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

591–600 of 615 posts

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#591

Post by astrange »

random_kris wrote: post #300
dabbledash wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Ask women what they experience if they show up to work without makeup.” My experience of not wearing makeup in lots of places, over many years: Nothing happens. It’s fine.

Sure you might not notice it. But 80% of others notice and comment on it. They don't expirence anything directly, but through time they get better treatment versus their non makeup wearing counterparts. Source? My office expirence, also my gf's master thesis was on how apperence affects office atmosphere.. (something in this line)

Men have no idea if you're wearing makeup and regularly think women aren't when they actually are.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#592

Post by astrange »

Bancakes wrote: post #85
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…

Sexual saturation nulls intimacy. There will be little drive to explore a personal experience when kids treat their libido as a itch to scratch. Not even historical emperor's children had harems at age 14 - this is training their behaviour for instant reward at high monetary costs - instead of working towards a goal. Instant gratification is unnatural and makes for shallow character.

Did you know breakfast cereal was invented to bore children so they wouldn't masturbate?

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#593

Post by flippinburgers »

SilverRed wrote: post #45
650REDHAIR wrote: post #20

So our kids are getting older so I've been paying more attention to popular social networks and it's wild how many YouTubers, Twitch'ers, TikTok'ers, Instagram'ers have OF content directly linked from their non-porn bios. I don't like it, but I'm not sure what a good solution is. I mean, people are free to do what they'd like, but it's hard to police screen time 100% of the time and their peer group has a lot more ac…

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…

I can confidently say I would rather not have to view most people's nudes.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#594

Post by random_kris »

rmah wrote: post #344
random_kris wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you might not notice it. But 80% of others notice and comment on it. They don't expirence anything directly, but through time they get better treatment versus their non makeup wearing counterparts. Source? My office expirence, also my gf's master thesis was on how apperence affects office atmosphere.. (something in this line)

My observations are that it's typically other women who make comments about women not wearing makeup, not men. Or more generally speaking, it's other women who comment most on women's appearance (dress, makeup, hair, etc.) than men. Honestly, from what I've observed, most men seem rather oblivious to it most of the time (though obviously, not all the time).

I agree with this on you. But subconsciously women that look nice and have their apperence on point have bigger effect on me than women with "regular" apperence.. so I might not comment on it but it is a difference

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#595

Post by dragonwriter »

feudalism wrote: post #563
dragonwriter wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

No, they don't.

I mean, if you stop before “free from” that’s almost a good, though somewhat exaggerated, description of extreme libertarianism (whether left, right, or center) but even far left libertarians don’t believe in that being free from judgement, responsibiliry, repercussions, or accountability (but would probably agree with free from prejudice.)

And the non-libertarian far left doesn't even approximately match the description even before the “free from” part.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#596

Post by blindmute »

SilverRed wrote: post #572
blindmute wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether you like it or not, sex has an implicit emotional component that cannot be overlooked. Sex work is not the same as normal work but naked. Posting nudes is not the same as posting normal pictures. There is an amount of soul involved when humans deal with sex, whether the involved parties realize it at the time or not. The more this becomes normalized, the more unhealthy the soul of a society becomes. No, I don…

I appreciate your personal opinion and just felt like sharing my own personal counter opinion. Being a gay person in the furry community, posting nudes on IM groups is something that is just done almost like you would post a selfie at the beach. I have seen nudes of most of my friends and even some of my coworkers and the other way around. No one treats it as weird or awkward, its just something you do. It doesn't de…

I don't mean this as a personal insult but if you are a furry you are already so deep in the degeneracy that you wouldn't notice anything of the sort. Like in BNW, it's rare that the people who submerge themselves in the shallows are cogent of what they've done. Most often it manifests as a vague sense of dissatisfaction or unease in the quiet times. I'm not saying you specifically are this way, but furries are not known for being successful, self actualized, confident people outside of their community.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#597

Post by jeffreyrogers »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #548
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the vast majority of them wouldn't get involved in the industrial porn industry, so you reduce the harm to a small number of people while increasing the harm (by a lesser degree) to a much larger number of people.

This is a great claim that has no evidence.

What percentage of people have an OnlyFans? What percentage of people get involved in the conventional porn industry? Is one much higher than the other (yes). Is the evidence rock solid? No. It rarely is, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it out of hand.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#598

Post by rmah »

random_kris wrote: post #594
rmah wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My observations are that it's typically other women who make comments about women not wearing makeup, not men. Or more generally speaking, it's other women who comment most on women's appearance (dress, makeup, hair, etc.) than men. Honestly, from what I've observed, most men seem rather oblivious to it most of the time (though obviously, not all the time).

I agree with this on you. But subconsciously women that look nice and have their apperence on point have bigger effect on me than women with "regular" apperence.. so I might not comment on it but it is a difference

Well sure, but that's also true of how you treat men (you may just not realize it consciously). To deny that appearance plays a role in how other people perceive you and treat you is to deny reality. It may not be fair, but it's a reality that's probably literally baked into our genes.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#599

Post by eh9 »

Dma54rhs wrote: post #109
eh9 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it’s nothing like selling crack and the platform isn’t doing enough to keep performers safe.

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.

I think it would be extremely difficult to achieve the scale OnlyFans has without a large number of “average Joe’s”. Your point about the idea being “morally corrupt” shows the true nature of your comment. Just because the practice or service doesn’t match your morals, does not make it immoral. Sex work is the oldest profession, there’s no reason there shouldn’t be a respectable platform for this kind of work.

The whole point of this thread is about how poorly OnlyFans is managing this complex space.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#600

Post by throwmeawaydddy »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #101
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…

> there were about 20K active content creators). The average monthly payment was $5000 20k times $5,000 = $100M/month. Still quite impressive.

Just to clarify, those two numbers are both accurate as stated (there were roughly 20K active creators and the average monthly payout was amount 5K).

However, those numbers can't be multiplied to get the monthly payout total.

1. A large portion of active creators made $0 per month.

2. There was a free payout minimum (otherwise you were charged a fee), so a lot of smaller creators would get their payouts every few months.

The total monthly payout was much less than 100M.

Post reply on HN