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

331–340 of 615 posts

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#331

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

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…

When OF started getting popular I was curious to see how much it was. Needles to say any inkling of paying for anything sunk below the flow when I saw people were charging $20 a month. Plus...it's a nude photo or video. How in the hell is that worth that price today? Pornography online has been free for basically 3 decades.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#332

Post by Telemakhos »

NateEag wrote: post #315
Telemakhos wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't going to be a welcome question or politically correct, but why do you let your wife continue to engage in something that is "majority trauma" and that makes her need therapy?

At a guess, because his wife is a human and gets to make her own decisions?

There was a time when family members intervened when they saw loved ones engaging in self-harm. This husband is watching his wife expose herself to trauma so great that she feels compelled to seek therapy, a therapy provided by the same corporation that is profiting off her trauma. The easy conclusion is that the corporation provides this therapy to keep the traumatized people who drive the company's profits from quitting the trauma, which would be the obvious solution. Loving someone does not mean supporting their every decision, especially when everyone involved seems to realize that the decision is harmful.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#333

Post by tclancy »

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…

Why do you get to frame this discussion?

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#334

Post by tclancy »

blippage wrote: post #198
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…

> I feel like these dangerous aspects of sex work are often ignored in the current zeitgeist of de-stigmatizing, I agree entirely. I heard of one young lady who started an OnlyFans, apparently did quite well, but decided to stop it because of the psychic damage. I'm going to be heavily downvoted for this, but I'm going to say it anyway ... We need to stop all the bullshit about how it empowers women. Certain sections…

Are you suggesting men are the real victims here?

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#335

Post by raxxorrax »

acatton wrote: post #301
stared wrote: post #154

I was surprised why OnlyFans is so popular. All in all, there is no shortage of free erotic materials online ( https://observablehq.com/@stared/tree-of-reddit-sex-life for a small subset). I got an insight from "The Surprising Psychology Of OnlyFans Simps by Charisma on Command" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auG2E53dFas ) that subscribers buy attention rather than sex .

> subscribers buy attention rather than sex. That's how the Minitel[1] got popular in France. They had these chat services where one paid per minute to chat with "women in your area" (It was mostly male operators handling multiple conversation simultaneously[2]) These services have always existed, and were always in demand, the only difference is technology and business models. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minit…

I cannot really imagine many worse jobs to be honest. I imagine we will see some platforms that will just use chat bots since they became more sophisticated.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#336

Post by emptysongglass »

Xylakant wrote: post #229
emptysongglass wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife who is a sex worker is in therapy provided by her camsite because the work is so toxic. She was as pro-sex-work as you can be when she first started five years ago. It's majority trauma and I have to hear the stories every day. The men who drive by want to cum as fast as possible with as little damage to their pocketbook as possible. So they drive in, maybe critique her appearance, say, "tits" or "ass" (usual…

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.…

> I believe that making sex work illegal and driving it back underground is not helping that conversation.

I never indicated either of these would be solutions. I don't believe elevating sex work to a pedestal in the cultural consciousness is right or ethical. That is primarily what I am taking issue with. It can be lucrative but the toll on young women, often very young women, can be great. It's a damaging profession both to its consumers and to its creators.

Banning it will not stop it. What we need is to have a frank discussion about what it entails and stop the trend of fetishizing or glorifying it as a desirable career. It is by and large ugly and violent.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#337

Post by bongoman37 »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #182
SilverRed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered the alternative that this is not an evil which you are unable to control but just another way of living / thinking of sexual content? There is nothing inherently evil about this stuff so why is it terrible that it is becoming more accepted/common? If in 30 years we live in a society where people post nudes like they do facebook posts, is there anything wrong about this? Could you describe the harm…

Gender relations becoming gameified and being turned into monetary micro-transactions is not a net win for society. Women debasing themselves and selling their body to appeal to an army of lonely simps that take refuge in a simulated relationship that is emotionally exploitative is not the kind of healthy pair-bonding I wish for my kids. It is socially corrosive. > Have you considered the alternative that this is not…

Thee wouldn't be a demise, it would just be a different kind of society. Males are expendable for most of society, in earlier centuries, they would die from warfare, diseases, working in high risk professions and so on. The current society we are in where we expect or desire pair bonding for life with an exclusive mate is rather new and unstable. Lost of women would be quite fine with a harem like system where they share a high quality mate with other women and now that women earn on par with men they are not limited by the male's resources being shared between children by other women.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#338

Post by KaiserPro »

JohnWhigham wrote: post #272
galgalesh wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

What is the reason people lose the ability to appropriately parse and manage themselves in the context of sex? Because you've lost the context of what sex is and what it has been in society, and in humanity as a whole. Sex is inherently primal, bestial, even brutal in nature. We've been trained over hundreds of thousands of years to build ourselves up to it and in return we get rewarded with brain chemicals and the c…

> Sex is inherently primal, bestial, even brutal in nature.

for ducks, yes.

For primates, it varies.

> rewire millions of years of evolutionary drive and wrap it up in a cute discrete transaction

I don't think one can safely make that assertion. in Humans, sex is mostly cultural. Its not like we all return to the place of our birth to spawn, or spread our gametes in sync with the moon. We have huge amounts of control over how, when, where and what rules are applied to sex. It is common to have life partners, but in practice the average life span of a sexual relationship varies from hours to many years

I suspect that you are seeing it through the lens of second hand middle class Victorian dogma. (like I do.)

We (I say we, middle class class british) are taught that a good woman is one that is faithful and obedient. A good man however is heroic, and beats women off with a stick. Other cultures are not like that. Indeed Georgian England was not like that, especially in the upper and mercantile classes. (just look at the shit that happened in Vauxhall gardens.)

But to answer your implied point, that selling one's body has always been seen as the lowest of the low. I don't think thats the case. Even in america a top quality brothel was held in higher esteem than dockers, Gong farmers or indeed peasants.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#339

Post by KarlKode »

google234123 wrote: post #108
ramraj07 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why you should always report both mean and median!

Even if there is a large skew, the mean and median will be often still be pretty close together. Especially with a large sample size.

If you have 90 creators earning 5$ / month and 10 creators earning 50k$ / month, they earn 5,4k$ / month on average while the median is 5$ / month. On my books this is not close together.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#340

Post by ljm »

hliyan wrote: post #319
toyg wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the titles sound so much more vulgar in Dutch than they do in English to me. It's the other way around: you're less emotionally connected to your second language. You're not phased by the most scurrilous elements of English, because of a combination of factors (like the way your brain processes a second language, and the fact that you did not grow up in a native English culture). Whereas you have a primary connectio…

I speak a non-European language and my experience is exactly the same. Swearing in my native tongue just sounds extremely vulgar. Swearing in English - no problem.

I'm learning Russian and I seriously have to think twice if I want to swear in Russian because I feel like I'd be crossing a line, there's nothing casual about it.

I don't feel quite the same about Spanish, although the expletives that are more layered in metaphor amuse me more than anything else. Me cago en la leche!

Post reply on HN