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

631–640 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#631

Post by bigstrat2003 »

standardUser wrote: post #406
alt227 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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about getting divorced or getting a tattoo or having a child "out of wedlock" (even the terminology sound hopelessly outdated).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

People who are covered in tattoos (not just having a tattoo) and who have children out of wedlock are still widely looked down upon.

And there is very little that is more obnoxiously smug than making "right side of history" claims. If anything, I want to be on the opposite side of people who do that, because they're so fucking self-righteous I can't stand them.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#632

Post by bikingbismuth »

krisoft wrote: post #584
fourside wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Would you tell us what is that important difference? Just for those of us who can't read your thoughts yet.

I think the implication is that if a kid buys a toy they will have something tangible that they can play and interact with, but tipping/donating to a streamer doesn't provide that.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#633

Post by bigstrat2003 »

benterix wrote: post #154
habinero wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true for every part of the human experience. People discriminate because of religion, etc. Sounds like you care too much about what other people think of you. Anyways, my point is this sort of thing is rapidly becoming something nobody cares about, and that's due to feminism and it's a good thing.

While I somewhat agree with you, feminism and related ideologies created a whole new network of concepts of what is good and wrong, and these can bite you as much as the old prejudices. A good example is the Harry Potter lady: while I don't necessarily agree with her view, I do understand her concern and the right to express it - but for many people it's a criminal offense. Almost as if we replaced one cage with anot…

This is 100% correct. We haven't become more enlightened and tolerant, we have simply exchanged what we don't tolerate. That may or may not be good, but it certainly isn't worth patting ourselves on the back as if we're somehow better than our forebears.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#634

Post by sss111 »

ethbr1 wrote: post #539
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.

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…

There are shows made today that capture the realistic nature of it. White Lotus or Scenes from a Marriage on HBO are good examples.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#635

Post by agumonkey »

tivert wrote: post #461
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.

> 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. Do you have a source for that angrily defended "fully rational reinterpretation"? I suspect…

I wouldn't say rationalization considering the lack of experience of these teens. Lack of scope in life forbids this imo, hence my adhoc neologism.

These were redditors that were unhappy saying that being an only fan model is the laziest thing one can do. That's when they taught me about their concepts.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#636

Post by agumonkey »

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #500
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.

Every generation shockingly reinterprets things. Our generation "shockingly" interprets a mixed race couple kissing on TV as normal, instead of obscene enough to be banned.

I don't think recurrences of this kind are an infinite line that can apply forever. Usually I account for the generational gap when thinking, even though it's something that may evade my mind.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#637

Post by Mashimo »

d_burfoot wrote: post #352

The widespread impact of the OF economy is obvious to many gym-goers. At my local gym you can see the usual assortment of bodybuilding guys (same as it's been for decades), and then you can see 2-3 girls who are clearly trying to make it into the top 0.1% of hotness so they can cash in on OF (or maybe Instagram). This latter group is a recent phenomenon.

Wat?

I know girls who go the the gym. They work in IT and are not OF girls. They just want to stay healthy. People also don't smoke any more as much, and gen z drinks less alcohol then the other generations.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#638

Post by rockinghigh »

taikobo wrote: post #525
alsetmusic wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sounds like credit card fraud to me. Bots using stolen cards to scrape OF content. Also easily verifies that the number works before attempting a pricier purchase. I’ve subscribed for one month to two different creators just to check the content. Neither was interesting enough to maintain a subscription. I don’t think the described behavior sounds nefarious.

The part that they delete their account immediately afterwards?

Probably a combination of being a subscription model with auto-renewal and people regretting wasting money for this type of content.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#639

Post by agumonkey »

throwanem wrote: post #598
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.

I'd be fascinated to see an ethnological elaboration of this concept, but nothing's turning up so far - not surprising, I think, but I wonder if you could point to something.

Ethical sex? I couldn't talk long with the kids but I assume they took physical safety and freedom as only important aspect when approaching onlyfans. Teen girl idol can spread her legs if she wants to and no one can take advantage (unlike the pre me too era)

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#640

Post by setgree »

ehnto wrote: post #482
qingcharles wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This view isn't matched by the stats. I have a friend who is a successful OF model and only a fraction of one percent of her subscribers ever DM her. A lot of them subscribe, see what they want and then immediately delete their accounts. There's no apparent relationship between her fans and her, for the most part.

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.

Regarding parasocial relationships in general, I like [0]:

> a few exceptional people (many of them imaginary) get far more love than most people need or can enjoy.

> This seems an essential tragedy of the human condition. You might claim that love isn’t a limited resource, that the more people each of us love, the more love we each have to give out. So there is no conflict between loving popular and imaginary people and loving the rest of us. But while this might be true at some low scales of how many people we love, at the actual scales of love this just doesn’t seem right to me. Love instead seems scarce at the margin.

> Please, someone thoughtful and clever, figure out how we might all be much loved.

[0] https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/alas-unequal-lovehtml

Post reply on HN