God, these whores make me want to vomit
Under the skin of OnlyFans
561–570 of 615 posts
Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans
#562Earlier 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?
Oh good grief, why not use the same argument for heroine addicts? If someone you love is involved in something that is ruinous for them, you help them out.
Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans
#563Earlier 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…
> The far left has really hijacked the discourse around sex work and used language of empowerment to encourage young girls to get in and get what's theirs. No, it hasn't. The far left is anti-capitalist, and includes both pro-and-anti-sex-work factions; the attitude you describe is more that of the pro-sex-work portion of the pro-(possibly somewhat tamed)-capitalism center-to-center-left. The pro-sex-work portion of…
Yes, they have. The problem with the far left is that they demand everyone have the right to do whatever they want whenever they want, free from judgment, prejudice, responsibility, repercussions, and accountability.
Problem is that is in direct conflict with actual reality.
Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans
#564> For creators who do receive abuse, the site allows them to mute or block that fan. However, the platform automatically gives anyone who has been blocked - regardless of the reason - a refund of their active subscription. > Many creators who spoke to the BBC felt this policy was misused by fans and some said it can incentivise them to be rude or provocative, as their monthly subscriptions come to a close. Others add…
The woman should have called the police and filed a police report. Yes, the police are not going to do much, but you got the paperwork going. Then she could submit that to OnlyFans and inform them a crime is being committed on their platform. That puts everything on them. Unfortunately, expecting OF to take care of the issue is really naive.
They could get away with claiming it'd be an 'alleged crime'. The police should indeed get involved if person A says to person B 'I am going to rape you' (especially after 'I know where you live'), but for sure I would want to archive (hide) the data for forensic reasons. In that regard, it might be stupid to signal the (alleged) criminal, whereas after they view the police report they may assume the evidence is archived by the police (unless notified otherwise). Still, by not doing anything they allow themselves being a platform for such criminal activity. Is that worth the payment of 20% of the monthly subscription? Apparently it is. That's an incentive problem right there.
Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should get out of your echo bubble. I have a few friends spending on these types of services (and Twitch which seems to have evolved to host soft versions of OF-type content). They're sociable, principled people, who also have many "regular" relationships. It's not a zero-sum affair.
Looks like you're in a bubble yourself. It's well researched who are those men in that trap spending money. They are lonely and miserable, these so called relationships are toxic and take monetary advantage of them. You can't consent into toxic relationships. Your anecdotes don't matter much in the broad sense.
For someone accusing others of anecdotes, you've yet to provide any actual hard scientific data to support your own sweeping claims.
Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans
#566Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is so much true. It's almost like swearing in English is not swearing at all, even in semi-formal context. You can tell the worst swear in English you can think of, and it just sounds harmless compared to swearing in local language.
I'd posit English doesn't have swear words anymore. I'm a native English speaker and I've noticed that swearing no longer feels like a big deal. Our media and online discourse are saturated with the worst swears our language has to bear, to the point none of it hits with gravity. I also think some of it has to do with changing generational attitudes. Millennials and Gen Z use swearing as friendly banter. You can call…
no there are still words that are definitely forbidden to that degree. the reasons they are swears just are different due to cultural context. The worst swear you can say in english does not start with an F. It starts with an N.
Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans
#567Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the heart of the difference between the two statements: - The average streamer makes $x - Streamers make an average of $y
What do we mean by "average" streamer? Would median be a better term here?
Colloquially, the kind of results you'd expect if someone told you they're a streamer. If you wanted to be more precise then median would work, as would the mode.
Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is low quality comparison. Whether or not you agree with the high goals of the (US?) military; for a great many people it is a solid career, a role model they never had, and possibly a stepping stone out of an awful life. Also a very small percentage of these are actually fighting in infantry risking their lives. This is much different than saying "Ooh youre 18 now, look how much money these 3 people make sellin…
you know that military recruiters often target high schoolers, often for enlisted infantry positions right? how is that any better?
It's mostly boys, and vulnerable boys don't seem to matter as much as vulnerable girls.
Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans
#569Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's shorthand. Rawls is certainly compatible with whatever moral philosophy is prevalent throughout American media/legal discourse. Edit: The reason I chose Rawls is because no one will agree on what moral framework modern society operates under but Rawls is compatible with most such proposals. Edit 2: I am interested in what you would propose as an alternative, however.
> I am interested in what you would propose as an alternative, however. I would, rather than suggest a candidate for the prevalent moral framework under which modern society operates, reject as fairly obviously false the notion that such a thing exists; modern society is characterized (even, say, in the US on isolation) by conflict between multiple competing mutually-incompatible moral frameworks, with temporarily do…
I agree with that on a micro-level, but zooming out I think there is commonality among all the views present in post-war Europe and USA, in the same way that Greek philosophy has a coherency when seen today despite the incompatibility of its various philosophers teachings.
Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may find the formalization boring and arbitrary, but independent of that, your argument was one of utility. An alternative argument, if you wanted to avoid such droll dry topics, would have been to say "I don't want OnlyFans to be a thing." Instead, you made an argument based on moral philosophy to support your opinion. That's totally fine! It also doesn't change the fact that your comment evaluated the moral uti…
You could make this type of criticism of literally any moral argument (swapping out utility for whatever the underlying criteria is in alternative moral frameworks). This is why post-modernist philosophy has become dominant in the modern world. There is no successful response to it other than to ignore it and and realize that it is all, "boring and arbitrary" as I said earlier. Edit: Also, as I learned from a post-mo…
I agree with you, if you are looking for the output of a moral philosophy equation to spit out an answer. However, I think it is more useful as a series of questions that help us understand the reality, as you mention.
If moral philosophy is boring an arbitrary, then what study or language is a better vehicle for discussing these ideas?