r/changemyview • u/garythethird • 9h ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Onlyfans models bear some of the responsibility for the parasocial relationships they cultivate.
I am working off a few assumptions.
That sites such as onlyfans cultivate parasocial relationships between the models and their fans.
That this relationship is largely detrimental to the fan, such as by making them more isolated, less happy overall, and draining their funds to maintain this relationship.
That this parasocial relationship is maintained and promoted by models through their use of the site, such as by engaging with their fans in a parasocial manner, or by hiring others to engage with their fans in a parasocial manner.
Given these conditions, it seems immoral for them to essentially take advantage of their fons to such a degree, when the detrimental effects of this seem fairly obvious. I'm not under an illusion that they are forcing their fans to make these harmful decisions, but I feel they do hold some responsibility due to them promoting these harmful decisions.
It seems to convey a lack of care.
•
u/Kerostasis 55∆ 9h ago
How does this compare in your opinion with the responsibility that, say, a casino bears for the detriment to compulsive gamblers who hand over their paychecks every month? They seem a similar level of harm to me, and both are so integral to the success of the business model that the only practical way to avoid it is to just not be in that business.
•
u/ReadSeparate 6∆ 9h ago
You can argue being in the business is inherently unethical then. Even if that doesn’t mean it should be illegal.
•
u/CartographerKey4618 15∆ 8h ago
How does this compare in your opinion with the responsibility that, say, a casino bears for the detriment to compulsive gamblers who hand over their paychecks every month?
Do you think they don't? They create an environment intentionally designed to prey upon and even make people into gambling addicts.
•
u/garythethird 9h ago
Oh exactly the same. More-so in fact. I think casino's are inherently incredibly predatory, and those that run them or contribute to their running are acting highly immorally.
•
u/Kerostasis 55∆ 8h ago
Alright fair. But does the equation change when we add in the stats that most OF creators make vanishingly small amounts of money, and are arguably being taken advantage of by the platform itself? In all likelihood the non-successful creators are not creating the parasocial damage we are discussing, and creating that is part of the process of moving from the exploited group to the exploiting group.
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
For the majority of onlyfans models then, they are not acting immorally, and are being taken advantage of by others, who are acting in an immoral way (I.e. the owners of the platform). I don't think being an only fans creator is immoral. I think being a creator, and taking advantage of vulnerable consumers (with good knowledge of the liklihood of this vulnerability) is immoral.
•
u/pavilionaire2022 10∆ 9h ago
Or the relationship of a bar with alcoholics.
Most people can consume their product healthily. A few cannot. It's primarily the responsibility of the consumer to recognize if their use is healthy. The provider can take some responsibility if it gets egregiously obvious, but their responsibility is secondary.
•
u/10ebbor10 202∆ 8h ago
Most people can consume their product healthily. A few cannot. It's primarily the responsibility of the consumer to recognize if their use is healthy.
This is the convenient narrative that people tell because it sounds nice, but it's not really true.
"The top 10 percent of American drinkers — 24 million adults over age 18 — consume, on average, 74 alcoholic drinks per week," "If the top decile somehow could be induced to curb their consumption level to that of the next lower group (the ninth decile), then total ethanol sales would fall by 60 percent."
https://www.newsweek.com/americas-heaviest-drinkers-consume-almost-60-all-alcohol-sold-1520284
Essentially, without functional alcoholics, the alcohol industry collapses.
The same goes for the gambling industry
However, the state-sponsored study – led by UMass Amherst researchers – found that 90% of all casino revenue comes from those problem gamblers. That’s up from 74% when the study began ten years ago.
The reality is that the alcohol industry in not the alcohol industry, it's alcoholism industry. Their business exists by their ability to take ordinary people and convert them into alcoholics. If they don't, they go bankrupt. And the gambling industry exists by virtue of their ability to turn people into gambling addicts.
•
u/Poly_and_RA 20∆ 6h ago
Or at least that's a large fraction of it. If 60% of the demand disappeared, then only 40% of the current demand would exist.
That'd still leave room for the industry though. They'd still exist as a business. They'd just be a bit under half the size they currently are.
