Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parasocial relationships don't require interaction, you could just watch a twitch streamer a lot. I think if we defined it by requiring interaction we would underestimate the percieved impact of these social phenomenon.
But then what's the difference between live streaming and recordings? There's some magic in live streams -- people prefer to watch boring live streams instead of hand-picked recorded videos of best games/conversations/jokes.
Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics
591–600 of 878 posts
Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics
#592Earlier quoted context omitted.
And your women in tech won’t be SWERFs last two decades all the representation was sex worker exclusionary, fighting for a libidoless morph of the corporate world, talking over and on behalf of any women that thought or acted differently glad that was temporary booth babes and atmosphere models coming back soon
Not in a million years. Men’s sexuality is a bad, no good, evil, unethical thing. All types of “objectification” have been deemed extremely unethical and immoral. Progressives think you’re a horrible person if you take part in any kind of beauty pageant or other activity which causes objectification.
“that sounds gendered” and if it leads to them being unable to distinguish why it isn’t, then you get to call them sexist and they're out of your way and the company forever, you get to morph it to something more entertaining and libido inclusive
alternate path is to talk about the importance of consent, nonconsensual objectification is bad, every objectionable action is okay if its consensual
third path is to point out how they cant speak for the women involved, or how they neglected to elevate the voices of those most affected. many of which are very prideful of their work and are waiting for that kind of representation and allyship. the bonus here is that there likely are secret sex workers in your organization already, and they’ll reveal that to you after you use their even more progressive phrasing against the misandrist
Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics
#593Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#594Earlier 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.
The younger generation has a weird relationship with the physical reality of sexuality, I expect because so much has been perfection-optimized in media portrayals of it, post-~2000. If you go back and watch In contrast to current mores that mandate sexy, but never actually talking about sex. The deterioration of more honest discourse in mass media about realistic (read: fumbling, awkward, funny, vulnerable, spiritual…
(edit: replace SEO spam blog with original host)
Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics
#595Earlier quoted context omitted.
It not only doesn’t require interaction, the lack of interaction is what makes is parasocial.
So like, movies are more para social because they have less interaction?
The closest equivalent you would get with a movie is to send fan-mail and get a response. Which people do, but I think it's safe to claim the frequency is much lower.
Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics
#596Earlier 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.
That's a fascinating perspective. I wonder if there was any pushback when recording was first introduced? A quick search shows... of course there was! https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/06/06/the-record-eff... https://archive.is/PDR04
Took social, and perhaps making-a-living value almost totally away from anything but tip-top talent in those areas. Nobody in your family needs you to play music at get-togethers and parties—you’re worse and less-convenient than thousands of artists on Spotify. They don’t wonder with excitement what sort of sketches Uncle Robert will bring to the next holiday, to give to his extended family. At best, that kind of thing’s indulged and tolerated now. The demand is all but entirely gone.
I reckon it was a real belief of his, given he wrote of it more than once, and whose voice it was put in, the one specific case I can call. There’s a chapter in Bluebeard about it for sure (that novel’s kind of a whirlwind tour of most of the major themes and points of Vonnegut’s work—dunno if it was intended that way, but that’s how it turned out) and I know I saw it other places, can’t recall which books.
Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics
#597Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that particularly different from, say, concerts? The social aspects are what drives value.
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.
Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics
#598What I find fascinating/disturbing with OnlyFans and in some way with Twitch and streaming in general is more the client side than the creators. Here are basically people paying, and paying a lot, for parasocial relationships. Because clearly it’s not about the content per see which is a dim a dozen and available for free in trove. I think it says something quite dark about our society as a whole that we have basical…
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.
Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics
#599Earlier quoted context omitted.
It not only doesn’t require interaction, the lack of interaction is what makes is parasocial.
So like, movies are more para social because they have less interaction?
An interesting comparison is K-Pop singers who are at the same time megastars with millions of devoted followers, but also carefully managed to always seem available for a relationship. A truly difficult bridge to cross, but they somehow do it and make bank.
Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics
#600Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although Onlyfans is certainly more exploitative, I would argue that this concept of one-way parasocial relationships has existed since basically the dawn of humanity and likely has roots to our earliest fundamental tribalistic nature. I mean look at the extremely popular K-pop bands, fans get insanely invested into these groups, following them, bringing glowsticks to show support, etc. Or the entire Japanese idol mo…
I don’t think it’s new per see nor that OnlyFans is unique in this. The K-pop exemple you bring forward is good and I guess you could see the Hollywood star system as a kind of precursor. I still think there are multiple differences. One is how OnlyFans has successfully turned everyday people into this source of para-social fixation for a multitude of small communities and somehow massified the issue. The other and t…
because OF models cannot realistically produce anything of that high production value to sell. They can take pictures, get videos shot, etc. And in any case, the closeness you speak also applies to the celebrity in mainstream industry.