain way.. they have the choice to dress in all manner of styles (women's fashion is far more varied and established than mens). Free will. There's no coercion. You choose, and bear the consequences for that choice.

Unfortunately not all women's body shapes allow them to 'tuck everything away' to save them from lecherous leering. I've seen many a young women dressed modestly, only to have heads turning and wolf whistles thrown her way purely due to the way she's built.

The only thing she's 'bearing the consequences of' is bad bloody manners from a load of arseholes.

KyussB

klaz wrote: »

...

Personal responsibility has importance. It's important to be aware of the possible reactions of those around you. If you, as a woman, dress provocatively, then you should be aware, and accept that you will receive attention that you don't want. [...]

If a women dresses up and receives negative attention for that, then no - that is a societal problem, not a problem of personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility narratives that are used to deny societal problems, are almost always victim blaming.

With OF, the line between personal responsibility vs societal responsibility, hinges on the moral argument about whether sexualized OF work is wrong.

If it's decided to be morally wrong, then it's not a societal problem to denigrate it - if it's decided that there's nothing wrong with it morally, then it is a societal problem to denigrate it (which will be resolved as social attitudes/pressures change).

[Deleted User]

o1s1n wrote: »

Unfortunately not all women's body shapes allow them to 'tuck everything away' to save them from lecherous leering. I've seen many a young women dressed modestly, only to have heads turning and wolf whistles thrown her way purely due to the way she's built.

The only thing she's 'bearing the consequences of' is bad bloody manners from a load of arseholes.

And do the arseholes represent the whole gender? Should we take the behavior of a minority of women as being representative of the whole gender?

It comes back to what I said earlier about gaining freedoms. You can't decide who will gain freedoms in behavior and who will not. As you relax behavior, and boundaries in appearance, that will result in a relaxation of social barriers that limited such negative behavior from occurring. (and throughout history, there have always been some who break social norms to behave certain ways).

[Deleted User]

KyussB wrote: »

If a women dresses up and receives negative attention for that, then no - that is a societal problem, not a problem of personal responsibility.

Everything is a social problem for you... but yes, it is a social problem. You can't change social norms and not expect there to be negative consequences to the changes implemented.

Personal responsibility narratives that are used to deny societal problems, are almost always victim blaming.

Ahh well, when victims are entirely exempted from any kind of responsibility, then yes, it would be.

And yes, I'm well aware of your distaste for the idea of personal responsibility.

With OF, the line between personal responsibility vs societal responsibility, hinges on the moral argument about whether sexualized OF work is wrong.

If it's decided to be morally wrong, then it's not a societal problem to denigrate it - if it's decided that there's nothing wrong with it morally, then it is a societal problem to denigrate it (which will be resolved as social attitudes/pressures change).

On OF, I'll respond to your points when you have the decency to actually deal with the points I made earlier.

mcsean2163

cloudatlas wrote: »

Yeah I was replying to a comment I wasn't just plucking that out of thin air, this is a discussion that is straying into the area of ethics as we are essentially discussing what is right or wrong so economic coercion applies.

Do you think it's right to spend your youth working in an MNC doing a job a robot could do for very little money?

o1s1n

klaz wrote: »

And do the arseholes represent the whole gender? Should we take the behavior of a minority of women as being representative of the whole gender?

Where did I say that? you're putting words in my mouth now, I don't think any actions of a few should represent any gender at all.

klaz wrote: »

It comes back to what I said earlier about gaining freedoms. You can't decide who will gain freedoms in behavior and who will not. As you relax behavior, and boundaries in appearance, that will result in a relaxation of social barriers that limited such negative behavior from occurring. (and throughout history, there have always been some who break social norms to behave certain ways).

What I am trying to point out is that the people who are leering and being lecherous will do it anyway, maybe we should address that issue rather than pointing the finger at women for what they're wearing?

You get men sexually harassing women the world over, from countries where they freely wear very little to countries where folks go around covered head to toe.

The common denominator seems to be that some people are arseholes rather than what women are actually wearing.

MarkEadie

My opinion is that men are the consumers here and the ones handing money over to women for pictures and whatever else. I think there is an element of sexual pleasure in some men to just hand money over to women perhaps? I don't quite understand the ins and outs. It wouldn't be for me but I'm in a very happy and fulfilling relationship. A lot of the guys criticising girls doing onlyfans seem to have issues with "western women" in general and be single to boot. Logically if men are the ones funding the entire enterprise, then if you feel so strongly about it you should be castigating the men who are funding and supporting it? It's got to a stage where grannies are making a killing on only fans. Fair play to them I say but if you are going to criticise them for doing it then why are you silent on the men who are paying for it? That's one thing I don't quite understand.

[Deleted User]

MarkEadie wrote: »

My opinion is that men are the consumers here and the ones handing money over to women for pictures and whatever else. I think there is an element of sexual pleasure in some men to just hand money over to women perhaps? I don't quite understand the ins and outs. It wouldn't be for me but I'm in a very happy and fulfilling relationship. A lot of the guys criticising girls doing onlyfans seem to have issues with "western women" in general and be single to boot. Logically if men are the ones funding the entire enterprise, then if you feel so strongly about it you should be castigating the men who are funding and supporting it? It's got to a stage where grannies are making a killing on only fans. Fair play to them I say but if you are going to criticise them for doing it then why are you silent on the men who are paying for it? That's one thing I don't quite understand.

I wouldn't date the men that pay for only fans either.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

[Deleted User]

cloudatlas wrote: »

I think it goes without saying that without the exchange of money the women would not consent.