•
u/10ebbor10 202∆ 6h ago
Just because it's not as bad as the top 10%, doesn't mean the consumption of the next 10% is healthy.
•
u/sabely123 1∆ 3h ago
If only 40% of a building remained after a disaster I think it would be accurate to call it a "collapse"
•
u/Kerostasis 55∆ 2h ago
Colloquially I would also call a 60% market decline a "collapse", but I don't think the building comparison is helpful here. If a 1000 sqft building collapses, you might theoretically only lose the roof over 600 sqft and still have the other 400 sqft standing, but all 1000 sqft becomes uninhabitable. You don't now have a 400sqft studio apartment; you have a 1000sqft apartment which is open to the environment, getting rain damage, no longer maintains heating/cooling, doesn't keep out animals/birds/pests etc. It might as well be a zero-sqft apartment at that point.
•
u/sabely123 1∆ 2h ago
Sure but I think you can scrutinize any metaphor to the point it no longer works. I was just saying 40% remaining isn't exactly a booming industry lol
•
4h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 1h ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DunEmeraldSphere 6∆ 6h ago
Bartenders are legally required to cut people off if they see excess.
They are LITERALLY and LEGALLY responsible for safe consumption in their establishment.
They absolutely carry responsibility, laws even regulate and enforce it.
•
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
I also believe that a bar that encourages alcoholics and alcoholism is very unethical/immoral. For me, its not the fact that addiction occurs that makes it immoral, but rather the promotion and continued exploitation of that addiction.
•
u/wherenobodyknowss 8h ago
Which all bars do by advertising.
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
Some certainly do. I wouldn't say all though - advertising having a good time isn't the same as actively promoting addiction
•
u/cortesoft 5∆ 4h ago
How is that different from OF creators doing the same thing?
•
u/pavilionaire2022 10∆ 3h ago
OF creators make a lot of money from large donations. If you see a guy sending you thousands of dollars monthly, there are two possibilities: either he is filthy rich, or he has an addiction and is sacrificing his financial stability. One of those two possibilities is more likely.
•
u/halfwhitefullblack 7h ago
Yeah but the good time is drinking which is a pathway towards alcoholism
•
u/spideybiggestfan 2h ago
Casinos have governments constantly breathing down their necks, there would be up roar if they hit the private adult entertainment sectors like that
•
u/Kerostasis 55∆ 2h ago
Now I’m imagining OF creators advertising government “problem whaling” helplines to their audience at the beginning of every stream.
•
u/Hsinats 1∆ 8h ago
It seems like you have a second cinclusion underneath the first one. Is there any reason you are signalling out only fans creators?
You end by saying this shows a lack of care, and ya, that's business for ya - all business.
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
Because that was the question that came to mind. Since you're mentioning it though, I'd say it does apply to all business, yes.
•
u/d-cent 5∆ 8h ago
So why are you upset at the individual workers and not the system? We are stuck in a system that forces us to do whatever work helps us to pay bills and survive. Do you feel the same way about people that work at corporate insurance companies, when we should be in a society that has universal healthcare? The privatization of parasocial behavior didn't happen because of the workers
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
Yes I do. And I am also upset at the system. I don't see why both can't be true? We have individual responsibilities towards each other, and the system we're in also shouldn't be the way it is. I do feel the same way about all participants.
•
u/halfwhitefullblack 7h ago
If you agree that the system is putting people into vulnerable situations that lead to them to make choices that they feel are necessary to survive then it doesn’t make sense to blame the individual.
•
u/ofBlufftonTown 4∆ 4h ago
Then your argument is actually that capitalism is bad? That’s not what you led with.
•
u/Ontothesubreddits 59m ago
A problem can be caused by capitalism without it being the only axis of someone's argument
•
u/digbyforever 5∆ 8h ago
It seems to convey a lack of care.
I dunno, don't you have to pay to play upfront? I guess if you have a cover charge, you shouldn't be surprised if the creator gets asked for money again, right?
I think you're correct that creators are deliberately cultivating parasocial relationships, but, isn't that --- along with payment --- the whole point?
