Well, those civilians who can think for themselves, especially about the consequences of their actions, are clearly in advantage. I am lacking empathy for those who are apparently so hooked up to the here-and-now that they seem to ignore the future. If you sell your body, most societies will punish you. Thats fine, societies have all sorts of norms we all need to learn.

> If you sell your body, most societies will punish you.

Why though? It is an interesting issue when you look closer. For an individual, it's more obvious - I wouldn't like to be with a prostitute because of possible hidden diseases and lack of trust - but there is no way of telling how many sexual contacts my new partner had, whether paid for or not.

But I wouldn't have any problem working with an ex-pro in the same company or team, they would be just a colleague like all the rest, and I can't imagine any adult making any immature comments about the past of any colleagues on my team.

>but there is no way of telling how many sexual contacts my new partner had, whether paid for or not.

The same is true for their clients but they don't get the same treatment.

same here, i think some people are just a little too submissive and uncritical to the so called rules of society. also engaging in porn or even prostitution isn't really "selling" of one's body.

Those rules aren't taken from the thin air though. It's really easy to argue that sexual gedonism is detrimental to society, and its online incarnation is even more so: as any addiction it steals productive time from people's lives, it puts hormones over culture which patently breeds violence, it leads to social atomization, and consequently to mental issues (which means violence again), economically bad on a level comparable to fentanyl imports, and the list goes on.

Citation needed

> as any addiction it steals productive time from people's lives, it leads to social atomization, and consequently to mental issues (which means violence again), economically bad on a level comparable to fentanyl imports, and the list goes on.

Well the same could be said of social media, mobile phones, netflix binge, computer games (although I don't agree with the violence part). So why single out sex then?

You are tying to make an argument for destigmatizing sex work, but for me I think it really points out how we should really increase the stigma towards those working for social media giants, sports gambling sites, and other tech companies whose main operating model is actively getting people addicted to something and then profiting off of it. Social media is one of the worst developments for society in recent history, and the people working for Facebook or TikTok absolutely deserve to be shamed for actively participating for personal gain.

While I agree with you in general, I see no way to actually sensibly enforce this. Whatever activity you take, it can be abused.

For example Google is abusing their position by feeding a stream of right-wing and related stuff to my mother because she clicked a Trump video a friend(?) sent her so that she watches more of this stuff, gets more negative emotions, and continues to spend her time on their site. Trying to regulate these things is terribly hard and whatever idea you come up with, the folks at big tech will find a way to go around them.

Straw man. No one singled anything out, this thread is specifically talking about one topic. In many other threads you'll find people discussing the extreme negative consequences of social media.

Use and particularly overuse of those things is definitely a relationship deal killer for many people. Ask around with the women you know what they think about men who spend most of their time playing video games.

It's a classic chesterton fence phenomena, It's just that we can't connect the externalities to the fence.

Leasing, then?

is a selfie leasing your head?

People working in the mines, or the military, I wonder why that's a socially acceptable way of "selling" their body, but prostitution is not. Even we, behind a computer screen and getting back pain and wrist RSI, we also "sell" our bodies in a matter of speaking.

I can only imagine that the negative perception of prostitution as "selling" your body is coming from mainstream religions which are the great society moralizer.

Even coming from mainstream religions, that's annoyingly knee-jerk. Sure, prostitution is shameful and sinful and whatnot, but what about maliciously lying to your neighbor, trying to get rich off their misfortune? Even from a mainstream religious perspective, marketing gives prostitution a run for its money, and outside that framework, arguably it's less shameful to do OF than to be a "regular" influencer, or go into telemarketing. At least with this kind of sex work, all parties to transaction tend to benefit, and all are in it voluntarily.

> At least with this kind of sex work, all parties to transaction tend to benefit, and all are in it voluntarily.

Haven't some OF creators come out admitting they were pressured into it, or at least doing it more than they'd like.

I can believe it. Sex work in general is fraught with various degrees of abuse. However, it's also clear that there is a large class of workers that's doing this work voluntarily, under no pressure (at least not beyond the pressures every employee in any field experiences); my comparison would apply to them.

I think you'll find that lots of people in non-sex-work, non-stigmatized, socially respected jobs feel like they were pressured into them and/or currently doing more of the work they are in than they'd like due to economic coercion.

> At least with this kind of sex work, all parties to transaction tend to benefit, and all are in it voluntarily

Beautifully put!

> Sure, prostitution is shameful and sinful and whatnot

Only according to some. Imo it's much more immoral to work in fossil fuels or the police/military (where you abandon morals to execute orders).

It's whataboutism, isn't it? It surely hypocritical when someone only fights other's sin while ignoring own (and one mainstream religion has a special piece about it - speck in a brother's eye). But my harmful behavior still doesn't make your harmful behavior good, and vice versa

> But my harmful behavior still doesn't make your harmful behavior good, and vice versa

In principle I agree.

We have a society praising a soldier for killing and risks losing limbs and life (basically selling his body) during military service, but demonizing a sex worker.

This society needs to take a good hard look in the mirror. We have people admonishing sex work and marijuana use, while its most "successful" members are in arms dealing, fossil fuels, workers exploitation (amazon), and gambling with the livelihoods of people (banks/wall street).

This is pretty illogical comparison. When we praise soldiers, we do it not for them getting paid for their bodies, but for hard work, and risks they take protecting us.

> and risks they take protecting us.

Considering the risk are bodily harm, there is some similarity to the risks of bodily harm that some sex workers take, and far more frequently, than soldiers. STDs, violent guys, etc etc.

> but for hard work

Do sex workers not work hard (pun potentially intended)? I don't see society praising them for their hard work and the risks they take.

>I wonder why that's a socially acceptable way of "selling" their body, but prostitution is not.

Probably because its not the same at all. Getting naked and spreading your legs is neither as productive nor difficult as serving your country. Neither should it have the same social status.

ath3nd did not write same social status, they wrote socially acceptable. Relevant username, I guess.

I guess I meant a bit of both.

We don't give high social status to killers, thugs, murderers and hired assassins, but when it's institutionalized killing, (which is the military) that's okay? The fact that an "official" gives the word, and the victims are not citizens of your country doesn't make the military be less about killing.

There also is nothing "productive" about paying for salaries, equipment and training to a bunch of grown men in the anticipation that you have to send them to do violence to your bidding.

If the military was not under the veneer of "official", wrapping it in an "institution" and all the language of "serving your country", we'd not been able to distinguish between military, militia and armed thugs.

Yet, our society at large reveres them as some heroes and they are mainly socially acceptable.

I bet that if we had a "Department of pleasure", with ranks, hierarchies, rules, promotion paths, etc, sex workers wouldn't be as marginalized as they are now. In fact, in many civilized countries, prostitutions is both legal and taxed, and less stigmatized than it is in the US, who are too puritanical/religion influenced in their views to want it to be otherwise.

> There also is nothing "productive" about paying for salaries, equipment and training to a bunch of grown men in the anticipation that you have to send them to do violence to your bidding.

I disagree. First and only rule of nature is might makes right, and being capable of dishing out the most violence (and hence also least likely to be the victim of it) is very “productive”. It is a huge contributor to the purchasing power of the US dollar, which is a referendum on the stability and productivity of US society.

For example, the oceanic transportation routes around the world are kept mostly safe and humming along because of militaries enforcing it.

> Getting naked and spreading your legs is neither as productive nor difficult as serving your country

We have different moral compasses, I guess. To me, obeying military orders (which often result in killing people) is neither productive, nor difficult (as a big part of thinking/initiative is replaced by blindly following orders). Military personnel basically outsource a large chunk of thinking and assessing good/bad to a "higher power". In a way, that's very easy and comfortable life for a specific type of people: all higher order judgments are deferred to higher ups in the military chain. Besides, I wouldn't say military personnel are "serving" their country more than, say, plumbers, electricians, railway workers, postal service, healthcare workers, or, even sex workers.

> Neither should it have the same social status

I disagree. The fact that somebody who has no other skills and initiative but to be a death machine/robot blindly following orders, doesn't warrant them to be a hero, and sure as hell doesn't qualify them to a high social status in my book. And, at least to me, calling military service "productive" is just plain hypocrisy. Their only function is to either destroy things during war, or sit around looking menacing when there is no war.

Imo, money spent on weapons and the military could be better spent to build more social housing, solve healthcare problems, etc.

> Imo, money spent on weapons and the military could be better spent to build more social housing, solve healthcare problems, etc.

In an ideal world, 100% yes.

In our world, where every now and again a crazy power-hungry dictator appears and wages a war against a weaker country and is killing civilians - unfortunately it's a comfort we can't afford.

> again a crazy power-hungry dictator appears and wages a war against a weaker country

With the risk of being political, I see nothing "defensive" or moral about the military, even in the most advanced nations that are supposedly paragons of human rights.

