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

Under the skin of OnlyFans

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 615 posts

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#241

Post by Xylakant »

newsclues wrote: post #236
Xylakant wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry for your wife. However, I think it’s dangerous to shape the conversation about sex work solely around such cases. A person from my old flat share was a nurse on a terminal cancer ward for mostly children. > 90% of the patients died. They burned out within two years on the job. My aunt had to quit her job as hospital nurse because it physically ruined her body. She’s still suffering from that, decades later.…

Two anecdote from different sides of the spectrum and you feel the one you disagree with is dangerous. Just because normal jobs suck, doesn’t mean sex work is good.

I feel it’s dangerous shaping conversations around individual anecdotes. I can tell you multiple positive anecdotes from the nursing side as well. Another friend of mine did long-term individual care for a disabled person and they got along extremely well, even traveling and such. That friend considered that his dream job. My father’s current partner volunteers at a hospice. She considers that an important part of her social work. There’s sex workers talking on public record about how liberating that was to them.

What I’m saying is that deriving policy from anecdotes is dangerous.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#242

Post by dannyw »

ChatterManlike wrote: post #97

This is a throwaway account and the account name is just serendipity from the Correct Horse Battery Staple password generator. Eerie but it's true. Unlike Patreon, they do not charge only once a month but continuously as subscriptions renew, as pay-to-view videos are purchased etc. A hundred dollar monthly Patreon bill is much more noticeable than a few bucks every few days. Also, it's possible to tip on posts but th…

Sites like OF thrive on whales. People spending thousands per month on a creator usually can budget.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#243

Post by nightcracker »

sebmellen wrote: post #130
nightcracker wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The way I read it is that each generation is pushing the limit of freedoms. [..] But is it? When does it become bad? Every generation since the history of time in this situation has asked this question themselves and has consistently answered wrong. Nothing good has ever come from a previous generation suppressing a later generation's right to self-determination. > Like the parent said, maybe I am just getting old.…

But that’s really a gross view of human behavior. Commodification is what allows us to build functional societies, and I am glad we discovered it, but it is absolutely antithetical to the things which sit at the core of human experience. Love, joy, excitement, mourning, creating art, singing and dancing… All of these are unconditional, intimate, and creative acts. When they are turned into slot machines and side hust…

Yes, yes, the same old story. The exact same things has been said by the previous generations about books, comic strips, radio, television, computer games, etc...

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#244

Post by Dah00n »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #209
tinco wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The titles on sites like pornhub are a lot worse. Sometimes I feel like they're automatically generated or something, with weird sexual fantasies that aren't even remotely in the video. It's become a bit of a meme, and it certainly has always been present but for example the incest stuff, it's just disturbing to me to the point where I greatly prefer browsing on Reddit just because the titles are more tame. Another c…

I feel like titles - both on PH and Youtube - tend to get optimized either automatically or by the uploaders themselves. It has overlaps with marketing and SEO, linkbait and optimizing page / article titles to draw in the most views. Youtube also - sometimes - translates video titles, which in some cases is convenient (like Japanese videos). But that's the thing, from a Dutch standpoint you can read English titles ju…

>It has overlaps with marketing and SEO

Huh, I wonder if there are tools to do A B testing on sites like Pornhub..

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#245

Post by paganel »

roenxi wrote: post #187
brazzy wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of sex workers overtly reinforce social behaviors towards women (sexualization and objectification among other things) in order to appeal to men, which hurts them in the long run. This is something that's really been bugging me when looking at Reddit's porn subs. There has been a really noticeable change in the last 2 years. Back then, a majority of the posters seemed to actually be amateurs getting their kic…

Probably bad for the mental health of the men too. As the thread ancestor noted - sometimes "'fan[s]' [go] nuclear and was waging all out digital war.". I'm guessing that is just a thing some men do but it is bound to be made worse by women correctly figuring out the high-engagement equilibrium is tantalising without promising. But a lot of them probably aren't going to realise that they're dealing with unexploded or…

> aren't going to realise that they're dealing with unexploded ordinance

That's why in places like strip-clubs you usually have at least a couple of strongly-built bodyguards who can address this issue right there on the spot, on the Internet there is no such thing.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#246

