How OnlyFans, Fansly and other pay sites have ruined everything...

[Escierto]

Exactly. The defining feature of the pimp isn't that he takes a cut but that he does so through coercion and force (and also arguably the fact that he does so while offering nothing of value).

The relationship between OF and the people that use the platform is more analogous to the relationship between a personal trainer and the gym. The personal trainer is essentially a free lancer who earns fees from clients and pays a cut to the gym in return for the use of their facility and equipment. Or the relationship between a real estate agent and the brokerage they work for. The agent earns commissions and pays a cut to the brokerage for the use of their branding, marketing and access to multiple listing service. Or the agent who takes a cut of an athlete's or actor's earnings in return for management and representation services.

In each case the party taking "a cut" is doing so in return for offering access to a platform or a service that has real value. Likewise in each case the party giving up "a cut' of their revenue is doing so of their own free will because they see value in what they are receiving. And the decision to compensate one party with "a cut" rather than a fixed or other fee structure is a legitimate business arrangement arrived at by two parties, neither acting under duress or being coerced or controlled.

Now if one wants to use the word pimp in this circumstance because of the engagement in the sex industry that is a different debate. But the premise that the word applies because the compensation comes in the form of "a cut" doesn't hold up at all.

Well stated. Using the word pimp simply illustrates the distaste of the user for the women who use OF. The auxiliary to this is that these women are prostitutes. All in a thread complaining that there aren’t enough prostitutes because they can make more money with OF! The nerve

 

[SlutAddicted]

I read an article in a business blog recently about how only the top 1/2 of one percent are huge money makers. They far surpass the rest and the average woman makes $150/month.
Many also pay promoters on social media to get them more customers so not all the money they receive ends up in their hands.
I have met several sex workers on this site. They all tell me that no one knows their secret life and no one would. But if they went online, it is there forever.
I am not a fan of either option (sex work, online or in person), but any person who does this has to understand they will never be erased.
The article even mentioned how some online boards share "deleted" OF content (women who quit) to keep them alive, so to speak.
There are horrible people out there.

I am sure that there are lots of pitfalls and empty promises involved in the whole thing. I think it is important that women be aware of them. But ultimately it is their choice.

However, it is interesting how these conversations often turn against the women who choose to have an OF account with little commentary on the douche bags that create those negative consequences. I understand that we probably can't realistically get rid of the d-bags so it makes sense to put some focus on protection from them. But the manner in which these women get attacked emboldens the d-bags and in some ways helps justify their behaviour. Much like traditional sex work we effectively make a moral judgment on the women that implicitly (for some people) justifies their mistreatment.

Compare it to other endeavours where the odds are poor and the potential for exploitation is high. Someone wanting to be an actor or a model or a professional musician will likely be cautioned about the very low odds of success (probably less than 1/2 of one percent) and the potential for exploitation. But that can be done without passing moral judgment, disparaging their character or making baseless assumptions about their motivation in ways that contribute to their victimization.

A truly balanced approach would involve cautioning women against some of the pitfalls while also reinforcing the premise that the choice is theirs to make, it is a legitimate choice and those who treat them with disrespect are in the wrong.

 

[policywank]

I am sure that there are lots of pitfalls and empty promises involved in the whole thing. I think it is important that women be aware of them. But ultimately it is their choice.

However, it is interesting how these conversations often turn against the women who choose to have an OF account with little commentary on the douche bags that create those negative consequences. I understand that we probably can't realistically get rid of the d-bags so it makes sense to put some focus on protection from them. But the manner in which these women get attacked emboldens the d-bags and in some ways helps justify their behaviour. Much like traditional sex work we effectively make a moral judgment on the women that implicitly (for some people) justifies their mistreatment.

Compare it to other endeavours where the odds are poor and the potential for exploitation is high. Someone wanting to be an actor or a model or a professional musician will likely be cautioned about the very low odds of success (probably less than 1/2 of one percent) and the potential for exploitation. But that can be done without passing moral judgment, disparaging their character or making baseless assumptions about their motivation in ways that contribute to their victimization.

A truly balanced approach would involve cautioning women against some of the pitfalls while also reinforcing the premise that the choice is theirs to make, it is a legitimate choice and those who treat them with disrespect are in the wrong.

