Opinions on onlyfans and adult entertainment industry

Gatling · 23-11-2020 01:04PM

bigpink wrote: »

So the girls doing Onlyfans have no case I take it.They put there stuff online.Apparently they have been telling Irish girls that have an Onlyfans link in there Twitter or Instagram profile to delete it
It's like they want to be sex workers but want it all private aswell??That's very hard to do

Apparently it's possible as long as victims advocacy groups are Pushing it ,
Taught they were supposed to support victims of crimes not encourage and promote online sex work and porn streaming .

seamus · 23-11-2020 01:06PM

Red Pill Deluxe wrote: »

I found an OF girl who has nudes freely available on her Twitter page. If I save those photos am I breaking this new law?

No. Saving the photos alone would not be sufficient.

Even distributing the photos, in itself would not necessarily be in breach of these new laws.

There are 4 tests that have to be passed in order to breach the law;

1. The image must be "intimate" (this is defined in the law)
2. The image has to be (or threatened to be) recorded or distributed or published*
3. It must be done without the subject's consent**
4. It must "seriously interfere with the peace and privacy of the other person or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other person"

So, in the example you give;

1. Pass. The image is "intimate"
2. Pass. The image has been recorded by the act of saving it to your computer
3. Soft pass. You don't have explicity consent of the subject to save this image permanently. But this is debateable.
4. Fail. Your act of downloading the image does not interfere with their privacy or cause harm to them.

So no, it would not be an offence to download some insta model's raunchy pictures.

If she was to later come out and say that she regrets her past and hates the photos she took and wants them taken down, then arguably one could make the case that continuing to distribute them is a crime.

* Any one of these things, it doesn't have to be all. So being in possession of an image is enough even if you don't give it to anyone else

**Whatever act you have done, must be without consent. So if someone gives you consent to record the image, but you distribute it without consent, that is an offence

bigpink · 23-11-2020 01:06PM

Gatling wrote: »

Can anyone explain why a victims advocacy group is actively promoting a porn streaming site and seems to be acting on their behalf

Have you a link?

MrMusician18 · 23-11-2020 01:09PM

anewme wrote: »

That is part of the thinking behind the legislation. It is pushing responsibilty back on those who download and shared it.

Rephrase your words - the way to stop passing around other peoples images is to not do it - - you will end up being prosecuted.

The way to stop the passing around of this content is to not make the content.

If anyone thinks legislation is going to stop this behaviour, they are incredibly naive. The world is full of low people, none moreso than porn, a particularly seedy and cut-throat industry. The only way to protect yourself, is to act yourself - not to be depending on the nanny state to fix your mistake, which it really can't do anyway.

I don't want my nudes shared, so guess what, I haven't taken any and sent them to people. This is all just basic cop-on. I am not condoning the sharing of this stuff btw, just astonished at the lack of personal responsibility that surrounds this issue.

anewme · 23-11-2020 01:30PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The way to stop the passing around of this content is to not make the content.

If anyone thinks legislation is going to stop this behaviour, they are incredibly naive. The world is full of low people, none moreso than porn, a particularly seedy and cut-throat industry. The only way to protect yourself, is to act yourself - not to be depending on the nanny state to fix your mistake, which it really can't do anyway.

I don't want my nudes shared, so guess what, I haven't taken any and sent them to people. This is all just basic cop-on. I am not condoning the sharing of this stuff btw, just astonished at the lack of personal responsibility that surrounds this issue.

See attached.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/new-offence-to-carry-up-to-7-years-jail-for-sharing-sexual-images-without-consent-1040338.html?fbclid=IwAR23PBQBCHEfH1NPfyGmd5VGnmyBGmuRVZHgorZHn4Odi0m7t4p5VWpvmFg

kippy · 23-11-2020 01:36PM

anewme wrote: »

See attached.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/new-offence-to-carry-up-to-7-years-jail-for-sharing-sexual-images-without-consent-1040338.html?fbclid=IwAR23PBQBCHEfH1NPfyGmd5VGnmyBGmuRVZHgorZHn4Odi0m7t4p5VWpvmFg

This "victim blaming" term is not helpful to victims.

Gatling · 23-11-2020 01:37PM

Sharing these images From porn sites is been equated to streaming premier League matches on line .

There is no Victims of a crime here

,this legislation will only serve to protect revenue streams of foreign based porn streaming sites that's all this is

anewme · 23-11-2020 01:39PM

kippy wrote: »

This "victim blaming" term is not helpful to victims.

Your definition of victims in this instance are different than others. So thats where the discrepancies show up.

Padre_Pio · 23-11-2020 01:39PM

seamus wrote: »

1. The image must be "intimate" (this is defined in the law)

What is the definition?

I assume OnlyFans stuff wouldn't be intimate?

23-11-2020 01:42PM

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I assume OnlyFans stuff wouldn't be intimate?

That is very true too..

Gatling · 23-11-2020 01:44PM

anewme wrote: »

Your definition of victims in this instance are different than others.

What is the definition of the victims here in this specific incident that nobody had found any evidence that it actually happened bar a few people on twitter have claimed.