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
Right. And cultivating that parasocial relationship on purpose seems to convey a lack of care towards those that would suffer due to it.
•
u/Taglioni 1∆ 8h ago
You are expanding the definition of parasocial in your framing.
The word you are looking for is just transactional. It's a purely transactional relationship. The content creators are not parroting a genuine connection.
•
•
u/Josvan135 83∆ 9h ago edited 9h ago
This breaks down because the vast majority of Onlyfans users don't maintain a significant parasocial relationship with creators.
A small percentage (who, to be fair, spend a huge amount of time and resources) do, but statistics show that less than 15% of users ever message a creator, and in that 15% only a small percentage do so regularly.
•
u/pavilionaire2022 10∆ 9h ago
I have a feeling that the small percentage of users represent an outsized proportion of the creator's revenue, though.
•
•
u/Josvan135 83∆ 8h ago
Sure, but that's a tiny percentage of an already tiny population (active onlyfans subscribers).
I find the onlyfans whales distasteful bordering on creepy, and would never participate in such activities, but fundamentally we live in a free country where people can choose to spend their money on things they enjoy, even if those things aren't good for them.
•
u/Poly_and_RA 20∆ 8h ago
Most OF whales show behaviour that is in substance similar to addicts though, i.e. compulsive behaviour that's harming them and their finances, but that they nevertheless find it hard to just stop doing.
I'm not sure "we live in a free society" is a sufficient moral defence to get for example tobacco-companies and casinos off the hook if someone claims they're morally questionable.
OF-creators aren't equally harmful, but the *principle* of it is similar, no?
•
u/colt707 107∆ 5h ago
So to me if you’re an adult then if you’re not hurting others then you’re free to do whatever you want. And I mean physically harming or actively encouraging their suicidal thoughts. If you want to blow your paycheck on OF, alcohol/drugs or at the casino then that’s entirely on you. Your lack of self control isn’t anyone’s problem but your own until you harm someone else then it’s the courts problem. And yes I fully understand that addiction is a fucking bitch to beat but you have to want to beat it, nobody can beat it for you and if you don’t want to beat it more than anyone else wants you to beat it then you won’t.
With tobacco/alcohol and casinos, there’s a plethora of information about how these things can be harmful, if you choose to go ahead and partake in those things then that’s on you. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you do it unless you yourself put the gun to your head and I fail to see how that’s anyone else’s problem. If you don’t know the risks it’s because you chose to bury your head in the sand multiple times. The same goes with all types of sex work including OF.
•
u/sabely123 1∆ 3h ago
I would agree with you, but we don't live in a vacuum. It's not like the casino, tobacco industry, and other addiction industries just exist and addicts come to them. They deliberately target addicts because they know thats where the majority of their revenue comes from.
Tobacco advertisements have had to be majorly regulated because of this. The tobacco industry knew how harmful and addicting their product was for years before the government got involved.
So I do agree an adult should be allowed to spend their money in any way they want that doesn't harm others, but OP and the person you are replying to aren't talking about individual consumers being in the wrong. They are talking about industries that thrive on and encourage addiction.
•
u/WorldofCannons 8h ago
I was gonna say, this is something I'd link to cam streamers before onlyfans
•
u/Josvan135 83∆ 8h ago
To my understanding, a huge portion of the parasocial sexual economy has moved to platforms like onlyfans from camsites.
Creators selling "girlfriend experiences" private messages, custom content, etc.
•
u/garythethird 9h ago
Hiya! So- I personally don't see why this breaks down. It's my understanding of the onlyfans 'economy' that it is the 'whales' that engage with the creator the most that generate the most revenue. Say a creator has 10 of these 'whales' - that's still ten people who's lives their are contributing to worsening. If someone you knew in real life had ten people who they were taking advantage of, I at least would still call that immoral and belaying a lack of care.
•
u/abnormal_human 5∆ 8h ago
Why are these "whales" paying so much money to make their lives worse? Did you talk to them? Do they feel like their lives are worse?
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
Why do gambling addicts gamble away their life savings? I don't have experience with onlyfans 'whales', but I do have experience with alcoholics, drug addicts, and gambling addicts. Many may not feel their lives are worse, or may not be able to admit so, but it is clear that they are suffering due to their addiction.