I think that this is one of those topics where what we say and how we say it needs to be informed by awareness of the "lowest common denominator." In other words how will the dumbest most misogynistic person interpret our words. Those people will engage in victim blaming and take the women's behaviour as justification for their own shitty behaviour on the basis that she "deserved it."

It is a little like telling women to be careful what we wear because it could invite unwanted sexual attention. That is a perfectly valid thing to say, but if you don't concurrently condemn that unwanted sexual attention there are meatheads who will interpret that to mean that when a woman dresses provocatively she is "asking for it" and that justifies sexual assault.

Reality is that women have the right to be an OnlyFans model or dress provocatively or engage in the sex trade and by doing so we in no way forfeit the right to be treated with respect and not victimized. Nevertheless, we should not be naive. It is prudent to know that there are assholes who won't see it that way and will do nasty things so we should make informed choices. As with some many things in life there is a balance between knowing there are bad people in the world and finding ways to stand up to them that doesn't involve letting ourselves be victimized.

 

[KatieDoes]

I am amazed that anyone pays for OF, as porn is free on freemium sites and there is unlimited supply. As these are still in place, I am not really affected by OF, and if the free sites disappeared, simply would not watch anymore. What I find tedious is that OF has fosters an entitlement culture where people expect you to pay them, often for very little or nothing at all.

Entitlement culture? Because people charge for the content they produce instead of giving it away for free? I don’t think that the content creators here are people exhibiting entitlement.

I think people pay for OF because it offers the buyer a feeling of connection and that they don’t get from watching a random porno.

I’ve never charged for it (although I absolutely support sex workers and think that legalization makes them safer) but when I used to engage in casual cyber stuff it got me off a million times better to be talking or camming with an actual person instead of just watching porn. I don’t play casually with men anymore (hit me up, ladies! ) but there is a definite difference when there’s an actual exchange instead of just watching pre recorded impersonal porn.

 

[KatieDoes]

I'm speaking generally; I've never encountered any specific OF creators on here (nor am I looking to) so can't speak on them as individuals. However, you're mistaken, and I have the feeling it's because you are one yourself that you've not noticed it. It’s like when white people say they don't see racism/ don't think something is racist when it is.

What part of my post do you think I’m mistaken about?

I ‘am one’ what, myself?

I don’t understand your post well enough to respond to it and need a bit of clarity.

 

[scposteel]

I think the thing people fail to understand is that for every OF success story there are hundreds of thousands who it simply doesn't pay off. All you gotta do is scour through sites like Reddit, or apps like whisper to see how many women are desperately trying to get it going to try and make a living off of it. As for finding women like that to play with, honestly any seedy dating app/site works if your willing to pay for it. It didn't ruin hook up culture, it just added more masturbation material. Personally I don't pay for that stuff, but if someone else chooses to do so, well that's on them

 

[SlutAddicted]

I don't necessarily agree with OP, but I absolutely take a stand against your take on this. Just because they have an opinion which contradicts your own, doesn't make theirs invalid and them "judgemental". And even if they were "judgemental" as you put it - so what? They're allowed to be and it's valid. Just because it doesn't suit you or you don't agree with it, doesn't automatically make you right. Similarly just because your opinion may be more/less popular, doesn't make it valid/invalid.

I never said that their view was invalid, nor that it was wrong. Nor did I make any assertion that the popularity of a given view has anything to do with its legitimacy. I said that their comments were judgmental because their argument is built in part on baseless assertions about the motivation of OF models. That doesn't make them wrong, but an argument built on such a shaky foundation is usually suspect.

The same would apply to any topic. If I said that I don't favour politician X because I disagree with his/her policies, political philosophy or how they handled a given situation, there is substance to why I don't like them. One may agree or disagree but I would be speaking to actual substantive issues. Alternatively, if I said I don't like them because they are motivated by racism, misogyny and hatred I wouldn't be speaking to anything of substance. I would simply be making up my own version of what I imagine their motivations to be then condemning them for it. Would that mean that I am wrong? No but it would mean that my argument is greatly diluted because I have chosen to forego anything of substance to make baseless accusations.

 

[SlutAddicted]

Entitlement culture? Because people charge for the content they produce instead of giving it away for free? I don’t think that the content creators here are people exhibiting entitlement.

