OnlyFans / Online camgirls

joost

Kingfisher
What those prostitutes can’t understand is that men will have sex with them but will never commit. Men will fake commitment to enjoy sex but when the girl starts pushing (for long-term commitment = marriage) they will bail.

Also, the “I’m making a fortune with OnlyFans/IG/etc” is pure marketing. There is a small percentage taking all the profits. Most girls are there just trying to get to the top. Same with (c)rappers, athletes, musicians, actors…

Girls are not smart and they live in a fantasy world. Can you imagine trying to join the workforce at 18 with high expectations? They see masculine traits as something men look for (making money). Everyday there’s a new batch of 18yo beautiful girls to compete. They spend the whole day in front of the phone screen and they get pressured to be a online celebrity.

I say, pray for them. But I don’t forgive the ones who burn the bridge after taking all the gold. The ones who ”repent” only after getting old and losing their value.
 

CynicalContrarian

Owl
Gold Member

The British-based company that claims some two million "content creators" who earn money from their videos and photos, said it would still permit nudity within its "acceptable use policy," which was still being defined.

An OnlyFans statement said the changes were being made in response to concerns from its bankers and investors, as it seeks to broaden its audience beyond adult content to features such as cooking and yoga.

Starting October 1, "OnlyFans will prohibit the posting of any content containing sexually explicit conduct," a statement said.

"Creators will continue to be allowed to post content containing nudity as long as it is consistent with our Acceptable Use Policy."



"That's a bold strategy Cotton..."
 
"In order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the platform, and to continue to host an inclusive community of creators and fans, we must evolve our content guidelines," the company said in a statement.

Hmm.
I wonder if 'certain types' of content creators were feeling jealous excluded, due to other 'certain types' of content creators generating much greater fan bases and subsequent revenue streams. Level the playing field through a more 'inclusive' atmosphere with diverse skiils, in order to secure more money from woke-controlled investors. I guess $5 BILLION worth of activity just isn't enough anymore.
 

Max Roscoe

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer

This article says the reasoning is due to "illegal" sex videos being posted.
If you're wondering what in the world could make a sex video illegal, like I was... well.. it's pretty gross:
Actually I don't even want to post or describe it. It's in the article if you want to know. But it's the kind of stuff so depraved and disgusting that it probably violates several agricultural safety and sanitary waste treatment laws, if you catch my drift.

Society already tells me there are wrongthink things I cannot talk about, without being completely banned and boycotted by the financial system.

What about a society where men say "No, you are not allowed to masturbate yourself in front of others for money" ?
 
e488f225c43e68ce.jpg
 

Nonpareil

Pelican
Gold Member
'Sex workers, which are predominantly women, hit hard by OF decision.'

Sex workers are the Asian girls who work in rub and tugs and middle-aged drug addicts in the bad end of town, but nobody cares about their plight.

I suppose 'sex worker' sounds more dignified than 'dumb young chick with a video camera'.


I don't believe and never did that there's a huge number of girls on OF making 5-6 figures every month making videos of them sticking various items into their orifices.

Not to say that they don't exist, Belle Delphine for example, but I bet less than 100 of the girls make 80% of the money - kind of like how 10% of the men sleep with 80% of the women.

The average...'content creator' probably makes 100-500 a month.

500 extra a month can become a decent little nut if invested wisely. Living in the real world like I do and knowing these girls are selling out their future for a few years of 'empowerment', I think most likely it's half a night of bottle service.

I guarantee that, like Instagram, it's also a honeypot for wealthy men, who have 'their people' get in contact with some of these girls, establish rules and rates of pay and then fly them out for the week.

It wouldn't shock me if there are many minors on OF, and if I had to guess it's at least somewhat related to this.

I have more thots about this that I may detail later.
 

This article says the reasoning is due to "illegal" sex videos being posted.
If you're wondering what in the world could make a sex video illegal, like I was... well.. it's pretty gross:
Actually I don't even want to post or describe it. It's in the article if you want to know. But it's the kind of stuff so depraved and disgusting that it probably violates several agricultural safety and sanitary waste treatment laws, if you catch my drift.

Society already tells me there are wrongthink things I cannot talk about, without being completely banned and boycotted by the financial system.

What about a society where men say "No, you are not allowed to masturbate yourself in front of others for money" ?

From the article:
The document also gives moderators specific instructions for dealing with accounts - depending on how popular each one is. It says accounts with higher numbers of subscribers can be given additional warnings when rules are broken.

However, staff are told to moderate accounts with low user numbers "as we would and [restrict] when necessary". With middle range accounts, they are told to warn, "but only restrict after the 3rd warning". If one of the site's most successful - and lucrative - creators breaks the rules, the account is dealt with by a different team.

"There is a discrimination between accounts," says Christof. "It shows money is the priority." The second moderator says that with violations of any kind, "You get a few warnings, you don't just get the one warning and then you're off."
Well, well, well; imagine that.
 
Top