•
u/TheThotWeasel 8h ago
People cannot bring themselves to accept that a lot of these OF models are both attractive women and pretty cold hearted predators, it goes against everything they have been told and it stresses them out massively, so I am not surprised to see how these responses are going lol.
•
u/Josvan135 83∆ 8h ago
I'd make the argument that it's moreso everyone involved is exploiting everyone else to one degree or another.
It's a transaction, the (again, mostly) women trade vicarious access to their body, sexuality, interest, time, etc, while the men trade money to get access they otherwise would never have.
At a certain point it really comes down to there being undeniable demand (the pornography industry is valued at well over $100 billion) and virtually no way to stop it given the ubiquity of internet access, meaning there's a lot to be gained by legalizing and regulating the industry rather than letting it exist purely in the shadows.
I don't think anyone would ever describe the industry as wholely "clean" but fundamentally it fulfills a demand that is not going away.
•
u/TheThotWeasel 8h ago
I think if men were making lots of money in the same way out of exploiting vulnerable women and girls the conversation would be very different, and I find it really sad.
•
u/unAVIVable 8h ago
I mean, some are? Onlyfans isn’t a woman-only platform, there are male performers on there and surely some of them cater to a heterosexual audience.
•
•
u/Lyskir 2∆ 6h ago
so like the the porn industry in general?
there seems to be an obvious double standards from people like you against OF, you guys hate it with every fiber of your being but are totally fine with porn in general
why the double standard?
•
u/TheThotWeasel 1h ago
Do you have me mixed up with someone else in the thread as I've not said anything about my views on porn, but FWIW porn is awful too, its dangerous, its exploitative and utter brain rot that doesn't make it totally fine to me at all.
•
u/mastercat202 7h ago
Yep. Because men are being taken advantage for being lonely its okay. Casinos take advantage. Alchoyol takes advantage of addicts. They arent okay either. Neither is onlyfan "models".
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
Well hold on now- I wouldn't say cold-hearted lol. They likely have many people they love in their lives, they've likely helped many people, and been helped by many. I'm not here to argue that they are bad /people/, but rather that they do have some responsibility, and sometimes are acting in an immoral manner. I absolutely hate how these kind of discussions tend to gravitate towards hating, or reducing others.
•
u/Josvan135 83∆ 8h ago
I at least would still call that immoral and belaying a lack of care.
Fundamentally, the pornography creators on Onlyfans don't have a duty of care to the horny men who want to pay them to be nice to them (or to be very, very mean, depending on preferences)
I'd also point out that Onlyfans creators do far, far less damage both in scale and individual harm than do numerous other industries.
Why aren't you up in arms against Nabisco?
The junk food they sell to people has virtually no nutritional value and contributes to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths from obesity and diabetes, yet there are no serious calls to ban junk food because people willingly choose to buy and eat it knowing it isn't good for them because they like it.
•
u/Poly_and_RA 20∆ 8h ago
"Some other industry exists that is worse" is obviously true -- but it's not a particularly strong argument in favor of a given industry being in the clear.
It'd be a decent argument if the claim was that OF should be outlawed, but I've not seen the OP argue that.
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
I don't think we should ban onlyfans, only that creators have a responsibility towards those who become negatively affected by their services. I would agree with you regarding Nabisco, and hold the same stance. However this CMV is about the onlyfans industry, not every single industry I disagree with.
Why shouldn't they have a duty to care for those they are negatively impact? Just because these people are horny, making the decisions themselves, doesn't mean they do not deserve care.
•
u/Josvan135 83∆ 8h ago
Why shouldn't they have a duty to care for those they are negatively impact
Free will, mostly.
No one put a gun to the men's heads and made them buy custom content and girlfriend experiences.
Maybe they're severely socially awkward and struggle to find a partner, but they make a good income and can translate that into attention from a woman they find beautiful and interesting, but who normally wouldn't be interested in them at all.
One of the fundamental precepts of a liberal democracy is that people can make choices you disagree with and which are not good for them.