Nothing no photos ,no videos absolutely nothing has been found relating to this

MrMusician18 · 23-11-2020 01:44PM

anewme wrote: »

See attached.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/new-offence-to-carry-up-to-7-years-jail-for-sharing-sexual-images-without-consent-1040338.html?fbclid=IwAR23PBQBCHEfH1NPfyGmd5VGnmyBGmuRVZHgorZHn4Odi0m7t4p5VWpvmFg

What exactly do you want me to read there? I know the legislation is coming, but it won't end this behaviour. We have laws against all sorts of things and people still do it.

The taking and sharing of intimate images and video is naive behaviour. If you left €200 in the middle of O'connell st, yes it's a crime for someone to come along and take it on you, but would you really expect it to be still there an hour or two later? It's a big bad world we live in sadly and there are people out there who will take advantage.

So the first line of defence here should be to protect yourself and not create the images in the first instance. If legislation is needed as a second line of defence, then so be it. The law won't stop phones being stolen and contents uploaded.

Yurt2 · 23-11-2020 01:45PM

seamus wrote: »

All that aside, just because you took naked photos of yourself, doesn't mean it's your fault if they get stolen or leaked.

This is the "she was wearing a short skirt" claim.

Just because it's not a good idea to share these photos of onesself, does not make you at fault if someone takes advantage of that.

Exactly the same way that a woman walking alone in a dodgy part of town in the middle of the night is not a good idea, doesn't mean she bares any blame for what may befall her.

There is no good reason why sharing private intimate photos with an audience they weren't inteneded for, shouldn't be a criminal offence. It's a violation on the sexual assault scale. Lower down, but one nonetheless.

For the adult women who willingly shared sexual content on a pornography platform, my sympathy is extremely limited. I understand this is the overwhelming majority of the "leak". In this case, I completely disagree with your "asking for it analogy" and for far reaching laws to be hastily written off the back of a feminist moral panic is dangerous indeed.

Genuine intimate videos shared with a partner is a different matter and while we should tread carefully, some sort of legal parameters should be set down I agree.

anewme · 23-11-2020 01:50PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What exactly do you want me to read there? I know the legislation is coming, but it won't end this behaviour. We have laws against all sorts of things and people still do it.

The taking and sharing of intimate images and video is naive behaviour. If you left €200 in the middle of O'connell st, yes it's a crime for someone to come along and take it on you, but would you really expect it to be still there an hour or two later? It's a big bad world we live in sadly and there are people out there who will take advantage.

So the first line of defence here should be to protect yourself and not create the images in the first instance. If legislation is needed as a second line of defence, then so be it. The law won't stop phones being stolen and contents uploaded.

A risk of prosecution will deter some people, whether you agree or not. Once a prosectution takes place - it will start to filter down - especially the likes of the "lads" spreading banter that this type of behaviour will impact your future. Same as sending hate to people on Twitter/Insta has recently led to people being arrested (footballer chap, dont know who he is)

Seeing

Invidious · 23-11-2020 01:51PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The way to stop the passing around of this content is to not make the content.

That's true, but saying "don't make the content" is hardly going to stop people, is it? A significant proportion of teens and young people now share intimate photos and videos with partners as a matter of course. It has become normalized in the era of smartphones, and it's going to continue regardless of what the law says.

When it comes to OnlyFans, I'd assume most people posting content are women in the 18-25 demographic. Some of them can make a small fortune -- especially tempting if they're a student, on the dole, or in a low-paying job in RL. Plus there's the attention-seeking aspect. Again, it's inevitably going to continue.

banie01 · 23-11-2020 01:52PM

Yurt! wrote: »

In this case, I completely disagree with your "asking for it analogy" and for far reaching laws to be hastily written off the back of a feminist moral panic is dangerous indeed.

What's even more interesting is the laws aren't hastily written.
There may well be a hasty amendment or 2 added, but the bill being pursued with such urgency by FG and by minister McEntee was outright rejected 3yrs when Labour originally authored it.

This is a 3 year old bill, that was rejected by FG that is now the highest priority of the FG arm of Govt and the currently under pressure justice minister.

Seems like anyone pointing a finger and asking why is this a priority now?
Is enabling exploitation...

Rather than asking what benefit does a minister who has partaken in what amounts to chicanery regarding the appointment of a SC judge, have to gain by suddenly becoming a feminist crusader and smiter of pornography sharers (rather than producers) has to possibly gain by such action?

Gatling · 23-11-2020 01:52PM

anewme wrote: »

A risk of prosecution will deter some people,

Not a hope ,

kippy · 23-11-2020 01:53PM

anewme wrote: »

A risk of prosecution will deter some people, whether you agree or not. Once a prosectution takes place - it will start to filter down - especially the likes of the "lads" spreading banter that this type of behaviour will impact your future. Same as sending hate to people on Twitter/Insta has recently led to people being arrested (footballer chap, dont know who he is)

Seeing

I don't think you appreciate the massive potential issues involved in getting a prosecution in something like this.

anewme · 23-11-2020 02:01PM

kippy wrote: »

I don't think you appreciate the massive potential issues involved in getting a prosecution in something like this.