Not 100% sure I understand this sentence. So rather than disagree with it maybe I could ask for clarification on what you mean exactly?

What is it women are consenting to that it "goes without saying" they would not where money was not involved?

The reason I ask: There are quite a few sites out there where men and women produce similar content - soft and hard core pornography of all kinds - absolutely for free. Money does not come into it at all. Some of them of course likely would take money for it if they were offered because people do like money - but it was not money that made them consent to it in the first place in those cases. I can open a single site and scroll down 100s of women doing this right now.

In fact quite the opposite as it is the site hosting their pictures that takes money. You have to pay for memberships. So some of the uploaders are not only not getting money there - they are sometimes spending money for some of the added privileges of showing their home made porn and of having the website profit off their content.

paw patrol

MarkEadie wrote: »

then if you feel so strongly about it you should be castigating the men who are funding and supporting it? It's got to a stage where grannies are making a killing on only fans. Fair play to them I say but if you are going to criticise them for doing it then why are you silent on the men who are paying for it? That's one thing I don't quite understand.

Nobody is silent on the men paying for this.
They are utter spas and it's widely held belief.

Men that pay for only fans strike me at the type who thinks the hooker actually likes them.

I would mock any male friend I found paying for only fans and think a lot less of them.

MarkEadie

Well that is certainly a good start. Given that there are more men than women involved, I'd say the focus should be on the men paying and financing the entire industry.

A lot of the men I've seen who are against it are the MGTOW types (men going their own way). They say they are going their own way but I think they are bitter against women possibly from years of rejection. I'm not saying that is the case for anyone here by the way just a general observation of youtube/forums etc.

I simply think the focus of their ire should be men rather than women since way more men are paying and financing it than women are doing it.

Maybe it's the female version of the PUA scam which many men got duped into. There were plenty of PUA seminars around and a search of PUA shows a Klaz was attending Ross Jeffries seminars. I respect someone trying to improve themselves so fair dues but trying to covertly hypnotise women into having sex by running "speed seduction patterns" was pretty much a scam that worked on gullible men in my opinion. That business model is gone now and there would be very few PUA stuff out there now. Women are selling perceived intimacy where you can seemingly interact with them and request pictures and videos but it's not real intimacy and some lads seem to be falling for it. A lot of lads do understand what they are getting into and still pay the money over. In the same way you could have explained that trying to covertly hypnotise women into having sex wasnt the right route to go down but there seems to have been many a PUA thread on here from the search results and no shortage of men defending it.

Pawwed Rig

MarkEadie wrote: »

but there seems to have been many a PUA thread on here from the search results and no shortage of men defending it.

Links or gtfo

YellowLead

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Links or gtfo

What is PUA???

Hello 2D Person Below

YellowLead wrote: »

What is PUA???

Pick up artist.

[Deleted User]

YellowLead wrote: »

What is PUA???

It gets squashed immediately by the mods. You won't find any serious threads on boards about it. Overly impressionable people tend to think it's amazing (that was me a long long time ago), but it's mostly rubbish.

Pawwed Rig

klaz wrote: »

It gets squashed immediately by the mods. You won't find any serious threads on boards about it. Overly impressionable people tend to think it's amazing (that was me a long long time ago), but it's mostly rubbish.

You read The Game aswell yeah ? :pac:

YellowLead

klaz wrote: »

It gets squashed immediately by the mods. You won't find any serious threads on boards about it. Overly impressionable people tend to think it's amazing (that was me a long long time ago), but it's mostly rubbish.

I guess most women can spot it a mile away. There’s always a few who won’t and that’s why it’s probably worth some people pursuing. Just like scam emails/calls it’s worth doing as there is always some eejit who falls for it .

guy2231

Hello 2D Person Below wrote: »

Pick up artist.

Don't see what his problem is with that, "PUA" have learned to behave in a way women really like so why would anyone have a problem with giving women what they want?

Sounds very sexist to me.

[Deleted User]

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You read The Game aswell yeah ? :pac:

I know the author. Went sarging with him in London many years ago.

[Deleted User]

YellowLead wrote: »

I guess most women can spot it a mile away.

It's intentionally obvious. It works, somewhat, for the US dating scene. It doesn't work so well in Europe, although, it depends what area of PUA you're advocating.

Not going to get into a discussion over it, but there's nuggets of gold in there (which I still use to this day).. there's just a lot of scummy ideas too, along with very ego driven attitudes. It's a great gateway into more reasonable ideas like NLP, meditation, emotional states, etc. Best thing is to discard the PUA stuff quickly, and move on to the more reasonable material, leaving the "guru's" far behind.

The advantage of the scene was back two-three decades ago, when there wasn't as much information available on dating, and how to self-improve/develop. Now, PUA is just past its time.

Mister Vain

klaz wrote: »

It's intentionally obvious. It works, somewhat, for the US dating scene. It doesn't work so well in Europe, although, it depends what area of PUA you're advocating.

Not going to get into a discussion over it, but there's nuggets of gold in there (which I still use to this day).. there's just a lot of scummy ideas too, along with very ego driven attitudes. It's a great gateway into more reasonable ideas like NLP, meditation, emotional states, etc. Best thing is to discard the PUA stuff quickly, and move on to the more reasonable material, leaving the "guru's" far behind.

The advantage of the scene was back two-three decades ago, when there wasn't as much information available on dating, and how to self-improve/develop. Now, PUA is just past its time.

Aye, but then the yanks tend to be a lot more forward anyway. Much different dating culture. Plus the novelty of being a foreigner helps.