Take the "dictator attacks weaker country" narrative. The NATO defensive alliance fits this narrative by providing weapons and military training to weaker Ukraine so it can defend itself against the aggression of bigger Russia. On the other hand, the same defensive alliance has no scruples to providing weapons to Israel so it can wipe out and cause immense suffering and casualties to Palestine, a weaker nation.

Which brings me to my conclusion that there is nothing inherently moral about the army, it's just a blunt instrument to do the government's bidding. Hence, I don't see military as our "protectors", but as the government's institutionalized thugs. I also don't see a reason for them to be lauded for their actions, as their actions are often immoral and sinister. I am talking things like the military secrets Assange unveiled, or the illegal treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, or the sometimes indiscriminate bombings of civilians to hit 1 potential target.

And since they are not protecting me but the government's interests, I don't see a need to thank them for their service more than I see the need to thank bouncers at a disco I don't own for theirs.

> If you sell your body, most societies will punish you. > Why though?

In stable families and societies, women use sex as control (power) over men. Younger women who sell sex are undermining that power structure. That is why they must be punished.

Another way to look at in economic terms: Female sex is a scarce resource. Female selling transactional sex is commoditizing this resource. In general, people don't like their valuable service getting commoditized.

It's already commodities in places like California. For instance, the state considers a wife a depreciating asset that goes to zero at year ten, now owed potentially lifelong alimony as you've used up her most fertile years and therefore you must support her for life.

As a married person in balancing my finances I always then half it and then subtract 20 percent of my pretax income to find what's truly mine after liabilities to my spouse. This makes me explicitly aware of the true cost I pay, and if god forbid i am divorced i have already mentally written off most my wealth and home I painstakingly singlehandedly built stick by stick over a period of years as not actually mine.

Prostitution causes a real problem here as it throws a bone in the resource extraction from male to female by making the consumer more informed on costs up front.

>I wouldn't like to be with a prostitute because of possible hidden diseases and lack of trust

Why do you inherently distrust a former sex worker? What about sex work is distrustful? Do you think prostitutes have a habit of not delivering after payment or something?

> If you sell your body, most societies will punish you. Thats [sic] fine, […]

How is that 'fine'?

I would like to see a future where someone doing sex work to make ends meet (or even as a freely chosen profession!) is not ostracised for it. Sex is part of society whether you want it or not, and so is paying for sexual acts.

I would like to see a future where people shouldn't have to prostitute themselves to make ends meet.

Some cultural norms are outdated, but prostitution is still degrading and dangerous for those practicing it, especially for the women; who may not be doing so willingly, prostitution being the main incentive for human trafficking. And the online medium doesn't change that by much.

Some people may be willing to pay for sex, some people are willing to pay for many other things or activities that should be or are illegal.

Sex work will never go away. The only way forward is to make sure it can be done safely and legally.

Consider the sex workers who deal with mentally or physically disabled adults. Most people have sexual urges, and those who are unable to participate in society in the usual way of addressing their urges with a romantic partner or a one-night stand still have them. There are a good number of very professional sex workers out there who can provide these people with sex (often with specific expertise for the relevant handicaps) and generally significantly improve the wellbeing.

Are those sex workers doing something they shouldn't be doing?

Would you be happy if your daughter was a sex worker?

Think honestly about what this means for your view on this.

If she's safe, successful, healthy, and doing it of her own free will then why not be happy?

That would depend entirely on her circumstances. Is she a professional helping disabled people like my example above? That's laudable. A self-employed dominatrix with a select clientele? Sounds lucrative. A popular OnlyFans starlet just making some money on the side during her studies? Clever. Participating in explicit forms of BDSM porn? If she does so of her own volition, with the consent of all parties involved, for a fair pay and without lasting harm? Cool as long as she's working with professionals with a good reputation.

In all of those cases I would council her to the best of my abilities on safety and long-term planning, if she'd let me. And of course, as any parent, I would worry about her safety. But hey, I'd worry if she went paragliding or mountain climbing too.

Honestly, I would be more disappointed if she became a lawyer in the pocket of, say, Amazon or AirBnB. Or a politician for some extreme right political party.

Would I be happy if she was a sex worker in some seedy part of town with a pimp hovering over her? Of course not. But that is not dismissive of sex work as such, rather of exploitation and coercion. All of the examples above avoid that.

Well said, and unnecessarily downvoted for such a thoughtful comment.

Would I be happy if after the education I paid my daughters they decide to work in public sanitation?

Think honestly about it. Do you think I have anything against sanitation employees?

Bad comparison.

Public sanitation workers keep our society functioning, they're a cornerstone of civilization.

Online prostitution, on the other hand, ranges from providing 0 value, to extreme negative consequences, such as the current porn addiction epidemic, or the loneliness epidemic.

The GP, trying to show how 'bad' profession A was, was making the argument that the average HN reader would look badly on his progeny participating in profession A. I simply made the argument that the average HN reader would also look badly on his progeny doing profession B. Obviously, my point is not to throw shit on profession B but rather show that GP's argument simply does not work.

The fact that you think profession B > A only reinforces my point and shows, precisely, that GP's argument does not work.

Your moral compass is truly fucked. One makes a mess of their own life and contributes to making a mess of many other lives. The other cleans up messes.

> Are those sex workers doing something they shouldn't be doing?

You are asking a binary question for which there isn't a binary answer. Better to ask are those sex workers doing something they will get a pat on their backs for from other members of society? In a way a builder, chef, firefighter, and even a prison guard would.

Perhaps the lack of a "pat on the back" is society's fault.

Why? it’s so easy to make content

Well folks appreciate different things and to different degrees. Some are born with natural talents and others work hard for it. Regardless, folks generally get at least some respect for doing the work to produce things others appreciate. Stigmatizing OF work seems unfair when so much praise is heaped on creators and workers of all other kinds.

It is not unfair if it clashes with cultural values. It is like coming to HN, going against the majority sentiment, and expecting likes

For what? For opening your legs and getting paid for it? Without criminals and sleezy execs as clients prostitution would cease to exist. The edge cases mentioned before are tiny

I would like to see a future where people shouldn't have to do any work they don't enjoy to make ends meet. As far as I can see, working fast food (and many other badly paid service jobs) is not much different from prostitution, except in that there is no social stigma attached, and you earn much less.

> but prostitution is still degrading

Why? Especially compared to e.g. advertising/marketing? At least in the former case, all parties to the transaction are there voluntarily, for an honest, mutually beneficial exchange of value.

It's not "to make ends meet". OF work allows people with no skills to get income in line with the top 10th or even 1st percentile of the population.

Would you rather be flipping burgers all day for 30k or would you rather take a few nudes every week and make 300k?

I wouldn't be surprised to find out an absurd fraction of those 300k is just straight up money laundering. Who is actually gonna be able to verify the value of someone allegedly showing their tits to a whale at 3am? The fact this all passed through traditional financial networks with a clean and reportable earnings report at the end is just pure gold.

OF is like the wet dream of a drug dealer or whoever else with a baby momma and some kind of scam/fraud/counterfeit operation.

I agree with what you say but we know enough about youtubers and mobile gaming to safely assume that the numbers in this space are wild. I remember on Pewdiepie's first ever charity YouTube stream he was printing thousands per second via donos

But you can't compare with top performers in a power law / winner-takes-all setting. Comparing random youtubers or OF-ers to PewDiePie is like comparing the guy owning a fruit stand down the street to Jeff Bezos. Owns business, owns business; the same thing, right?

I agree that power laws are in play, but 1000 subs paying $10 a month is already a six figure income and 1000 users isn't a big number on the internet, especially when as TFA mentions you can go on reddit and advertise cosplays on subs that have audiences in the millions

1000 users isn't a big number. 1000 paying users is.

Who would have thought that all those big numbers in TV deals were actually underestimated by the billions. The general public is even more desperate/gullible than we ever considered possible. And OF and YT are just the beginning.

Source? Like all entertainment sold with near zero marginal cost, why should only fans work also not follow an extreme power law formula for compensation.

> prostitution is still degrading and dangerous for those practicing it, especially for the women;

degrading: no. I've met prostitutes who very much like their work and find it empowering

dangerous: ...yes, because it's illegal and they don't have access to proper legal protection.

> degrading: no. I've met prostitutes who very much like their work and find it empowering

It is called delusion

> It is called delusion

It's, of course, much better and far less delusional, to go flipping burgers for $30k which barely covers your housing, less alone food.

Or to go to the military to lose an arm and a leg, defending a just cause, of course.

Society accepting sex work is the worst thing that can happen to sex workers. They can have their cake and eat it right now -- not terribly illegal in the west but shunned which limits competition.

