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

871–878 of 878 posts

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#871

Post by lynx23 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #607
beaglesss wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't and I haven't, and I have dated a sex industry worker. BUT When I dated someone in the industry I quickly realized why many people avoid such workers. It's highly correlated with HEAVY drug use, severe mental illness, and sad family stories. Not challenges lot of people looking for in a relationship, especially if they want children.

Oh wow, god forbid you date someone who wasn't as privileged in their past. I get what you are saying, but nearly everyone who has ever lived is full of baggage. After a certain age, any relationship you start will involve talking about all the bad shit you both experienced, how it affected you, how you've grown and dealt with it, etc. Just be an adult about it. What matters is whether a person who had a bad past is…

> demonstrably a better person currently

Yeah, but thats the point. How should I know. Its a matter of trust. If you have made decisions like that in the past, why should I trust you to have changed? People are deceptive. Better avoid the drama altogether.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#872

Post by lynx23 »

prmoustache wrote: post #367
quibono wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I fail to see why one should be open in the first place if this isn't going to be reciprocated by your partner.

There is a difference between solicited and unsolicited information. In my experience people who can't live with someone without asking them the number of past partners are the toxic ones.

Hahaha. For me, its the people that want to hold that information back which are toxic and manipulative like hell. Its simple. If you want to hide it, it was likely very bad and your partner should know. If you manage to hide it, you are the toxic person.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#873

Post by lynx23 »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #446
prmoustache wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between solicited and unsolicited information. In my experience people who can't live with someone without asking them the number of past partners are the toxic ones.

Maybe - or maybe they just have different viewpoints on sex than you. Do you think it would be okay to ask someone how many kittens they have stomped to death in the past? And, if the answer is greater than zero, to break off the relationship?

Indeed, I would like to know if you have no problem killing kitten. That attitude is likely going to be an issue further down the road. Better get it settled now then later.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#874

Post by [deleted] »

kragen wrote: post #754
tivert wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or 'cute guy turns out to have enough of a hangup about your past sex work to not date you' (which apparently doesn't necessarily imply he's not relationship material, though i'd think it ought to) Obviously such a person is not relationship material for a sex worker, but why would you think he ought not be relationship material for anyone else?

well, i was more thinking about a former sex worker, a group which includes many more of your friends and acquaintances than you're likely aware of. i'd think of it as much less of a red flag for anyone else! still, it's a clue that what he wants out of the relationship is not an equal partner but a sort of brood mare or something. here in argentina, the kind of guys who would have a problem with former sex work ofte…

[deleted]

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#876

Post by deepsun »

vasco wrote: post #591
deepsun wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you believe all livestreaming platforms combined have more views than youtube sans-livestream videos? I highly doubt that.

Not sure about views, but hours spent might be higher for livestreaming.

Especially I think most people don't know about steaming, never watched a single live streamer, but if we filter them out, then among people who watched a live stream at least once amount of hours spent might be higher.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#877

Post by meowface »

defrost wrote: post #815
meowface wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prime suspect of the novel is a serial killer who cross-dresses. A book written years after she started campaigning near-daily about the threat of trans women. Those media outlets are being very misleading. The Spectator is a right-wing British newspaper with dozens of anti-trans articles and op-eds. The Scotsman and The Guardian also have very anti-trans skews. (The latter less so, but definitely more anti than…

> The prime suspect of the novel is a serial killer who cross-dresses. And Barry Humphries is a beloved Australian entertainer who cross dresses. Neither are transgender. Further, the prime suspect of the novel, Dennis Creed, is closely based on real life serial killers such as Angus Sinclair, Jerry Brudos, and Russell Williams who all share victim name details and traits with the fictional Creed, such as messing wit…

None of it would've been a problem if not for her stated, vocal positions long before writing the novel.

Re: Breaking Down OnlyFans' Economics

#878

Post by bmacho »

debesyla wrote: post #222
beaglesss wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take a video of taking a shit mostly no one is gonna think you're immoral or shameful but if there's videos plastered everywhere of you shitting on cam for cash then it could be detrimental to your social standing.

I would argue that video of taking a shit could display video production and marketing skills better than, let's say, doing a socially unacceptable political rant. But I agree that probabbly being super racist is currently more accepted in some social media than showing genitals. I'm not promoting it, of course.

Musk and Bezos?
Post reply on HN