nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Opinions on onlyfans and adult entertainment industry

Bubblesxoxx

I have been a dancer in Dublin for a decade started in my early 20s a lot of the girls I work with are sound and believe me it’s definitely nothing you see on tv. However Ireland seems to have this negative attitude towards women in this industry or deems us all sex addicts or easy when the woman who gets bread in her local supermarket could be doing all kinds of dirty things that’s way worse than dancing and it seems to be okay because she’s doing it for free I don’t get the mindset of some of these people we have stage names in work to protect our identity.

Part of this job comes with a lot of stigma there’s been a few girls who had people find out their day jobs and contact their boss to try and get them fired it’s normally women who rat them out and try to ruin their lives over it. There’s nothing I’d love more than to be open about my job and how it’s helped me get through some dark times in my life but I just couldn’t handle all the derogatory labels and insults and lows people will go to try and ruin your life over it. Since covid hit I don’t know how the strip club industry in Dublin is going to survive.

I want to know what your opinions are on strippers and the likes of using onlyfans to make money nothing you say is going to bother me it’s more curios why people have a begrudging attitude towards these things when they do worse things for free with their husbands boyfriend or a random Jack the lad from coppers In Dublin on a night out.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

anewme

kippy wrote: »

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

Ahhhh so everyone is out of step except the people here.

I would see the people here as not understanding the issues more than the legally written legislation.

When people push back against laws implemented to protect people, youd have to question their motives.

Now, maybe it wont be passed tomorrow- what do you think?

banie01

anewme wrote: »

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

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

But FG have taken this on as a crusade now

Can't help but wonder why?

Why is it good enough for FG now?
When 3yrs ago?
It wasn't!

banie01 wrote: »

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?

banie01

Batrachotox wrote: »

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.

So you've seen the cache of images that were the trigger for this escalation?

If you have, your the 1st!
Because everyone is only reporting what they have been told is there at the moment.

kippy

anewme wrote: »

Ahhhh so everyone is out of step except the people here.

I would see the people here as not understanding the issues more than the legally written legislation.

When people push back against laws implemented to protect people, youd have to question their motives.

Now, maybe it wont be passed tomorrow- what do you think?

Are you of the opinion that an adult content creator who willfully takes and sells explicit photos of themselves, receive the same or similiar legal protection to those images being shared as underage kids and people whose intention it was to keep images private/unknowingly were photographed?

That, to me, is what the leglislation and those backing it are doing.

[Deleted User]

banie01 wrote: »

So you've seen the cache of images that were the trigger for this escalation?

If you have, your the 1st!
Because everyone is only reporting what they have been told is there at the moment.

No I'm reporting what I've been told is there, as you say

banie01

Batrachotox wrote: »

No I'm reporting what I've been told is there, as you say

I know

Sorry if I seemed a bit hyperbolic, but that's all anyone is doing because this great cache of CP containing explicit photos doesn't exist.

Yes there are creeps sharing Onlyfans, yes there are people aggregating hot girls photos from social media and even sharing those.
But that's not sexual offending assault or any flavour of anything other than a loss of income to one party and a lesson in privacy settings to the other.

The cache that was reported as the trigger for this is moving towards the back of the reasons to be outraged, to be replaced by what was done to Dara Quigley.

One of those is a heinous act worthy of punishment.
The other a copyright issue that is being conflated with sexual abuse.
It's also a convenient bandwagon for an underfire minister.

Legislation is needed, but look at the context?
Why was it no good 3 years ago? But suitable now?
Why the sudden jump to this being a government priority, when part of the Government who were actually in power 3 years ago shot it down.

[Deleted User]

Gatling wrote: »

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

I think you mean 'nothing has been leaked to the public domain ' when you say nothing has been found.

banie01

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think you mean 'nothing has been leaked to the public domain ' when you say nothing has been found.

But according to those reporting the issue, the images are already in the public domain?

But, now they aren't?
Who took them down? Those nasty digital consent denying rapists?
If such a cache exists, do you believe discord was the sole means of sharing?
It's only those 500, and they never shared further?

How can it be both public? And not public?

Feisar

I took a dander over to 4chan expecting to see a load of Bridie's in the buff but it does all seem to be a fugazi.

Gatling

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think you mean 'nothing has been leaked to the public domain ' when you say nothing has been found.

I've spent hours on discord , WhatsApp , Telegram and a few others , PornHub ,you porn ,and several other porn sites.
There is nothing connected to this leak ,yet 3 /4 girls on twitter have found tens of thousands of images and videos relating to the only fans leak ,

seamus

Padre_Pio wrote: »

What is the definition?

I assume OnlyFans stuff wouldn't be intimate?

Depends

“intimate image” means a visual recording of a person made by any means including a
photographic, film or video recording (whether or not the image of the person has
been altered in any way)—
(a) (i) of his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts (whether covered by
underwear or bare), or
(ii) in which the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal
region or her breasts, or
(iii) in which the person is engaged in sexual activity,

(b) in respect of which, if it was recorded with consent, at the time of the recording and afterwards there were circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy;

It hinges on the last part - "reasonable expectation of privacy".