When it becomes fine, it will be worth no more than someone coming to mow your lawn, and probably less than that.

There are many countries in the west where prostitution is legal and taxed like any other activity.

It seems the main complain is that it brings the prices down due to competition from eastern europe.

Wouldn't that put at least some pressure into pursuing other options (like mowing somebody's lawn)?

Wouldn't that be an incentive towards other career paths (such as mowing lawns)?

EDIT: brace for the lawn mowing cartels led by ex human trafficking gangs. On a more serious note, there is so much criminality involved in that field precisely because it's illegal and lucrative. You remove that and you remove a lot of abuse.

Wow i never thought of that! I love this reasoning (no sarcasm intended!). Based on supply/demand, the lack of social acceptance leads to low supply which in turn makes sure the price matches the moral cost. I honestly wished it was not (considered) degrading and just as acceptable as any hospitality service, although in my culture it is indeed immoral to take or provide sex services. Even so if it still is degrading indeed there should be a matching cost, but damn economics is a tricky one.

not treating sex workers like crap doesnt mean they'll make lesser. one must also consider the monetary equivalents of the mental health of the worker. and the demand will increase by a lot too.

It's fine because otherwise we'd evolve into the social structure of Bonobo monkeys, where every problem is solved with sex.

> where every problem is solved with sex.

Would it be a problem?

obviously better than fighting

Yes. Till this day Bonobo has no invention.

Do you like this kind of society?

Well it depends what kind of society brings the most happiness out of our lives.

I can't say, I have never lived as a Bonobo.

One could argue that it's better to have no inventions than inventing the following:

- the Spanish inquisition

- jihad/crusades

- guns

- PFAS

- agent orange

- iron maiden (not the band, the torture device)

- the atomic bomb

This is exactly what everyone means by “return to monke”

Not following why that, if true, would make the current situation better ("fine").

> Sex is part of society whether you want it or not, and so is paying for sexual acts.

Yes, and this seems to be a discussion of whether people want it or not. I don't think paid sex acts ruin the world. Some people probably need it in place of real intimacy, for their own mental health. I still think it's generally scummy and unproductive. Then again, I think all sorts of businesses can be described that way. Snake oil has been killing it for as long as commerce has been around. Another example: if you go around gutting productive companies to line your own pockets, e.g. buying & dismantling competitors to stop competition, I see that as a greater moral failing than baiting lonely people with sex appeal.

It's common that people forget or fail to understand that business is a way to cooperatively shape life into something desirable, and instead see it as a way to win at others expense.

Thats also fine. You can "like to see" everything you want. Question is, what the rest of society believes. Oldest bussiness and all that, I am actually on your side. But that doesn't mean I can ignore what overall society feels and thinks. Besides, there is a difference between consuming payed sex, and having a relationship with a (ex) sex worker. The difference is quite huge.

I would certainly not like to live in a future where selling your body to make ends meet is considered normal. To me it is already concerning that normalization of prostitution is happening to some extent in mass media.

Sex is in all (?) human cultures viewed as most intimate and private expression of civilized love. It is also how we teach our kids about sex. Pornography and prostitution serve only our primal desires which goes against all this. Does it really surprise you that society will shun people that partake in these things? To me it is obvious as day.

We all have to sell ourselves in order to live. I'm sure that there are plenty of people working at jobs that they thoroughly dislike. Shouldn't we concentrate on making sure that people really have a choice rather than on discriminating against people who make a choice?

Discrimination against people making the wrong choices is natural. Discriination against people repenting for the wrong choices is wrong

probably that sex has little negative externalities and hence criminalizing it is not right

If you want to take purely moral grounds, there's nothing to make prostitution or Onlyfans "wrong", except if done with exploitation. At the same time, it contributes to the demographic crysis, and if you care about results, you have to put pressure against the lifestyles that are nudging people away from starting a family and having kids.

Drug dealers are also part of society, yet we still frown upon them.

An individual has no obligation to respect a societal order that doesn't respect them back.

Why do you say that? Most individuals that aren't respected by society had that respect, yet lost it through some action (like dealing drugs).

I think we're seeing things in different frameworks, and I'm considering the end result more important than the principles here. If you don't accept that some seemingly individual decisions have a cumulated effect on society long-term, and that shaming is the only mechanism to make changes here, there really is no discourse possible.

> I would like to see a future where someone doing sex work to make ends meet

It's better to have a future where people don't have to do SW to make ends meet

A future where more people get forced into sex work because of economic reasons is not desirable. Consider the diseases, conflict with cultural norms, potential for rape and abuse

Sex should be freely given. "Free laborers" aren't freely giving their labor, they're forced to for economic reasons

Some societies had the norm to punish gay people, at least many learned that was wrong

Somehow it's mainly the ones who sells their body and not the ones who buy them who get punished.

Buying is more often voluntarily than selling.

> I am lacking empathy for those who are apparently so hooked up to the here-and-now

A large amount of those people are very young, at an age where you don't really pick your options solely on their super long term consequences.

Most people are going to be "stupid" in their early adulthood, failing and adjusting is a big part of it. Unfortunately, some of those decisions will stick more than others and sex work is very sticky (zing).

>A large amount of those people are very young, at an age where you don't really pick your options solely on their super long term consequences.

And they will continue to be if there are never any consequences.

Stop bailing people out of problems they make for themselves and people will start learning to not make those problems.

Human beings are not stupid machines who see others put their hand in the fire, getting burned, then they put their own hands in the fire get burned, and then keep doing it over and over again.

Most will stop when they see others get burned, others still will stop when they get burned, and a small minority will stop once there is no hand left to burn.

There is a reason why many parts of the world will ticket you for not wearing your seatbelt. There is a reason you cannot (could not? crypto changed a lot) do advanced stock trading without a license. Why gambling is regulated, etc.

We don't want people to hurt themselves, because we have humanity and because they become a drain on society.

I find it hard to be that black and white with phenomenons like OF, that emerge from a mix of societal and technological advancement.

There are grey zones and not everyone is fortunate enough to be taught to be responsible. Not everyone can go through life without feeling desperate and resort to doing things they would not be proud of.

We should try to educate and protect people instead of pointing internet fingers at them.

> Most will stop when they see others get burned, others still will stop when they get burned, and a small minority will stop once there is no hand left to burn.

And this explains how drug problems solved themselves hundreds of years ago. Good thing we've all decided to stop doing debilitating drugs after seeing the consequences of addition in the past!

So, if young people are unable to take responsibility for their actions, we will need to raise the age for maturity... I am sorry, adults are adults are adults. Either you make your own decisions or you don't.

Unironically the former. It's weird that we have at the same time reduced the legal age of adulthood, while simultaneously extended the actual period of adolescence and dependence for the average young person. It used to be a century ago, that you started working for a wage at 14 and didn't get legal independence until 21. Now you get legal independence at 18 but might be in full time education until you are 25 (with a masters).

Yah my mum was helping out with the family business around age 5. It's kind of crazy to think how quickly its swung from having that kind of responsibility thrust on you from so young to now where people in their mid 20s may still be in their "incubatory" period

> If you sell your body

That's how all labor works.

It doesn't matter whether I write a module in Fortran, fold laundry or sell a kidney on the black market. It's all morally equivalent!

Selling a kidney is less like labour than two.

Historically, many of societies' "norms" have been hateful, vile and narrowly targeted. There is a thousand years of history showing us that we are better off challenging norms than adhering to them.

> If you sell your body, most societies will punish you.

No, if you sell sex, lots of societies will punish you. Selling or renting your body otherwise -- which a very large share of jobs involve just as much as sex work does -- is otherwise lauded.

> Thats fine, societies have all sorts of norms we all need to learn.

Lots of norms that societies have or historically would be better eliminated. That something is an existing norm isn't an argument in favor of it being a norm.

That issue exists in the context of all other novel "social media" careers as well.

not to the extent of having a video published where you have sex - to put it mildly.

Yeah but having sex on tape isn't something special or shameful.

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?

Blippie the children’s show star has somehow come out unscathed after literally shitting on his friend while doing a Harlem Shake video. I’m not really sure how. I tell every parent I meet who mentions Blippi but it’s like trying to stop a river from flowing.

Really?! I think putting rockets on youtube is a pretty far stretch from being a naive onlyfans creator…

With the mainstreaming of feminism, that kind of social stigma is rapidly going away. The whole idea that women have to maintain 'purity' is no longer acceptable in today's world, and that's a good thing.

And it's not just that it's no longer acceptable (as a normative declaration), people just stopped caring. At least in a bubble that's large enough so you can lead a comfortable life without any serious ramifications.

Really? Would you go for a relationship with an ex-OF-girl? Because feminism told you so? Or you sincerly dont care?

Wait, you would seriously hold that against a potential mate if they were open about it and honest about their motivations?