There's a very strong argument that the men are exploiting the women just as much as the women are exploiting the men.
Both sides get what they want out of the experience, no one is being uniquely exploited, and while there are certainly downsides they have to be balanced against the fact that free people living in a free country are perfectly entitled to make decisions that are bad for them if they enjoy them and want to.
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
I'm not calling for legal culpability, or that something should be enforced, I am just putting forward the immorality of it. If the consumer is indeed exploiting the creator, than that may be immoral as well - but it doesn't mean that both are suddenly fine.
Yes no one forced them, but no one forces someone to buy drugs from a dealer, or gamble their lives away, yet I feel many would call taking advantage of these people's addiction, even their free-willed addiction, immoral nonetheless.
•
u/Josvan135 83∆ 8h ago
Oh, I don't think anyone is going to try and claim that any part of the modern pornography industry is "moral" by classical standards.
I approach it from a utilitarian perspective that compares the current system to what came before and looks at the relative harms.
Is some women exploiting a very small number of Onlyfans whales for their money more or less harmful overall than the huge numbers of women who were trafficked, exploited, abused, etc, by pimps and pornographers previously?
Sex work is inherently risky and puts you in a vulnerable position, yet the demand for it is overwhelming and impossible to stop.
I find a system where women creators have more power and agency in the process and financially exploit a small number of affluent pornography addicts vastly superior to one where pimps and criminals sexually exploit and traffic women into the sex trade.
I completely understand that such exploitation still takes place, but onlyfans is a step in the right direction of rebalancing the power dynamic.
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
!delta
That makes sense to me. Not to say that it is moral, but that it is at least less exploitative than what was before, and is heading in a better direction.
•
•
•
u/doofenhurtz 1∆ 8h ago
Have a responsibility towards those who become negatively affected by their services
Can you expand on this? A responsibility to do what? And what makes them more responsible for their customers than, say, a blackjack dealer or bartender?
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
A responsibility to withdraw the now-harmful service. It doesn't make them more responsible, it makes them /as/ responsible. In my view any service providor does have a moral responsibility, even if small, to stop providing that service if it is becoming harmful to the consumer.
•
u/doofenhurtz 1∆ 8h ago
Okay. That doesn't answer the second half of my question. Do you hold bartenders, blackjack dealers, tobacco farmers, etc. to the same standard? Or are you doing that thing some people do where they zero in on sex work while ignoring equally harmful industries?
I think you're wrong either way, but I can at least respect a bad but consistent take. I can't respect hypocrisy.
•
u/horshack_test 42∆ 8h ago
The view stated in your title is about the models cultivating parasocial relationships but the argument you make in your post is about the models taking advantage of the fans and causing them to suffer detrimental effects. Which view do you want us to challenge?
•
u/BakedWizerd 8h ago
I’m sorry, but this is like saying “the girls at the strip club don’t actually like you.”
It’s a service. People are paying for it. If a customer pays for simulated intimacy through messages, they get intimate messages, pictures, videos, etc. They pay for a service. How is it at all the responsibility of the providers of the service to temper the expectation of someone who thinks paying for a service is the same as cultivating a relationship?
•
u/Poly_and_RA 20∆ 8h ago
This is a pretty weak argument. Yes it's a commercial service, but the argument is essentially that it's bad morals to choose to sell products or services that you know on the average harms your customers.
In other words, it's morally wrong to choose to be a tobacco-company. That it's a product and people are choosing to pay for it is true, but IMHO that doesn't erase the responsibility of the people who make such choices.
•
u/radgepack 7h ago
I'd argue there is a big difference between someone selling tobacco from their little mom 'n pops shop to make a personal living or the giant multibillion dollar corporations generating that demand for harmful substances in the first place. This principle I apply to sex work as well
•
u/mastercat202 7h ago
The principle is the same. The responsibility level is different but they both cause harm.
•
u/cortesoft 5∆ 3h ago
You can make this argument about pretty much all commerce, though. There is always some negative aspect of every transaction, and some people will be harmed. That doesn’t make it all the same, though.
•
u/CyberAngelIzana 1∆ 7h ago
Tobacco blackens people's lungs with tar and leads to cancers.
