I do dislike the effect OnlyFans has had on society but I think it's a symptom, not a cause.
Libertarianism is willful ignorance, and taken this far, it's a brain disease.
> cutting out a whole industry of truly skeezy, immoral middlemen distributors
This argument only makes sense if you blindly model the amount of degrading dreck as a constant, unaffected by technology and opportunities. Again, brain disease.
Oh, and before OF, Radvinsky was facilitating child porn and bestiality. Were the children and animals being empowered, too? Should they have taken responsibility?
There is no such thing as a healthy or unhealthy society. Only money. This guy made a lot of it. What a hero. All of us here on the orange site should aspire to his level of genius. Ha ha ha funny songs, silly walks.
I have no idea if that's true but it's irrelevant, those are illegal. Porn is not illegal. You may wish to make porn illegal but so far society has not agreed with you on that.
Do you believe that there is anything that is legal yet immoral? If an industry is legal, is it automatically good to dedicate your life to growing and spreading it to all corners of society, so long as it makes you money? Do you think this guy left the world a better place?
Less polemically...
> I do dislike the effect OnlyFans has had on society but I think it's a symptom, not a cause.
What do you think is the underlying cause or causes?
If you find sexual work a despicable thing it's your right, but the people that are doing it through Onlyfans have it better than in other ways.
Out of everything in the adult industry, to me, OnlyFans is one of the most sane. That is encouraging independent performers to get payed directly by their fans, taking only a reasonable commission. It doesn't mean there is no exploitation, but at least, it offers a way for those who want to do this kind of work to do it on their own terms.
So your defense of OF only real works if you think that an explosion of commercialized sex has no negative effect on our culture, or if you (stupidly) believe that the rate of sex work is an immutable constant, impervious to laws, technology, or social contagion.
Nominally we live in a tolerant society but sometimes I wonder if anyone knows what the word means.
In American society, sex is in it's own corner. It's icky, immoral, unpure, and stands alone in it's perception. Violence, blood and guts, exploitation, injustice - these are all much easier for Americans to swallow than sex. A company laying off 500 people and potentially ruining their lives is business as usual, but a woman showing a part of her body to people who consent is unthinkable.
The reality is, I think, we all sell our bodies, and minds. And, out of all of us, OnlyFans models sell their bodies some of the least. After all, they are not at higher risk of heart attack. After all, they do not get carpal tunnel or arthritis. After all, they are much closer to self-employed than me. After all, they write their schedules, they define their work, and they set the expectations for performance.
That's not to say it should be celebrated. But I think we should view it honestly, for what it really is. A way to make money. People want to see other naked people, and they're gonna do that, so why not? And, is the human body really so repulsive that we have to degrade people for showing it off? I don't believe so.
I kinda agree, but the prevalence of fake chatting soured me on the company as a bastion of sane sex work. Without it, it seems legit: fans pay for content, they get content. But add the layer of fans pay for chatting with the models, and get something else.
Made billions from OnlyFans and then made a large donation to AIPAC. Wouldn't admit it.
The Reuters story linked is substantially the same as this one but omits the AIPAC link. I wonder why.
[0] https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/leonid-rad...