I don't understand this issue with OnlyFans.

[DragonSnapCrimson]

I’ve been thinking about OnlyFans recently and can’t fully understand why it appears to be seen in such a bad light here.

In the cases where a person is pushed into it, feels it’s no other option etc then yes, I fully get why it’s not a good thing.

But I have seen some people on social media who are aware of all of the risks, aware that their photos could be shared with third parties etc and they’re completely ok with that, they’ve spoken on it. They’ve made buckets of money with the app in order to pay for uni, a house deposit among plenty of other things. So why would that be seen as a bad thing?

If they’re fully aware of the dangers/consequences yet still consent to it and make decent money for their future/whatever they like, then I don’t see the problem. Or is there no problem with people in this particular situation?

This post isn’t about other kinds of sex work, just OnlyFans.

I have also heard of people who don't ever post their face, their pictures are taken in front of a white background and all identifying features (like tattoos or birth marks) are photoshopped out, so I think those people are a lot safer from blackmail, unless their account gets hacked of course!

If you've heard that then you will also of heard that they don't keep their subscribers for long either.

These men are buying to their own demands, not to women's safeguarding preferences. They do not want headless, bland content.

They want interaction. They want 'lives' - live streaming of prescribed acts and language, commentary. They want to see a face, lips, eye contact. That's what they pay for.

What you describe is not what successful OF women are doing.

It's mostly not photos, you know, and I don't know how easy it is to edit features out of home videos.

Not the point at all, but there are actually loads of apps that allow you to photoshop videos as well as "lives", it's scary how some of them don't look fake at all.

Fluffy, fair enough that they wouldn't have lots of demand if they're not catering to the masses. I did read than an "average" user earns $151 per month, quite pathetic in comparison to the ones who "earn" $100,000 as some articles/people state.

If something is sold as 'empowering', the first thing you need to ask is 'do the people who actually have power do this?'

Bishop, very true, however in the case of OF there are some people with/in "power" who participate. I'm sure there are many sad reasons as to why, but there are a few, which is also why I think it looks so "cool" to some young people, to see celebs doing it too.

And if its 'empowering' why would anyone suggest the possibility of using tools like photoshop or editing software to disguise themselves, to ensure they are not identifiable whilst undertaking this empowering and rewarding work?

I have also heard of people who don't ever post their face, their pictures are taken in front of a white background and all identifying features (like tattoos or birth marks) are photoshopped out, so I think those people are a lot safer from blackmail, unless their account gets hacked of course!

That doesn't sound all that "empowering".

X post fluffy!

@loveinthe90s Even if the OP is disingenuous and has an ulterior motive for asking this question, I believe the OP should stay up as the replies are very informative. It is eye-opening that OF operates as a MLM.

Yes Ereshkigalangcleg!

It doesn't happen anyway. OF women are literally completely exposed in every manner possible.

I feel that as this type of thing is always going to be around, it always has been, there should really be more security on apps like OF. I have no clue what that should entail, but even a simple thing as not being able to screenshot may help a little bit. Better records of everyone who has "purchased" content on there, bigger penalties for those who misuse it, etc..

The problem is not technical/online security.

[quote DontLikeCrumpets]@loveinthe90s Even if the OP is disingenuous and has an ulterior motive for asking this question, I believe the OP should stay up as the replies are very informative. It is eye-opening that OF operates as a MLM.[/quote]
Yep, you're right. Sorry for side-track.

Promise I'm not disingenuous everyone 😂 it's a topic I'm interested in yet not very informed on and figured I'd learn a few things from posting here, which I have!

Fluffy, no I realise that it's not the problem, but it is a problem so it could perhaps make the whole thing a bit safer, even if it shouldn't really be happening in the first place.

Never forget this. The unusual thing about this post is that it's the previous customer posting. I have seen posts like this by women, asking what to do about a previous customer blackmailing them for money or sex.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

Never forget this. The unusual thing about this post is that it's the previous customer posting. I have seen posts like this by women, asking what to do about a previous customer blackmailing them for money or sex.

That is just absolutely awful. Do you know if he was deemed the "asshole" on that by the majority?

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

Never forget this. The unusual thing about this post is that it's the previous customer posting. I have seen posts like this by women, asking what to do about a previous customer blackmailing them for money or sex.

"I recognised her name instantly".. . ... ... Wait for it... ... ... "In fact, I even subscribed to her Only Fans at one point..."

Boom, there it is.

I work for a large regulator.

The amount of malicious reports we get has to be seen to be believed. People "concerned" about the reputation of the profession. That report by an individual is the kind of thing we get at times.

I have never seen one about an OF account but I've certainly seen one about similar activities.

It can absolutely damage someone's reputation is later life and prevent them for getting/ retaining a "proper" job. I don't see that as empowering.

If something is sold as 'empowering', the first thing you need to ask is 'do the people who actually have power do this?'

This, 100%

Thanks for that posting by a man shopping a woman to her potential employer, Potholes. What a total shit, and a woman-hater who clearly got a powertrip from losing her a job because she did some work for OnlyFans.

But a valuable warning for snyone who thinks you can get a bit of money fron OnlyFans and then give it up. It never lets you go.

When I hear the word "empowering" what I think is why does this person not have power now, and how exactly does this transfer power?

Usually what is actually meant is not a transfer of power but a way to earn short term cash.

If I told my local butcher I was "empowering" him by choosing to go to him rather than the Aldi across the road he'd either laugh at me or tell me to piss off. And what's more, if I and his many other customers did suddenly decide to go to Aldi instead where's his power now? It is still actually with us as purchasers.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

Thanks for that posting by a man shopping a woman to her potential employer, Potholes. What a total shit, and a woman-hater who clearly got a powertrip from losing her a job because she did some work for OnlyFans.

But a valuable warning for snyone who thinks you can get a bit of money fron OnlyFans and then give it up. It never lets you go.

And who would have thought that woman-haters might want to subscribe to OnlyFans, especially if they see a classmate is on there…?

We know historically that denouncing women for being prostitutes and sexually available women goes hand in hand with wanting to exploit those women, but always making sure they are marked off as “bad women” and not allowed the social status accorded to “good women”. It might as well be 1860 as far as any of that has ever changed.

Why any of the “sex work is work” crowd would ever imagine different is beyond me. Men still treat women the same way no matter how much they like to sell us a spurious idea of how this is all terribly modern and “empowering”.

Should it be legal to sell organs and body parts for money?

What about if there are some people who understand the risks and want to do it willingly?

What about if those people spend the money on sonething really worthwhile?

I mean, I don't actually want to sell my own organs because on balance I prefer having two kidneys, not to mention I'm financially secure. But there might be, like, poor people who could use that money and who don't really mind about having only one kidney....

Sharks that's super interesting. My first thought is "If someone wants to do it then they should be able to" but I feel that's wrong. My instinct so far has pretty much always been "if all parties consent then crack on" but I'm learning through conversations and forums that it isn't so black and white.