I think people pay for OF because it offers the buyer a feeling of connection and that they don’t get from watching a random porno.

I’ve never charged for it (although I absolutely support sex workers and think that legalization makes them safer) but when I used to engage in casual cyber stuff it got me off a million times better to be talking or camming with an actual person instead of just watching porn. I don’t play casually with men anymore (hit me up, ladies! ) but there is a definite difference when there’s an actual exchange instead of just watching pre recorded impersonal porn.

The whole assertion of entitlement belies an illogical set of underlying assumptions. People sell all sorts of content online and elsewhere. No doubt there is a range of opinions on the varying level of quality of that content. But is a free and open marketplace it is each content creator's right to decide the price of their content and each consumer's right to decide if they will pay that price. Why would selling some types of content indicate a sense of entitlement while selling other types of content would not? Unless off course the consumer making that assertion feels entitled to free content or entitled to decide which content others should value.

 

[policywank]

I think the thing people fail to understand is that for every OF success story there are hundreds of thousands who it simply doesn't pay off. All you gotta do is scour through sites like Reddit, or apps like whisper to see how many women are desperately trying to get it going to try and make a living off of it. As for finding women like that to play with, honestly any seedy dating app/site works if your willing to pay for it. It didn't ruin hook up culture, it just added more masturbation material. Personally I don't pay for that stuff, but if someone else chooses to do so, well that's on them

I think that the odds of a lucrative payoff are indeed low. But I am not sure that everyone fails to see that. Why do we feel the need to either condemn these women for their choice or assume that they are uninformed or naive? Lots of them are making an informed choice that suits them just fine with a full understanding of the consequences of their actions and that is really all there is to it.

 

[KatieDoes]

I think the thing people fail to understand is that for every OF success story there are hundreds of thousands who it simply doesn't pay off. All you gotta do is scour through sites like Reddit, or apps like whisper to see how many women are desperately trying to get it going to try and make a living off of it. As for finding women like that to play with, honestly any seedy dating app/site works if your willing to pay for it. It didn't ruin hook up culture, it just added more masturbation material. Personally I don't pay for that stuff, but if someone else chooses to do so, well that's on them

I don’t think anyone fails to understand that. It’s true of any sort of employment within the entertainment industry. For every actor achieving Tom Cruise level fame and fortune, there are 1,000+ actors making SAG minimum or auditioning for off broadway productions between their server shifts. That doesn’t mean that Tom Cruise’s money is fake.

 

[policywank]

I don’t think anyone fails to understand that. It’s true of any sort of employment within the entertainment industry. For every actor achieving Tom Cruise level fame and fortune, there are 1,000+ actors making SAG minimum or auditioning for off broadway productions between their server shifts. That doesn’t mean that Tom Cruise’s money is fake.

Exactly. And nor does it mean that every aspiring actor expects to achieve Tom Cruise level fame and fortune.

People make the choices we make for a whole variety of reasons. There is no reason to presume that all women who start an OF page are coming from a bad place.

 

[KatieDoes]

Exactly. And nor does it mean that every aspiring actor expects to achieve Tom Cruise level fame and fortune.

People make the choices we make for a whole variety of reasons. There is no reason to presume that all women who start an OF page are coming from a bad place.

Most of the men that have issues with OF have issues with women doing anything that men don’t control.

 

[Escierto]

Most of the men that have issues with OF have issues with women doing anything that men don’t control.

Absolutely right. All over the world, men fret like scared little boys that they are losing their precious patriarchy. No real man has anything to fear from a woman who is in control of her life.

 

[live4thebj]

Bunch of suckers. I frequent Instagram and constantly suggested hot woman. If you look at their profile they list their onlyfans site. Now if you google their handle you will find for free of a lot of their pictures. One of my favorites never shows her face but shows off those gorgeous legs. I google her and she has picture after picture of her having sex. It’s all free people just have to search for it.

 

[policywank]

Most of the men that have issues with OF have issues with women doing anything that men don’t control.

Yes that is often the distinction isn't it? There are a few guys who will try to mansplain how they are just warning women about the evils of pornography or the sex trade, but they have fuck all to say about it when those things are developed and delivered through male controlled traditional channels. And of course, this thread was started to bemoan the fact that OF made it harder to control women in these lines of work.