If someone created OnlyFans content for a specific audience, and it was clear that this was content for a specific audience - especially if it had been created for an individual, then that, IMO, gives rise to the "reasonable expectation of privacy". Having paid for the content doesn't magically change it from "private" to "public".

Showing my ignorance of OF now, but if the creator creates content for a reasonably large audience of clients; say 50 or 100, then there may be an argument that the reasonable expectation of privacy has been lost.

MrMusician18

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think you mean 'nothing has been leaked to the public domain ' when you say nothing has been found.

Given the amount of publicity surrounding this, you'd expect at least one person to come out and say they've seen it.

But not even the resident spoofers on boards are claiming to have. There is an absence of evidence here, so occam's razor should be applied.

banie01

Gatling wrote: »

I've spent hours on discord , WhatsApp , Telegram and a few others , PornHub ,you porn ,and several other porn sites.
There is nothing connected to this leak ,yet 3 /4 girls on twitter have found tens of thousands of images and videos relating to the only fans leak ,

And told the mammy of the 16y.o NZ lad!
That told him!!!
Because of course that's how you deal with blackmail and sexual image offending.
You tell the mammy?

sbsquarepants

Gatling wrote: »

I've spent hours on discord , WhatsApp , Telegram and a few others , PornHub ,you porn ,and several other porn sites.
,

Is that you pope Francis?

Gatling

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Is that you pope Francis?

I can't tell anymore I've gone blind

tjhook

seamus wrote: »

Showing my ignorance of OF now, but if the creator creates content for a reasonably large audience of clients; say 50 or 100, then there may be an argument that the reasonable expectation of privacy has been lost.

I'd hope this would be the case. But I have little faith in the ability of our legislators when they're reacting in kneejerk fashion.

I'm fine with laws against distribution of *private* sexually explicit material. Especially where it pertains to underage people.

But the law would have to be drafted in such a way that me downloading a copy of "Debbie does Dallas" (or "Debbie Does Dingle") and then giving a copy to my buddy isn't classified as a sex crime under the new law.

And if this new law doesn't cover "Debbie Does Dingle", I can't see how it would cover content from OnlyFans.

tjhook

Wibbs wrote: »

EG I use google, have an account with them including gmail, regularly gorge myself on youtube and this is my history:

Actually it's all there in white text on the white background. And I for one am disgusted at what you've been perusing. Especially that site with the goat, the dwarf and the trench watch.

seamus

tjhook wrote: »

I'd hope this would be the case. But I have little faith in the ability of our legislators when they're reacting in kneejerk fashion.

I'm fine with laws against distribution of *private* sexually explicit material. Especially where it pertains to underage people.

But the law would have to be drafted in such a way that me downloading a copy of "Debbie does Dallas" (or "Debbie Does Dingle") and then giving a copy to my buddy isn't classified as a sex crime under the new law.

And if this new law doesn't cover "Debbie Does Dingle", I can't see how it would cover content from OnlyFans.

It's not a kneejerk reaction anyway, the law was written ages ago.

The proposed law is here for anyone who wants to read it; https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2017/63

It's pretty clear that any material that was not intended for an exclusive audience is not covered by the act. So your bootleg copy of Debbie does Dallas that you bought well-worn off a mate in 3rd year for a fiver, is OK.

There is a grey area in relation to material that is produced for private use; where that use is by a paying customer. But outside of that it's pretty straighforward.

If you had an ongoing arrangement with a sex worker where you paid her to send you sexy photos every few days, "to keep you going", you wouldn't be permitted to send those photos to someone else, unless she had explicitly said you could. If you did, you could be prosecuted.

And that's fair.

But if she had a private website with galleries that were available to all of her clients, then the question of prosecution is way more difficult.

MrMusician18

Gatling wrote: »

I've spent hours on discord , WhatsApp , Telegram and a few others , PornHub ,you porn ,and several other porn sites.
There is nothing connected to this leak ,yet 3 /4 girls on twitter have found tens of thousands of images and videos relating to the only fans leak ,

Quite the connoisseur.:pac:

Padre_Pio

seamus wrote: »

Depends

It hinges on the last part - "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Personally, I would say that OnlyFans is not covered, since images are not directly send or shared to a 3rd party.
They are put online and accessed by a 3rd party, either for free or after payment, potentially weeks or months after they were created.

If you're publicly advertising that you have all this content, should you expect privacy?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Quite the connoisseur.:pac:

I doubt there's anyone here who can have the moral high ground :pac:

[Deleted User]

banie01 wrote: »

And told the mammy of the 16y.o NZ lad!
That told him!!!
Because of course that's how you deal with blackmail and sexual image offending.
You tell the mammy?

What other option did they have?

[Deleted User]

banie01 wrote: »

But according to those reporting the issue, the images are already in the public domain?