The lad sending hate to Ian Wright was charged and found, this will be similar. A few examples made of people will have a very large impact on others behaviour, lets be honest, the people doing this are snakes and cowards and the threat of being outed for it and the shame on their families will have concerns.

anewme · 23-11-2020 02:03PM

kippy wrote: »

I don't think you appreciate the massive potential issues involved in getting a prosecution in something like this.

The other day you accused me of getting mixed up with what was coming in the legislation. Given what came out today, it was not me who had "crossed wires". It was actually you.

If you believe that it is muddying things, thats your prespective - I dont agree.

Has come on the 1 o clock news there on the Radio again.

kippy · 23-11-2020 02:09PM

anewme wrote: »

The other day you accused me of getting mixed up with what was coming in the legislation. Given what came out today, it was not me who had "crossed wires". It was actually you.

If you believe that it is muddying things, thats your prespective - I dont agree.

Has come on the 1 o clock news there on the Radio again.

Well you were and this is muddying the waters and will make it much more difficult for victims to get some justice.

Do you really think that the gardai/state have the resources to investigate and prosecute every single copyright infringement that takes place when it comes to content that adult creators sell to individuals?
Do you honestly think that?

Do you really think that this is a good development? If so, there's little point.

anewme · 23-11-2020 02:17PM

kippy wrote: »

Well you were and this is muddying the waters and will make it much more difficult for victims to get some justice.

Do you really think that the gardai/state have the resources to investigate and prosecute every single copyright infringement that takes place when it comes to content that adult creators sell to individuals?
Do you honestly think that?

Do you really think that this is a good development? If so, there's little point.

I wasn’t muddying the waters. I was telling you what was being pushed for in legislation. You said I was getting mixed up, but the legislation has come out for approval the way I said.

My point being is that you think I don’t understand issues, when I do.

What I’ve said above is that a few strategic and reported prosecutions will send a warning shot across the bow to many people.

Gatling · 23-11-2020 02:21PM

anewme wrote: »

What I’ve said above is that a few strategic and reported prosecutions will send a warning shot across the bow to many people.

Pure nonsense

Strategic reported prosocutions sounds like Moscow show trials.

Will they have to present evidence or will a twitter post suffice to get someone locked up for 7 years

bigpink · 23-11-2020 02:30PM

anewme wrote: »

The lad sending hate to Ian Wright was charged and found, this will be similar. A few examples made of people will have a very large impact on others behaviour, lets be honest, the people doing this are snakes and cowards and the threat of being outed for it and the shame on their families will have concerns.

He send him hate directly
An Irish porn star putting pictures online what can they do?

MrMusician18 · 23-11-2020 02:35PM

Gatling wrote: »

Apparently it's possible as long as victims advocacy groups are Pushing it ,
Taught they were supposed to support victims of crimes not encourage and promote online sex work and porn streaming .

That's an interesting comment. I hadn't heard of onlyfans until this thread as an example.

I wonder how much traffic the publicity around these laws is driving to the site.

Padre_Pio · 23-11-2020 02:35PM

bigpink wrote: »

He send him hate directly
An Irish porn star putting pictures online what can they do?

Exactly. OnlyFans is a website, sure it's all there for anyone to take and share anonymously.

Some Yoke · 23-11-2020 02:36PM

Jesus is King

kippy · 23-11-2020 02:44PM

anewme wrote: »

I wasn’t muddying the waters. I was telling you what was being pushed for in legislation. You said I was getting mixed up, but the legislation has come out for approval the way I said.

My point being is that you think I don’t understand issues, when I do.

What I’ve said above is that a few strategic and reported prosecutions will send a warning shot across the bow to many people.

You plainly don't understand the issues, nor does the leglislature by the looks of it.

anewme · 23-11-2020 02:46PM

Yurt! wrote: »

For the adult women who willingly shared sexual content on a pornography platform, my sympathy is extremely limited. I understand this is the overwhelming majority of the "leak". In this case, I completely disagree with your "asking for it analogy" and for far reaching laws to be hastily written off the back of a feminist moral panic is dangerous indeed.

Genuine intimate videos shared with a partner is a different matter and while we should tread carefully, some sort of legal parameters should be set down I agree.

Again, another totally incorrect assumption in the rush to blame those pesky "feminists".

The bill is not hastily written - it goes back to 2017.

23-11-2020 02:50PM

Yurt! wrote: »

For the adult women who willingly shared sexual content on a pornography platform, my sympathy is extremely limited. I understand this is the overwhelming majority of the "leak". In this case, I completely disagree with your "asking for it analogy" and for far reaching laws to be hastily written off the back of a feminist moral panic is dangerous indeed.

Genuine intimate videos shared with a partner is a different matter and while we should tread carefully, some sort of legal parameters should be set down I agree.

This would be my take on it too.

Would have huge sympathy for women who have intimate photos leaked by vindictive exes - they should be legally protected.

However it appears the majority of the images that were shared on that discord are images from Onlyfans i.e. explicit images willingly uploaded by the women in question for profit - I'm afraid I'd have little to no sympathy for this latter group. What I don't like is how the media have conflated the two, making the problem appear much more severe.

Opinions on onlyfans and adult entertainment industry

Comments