The same applies to stories. Guys will get frothing at the mouth angry at a woman (especially a wife) exercising her sexual prerogative and enjoying it without guilt. Yet they have no problem with the same happening under the control of a man where she is obedient or victimized. Sure have a gang bang, but either don't enjoy it or enjoy it because a man pushed you to it and you embraced his degradation. But don't you dare enjoy it, be in charge and fail to succumb to remorse, guilt, humiliation and/or societal ostracizing.

 

[MelodyLikeAMemory]

I’m very late to this thread but OP is mad that OF has changed the market. But as it becomes more saturated, it’s possible it will eventually swing back in his favor, right? Those whose OF accounts aren’t successful might up the ante or get recruited to offer the traditional escort services.

 

[SlutAddicted]

I’m very late to this thread but OP is mad that OF has changed the market. But as it becomes more saturated, it’s possible it will eventually swing back in his favor, right? Those whose OF accounts aren’t successful might up the ante or get recruited to offer the traditional escort services.

Perhaps it will. I think that a potentially more significant favourable swing would occur if society were to become less judgmental and women who provide traditional escort services were to become more empowered (i.e. legalize it and regulate it so that working conditions can be normalized). If one or both of those things were to occur the overall supply of such services would likely expand.

Historically one of the underlying themes in this marketplace is that men dictate the terms, which grossly overgeneralized amount to "be available to us for sex because we want your bodies, but we will treat you like shit in pretty much every way." The result of this approach is that the negative consequences just aren't worth it for women who might otherwise consider escorting or otherwise engaging in the industry. The women who engage are largely those that have little choice but to submit to that oppression.

The OP's message amounts to lamenting the fact that women have achieved some degree of liberation and are more empowered to engage in the sex trade on their own terms. His solution seems to be to find a way back to that oppression. Why not go the other way? Stop oppressing and improve working conditions so women find the work more appealing. There seems to be an unstated fear that if men cede control everything will be on the women's terms which will leave men wanting. But I think it more likely that a balance of power like there is in the marketplace for most services would emerge. Greater supply of women will lead to competition, which will induce the best service providers to provide a superior product. Men will get what we want and maybe more....except for those who really just want the power to oppress.

 

[MelodyLikeAMemory]

There seems to be an unstated fear that if men cede control everything will be on the women's terms which will leave men wanting.

When I think of women who would CHOOSE to be an escort, understanding risks and consequences, I think of a character from the show Firefly, who was a Companion. She was trained for it like someone who attended a university. And she chose her clients and her consortium could rate or blackball the client if they were mistreated. It’s somewhat of a romantic take on the work.

 

[SlutAddicted]

When I think of women who would CHOOSE to be an escort, understanding risks and consequences, I think of a character from the show Firefly, who was a Companion. She was trained for it like someone who attended a university. And she chose her clients and her consortium could rate or blackball the client if they were mistreated. It’s somewhat of a romantic take on the work.

Interesting. I will have to look that one up. I suppose it is a somewhat romantic take on the work but there is no reason that it couldn't be that way if the right parameters are established.

The world is full of service providers who are trained to provide a high quality service and strive to keep that quality level high in order to attract and maintain customers in the face of competition, while also maintaining the latitude to deny service to bad customers. In your example the Companion has full motivation to provide a top-notch service (more customers, better compensation, maintain competitive advantage) and can do so with much less fear of having to endure assholes - everybody wins except the guys who take pleasure from mistreating others.

 

[policywank]

Perhaps it will. I think that a potentially more significant favourable swing would occur if society were to become less judgmental and women who provide traditional escort services were to become more empowered (i.e. legalize it and regulate it so that working conditions can be normalized). If one or both of those things were to occur the overall supply of such services would likely expand.

Historically one of the underlying themes in this marketplace is that men dictate the terms, which grossly overgeneralized amount to "be available to us for sex because we want your bodies, but we will treat you like shit in pretty much every way." The result of this approach is that the negative consequences just aren't worth it for women who might otherwise consider escorting or otherwise engaging in the industry. The women who engage are largely those that have little choice but to submit to that oppression.