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 willing to put in the effort to deal with it. A former heavy drug abuser who sought out some form of treatment or has largely healed is a fine partner. A partner who is still sneaking out and stealing to get their fix is much less so.

It's really really easy to just not hold someone's past against them too hard if they are demonstrably a better person currently.

Elephant in the room is STIs

> 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.

Er, yes. Without a question. Would you date an ex-prostitue?

As long as she matched with me on a personal, intellectual, and moral level, and is a good match in general, sure. I would like to understand her motivations for doing so of course, but that's what dating is all about.

Besides, if some other hypothetical perfect match told me she still went to church until her 25th and actually believed all that stuff I wouldn't dismiss her outright either for doing something so silly, but similarly seek to understand her first.

How would you even know if somebody you like had engaged in transactional sex before?

He admitted it in an attempt to get me back.

If we connected, why not? I guess I'd make sure we both had clean sti panels before engaging in sex, but I'd do that with any partner.

"They used their dick or vagina to make money" is not any different to me than "they used their brain or hands to make money".

Thats a fine opinion, and I fully agree with you.

However its slightly different to the discussed point here, which is that people who use their dick or vagina to make money publicly can later have that used against them.

Theres nothing wrong with dating a sex worker, but when you want to make them a wife and have children, there becomes a risk that some crazy drug addict is going to spot them in the future and do something. Mabye they are going to call out to your wife while she is dropping the kids off at school. Maybe they will be a bit more sinister and threaten to send old OF videos to your kids ands kids teachers email address unless you give them some money, or do it again etc.

These are of course hypotheticals, but they have happened in the past and it is a risk, however small, of having an ex sex worker as a life partner.

It can only be used against you if people think it can be used against you.

Like, imagine a world where we said, " you flipped burgers in college? Eww gross, you've robbed your life!"

It sounds absurd because we've collectively decided one of those jobs is good and one is bad. We can collectively decide they are both fine, actually.

Also, if you're that model includes "random drug addict who is aware of my wife's porn career notices my wife, then chooses to act on it" I think your threat model may need revising. Yes, I'm sure that happens hundreds of times a year in the US. Driving a car to school seems statistically MUCH more dangerous.

The fact that you think her giving her intimate self away to thousands of thirsty simps isn't going to have an impact on your future together is charming.

Have some pride and self respect.

I would. I have a different relation to sexuality and intimacy. Never say never to love, but it certainly wouldn't help.

I would be in a relationship even with a current OF-girl. Not because "feminism told me so", but because I don't see anything wrong with it.

Would you not have a relationship with someone you like and likes you back? Because patriarchy told you so?

Patriarchy explicitly tells us so.

> Would you not have a relationship with someone you like and likes you back?

For a lot of men the knowledge of the OF carrier kills the attraction that they had. Just like some women lose attraction when they learn that you subscribe to OF content.

> Just like some women lose attraction when they learn that you subscribe to OF content.

Well said.

Are you the kind of creeps that ask their partners how many relation they had before you?

What's wrong with asking that? I thought it's all about people being open.

being open about your own past != having to know/ask everything about your partner's past

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.

If you regard it as unsolicited information, you seem to put a judgement on it yourself. Perhaps more than the people who would just like to know. Not a requirement but it would also no be unusual in a relationship.

By unsolicited information, I mean it is normal to be open and comfortable speaking about your past sex life regardless if you partner asked to know about it. But specifically be curious and intrusive about your partner's past is different.

Bottom line: this kind of information might come naturally without someone having to ask for it and in that context it is totally fine.

Sorry english is not my native language so maybe I am not making it clear enough.

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.

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.

Eww, asking your prospective partners about their personal history? That's like so creepy!!

If the number of ex or sexual intercourses is the one of the first questions you ask when you are in the "prospective" state, yes that is creepy. And a huge warning sign that you are probably a toxic person.

I don't care about ex partners. I'd rather know if my sexuality is compatible with that person and if that person is comfortable/confident with their sexual life.

You added "one of the first questions" to make your position seem less insane, Lmao.

Nobody's first question is "have you ever been a porn star" but it's going to come up eventually and, whether or not you care it will definitely be a deal breaker for many.

Your comment above was mentionning "prospective partner", so it implies happening during the early stages of a relationship.

Or I don't know, maybe in your culture you have to wait months / years before considering a partner someone you are dating regularly / spending a significant part of your life with.

Knowing somebody before being in a relationship with them is anything but unusual. Even if you start dating somebody you never knew before you still get to know each other before making any sort of commitment. Keep coping though.

Coping with what?

He's coping with having made a fool of himself with absurd simpism.

It is like asking for your surname. Way too personal!

I'd never seriously date someone if we couldn't be totally open and honest about our sexual histories and desires, etc. I think you're referring to a specific motivation some people have about wanting to know such information that is based on shame/insecurity/prudishness. Don't discount that some people want to share these things with their partner because it creates more intimacy and/or is hot.

sharing != asking

Of course I'll ask once we've achieved an appropriate level of intimacy to discuss such topics.

Are you one of those creeps who asks prospective employers about their work history before hiring them?

She's a person, same as me. If we hit it off and are good for each other, who cares? Unclutch those pearls.

> She's a person, same as me.

That line of reasoning tends to break down pretty quickly. Unless you're truly special, there are probably people out there who've done something so awful that you wouldn't date them despite the fact that they're "a person, same as me".

You missed my point. A lot of guys act like it somehow taints someone for life or repeat all the redpill 'pair bonding' nonsense, and don't judge people on their own merits.

You're not picking out make and model of a car, you're building a relationship with another person.

I don't know what "redpill 'pair bonding'" means because I'm old, so it's possible that I misunderstood. That said, I don't think it's far-fetched to assume that someone who willingly engages in prostitution (as a seller or a buyer) has a somewhat cynical and transactional relationship with sex, and I understand why many people might not like that.

> redpill 'pair bonding' nonsense,

Lol wtf

Women are actually more likely to reject a man on account of working in porn, than men are to reject female porn actress. https://x.com/PaulaGhete/status/1832391170619490813

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, they are going to immediately have bias in any decisions that involve you. This is just a fact of life, and nothing to do with the gross reduction of 'women needing to be pure'.

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 another.

What are "related ideologies" of feminism?

By all accounts, JK Rowling hasn't suffered any negative consequence of her transphobia, she has even marketed it and is benefiting from it: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ink-Black-Heart-Robert-Galbraith-eb... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Troubled-Blood-Cormoran-Strike-5-eb...

And Harry Potter merchandising and derived works are still selling like pancakes.

Troubled Blood isn't marketing transphobia save in the mind of a reviewer with an axe to grind wrt Rowling's public statements.

The wikipedia page outlines the charge that it contains "pernicious anti-trans tropes" and continues:

    Nick Cohen, writing for The Spectator, argued that the transphobia accusations were baseless and slanderous, noting that Dennis Creed is investigated along with a dozen other suspects.

    He also stated that the book does not engage in the politics of women-only spaces and access to gender reassignment treatments.

    Alison Flood, writing for The Guardian, expressed similar views, arguing that people who have not read the book were making wrong assumptions based on a single review.

    Allan Massie, writing for The Scotsman, stated of the character of Creed that "there is no suggestion that he was transgender".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Blood

The point is not that these books include transphobia or not, the point is she chose to include transgender characters after all the drama on twitter relating to her likes and accounts she folllowed/supported.

She definitely used all that drama to sell books and benefited from it.

> the point is she chose to include transgender characters

Which character in Troubled Blood is transgender? Is there a transgender character in The Ink Black Heart ?

It's not Dennis Creed as I recall from my reading some time past, certainly not Edie Ledwell.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41536875

It's all under the same umbrella.

Is this non sequitur from a meconium account intended to convey a meaningful response, or is it a baby-bot randomly attaching nonsense to threads to establish a beachhead?

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 pro overall.)

It's fair to say that fearmongering about trans people isn't the central focus of the novel, but she obviously knew exactly what she was doing and why.

> 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 with bodies, fetishism, etc

None of these real life serial killers were trans gender, at least two cross dressed, and there are very few serial killers that lack a pathology.

There appears to be some in the world who will see a crime genre author write about a serial killer and immediately conclude that killer must be trans and some kind of transphobic stereotype.

I'm not one of those people.

FWiW I did vote for Leigh Varis-Beswick as mayor of Kalgoorlie but that was mainly due to her having some good ideas for change and having been a lifelong friend of my sister.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Williams_(criminal)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Brudos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_End_Murders

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/heavy-metal-heaven-20050828...

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

If JKR is your worst example of feminism, we're just fine. She's extremely wealthy, popular, and 100% not in jail.