But, now they aren't?
Who took them down? Those nasty digital consent denying rapists?
If such a cache exists, do you believe discord was the sole means of sharing?
It's only those 500, and they never shared further?

How can it be both public? And not public?

Discord took it down apparently. I've no idea about other copies or versions, but presumably they would be under some level of restriction, so it's not a huge surprise that you haven't seen them.

Gatling

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What other option did they have?

Cyber stalking a child and telling him mammy he's looking at porn wouldn't be the way to go .

If this was even remotely real they would have options to contact the relevant authorities .

Gatling

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Discord took it down apparently. I've no idea about other copies or versions, but presumably they would be under some level of restriction, so it's not a huge surprise that you haven't seen them.

Lol the good old oh they were taken down yet zero evidence to suggest try existed at all zero

[Deleted User]

Gatling wrote: »

Cyber stalking a child and telling him mammy he's looking at porn wouldn't be the way to go .

If this was even remotely real they would have options to contact the relevant authorities .

What offence should they have reported to the NZ authorities?

banie01

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What other option did they have?

Are you fúcking serious?

Report the matter to the police.
Serious criminal offending is alleged, it should be actually investigated and prosecuted.

On the one hand we are expected to believe that serious harm, emotional, mental and coercive is being exerted upon the women this "boy" targeted?
Yet...

When they go on a solo run and identify the alleged perpetrator?
Rather than actually let justice run its course?
They tell his mammy?

How harmful were these boys alleged crimes?
Judging by the outrage generated without evidence, pretty serious.

But rather than take appropriate action and report it?
They let it go?
Wonder how his "victims' feel about that?

Gatling

banie01 wrote: »

Are you fúcking serious?

Report the matter to the police.
Serious criminal offending is alleged, it should be actually investigated and prosecuted.

On the one hand we are expected to believe that serious harm, emotional, mental and coercive is being exerted upon the women this "boy" targeted?
Yet...

When they go on a solo run and identify the alleged perpetrator?
Rather than actually let justice run its course?
They tell his mammy?

How harmful were these boys alleged crimes?
Judging by the outrage generated without evidence, pretty serious.

But rather than take appropriate action and report it?
They let it go?
Wonder how his "victims' feel about that?

As someone who works with vulnerable Victims she should be sacked for essentially Carrying out a vigilante operation against a child and putting the child at risk of a violent backlash from his parents

banie01

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Discord took it down apparently. I've no idea about other copies or versions, but presumably they would be under some level of restriction, so it's not a huge surprise that you haven't seen them.

It never happened, it doesn't exist in the form the ladies involved have claimed.

Let's take Dara Quigley's unfortunate demise as an example.
That video went from being on a private Garda only WhatsApp group.
To being viewed over a 120000 times within 3 days

The garda shared the video to a WhatsApp group that included only other gardai.[6][4] By April 7 it had spread to other internet locations and was viewed over 120,000 times.[3]

From wiki.

These caches don't stay private, 500 people have had a ban from discord for reasons as yet unknown.
Those 500 people would all share such info on far more than just discord.

It would be downloaded and reshared.
That such salacious material is in the wild and hasn't hit a tipping point of becoming viral over a week later?
That no actual discussion of such a cache being shared in those places that facilitate such things?
That no-one other than those pushing the story have claimed sight or knowledge of the file?

It's not credible that any such file exists.

MrMusician18

seamus wrote: »

It's not a kneejerk reaction anyway, the law was written ages ago.

The proposed law is here for anyone who wants to read it; https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2017/63

It's pretty clear that any material that was not intended for an exclusive audience is not covered by the act. So your bootleg copy of Debbie does Dallas that you bought well-worn off a mate in 3rd year for a fiver, is OK.

There is a grey area in relation to material that is produced for private use; where that use is by a paying customer. But outside of that it's pretty straighforward.

If you had an ongoing arrangement with a sex worker where you paid her to send you sexy photos every few days, "to keep you going", you wouldn't be permitted to send those photos to someone else, unless she had explicitly said you could. If you did, you could be prosecuted.

And that's fair.

But if she had a private website with galleries that were available to all of her clients, then the question of prosecution is way more difficult.

Ah here, the cynic in me thinks the timing of this for justice Minister McEntee is extremely fortuitous. Imagine how lucky she is to have a bill sitting for years on the back burner only for it to come out of the woodwork now and bolster her feminist credentials at the very same time she's taking a lot of flak for the way the appointment of Justice Woulfe was handled.

banie01

Gatling wrote: »

As someone who works with vaunersble Victims she should be sacked for essentially Carrying out a vigilante operation against a child and putting the child at risk of a violent backlash from his parents

The importance of this last point cannot be over emphasized.
If her claim is true, she took quite a deliberate decision to place a child in harm's way!

All whilst running a protect the children subtext to her claim of mass sexual exploitation of thousands of Irish women.

Actually ridiculously risky behaviour.