Post by Dah00n »

AKSucks wrote: post #226
ayngg wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in general there are some pretty big costs that aren't fully understood to doing sex work, even outside of the social stigma of being found out by your friends and family, there are mental health costs that are often not talked about. A lot of sex workers overtly reinforce social behaviors towards women (sexualization and objectification among other things) in order to appeal to men, which hurts them in the l…

Can we please not use the term "sex worker" for people who do not face the vast majority of risks (health/physical, financial, legal-of-the-criminal-sort, and emotional) that someone who actually engages in sex with other people for money does? You (generally speaking) cannot get infected with STIs, pregnant, assaulted, raped, drugged, stabbed, murdered, convicted, jailed - for being a camgirl. You (generally speakin…

Sorry if I step on some toes here since I know very little about this topic (feel free to correct me!) but isn't this turning things on their head? Normally in discussing other topics I see people arguing that a quicker/earlier stigma leads to less people going further. Is this wrong?

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#247

Post by galgalesh »

Bayart wrote: post #233
KaiserPro wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not quite understanding your assertion here. are you saying that because people are selling pictures/videos of them selves doing sexy things, we should expect and accept that people are violent to them? I mean, chat shows are pretty much the same thing, an illusion of a social relationship, but we don't accept stalkers on those platforms? why does nakedness change that?

>we should expect and accept that people are violent to them? Accept no, expect absolutely. Which is why boundaries and control mechanisms are needed, the removal of which is the entire premise of OnlyFans. >I mean, chat shows are pretty much the same thing, an illusion of a social relationship, but we don't accept stalkers on those platforms? Are you referring to Twitch ? That's not the same thing, at all. Sex isn't…

> Sex isn't a minor variable. It re-frames the entire problem in a context where people lose the ability to appropriately parse and manage their para-social relationships

What is the reason people lose the ability to appropriately parse and manage themselves in the context of sex?

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#248

Post by Dma54rhs »

cookieswumchorr wrote: post #170
Dma54rhs wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is not taking monetary advantage of lonely men who most likely never have normal human relationships not immoral? People spending money on these things are not your average Joe's. The whole idea is morally corrupt and onlyfans and the like are doing it on scale now.

who defines "normal human relationships", if we don't count various religions? IRL relationships can be just as addictive, toxic and financially perilous.

Taking advantage and having position of power are pretty well defined in current society, these relationships don't have an equal standing between parties.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#249

Post by dannyw »

ayngg wrote: post #74
throwmeawaydddy wrote: post #33

Fire up the throwaway! Not 100% related to the article, but directly related. I worked as developer for a product in the same niche ("democratizing adult content"). I spent almost 2 years working on the frontend, devops, and building out the analytics engine (all pre-covid). Anyway, on to the comment at hand. We had a small number of users compared to OnlyFans (when I left, there were about 20K active content creator…

I think in general there are some pretty big costs that aren't fully understood to doing sex work, even outside of the social stigma of being found out by your friends and family, there are mental health costs that are often not talked about. A lot of sex workers overtly reinforce social behaviors towards women (sexualization and objectification among other things) in order to appeal to men, which hurts them in the l…

Sexualisation is a reflection of society. Ask women what they experience if they show up to work without makeup.

In my view, onlyfans is a net positive for society. Would you rather like sex trafficking? Because face it, humans have hormones, and our social norms encourage men to go for status and women for appearance.

These facts create the atmosphere for sex work.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#250

Post by Dah00n »

belorn wrote: post #211
sebmellen wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then the cycle of stigmatization begins again… Almost as if there is a purpose to it. Is stigmatization always an objectively bad thing? I suppose it depends on your frame of reference. I don’t think any person should be stigmatized for what they do, but certain activities may well deserve it. I suppose that’s also a recurrent theme in the New Testament. One thing I think ought to be stigmatized more is video gam…

Every thing that is used by the lower class to escape reality get stigmatized, and the more effective it is the more problematic society view it. The decline in alcohol addictions is often attributed to gaming, particularly among men. I also personally prefer people who are addicted to games over those addicted to alcohol, and long term it is much safer for everyone involved.

I have never heard about such a link. I gotta go dig around. Thank you for the hint.
Post reply on HN