>the right to express it - but for many people it's a criminal offense

No it wasn't. Even in the UK, a supposed hellscape of unfree speech, she only finally got into any trouble when she repeatedly told outright and trivially knowable lies about another person. There's no guarantee she loses that court case either, so she hasn't exactly faced any repercussions for her speech. Companies are still making boatloads of harry potter content and it still sells like hotcakes.

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.

> People discriminate because of religion, etc

Which is illegal in most places.

Only for certain protected activities like employment or housing, otherwise it's entirely legal to be a bigot.

Thats the whole point, that some people view promiscuity and sexualising ones self no differently to smelling bad, or wearing scruffy clothes, or having a negative attitude. Its just another trait which some people view dimly.

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.

These things you mentioned are all still looked on negatively by some people. My grandma curses 'bastards' and children 'out of wedlock'. People still lose out on jobs for having face and neck tattoos, its in the media regularly.

In exactly the same way as having an OF account, its up to the person doing these things to judge the consequences of whether they are happy with some people in the world looking down on them.

> These things you mentioned are all still looked on negatively by some people.

I don't know anyone who has been denied a job or an opportunity because of those issues. I also don't know anyone who has been denied an opportunity because they made adult content. Does it happen? Absolutley. Is it crippling to the point of ostracization? Not even close.

If anything, being able to filter out people who would look down on those attributes/experiences is increasingly becoming a net positive. I wouldn't wan to associate with someone who disparaged people because they have a piecing or like to take naked photos.

There was a big news story about this happening literally the other day

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/tiktok-tattooed-wom...

> Is it crippling to the point of ostracization?

Nobody is arguing that it is, I think you are taking this a bit too far. All anybody has said is that some people have a dim view of sex work, thats it, and its true. Stop trying to extrapolate and assume further than the point in question.

> being able to filter out people who would look down on those attributes/experiences is increasingly becoming a net positive

And there I was foolishly thinking we were all trying to move to a more tolerant and accepting world. Thats an incrdibly devisive opinion and is the basis for cancel culture. I for one would rather try to understand peoples opionins and discuss it with them rather than to 'filter them out'.

> I wouldn't wan to associate with someone who disparaged people because they have a piecing or like to take naked photos.

Then we are very different people. I will associate with anybody, and try to find the best in them along with some common ground to work on together.

Want a better world? You can only change peoples minds with kindness.

I don't know about you, but my life is too short to associate with troglodytes. Especially when there are so many amazing open-minded, open-hearted weirdos out there I can spend my days with.

No I dont consider myself so important that I am above interacting with anybody, nor do I think my opinions are better or more correct than anybody elses.

I think even if you were to spend your life just getting to know and educating 1 bigotted person so much so that they change they views just a little, that would be a life well spent.

> nor do I think my opinions are better or more correct than anybody elses.

Well, you should. If you don't, you should work on formulating more correct opinions that you believe in and can defend.

> Well, you should

Thanks for telling me what to do!

> you should work on formulating more correct opinions that you believe in and can defend.

No thanks, Im happy being open minded and willing to have good debates which can change either sides opinion. If you are not open to having your mind changed, you can not call yourself open minded.

Lets not let this devolve any further into a spat about opinion. Im not telling you yours is wrong, you can stop trying to tell me mine is now.

Why are the bigoted people so important that it's worth wasting a perfectly good life appealing to them?

Fuck em. Progress happens when a new idea achieves enough cultural cache that the expressing the backwards view becomes a fringe belief, worthy of ostracization. 30 years ago, gay marriage was a contentious issue. Today, it's sociopolitical suicide to oppose it. Before that it was women entering the workforce, or desegregation.

Because if everybody had the same attitude as that, this world would be a horrible place to exist.

History judges people on how they treat the people they disagree with.

> I don't know anyone who has been denied a job or an opportunity because of those issues.

How would they know? I suspect there's some selection bias at play here because it might not be legal to discriminate on this basis.

> (...) because they have a piecing or like to take naked photos.

That's a strawman. The discussion doesn't concern people who "like to take naked photos"; it concerns people who do it for money. Depending on your values, that can be a significant difference.

I was being mildly playful with my language, but I mean and intended to mean people who get naked for money. The difference is pretty minimal if you ask me.

Firing someone for having tattoos or having done sex work is completely legal in almost all US states. Generally speaking, the only things private employers can’t discriminate based on is things intrinsic to who the person is (race, sexuality, non-relevant disability), and religion. Past choices are completely legal to fire someone for, even if it has nothing to do with the job at hand.

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.

But there is some backslash against feminism in western world and there are communities where OF is (and always was) off the limits. Also I think that some parts of OF are at least debateable from feminist POV.

Self proclaimed feminists can be just as prudish as anyone else. Feminism is not a panacea. Some of them support sex work, some are strongly opposed

> the additional toll it will take on the creators in terms of social ostracism, future prospects, future opportunities, and mental health.

Is it such a big problem nowadays as it used to be? My impression is that society in general, and younger people in particular, have become more tolerant of such things; at least in Northern Europe.

I see discussions on Reddit periodically where it makes long term relationships complicated.

I’m an old married guy, but I can’t imagine dating and then finding out that the person you were involved with was doing that type of thing. In a friend group I wouldn’t even blink.

Based on the conversations I see, this seems to be a common experience.

Welcome to millennial reality, we don't begrudge anything non-harmful that people had to do to make ends meet.

I know too many people with masters degrees and student loans working food service to not think OF is smart if you can find your niche.

There are plenty of millennials who have conservative views about something, and don’t forget that the damage is done regardless of the motivation. From the perspective of the victim, it doesn’t matter whether the person who just sent their boss the link to their OF is a zealous right-wing Christian or an incel bitter about being turned down. Millennials are more accepting about sexuality on average but a double digit percentage of that large a cohort is millions of people.

I doubt any boss would open an onlyfans link and if they tried I'd expect the company firewall would block it.

I could imangine a boss getting links to those videos on some other site that looks innocent [perhaps at home] but the boss is unlikely to do anything as those are what you do in private. The only exception would be if you work for a church where such is not allowed - and even then if it is a much younger you, you can rebent of your past sins.

the above is about work. If you were trying to marry the guy (who presumably isn't your boss as an ethics) it would be different some guys would not accebt that.

>> From the perspective of the victim, it doesn’t matter whether the person who just sent their boss the link to their OF

> I doubt any boss would open an onlyfans link and if they tried I'd expect the company firewall would block it.

Attachments are a thing. If someone's trying to get someone harmed by outing them, I'm sure a good number of them would include an image directly in the email.

> I could imangine a boss getting links to those videos on some other site that looks innocent [perhaps at home] but the boss is unlikely to do anything as those are what you do in private. The only exception would be if you work for a church where such is not allowed - and even then if it is a much younger you, you can rebent of your past sins.

I really doubt that's the only exception, or even the biggest exception. At a minimum, I'd think OnlyFans would probably disqualify anyone from working with young kids and many positions where the employee represents the company to the public. I wouldn't be surprised if having an OnlyFans would be considered evidence of poor personal judgement, and exclude the performer from even more jobs.

You would be so very, very wrong. Try searching the news and you’ll find plenty of examples of employers who feel they should have a say in what employees do on their own time - that’s most commonly schools but far from exclusive: the most common justification is that this somehow reflects on their corporate image but some will use more overtly religious justifications, too. This is especially common as people climb the ladder, so someone might have a decision they made in college haunt them decades later.

The other thing to consider is that it’s not just whether you get fired but also whether it has other negative effects like creating a hostile workplace with “jokes” or having to fend off harassers who think you’re easy or will acquiesce as the price of silence.

The sad part is that most people seem to be happy when businesses fire people for things done on personal time - as long as the person doesn't agree with the thing in question. I remember when Mozilla fired Brendan Eich, a lot of my "liberal" friends were all for it. They didn't care the least bit that it set a dangerous precedent for businesses to fire people for being gay, or being a sex worker in the past, or whatever else. They just were happy that someone they didn't like was being punished, damn the potential for collateral damage.

There’s a bit of a difference when it’s a corporate officer, and the action in question is not their personal freedom but attempting to restrict other people’s freedoms, including many of the people who would report to them. Someone having an OF doesn’t impact anyone else but there’s at least a valid argument that Eich went beyond his personal freedom of speech when it came to materially contributing to the removal of rights from gay people.

I’m not saying there’s no room for disagreement there but simply that the two problems aren’t identical.

It's identical. The difference is where you stand on the reason.

Someone in this thread has pointed out that the it's only the actions considered unacceptable that have changed

Here’s why I don’t think they’re identical:

In the first case, someone is making decisions in their personal life which do not affect anyone else. They are not asking for special treatment, they are only asking that other people stay out of their private life. They also do not have any authority over other people and are not setting policies.