The OP's message amounts to lamenting the fact that women have achieved some degree of liberation and are more empowered to engage in the sex trade on their own terms. His solution seems to be to find a way back to that oppression. What not go the other way? Stop oppressing and improve working conditions so women find the work more appealing. There seems to be an unstated fear that if men cede control everything will be on the women's terms which will leave men wanting. But I think it more likely that a balance of power like there is in the marketplace for most services would emerge. Greater supply of women will lead to competition, which will induce the best service providers to provide a superior product. Men will get what we want and maybe more....except for those who really just want the power to oppress.

I have no doubt that better working conditions would lead more women to engage in the sex trade. I have no idea how many but it is almost an economic truism.

We see it in many areas of economics where small changes in conditions over a large population leads to statistically noticeable changes in behaviour. For instance a 5% decrease in the cost of an item may not represent enough to change behaviour for a lot of people but over a large population it will likely lead to an increase in consumption because out of hundreds of millions of people it is just enough of a change to tip some over the threshold required to prompt a purchase.

I suspect that is part of what we are seeing with OnlyFans. It isn't that it has convinced a bunch of gullible women to post their pictures in false hopes of riches (although I'm sure there is some of that). What we are seeing is that there are plenty of women who were already open or pre-disposed to the idea and the change in circumstance which gave them the opportunity was enough to induce them to give it a try. No doubt money is a factor but it isn't the only factor nor are they all naive about it.

A properly legalized and regulated sex trade with decent working conditions would likely lead to a comparable result (much like the rise of sugar baby dating). It isn't that hoards of women would suddenly become enamoured with an artificial image of escorting. It is the fact that enough women are already open to the idea but don't do it because of the conditions and the stigma, would embrace it if those things changed.

Your comments on service provider are pertinent. We shouldn't confuse not being compelled to endure abuse with being too haughty or picky. There are lots of women who would engage in various aspects of the sex trade not on the basis that they would get to pick and choose the perfect dates, but rather on the premise that we would be able to refuse (and be protected from) the abusive dickheads and have decent working conditions.

 

[IARainman]

I don’t begrudge anyone using what they have to make a buck if that’s what they want to do. I don’t buy porn, sex, whatever but there’s obviously a market that’s being catered to. I continue to find plenty of people to interact with who are not in any business pursuit, so I don’t think anything’s ruined.

 

[KatieDoes]

"I don't understand"

This.

You've now created a rabbit hole that you expect me to follow along, (expending my own time and energy for no benefit) to rectify your misunderstandings. wilful or otherwise? Sorry, you're not worth it to me.

All I will say is calm down. Not everybody is out to get you or hostile, honestly. From what I can see your perception skills are lacking, so if you do think somethings wrong, its likely you've got the wrong end of the stick.

You strike me as someone that likes to have the last word, so please feel free to have it. And a great weekend!

Bless your heart


You: ‘I think you are one’
Me ‘ I am one, what? Can you clarify that?’
You: Blahblahblah I‘m a weak man and need to speak dismissively to women when I get called out on my poor communication skills blahblahblah


You poor simple fool. Just say that you aren’t able to clarify and move along. Your lack of communication skills aren’t my problem to solve.

 

[SlutAddicted]

This is a whole lot of words to say not very much.

I don't know how many there are on here, but in my experience the only things that appear to match the pomposity of pseudo intellectuals are a) the degree to which they are wrong, b) the stridency with which they declare their verbiage, and c) the resentment they feel to being challenged. However, nine times out of ten, when you strip away the bombast, you usually find they've passive aggressively tacked onto someone's else's misunderstanding, in a fit of pique.

TLDR: Empty cans rattle the loudest.

Lol. I assume that you are speaking to yourself. In that context I agree with your assessment.

 

[policywank]

This is a whole lot of words to say not very much.

I don't know how many there are on here, but in my experience the only things that appear to match the pomposity of pseudo intellectuals are a) the degree to which they are wrong, b) the stridency with which they declare their verbiage, and c) the resentment they feel to being challenged. However, nine times out of ten, when you strip away the bombast, you usually find they've passive aggressively tacked onto someone's else's misunderstanding, in a fit of pique.

TLDR: Empty cans rattle the loudest.

Clear and logically consistent = bombast and pseudo intellectualism? Only for people who prefer not to think.