Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 187 posts

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#171

Post by namelessoracle »

pas wrote: post #168
namelessoracle wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society DID recognize it caused problems and basically banned it everywhere (or at least made it frowned upon). It's starting to look like removing some of the sexual morals that societies had used for hundreds of years is a classic Chesterton's fence style problem. Progressives didn't understand the good effects of some puritan policies and decided to throw it all out because it got in the way of them feeling good r…

Sure there was some utility gained from those rules, but then we looked at them and the cost-benefit analysis is pretty clearly against them. Limiting personal freedoms to satisfy old religious beliefs (some of which used to serve useful purposes) makes very little sense nowadays, especially that we have much much much better ways to get much better outcomes with regards to those purposes. (Eg. avoiding genetic defec…

The cost benefit analysis can take generations and is still ongoing.

Cultures that have these rules and restrictions seem to be growing via positive birth rates while cultures that dont are stagnating and not growing and seem to be actively committing cultural suicide. So its not obvious to me which path evolutionary processes will choose to win out in the long run.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#172

Post by pas »

namelessoracle wrote: post #171
pas wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure there was some utility gained from those rules, but then we looked at them and the cost-benefit analysis is pretty clearly against them. Limiting personal freedoms to satisfy old religious beliefs (some of which used to serve useful purposes) makes very little sense nowadays, especially that we have much much much better ways to get much better outcomes with regards to those purposes. (Eg. avoiding genetic defec…

The cost benefit analysis can take generations and is still ongoing. Cultures that have these rules and restrictions seem to be growing via positive birth rates while cultures that dont are stagnating and not growing and seem to be actively committing cultural suicide. So its not obvious to me which path evolutionary processes will choose to win out in the long run.

I'm not against natalism, but simply looking at the size of a culture says very little about it.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#173

Post by SpelingBeeChamp »

ratww wrote: post #107
rawbot wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The comparisons some have made to infidelity or cheating seem misplaced: There's no real relationship here Oh, but there is plenty of platonic relationships with camgirls, streamers and such. It can reach levels of delusion that you wouldn't believe.

I don't know anyone on OnlyFans, but I know a few women who do "Just Chatting" Twitch streams and the psychological toll on them is huge. Having to give people constant attention, answer every question or at least acknowledge it, and provide a sort of faux-friendship in exchange for money is a really strange arrangement. Just yesterday a long-term supporter of one woman I know "confessed their love" to her, and will…

Why wouldn't the person reciprocate? I never would have imagined that emotional honesty exists in that type of relationship. Aren't people paying for the relationship?

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#174

Post by yieldcrv »

gumby wrote: post #135
yieldcrv wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bay area’s aversion to any libido-inducing-anything was a mistake. “Lets exclude people to make it more inclusive!” really hits a peak there and a lot of people don’t buy it I’m glad to see this smoothing out geographically, especially since a lot of the same people move to Miami and partake in its allure and inclusion of body-focused participants in tech as well as sex workers

> The bay area’s aversion to any libido-inducing-anything was a mistake. Uh, what? True, Silicon Valley has been more sedate in that regard, but SF has been / remains the home of everything from Kink.com to the SF Sex information library, to mainstreaming sex toys (e.g. good vibrations) and feminist sexuality (Susie Bright, Annie Sprinkle, among others) to the sex side of the Castro. The dildotronics “movement” to th…

In the 2010s people excised all the gogo dancers and atmosphere models and any woman monetizing her body from tech events, without asking their opinion on anything. Privileging one kind of woman’s thoughts over another.

Many of the performers were very thrilled to be at a specific company's events and were excited to make it an addition to their CV, their contribution mattered. They were not treated as individuals, they were treated only as a symptom of male preference and that their view didn't matter because they didnt have a cognitive heavy trade.