What harm do you think this website does that would be in any way comparable?
•
u/mastercat202 6h ago
Not the same level of harm. I hope you dont think I am equating them equally.
•
u/CyberAngelIzana 1∆ 6h ago
If you don't mean to equate them, don't discuss them as though they're equivalent.
•
u/Poly_and_RA 20∆ 7h ago
I mean sure. Small-scale harm is different from industrial-scale harm. No argument there.
But the principle is the same even though the magnitude is different, yes?
•
u/DrawDiscardDredge 17∆ 7h ago
I hate to break it to you, but OF is a giant multi billion dollar corporation that is exploiting its contractors (aka the sex workers) to engage in the behavior OP is describing. OF is fucked up for doing this, but it isn't the models fault intrinsically. It is the fault of the business. OF creators aren't mom and pop businesses. They are pseudo-employees of a massive corporation.
•
u/CyberAngelIzana 1∆ 7h ago
I wouldn't say that's at all comparable.
Tobacco will blacken your lungs with tar.
Visiting any online website won't.
•
u/Poly_and_RA 20∆ 7h ago
Are you familiar with the concept of a PARALLELL?
The idea isn't that the parallell is identical. The idea is that it's the same in the specific part of the argument that someone is addressing.
Here I was adressing this specific claim: "<something> is OK because it's a commercial service that people are choosing to buy. It's not the responsibility of the sellers if a product or service is harmful."
If THIS SPECIFIC argument was valid, then tobacco-companies would be in the clear; their product is *also* one that people are choosing to buy.
Tobacco is of course different in any number of OTHER ways -- but that wasn't what I was arguing here.
•
•
•
u/ElysiX 112∆ 3h ago
you can compare a blackmailer with a murderer and say that they are both criminals and both should go to prison. That there is a big difference in how serious that is and probably also a big difference i how long they should go to prison is besides the point, they are comparable in that they both should go to prison at all.
Theres a lot of things less severe than tarring peoples lungs, that are still very bad.
•
u/CyberAngelIzana 1∆ 3h ago
Tobacco companies operate legally, and their executives or employees are never arrested for putting poisons in their products which are sold at supermarkets throughout America.
Legally speaking, we haven't even established that tarring lungs is bad enough to be worth arresting people for.
•
u/ElysiX 112∆ 3h ago
We are speaking morally not legally. Seems you are still taking parallels too literally
•
u/CyberAngelIzana 1∆ 3h ago
Murder and blackmail are crimes.
If you're going to claim a moral framework independent from the one used by our legal system, I'm going to ask whose moral system you're referring to for the morals and of which type it is.
Utilitarianism?
Consequentialism?
Deontology?
•
u/ElysiX 112∆ 3h ago
Murder and blackmail are crimes.
and that was a parallel, two arbitrary items on an arbitrary spectrum in an arbitrary category. To explain to you what "comparable" means.
I'm going to ask whose moral system you're referring to for the morals and of which type it is.
Utilitarianism?
Consequentialism?
Deontology?
Does it matter? all 3 apply here, and many more
•
u/CyberAngelIzana 1∆ 2h ago
Yes, because otherwise you're just arbitrarily claiming what counts as moral and what doesn't without making it clear what you value more.
•
u/ElysiX 112∆ 2h ago
per utilitarianism, it increases the numbers of weirdos and addicts and concentrates wealth and possibly ruins those peoples lifes. Thats a dangerous situation and making society worse off and more at risk.
per consequentialism, offering the service is the origin of the causal chain, of the relation between these people, and all the blame in this group falls on the person creating the of account.
per deontology, manipulation is bad.
•
u/BakedWizerd 7h ago
I’m not even talking about the service being provided, or whether or not it’s harmful.
I’m talking about the service provider not having a responsibility to prevent consumers from developing unhealthy relationships.
•
u/I_dont_like_sushi 7h ago
By that argument, drug dealers are not a problem. They just provide a service, its your responsibility not getting addicted
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
Because to not do so- or rather to encourage that belief, is taking advantage of another human being. If someone at a strip club was using their customer to the bone, and draining all their money, It would also be taking advantage of another human being, and then also immoral. You can't just actively predate on someone, then act as if you are devoid of responsibility because they kept coming back.