In the second case, someone is acting publicly to take away freedoms from other people even though their exercise of those freedoms had no impact on them personally. That person is also in a policy-making position over many affected people.

I think it’s reasonable to say that the two cases are different both due to the internal vs. external direction and the distinction and power differential.

You're speaking for all millennials?

Err.. count me out of this. I wouldn't deny a job for a former sex worker, but definitelly I wouldn't want to have any kind of personal relationship with one.

Could you explain why?

Sociopathic exploitation of simp psychology is not a positive character trait.

Feminism of course wants to keep sacrosanct the right of women to manipulate the male sex drive for any and all purposes with no consequences.

Feminism isn't a panacea. Some of them are viciously against porn and sex work

Human mind, good character, good heart... are all very fragile things, good one can be broken rather easily, a broken one can hardly ever be properly mended back without major cracks that keep coming back ie under stress or hardships.

Nothing is impossible and I talk about lets say rather about unprobable matters. If you want to take additional risks on top of usual risks with new relationships, be anyone's guests, but they are there.

Or maybe you don't care if you have a stable relationship (hardly ever the case but it happens), also fine. At the end, you can approach relationships as probability game, and folks normally want to tilt it in their favor.

That's fine for you (though I'd challenge you to ask yourself why), but younger generations and many in older generations like myself are realizing that sex work is just work. Bodies are just bodies. Relationships and past sexual history are in the past.

It's another flavor of bodily autonomy.

> sex work is just work. Bodies are just bodies. Relationships and past sexual history are in the past.

Emotions are just emotions. Might as well just stop with the whole "dating" thing and only use each other transactionally when we want kids. Or better yet, just don't reproduce, right?

Your words, I didn't say those things.

Yeah no. I would never be in a relationship with someone who did sex work in the past. I can easily be friends with a former (or even current) sex worker, but I can't stomach sharing the intimate parts of a romantic relationship with other people.

that's the thing, the more people do it the more it gets accepted. the same is happening with drugs for example.

And the more it is diluted by the sheer number of people involved in it.

All the data I keep seeing suggests drug use (including alcohol) is on the decline.

https://nida.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/2023/12/repor...

That's only young people.

It is worse here because it is competitive as well. People get incentivised to do things they normally wouldn't in order to please whatever algorithm is driving the content on the site. A race to the bottom.

In fact, it might be a great way to filter out narrow minded people / organizations you don't want to deal with anyway

What toll exactly do you expect people to have to pay? I've been naked on the internet for money. That content is still there. It has not impacted me adversely in any way, nor has it had a negative impact on the many women I know who have created adult content. If anything, for me it has been fun and liberating.

I think you're just projecting.

>What toll exactly do you expect people to have to pay?

That depends. Ask Erick Adame[0] about the toll being outed took on his life.

[0] https://www.advocate.com/media/erick-adame-weatherman-webcam...

Some jobs have more of those expectations. If you don't have to worry about them that just reflects your own advantageous position

That seems like a false claim - that "advantageous" jobs are less likely to care. I'd argue people seeking high-visibility, high-prestige jobs are more at risk from backlash about having made porn. But thanks for playing.

Well there is some wiggle room here, public school teachers have more of these types of expectations than software engineers. It isn't just high-visibility jobs

"Northern Europe". Yeah maybe within the White population that is shrinking. You people need to wake up up from this ultra-liberal crap unless you want your population to die off.

OTOH this is not the same as "VHS" porn of the past decades.

A few decades ago, there weren't that many "productions", performers were much fewer and some porn performers name were known by anyone, regardless if you had seen porn with them staring or not. A person getting out of the business and trying to make a new career would have a high chance of meeting people, especially men, in real life who might have seen at least one movie.

Nowadays pornhub and onlyfans are flooded by wannabee independent performers. Even the most addicted to porn can't possibly follow and keep track of more than a tiny subset of performers. So there is a good chance you can still have a career alongside it or switch from OF to a non sex related career easily.

> Even the most addicted to porn can't possibly follow and keep track of more than a tiny subset of performers. So there is a good chance you can still have a career alongside it or switch from OF to a non sex related career easily.

This is dangerously wrong coming at least a decade after there are entire communities devoted to unmasking performers’ real identities and multiple reverse image search tools exist as apparent businesses. That used to be a human-driven practice - I first heard about it coverage of the Chinese internet mobs from the perspective of victims of misidentification - but like everything else it’s reportedly adopting AI. Here’s a story which got a bit of discussion a few years back:

https://thenextweb.com/news/creepy-programmer-builds-ai-algo...

One of the big things to remember is that these systems don’t need to be perfect, or even close, to cause harm. Even if they were only 10% accurate, that’s still a lot of people living with the question of whether the person they just met knows or whether today is the day some nut sent those links to HR. You can’t rely on getting lost in the crowd any more.

That is assuming that the identification will be solely driven by random individuals. However, expect there to be, if there already aren't, professional services that will do that in an organized way e.g. somebody may hire them for building an online presence profile of a future spouse. With the advent of AI and scaling afforded by cloud, such initiatives will only get more effective.

The fact these tools and some creeps exist doesn't mean your actual coworkers in your career will use those to find you.

And more importantly, said creeps would be the one who would have an inappropriate behavior in the workplace regardless of the tools they have at their disposition.

It doesn’t guarantee it, no, but it does mean the odds are rapidly getting higher.

It’s also severely optimistic to think that the guy doing it will suffer the consequences: if you search the news, you’ll find plenty of examples of cases where someone thought they knew the attacker but wasn’t able to prove it. Moreover even if they could prove it and the attacker did suffer consequences, it won’t magically wipe everyone else’s memories.

> So there is a good chance you can still have a career alongside it or switch from OF to a non sex related career easily.

I have no comment on the morals and ethics but as far as modern technology goes; most if not all of OnlyFans finds its way to darkweb | pirate | hoarder megasites where there's always a few because-we-can obsessed techlords training facial recognition, gait recognition, and seeding AI generated VR porn engines, etc.

We can be certain that any woman with an OnlyFans portfolio will face that being dragged up later in their life if they are at all slightly public.

They do have the modern available hand wave explaination of "deepfake by weird ex" that becomes more and more believable each passing day.

> We can be certain that any woman with an OnlyFans portfolio will face that being dragged up later in their life if they are at all slightly public.

I fail to see how it would be limited to women with an OF portfolio and not any female with an instagram/tiktok/facebook/linkedin account? Deepfaking is an online abuse problem that can reach anyone who has a public photo online on the internet.

There are two things discussed in my comment.

\1 Real life identification via images posted online.

This can happen to anyone and more specifically it has a very high chance of happening to people who use OnlyFans and think they'll remain unknown - which runs counter to the opinion expressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41529846

     [ .. Nobody will know who you are .. ] So there is a good chance you can still have a career alongside it or switch from OF to a non sex related career easily.

\2 Deep faking is increasing in frequency and has yet to be countered.

This offers actual OnlyFans creators an "out" if they wish to have lives seperate to their OF persona's - they can claim anything dug up to be a deepfake (in the absence of any contrary metadata that's definitive).

It's also something that will plague anyone with images online; it's probable that in the future people will pay as little attention to photorealistic videos of Margaret Thatcher blowing Ronald Reagan as they do those of the girl next door getting filthy with a centaur.

Steps are being taken to counter deep fakes, those steps will likely fail to some degree.

Actually in modern times it could be blink of an eye of a search if someone wants to find and has the motivation. In some cases such a search result match/suggestion might as well be inadvertent. But easy nonetheless.

pimeyes.com does exactly this.

There must still be a substantial risk that someone would find out at some point? Once one person knows gossip spreads.

I would bet lot of producers and consumers live in different countries. A lot of online porn is produced in eastern europe and ex-USSR and societies there a lot less prude and religious compared to US. Some bullshit politicians might state otherwise, but US is far more conservative.

I would dare to disagree, and my source is meself as I'm from the region. You're mixing up social conservatism with protestantism apparently. For starters, Eastern Europe is quite a big thing. Some parts of it are very religious, and some completely not. But it's not the point: it's absolutely not OK on a mainstream level of society of probably all EE, and former USSR countries to earn on onlyfans. And FWIW being publicly known as a subscriber puts LOOSER over one's forehead

Similar to how job listings often ask for LinkedIn, I wonder how long until there is a field for OnlyFans or PornHub creator accounts. Dystopian and depraved, sounds perfect for this godless timeline.

> Nowadays pornhub and onlyfans are flooded by wannabee independent performers. Even the most addicted to porn can't possibly follow and keep track of more than a tiny subset of performers. So there is a good chance you can still have a career alongside it or switch from OF to a non sex related career easily.

