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

Quantum Erasure

Gatling wrote: »

Woman C- I make more in a month then the other two combined do in a year and no I don't pay tax

But then, I also share more than just photos of me topless...

I dont actually know what goes on, or what lads would be paying, but I'd presume youd want to be doing live shows with props to make some decent money

[Deleted User]

Dole office 2030: "No luck with a job yet, no?.. Maybe you should go on the game.."

Gatling

Invidious wrote: »

It's hardly treated like any other job, though, is it?

So, ladies, what do you do for a living?

Woman A: I'm a nurse.

Woman B: I'm a teacher.

Woman C: I take pictures of my boobs and post them on the Internet.

Woman C- I make more in a month then the other two combined do in a year and no I don't pay tax

Invidious

silliussoddius wrote: »

Isn't there at at best some inconsistency (and at worst hypocrisy) here, I think it's fair to say that over the last while there has been ore of an attempt to destigmatise/legitmamse sex workers, and to have the industry treated like any other one.

It's hardly treated like any other job, though, is it?

So, ladies, what do you do for a living?

Woman A: I'm a nurse.

Woman B: I'm a teacher.

Woman C: I take pictures of my boobs and post them on the Internet.

bigpink

Gatling wrote: »

And rather than educating them about what can happen they are now encouraging girls to join and set up their own porn streams because they will have protection for when someone shares an image or video they actually paid for

Who is encouraging Irish girls to set up porn sites

kippy

silliussoddius wrote: »

Isn't there at at best some inconsistency (and at worst hypocrisy) here, I think it's fair to say that over the last while there has been ore of an attempt to destigmatise/legitmamse sex workers, and to have the industry treated like any other one.
I may be way off, but this seems a bit like an attempt to give them "special treatment", in that there needs to be something other than copyright/piracy protections because sex is involved.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.
I'd like to see the mental gymnastics laid bare on this.

silliussoddius

Isn't there at at best some inconsistency (and at worst hypocrisy) here, I think it's fair to say that over the last while there has been ore of an attempt to destigmatise/legitmamse sex workers, and to have the industry treated like any other one.
I may be way off, but this seems a bit like an attempt to give them "special treatment", in that there needs to be something other than copyright/piracy protections because sex is involved.

TheValeyard

Gatling wrote: »

And rather than educating them about what can happen they are now encouraging girls to join and set up their own porn streams because they will have protection for when someone shares an image or video they actually paid for

A false sense of protection that will only lead to more pain.

Gatling

TheValeyard wrote: »

They've enough difficulty trying to deal with child images. Not saying these women dont have a legitimate gripe here, but I'd assume it's one of those risks you take if you go into the adult business.

And rather than educating them about what can happen they are now encouraging girls to join and set up their own porn streams because they will have protection for when someone shares an image or video they actually paid for

Invidious

kippy wrote: »

This is it exactly, a civil offence and not a criminal one.

Which is exactly how the Gardai are viewing it at the moment:

Gardaí also said the uploading of material from OnlyFans is also unlikely to be prosecuted. “At most it’s a civil matter under copyright law,” a garda said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-pessimistic-about-bringing-charges-over-revenge-porn-leaks-1.4415105

TheValeyard

Gatling wrote: »

This is what was claimed by this advocate earlier it's the same as streaming of premier League matches online ,
It will be used to guarantee revenue streams for an foreign based porn streaming service .

But sure, hasnt there been copyright issues with porn since the modern internet began? I've no idea how this would be in any way enforceable. They've enough difficulty trying to deal with child images. Not saying these women dont have a legitimate gripe here, but I'd assume it's one of those risks you take if you go into the adult business.

kippy

TheValeyard wrote: »

If it is an Onlyfans leak, then it's a copyright issue if someone has shared paid content without permission?

This is it exactly, a civil offence and not a criminal one.
I have no idea why they are wanting to merge this type of thing in with the creation and dissemination of child porn and other offences.

Gatling

TheValeyard wrote: »

If it is an Onlyfans leak, then it's a copyright issue if someone has shared paid content without permission?

This is what was claimed by this advocate earlier it's the same as streaming of premier League matches online ,
It will be used to guarantee revenue streams for an foreign based porn streaming service .

TheValeyard

If it is an Onlyfans leak, then it's a copyright issue if someone has shared paid content without permission?

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.

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

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.

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: »

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?

[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?

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

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 .

[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.

[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?

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:

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:

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.

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.

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.

Gatling

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Is that you pope Francis?

I can't tell anymore I've gone blind