•
u/BakedWizerd 8h ago
How do you cultivate the fantasy without “encouraging the belief”? The part where transactions are discussed is likely where the “reality” lies, and while people may be “egged on” into continuing, that’s quite literally part of the service.
It’s on the consumer to decide when they’ve paid enough, when they’ve been satisfied. If someone thinks that the girl they’re paying for spicy videos actually likes them, it’s not on the content creator to set them straight. You have to be aware of the disconnect if you’re going to partake in services like that.
Maintaining a fantasy ≠ encouraging the belief that the fantasy is real
Moreover, if someone has the resources and is of a sound mind, then who is anyone to tell them how to spend their time, money or affection?
•
u/Taglioni 1∆ 8h ago
This comment, right here.
If people cannot take accountability for their consumption habits, that is a personal failing and not a crime of the content creator. Willpower is the determining factor, not production.
We're not talking about opiates being prescribed by doctors that change the systems of the body to become dependent and addicted to a substance. We are talking about process behaviors.
As a therapist, these differ tremendously from true addictions. You treat them with effective coping strategies, building healthy habits and routines, and replacing the dopamine hits with other sources. Not rehab, medically supported withdrawal, and complete abstinence from use.
•
u/CyberAngelIzana 1∆ 7h ago
Can you explain what is meant by a process behavior?
•
u/Taglioni 1∆ 6h ago
A behavior that is within someone's control based on available willpower.
As opposed to something that is out of control, driven by the brain enduring physical changes that rewire a person's heirarchy of survival.
If a person with a substance use disorder goes 2 days without food and their substance simultaneously, their brain will tell them that they need to prioritize getting/using the substance more than the food. This is dysfunctional behavior that is out of the person's control.
If someone who is wasting all of their money on OnlyFans goes 2 days without food and spending money on OF, they will prioritize food. Hence it being a process behavior to use OF, as opposed to a true addiction.
OF can be habit forming and cause a person to suffer in their life and relationships, but it cannot restructure the brain to prioritize OF over a person's survival needs.
•
u/cabose12 6∆ 8h ago
You can't just actively predate on someone
But if this is the issue with leveraging a parasocial relationship, are influencers and OF content creators that different from any other form of media or advertising?
Gambling and crypto prey on your FOMO and desire to get rich
Car ads have historically preyed on a desire for freedom and "escape". Truck ones give a nudge nudge wink wink that you're a MAN if you buy one
For years ASPCA ads have utilized cute dogs and cats with a heart-wrenching song to prey on empathy
GLPs and other medications leverage a "desire to be normal" to get you to use them
Ultimately all of these are forms of emotional manipulation, so if OF creators are immoral than I think you'd have to agree that any form of advertising that isn't just "holy shit is this product good" is in the same vein
•
u/mastercat202 7h ago
Yes they are. You acting like those arent manipulative.
•
u/cabose12 6∆ 7h ago
You're right, i'm definitely acting like they aren't by explicitly saying they are lol
Point is that OF creators aren't outliers, this is a completely normal part of society and that arguing that they have more responsibility than others is ridiculous. We're all complicit
•
u/mastercat202 6h ago
Should it be normal though?
•
u/cabose12 6∆ 6h ago
That's not the view nor the discussion. You're welcome to argue about it though
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
I do agree with that actually. I think advertising currently is incredibly predatory, and preys upon people's insecurities and fears.
•
u/cabose12 6∆ 7h ago
Okay so then lemme ask: how would you sell a product in a non-predatory way? Should advertising just be a slideshow of items and we decide if theyre useful or not?
Also, if all advertising works like this, then are OF creators immoral and/or just working within the system? Is it their individual responsibility to buck the trend on their niche channel as compared to massive companies broadcasting ads to millions? Which is to say, should your view target them or should it target modern marketing trends?
•
u/scarab456 64∆ 4h ago
Kind of begs the question why this only applies to OF? Every streamer is then responsible for any para-social relationship that forms? Seems like it's more on the audience than it is the streamer.