Your model of "social ramifications" seems to assume no one ever talks to anyone else, which is dead wrong. So to see problems, the only thing that needs to happen is one person needs to see their porn out of maybe the 1000 people who could recognize the performer IRL, then a rumor starts and a significant fraction of the 1000 (and more people besides) find out. No fame required.

Then the problem can balloon if another person out of that 1000 is angry with the performer, and decides to dox them by creating a website or posting that explicitly outs them to anyone who searches their name on Google.

Then, on top of that, there's all the facial recognition tech that's floating around, which is basically a "go strait to jail, to not pass go" thing.

in most cases, i don't think the social ramifications to worry about are 'your family finds out' but rather 'obsessed fan won't stop calling you', 'companies decline to interview you for a non-porn job', 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)

> 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 often use the term 'mileage' (kilometraje) when they're talking about why they want to date virgins. they see you as a commodity to be consumed (the explicit analogy is comparing your vagina to a used car) and see your own sexual expression not as an opportunity for your flourishing but as degrading and damaging to you, since you are the good being consumed in the sexual encounter. this is the same conception of human sexual relations that underlies the rhetoric that prostitution is 'selling your body', rather than renting it like any other kind of hazardous physical labor, and that gives the name to the 'purity rings' worn by evangelical high school girls

this implies that, unless he's looking for a no-sex-until-marriage relationship (an honorable but tiny minority of such men), he's looking to exploit you, putting some mileage on your vagina, as he sees it. he's hoping you'll let him degrade your purity with his penis, if you aren't too used up already

of course, different people are different, and not everyone who has these hangups buys into this whole misogynistic ideology. but it's a real thing, and it's something that women have to be cautious of

the practical problems that result, even for non-former-sex-workers, are that guys like that are likely to have problems with the fact that you actually weren't a virgin when you started dating (unless you were, but that's also a tiny minority of all intimate relationships); if, god forbid, you get raped in the future, he might abandon you when you most need him, considering you to be 'damaged goods'; and he probably will feel entitled to cheat on you, since you're the good being consumed, and he's the consumer. in the best possible case, where he wants to be celibate until marriage and honestly monogamous afterwards, you're probably looking at a year or more of celibacy followed by marrying someone you might not have sexual chemistry with

> 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.

People say stuff like that, but I'm skeptical. It probably indicates more about "your friends and acquaintances" than mine.

> 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.

I don't think you can infer that from not wanting to date a former sex worker, and you seem to be fixated on a certain stereotype (which may be super common in Argentina, for all I know). Others may not want to date a former sex worker for other reasons, for instance because the choosing sex work indicates a willingness to use intimacy transactionally and to be manipulative (or at least insincere) as well as experience and habits of doing that.

> and to be manipulative

sex work seems to be anything but manipulative. It is rather blunt. Give me money and I will provide this service. Said service can be pretending acting like someone who actually love doing it for you or have feelings but this "acting" is not hidden.

If your issue is manipulative and insincere people, I would say the people you want to avoid are people working in politics, marketing, insurers or people reaching some level of management in general.

i do think sex work is more common in argentina than in other places i've lived. misogynists don't seem to be

i'm not just talking about a simple stereotype, though; i'm talking about a whole misogynistic ideology which is so widespread that you have to understand it in order to give any coherency to widely used phrases like 'sell your body' or 'purity ring'

i don't have any experience with prostitutes or camgirls as a client or social media manager or anything, so i can't really speak to their transactional use of intimacy and manipulativity, or lack thereof. they certainly seem sincere enough in the social interactions i've had with them, though hard to shock and rather unwilling to 'go along to get along' or to use euphemisms

intuitively i'd think that such a 'willingness to use intimacy transactionally and be manipulative' would tend to improve their earning potential, as with waitresses who are willing to flirt with clients, or psychologists whose work depends on clients trusting them with intimate emotional details, but many other factors seem like they'd come into play in all of these situations

> i'm not just talking about a simple stereotype, though; i'm talking about a whole misogynistic ideology which is so widespread that you have to understand it in order to give any coherency to widely used phrases like 'sell your body' or 'purity ring'

Honestly, it seems like you're conflating many different things (e.g. the "mileage" thing above, "purity rings," and the pejorative connotation of "sell your body") into a single artificial whole that doesn't actually exist as such. I'd grant the "mileage" thing is probably clearly a part of some "misogynistic ideology," but not the other two. The Wikipedia page on "purity rings" lists examples of male (now) celebrities who once wore them. The idea of "selling your body" being pejorative connects to the idea of commerce being corrupting (which is seen elsewhere, such at the concept of "selling out") and I don't think male prostitutes would be seen any more favorably than female ones.

you have some good points, and i appreciate the exchange

one clarification, though: i wasn't talking about the pejorative connotation of "selling your body", but rather the idea that a prostitution transaction amounts to a sale of a physical good (a body) rather than a rental of the good (and a sale of a service). to be coherent, this entails the premise that the sexual encounter leaves that good seriously and irreversibly damaged—and that the prostitute's client is not similarly damaged. indeed, a weak implication is that he benefits from the transaction

as for male prostitutes, part of the same meme-complex in many cultures is that being penetrated is what damages and degrades you; this is often bound up with ideas of male superiority, because the male role in vanilla penis-in-vagina intercourse is the role of the penetrator. in other cultural contexts, what's considered degrading is sex with men, who are of course almost always the clients of male prostitutes. but i agree that there is a lot of variation

there is also a lot of variation between people, and someone might be fertile ground for the 'purity ring' meme not because they feel that sex degrades women (or penetratees) but because it's just dirty and impure all around. this is the underlying metaphor for idioms like 'taint' (as a synonym for 'genitalia'), 'dirty joke', 'dirty old man', and so on. but you may be aware that boys wearing 'purity rings' is kind of a man-bites-dog phenomenon, rare enough to draw comment. the wikipedia article says that it became the 'focus of media attention' on the jonas brothers (the celebrities you mention)

someone who finds sex repulsive might be relationship material, but not for a conventional allosexual monogamous relationship. they could work well with an asexual partner or a polyamorous partner

It's always fascinating to see the working assumption that women are somehow indifferent to these issues. As though being a sex worker is fine as a man.

it's possible, we'll see. certainly the stigma is much less now than it was 40 years ago in the vhs age

also most of the camgirls i know in real life block access to people who live in the same country as they (and i) do; that greatly reduces the chance of awkward dialogues with long-distant uncles at the next family reunion

This is a topic I can speak on. I was a top male performer on one of the live sites about 10 years ago. I've went on to having a successful career in software, it helped me afford getting through college, I'm not sure I would have had the career I did without that help.

I think the odds of getting recognized were a bit lower for me being a male, my peak live viewership was a little over 1k viewers. A video of me also got reposted and featured on PornHub gay and was able to accumulate ~100k views before I was able to get it taken down. There are still plenty of videos around that I wasn't able to get taken down but the big sites like PornHub respect DMCA takedown requests.

Regarding getting recognized, I think you are somewhat right but it likely still happens. I had 2 people recognize me in person, only 1 found my real name because they recognized me at my college graduation. Nothing came of it besides them trying to add me on FaceBook. I think for girls they would be more likely to get recognized if they are successful because they get a lot more viewers.

I was lucky that nobody that did recognize me posted anywhere about what my real name is since that would be a way to find the videos of me when people search my real name. I think that is probably the biggest risk with performing is that if that association happens, it would probably be hard to wipe that association from the internet. One way out of it for women though is that they could take their spouses last name when they get married, their new name wouldn't be associated with the old porn name.

I have told people in my life about that past job. It had no impact on any of those relationships and never really came up again. So if it did come up again, I don't think it would have much impact on my life. In my mind, sex work is real work and those who do it should not be shamed for doing it.

The problem here is that ceratain members of our society think sexuality is immoral and that sex performers deserve ostracism.

The idea that someone shouldn't be hired for a job because they have/had an OF is puritanism plain and simple.

I expect that fewer people actually care about the "morality" and simply want to use morals as a weapon against women in the workplace.

This. This is the real social problem we should be fighting. SW should not impinge on career or social status.

As a hiring manager, if anything I'd want to consider sex performers as a green flag in a job history. Speaks to resourcefulness, social skills, courage and self confidence.

And your women in tech won’t be SWERFs

last two decades all the representation was sex worker exclusionary, fighting for a libidoless morph of the corporate world, talking over and on behalf of any women that thought or acted differently

glad that was temporary

booth babes and atmosphere models coming back soon

Not in a million years. Men’s sexuality is a bad, no good, evil, unethical thing.

All types of “objectification” have been deemed extremely unethical and immoral. Progressives think you’re a horrible person if you take part in any kind of beauty pageant or other activity which causes objectification.