Miami is not going that direction. Its great. Call out these libidoless segregationists.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#175

Post by hnov »

trentgreene wrote: post #61
otterley wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you haven’t lived in either place, it’s difficult to understand. Capitalism abounds in both, but is expressed in very different ways in each place. The cultures are just wildly different. As a native Californian, I find Florida’s culture to be smarmy and tasteless, with people shamelessly flaunting designer labels and consuming conspicuously. Being seen is super important to a lot of Floridians. (It also goes a lo…

I’m from neither FL or CA, but have lived (for 5 years+) in both S Florida, SV / SF, and a brief stint in LA. The cultures from all these places felt like two sides of the same coin. Compared to my native slice of fly over America, the flaunting and virtue signaling were pretty overwhelming

I’d agree, it matters not whether the surrogate for a person’s missing personality is a designer label and a lime green Lamborghini or a second home in Sonoma and ayahuasca trips to burning man.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#176

Post by otterley »

hnov wrote: post #175
trentgreene wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m from neither FL or CA, but have lived (for 5 years+) in both S Florida, SV / SF, and a brief stint in LA. The cultures from all these places felt like two sides of the same coin. Compared to my native slice of fly over America, the flaunting and virtue signaling were pretty overwhelming

I’d agree, it matters not whether the surrogate for a person’s missing personality is a designer label and a lime green Lamborghini or a second home in Sonoma and ayahuasca trips to burning man.

The difference is the conspicuity. One is private and discreet behavior (as long as they don’t brag about it), the other flamboyant and gaudy.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#177

Post by krageon »

bluescrn wrote: post #91
krageon wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly the poster thinks they do know what is best, it's just that it's founded on more than paternalistic views: They seem to equate sex work with gambling, which tastes fundamentally puritan.

They can both seem like easy money. For most people they aren't. And there's a very real risk of long-term negative consequences.

Having a choice you can make that you need to spend some time really thinking about to understand doesn't mean you have to take that choice away from someone. If you do, you implicitly say that you are better than whoever got to make this choice before and you should be the one making their choices. You are not better and neither is anyone else. People make their own choices, that is the society I want to live in.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#178

Post by ratww »

SpelingBeeChamp wrote: post #173
ratww wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anyone on OnlyFans, but I know a few women who do "Just Chatting" Twitch streams and the psychological toll on them is huge. Having to give people constant attention, answer every question or at least acknowledge it, and provide a sort of faux-friendship in exchange for money is a really strange arrangement. Just yesterday a long-term supporter of one woman I know "confessed their love" to her, and will…

Why wouldn't the person reciprocate? I never would have imagined that emotional honesty exists in that type of relationship. Aren't people paying for the relationship?

Did you read the first paragraph? I’m talking about a Twitch streamer. People aren’t “paying for relationships”, they’re subscribing to get rid of ads and support the streamer, even though some expect a bit more.

The streamer won’t reciprocate because it is a random unknown person coming on a text chat claiming they’re in love with them. I don’t think this ever worked ever, but if you need further proof, she told me for a fact she won’t reciprocate.

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#179

Post by asdff »

sofixa wrote: post #128
asdff wrote: post #53

Screw paying a cut to the chatters or even the models for that matter. This entire business model can be automated with a chatbot and a deepfake engine.

I see you haven't used any chatbots. They are generally useless.

Horny guys aren't exactly looking for poetry here

Re: The ‘E-Pimps’ of OnlyFans

#180

Post by BrandoElFollito »

db39 wrote: post #75

Weird coincidence, I met someone this past weekend who does exactly this. The one exception being that he targets models in developing countries - which makes it feel a lot closer to sex trafficking than an agency. I believe the idea to set-up an OnlyFans agency like this is relatively popular among 'hustle porn' style "entrepreneurs" whose goal is to extract as much money from anyone as fast as possible. Which proba…

> The one exception being that he targets models in developing countries - which makes it feel a lot closer to sex trafficking than an agency.

Why? He provides a service to people who may not speak English or know how to optimize their presence.

Post reply on HN