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

Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

matthewball.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#401

Post by standardUser »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #190
braza wrote: post #118

Not a moralistic take, but one issue that interests me is the second-order impacts associated with the long tail of producers in OF who do not make a career from it. With traditional adult entertainment, creators are aware of the social ramifications (e.g., social stigma, familial ostracism, difficulty dealing with the future, and so on), and there is a decent theoretical economic framework to measure that. I am not…

> the additional toll it will take on the creators in terms of social ostracism, future prospects, future opportunities, and mental health. Is it such a big problem nowadays as it used to be? My impression is that society in general, and younger people in particular, have become more tolerant of such things; at least in Northern Europe.

What toll exactly do you expect people to have to pay? I've been naked on the internet for money. That content is still there. It has not impacted me adversely in any way, nor has it had a negative impact on the many women I know who have created adult content. If anything, for me it has been fun and liberating.

I think you're just projecting.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#402

Post by pfannkuchen »

makeitdouble wrote: post #389
pfannkuchen wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comparison is backwards. Listening to music performed in person by other humans is the natural way of things, like actually having sex with another human. Recorded music is much more like pornography.

I'm not sure I follow, how is listening to music performed by another human live different from watching another human performing a sexy act live ? The analog to actually having sex would be playing with the band on the stage.

Fair point.

The reason I don’t think only playing with the band counts is: in a hunter gather tribe 70,000 years ago, did everyone sing all of the songs all of the time? Or did some people just listen, at least some of the time?

Practically speaking I think it must have been the latter.

Of course there are lots of unnatural aspects in live music still, like too many people, too loud, etc. But recorded music is wholly unnatural, like pornography is.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#403

Post by binary132 »

hungie wrote: post #349
knallfrosch wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking a wild guess, I'd say binary132's main concern was the lasting effect on the consumers, not the producers. Girls' broken self-image, male porn addiction, substituting real intimacy, proliferating bad sex practises just to name a few.

I was intending to address both. I believe it's absolutely possible to consume too much porn, but it's by and large fine.

that is merely your opinion, and it is not borne out in reality

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#404

Post by AtlasBarfed »

jappgar wrote: post #277
braza wrote: post #118

Not a moralistic take, but one issue that interests me is the second-order impacts associated with the long tail of producers in OF who do not make a career from it. With traditional adult entertainment, creators are aware of the social ramifications (e.g., social stigma, familial ostracism, difficulty dealing with the future, and so on), and there is a decent theoretical economic framework to measure that. I am not…

The problem here is that ceratain members of our society think sexuality is immoral and that sex performers deserve ostracism. The idea that someone shouldn't be hired for a job because they have/had an OF is puritanism plain and simple. I expect that fewer people actually care about the "morality" and simply want to use morals as a weapon against women in the workplace.

[flagged]

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#405

Post by standardUser »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #238
fleischhauf wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's the thing, the more people do it the more it gets accepted. the same is happening with drugs for example.

All the data I keep seeing suggests drug use (including alcohol) is on the decline. https://nida.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/2023/12/repor...

That's only young people.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#406

Post by standardUser »

alt227 wrote: post #127
habinero wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is not about gender or sex. This is about any person creating damage for their future selves online. Whether you like it or not, people running businesses and hiring people, or school teachers etc, have opinions and views of their own. These factor into their decisions when they are interacting with you through daily life. If somebody who takes a dim view of promiscuity sees that you have an only fans account, t…

People used to say the same about getting divorced or getting a tattoo or having a child "out of wedlock" (even the terminology sound hopelessly outdated).

Maybe think about which side of history you prefer to be on.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#407

Post by fourside »

BeefWellington wrote: post #348
paxys wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's way worse in the case of YouTube/Twitch than OnlyFans IMO. People have been paying for pornography/sex for millennia. It's just part of human nature. On the other hand an 11 year old throwing money at MrBeast...why?

Same reason why kids have paid for Transformers merch, Star Wars merch, band merch, etc. It's a brand, they like it, they want to be reminded of it and show their love of it off. It creates an "in group" which is socially valuable. Streamers are nothing special in that regard.

There is an important difference between a kid spending money on a toy versus spending it on a person.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#408

Post by GreenWatermelon »

sulandor wrote: post #375
agumonkey wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shocking part is how new generation have a fully rational reinterpretation of all this, they call it "ethical sex". It's beautiful to them (probably in contrast to the boat loads of issues IRL social and intimate relationships can bring with them). And anything not aligned with their view causes a lot of angry arguments.

[flagged]

Completely irrelevant and without substance comment. You don't even know the parent but you an unsubstantiated claim for the sake 9f argument.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#409

Post by standardUser »

prmoustache wrote: post #195
lynx23 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

I'd never seriously date someone if we couldn't be totally open and honest about our sexual histories and desires, etc. I think you're referring to a specific motivation some people have about wanting to know such information that is based on shame/insecurity/prudishness. Don't discount that some people want to share these things with their partner because it creates more intimacy and/or is hot.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#410

Post by kingkawn »

sulandor wrote: post #375
agumonkey wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shocking part is how new generation have a fully rational reinterpretation of all this, they call it "ethical sex". It's beautiful to them (probably in contrast to the boat loads of issues IRL social and intimate relationships can bring with them). And anything not aligned with their view causes a lot of angry arguments.

[flagged]

What a defensively unhinged injection of a broad generalization.
Post reply on HN