You jest, but it’s easy to retort using their same phrasing

“that sounds gendered” and if it leads to them being unable to distinguish why it isn’t, then you get to call them sexist and they're out of your way and the company forever, you get to morph it to something more entertaining and libido inclusive

alternate path is to talk about the importance of consent, nonconsensual objectification is bad, every objectionable action is okay if its consensual

third path is to point out how they cant speak for the women involved, or how they neglected to elevate the voices of those most affected. many of which are very prideful of their work and are waiting for that kind of representation and allyship. the bonus here is that there likely are secret sex workers in your organization already, and they’ll reveal that to you after you use their even more progressive phrasing against the misandrist

> Progressives think you’re a horrible person if you take part in any kind of beauty pageant or other activity which causes objectification.

No, progressives in general don't. In fact, the assumption on which this attitude rests, that anything, particularly any clothing or activity of the target, causes objectification besides the choice of the objectifier is a conservative, victim-blaming viewpoint that is widely attacked by progressives.

thats what surprised me about the sf bay area’s “inclusion by exclusion” throughout last decade

there were some women that wanted to excise the presence of other women, because they (purportedly) felt that men didnt take them seriously after being around the other women. but thats a problem with the particular men?

it was masqueraded as progressive and was successful, they were the only women in tech representation and people didn't challenge the inconsistency

only if i can be a booth hunk

it’ll absolutely be the inclusive version

With some waxing and a tan I could probably swing this gig. Not sure it'd be worth the associated male attention though.

Id make sex work legally equal to other work.

Of course a consequence of that would be the engineering boss can ask the team to pole dance, and if they refuse they can be fired as easily as they could be for refusing to take out the trash.

Although intended to be a hyperbolic example, pole dancing isn't sex work and will likely achieve that kind of representation for other reasons

There's an inherent risk to hiring someone who has sexualized themselves. False allegations or true allegations are more likely to arise that put the employer in legal jeopardy.

It adds risk that another hire may not have.

In this day and age it won't matter much.

You can hire anyone and have them target of allegations from colleagues. Them having a higher social status won't really help, we're post #metoo and there has been way too many cases of well regarded people being predatory. Whether the employee had some arguable past jobs, you'll have to do due diligence and get to the bottom of it either way.

You say it won't matter much, but it does matter.

1: This is location specific. You should hide it if you ever want a decent job in a smaller town.

2: It is position specific. Many public jobs or jobs in childcare, teaching, or where the company relies on its appearance in the community will not hire someone with a history of sex work in whatever form it takes, and if you hid it to begin but the truth came out you will at best receive backlash for it and at worst be immediately fired (or fired as soon as the paperwork clears).

I have nothing against sex work in any form, but our society as a whole has a strong reaction to it and it will be at least 50 years before we get over that.

"sexualised themselves"

I would say there's a greater risk hiring sanctimonious prudes.

What is the risk you have in mind?

Pornography is exploitation of the biological male sex drive.

Are action or horror movies exploitation of the biological adrenaline drive? Every leisure activity is appealing to more than just hyper-rational thought.

Are action/horror movies addictive?

Entirely unironically I believe that that first line is the prime cause of crashing birthrate. Surely labor exploitation contributes substantially followed by urban over-population, but THAT has to be it.

Japan's actually got the least-worst birthrates among Far East, and everyone knows what it's best known for on the Internet.

If transactional sex becomes the norm, while amorous sex becomes scarce, there a few unwanted consequences for the whole society. A few examples: the access to reproduction for the poor is decreased, men in particular feeling unwanted, unable to find a partner and in general feeling uninvested in the common good, which inevitably leads to violence. Yes, it is extreme, but incels in the Western world are a thing and so are 30 million Chinese men who will not have a partner because there are fewer women in that generation.

This is why in general it is frowned upon by "certain members of society" as you call them.

It isn't that sex itself is immoral. Sex work has a lot of different forms

Some forms are a lot more taxing on both mental and physical health (plus STD risk). OF doesn't have this same level of risk but people mentally lump it all together

The morals are there for a reason, they just lack nuance

I agree, but it gets even worse than your individual impacts. All these, mostly women have now essentially made themselves vulnerable to blackmail both if their own feelings and views about things change, as well as if society/culture changes.

Beyond that, they are both now vulnerable to being pressed into service of unscrupulous criminal, as well as our current criminal government agencies, and they can also make themselves ineligible for many government related jobs outside of very specific roles, e.g., honey pots, femme fatale, etc. unless they are willing to expose their lurid past to partners, parents, and their community/social circles.

It is a little known idea that the government’s background investigations are more interested in whether you can be blackmailed and whether you are easily bribed (i.e., lack a moral or principled character) not what you actually did.

An example would be a woman who refused to tell her parents that she was picked up for shoplifting when she was younger, which her older brother, acting as her father to bail her out. She was denied a clearance in spite of being rather expert in her field, not because of what she did as a girl, but her inability to tell her parents out of cultural pressure, demonstrating that she could just as easily be pressured by anyone else.

Are these 18-22 y/o floozies going to want to come clean about their actions, even publicly, later in life when they have a career, children, a husband they snagged, and maybe want to run for some public office?

This is actually a national security threat on many levels, including for corporate espionage. “Hello Mrs Technical Manager of Corporate R&D, remember when you did OF in a past life you wanted to leave behind, it would be a shame if you didn’t tell us what you are working on and give us technical specs, and then somehow accidentally your old OF content coincidentally surfaced by being sent to all your coworkers and family members”.

It Is basically the Epstein operation on a lower level, larger scale, and future farming operation. It’s no coincidence that there are similarities between people involved with OF and the Epstein operation. The ramifications of this are massive national, social, and cultural security threats. And I say that based on modeling I’ve done but will leave out for the time being because it will distract from the overall issue.

Any healthy society would ban all OF type content immediately on national security threat grounds. And no, it is not free speech any more than giving secrets to hostile actors of any sort or level; state, corporate, or generally criminal. The only alternative would be to keep a public register of all people who have ever done pornography of any kind that anyone and everyone could look up. There should be no objections of course since it’s all fine, and it is being retained by bad actors anyways, so there is no reason it should not be public.

The only saving grace may very well be AI and its power to allow for obfuscation, i.e., there’s no telling what is or is not real anymore unless it is irl. See the end of the OP for reference examples.

> Any healthy society would ban all OF type content immediately on national security threat grounds

By this logic we should ban all extra marital relationships as well. Add to that mandatory DNA tests for all kids just in case.

People will do things in private that they do not want known. No amount of legislation will fix it.

I agree with what you are saying, and people should definitely be allowed to do whatever they like in private as long as it is legal and consentual.

That said, OF is not private, and that kind of negates your point.

Aren't some of the interactions on OF private chats? Kind of like sexting and caming? Let us say you limit it all to one on one private interactions, it still causes the same issues you mention.

Requiring mandatory DNA tests (I.e the anti France) would be amazing! Men shouldn’t be on the hook to raise kids which aren’t there’s, and the men who is the biological father should be required by the state to do their job.

Banning infidelity is another thing entierly, but DNA parental tests are the bomb.

Not enough people point out the connection between hacking the male libido and powerful forces operating in the shadows with an agenda.

Men get so stupid when they think with their member instead of their brain.

This is well known by your local spymaster, and all nerdy HN types should be extremely suspicious of beautiful women asking them questions. Femme fatales and honeypots are some of the lowest cost, easiest ways to get powerful, horny men to spill the beans on just about anything.

I mean, isn't that part of the game though? If you don't want to play then don't

Like the recent story about a woman who ran for congress in Virginia, and lost 48.7% to 50.7% after it came out that she'd made tons of (consensual, legal) porn videos with her husband and sold them online.

>With traditional adult entertainment, creators are aware of the social ramifications (e.g., social stigma, familial ostracism, difficulty dealing with the future, and so on)

I don't know why you say this, as it is laughably untrue. The porn industry has ALWAYS filled itself with very very young women who were assured (by liars) their family and friends and coworkers wouldn't see it, promised they wouldn't have to do certain things that they then get pressured and bullied into doing, and giving the women zero control over the produced media, how it is represented, how THEY are represented, and how it is portrayed to the audience.

There's an immense amount of regret and "I didn't know" in the industry.

If people are aware that more people are doing it surely the stigma is lessened as the practice is more normalized. For instance homosexuality is not a big deal now because it's seen as more common and therefore more normal. Certainly at high levels of revenue most people would consider it a financial success and a sign of status to be that beautiful.

I would find it very interesting if there was a study done on second order impacts of porn producers. I suspect the outcome would be the opposite of the assumed, as in I suspect the average creator has an above average outcome compare to others with similar demographic and social economic status.

I am reminded of the study done on the damaged goods hypothesis, which gave a negative on that hypothesis. Not only did porn actresses not have higher rate of childhood sexual abuse, but they rated higher than the average in terms of self-esteem, positive feelings, and social support. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23167939/)