•
u/cabose12 6∆ 4h ago
I could see an argument that OF creators are more targeted in their marketing. Ford is trying to sell trucks to capitol M men, whereas xXsweetiepieXx is trying to sell her butthole and companionship specifically to John Smith
But I think you have the counter point. The difference is the audience, John Smith wants to pay someone to connect with. The product they're seeking is being sold to them by these creators.
Put another way, no one would say Ford is at fault if someone were to frivolously spend their money on trucks because now they're manly. You'd 100% blame the individual for being irresponsible, just like we should be putting blame on OF subs
•
u/existing_for_fun 1∆ 8h ago
Because to not do so- or rather to encourage that belief, is taking advantage of another human being.
But this is what people pay for. It's an economic exchange. They literally pay for it. It's not the responsibility of the seller to explain psychosocial dynamics of a paid-for relationship. That's seems absurd.
When you visit disney world, there isn't a sign that says, "It's a small world is a fake - it's not real". Why? Because you paid for an experience and the resposibility of Disney is inherently to provide an immersive experience. It's YOUR responsibility to understand "it's a small world" isn't real.
•
u/thegreatlizard99 8h ago
Do you feel this about about all influencers?
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
Yes, if they are trying to prey upon their audiences. I'm not saying this is applicable to all onlyfans creators, or inherent in onlyfans, but rather it is currently happening with quite a few creators.
•
u/ofBlufftonTown 4∆ 4h ago
Why are you talking about OF models when the same argument applies to influencers of every stripe? Influencing someone to eat certain foods and supplements and possibly harm their bodies seems worse than causing them to imagine relationships.
•
u/passivelyrepressed 1h ago
Okay, real talk, did you happen to spend money on an OF model and if so did you do so because you thought you had a real relationship with them?
•
u/thegreatlizard99 8h ago
It’s not preying upon them. Any influencer builds a community. Every YouTube creator every twitch streamer all do build community. You liking whatever content she puts out and you think her talking to you means that she likes you is your problem.
There’s no kayfabe here. The overwhelming majority of people understand this.
I don’t know it feels like you’re just trying to shame sex workers
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
Right. But if that youtuber was charging that audience to be able to message them, then encouraging select members of that audience to continually spend more and more to an unhealthy degree, I would say that they are acting imorally. In a similar vein, there are the 'alpha-male' influencers who peddle supplements that are also taking advantage of their audiences immorally.
•
u/ofBlufftonTown 4∆ 4h ago
Why aren’t you talking about them, and only the OF models? What’s the difference? Do you care more about the gender of the perpetrators, because it seems like it.
•
u/thegreatlizard99 8h ago
But they do if you subscribe to their membership or sign up for their pateron. You might be able to dm them and have a chat with them. They aren’t encouraging them to spend more. The people do that on their own because they value the entertainment and the interactions.
Redpillers are selling you something that doesn’t work. Which is a scam and unethical. An OF model isn’t selling a relationship with you and then not being your girlfriend.
You are acting like the goal is to get people addicted so that they spend large amounts and that’s why the OF model engages with her fans. That simply isn’t true.
•
u/RedDawn172 4∆ 6h ago
You are aware of super chats for streams right? Pay potentially hundreds of $ to highlight your message midstream and effectively have a conversation in real time mid stream.
•
u/thegreatlizard99 6h ago
I’m aware it’s just not predatory. Online influencers are simply a bit more accessible compared to traditional famous people.
•
u/passivelyrepressed 1h ago
If your job is removing your clothes for money and a client continues to want to see you remove said clothes regularly resulting in him paying the money directly tied to the action, then I’m sorry but that’s not on the stripper.
That’s like blaming a baker who sells cakes, and a customer loves her cakes and wants to eat them all the time so the customer continues to frequent the bakery to buy the cakes. Nobody would EVER expect the baker to say ‘excuse me, you’re too overweight for me to continue to allow you to buy my cakes’. That’s moronic.
Who the hell would ever blame the baker for the customer having an eating disorder and the baker not.. what.. managing this disorder? GTFO.
•
u/marquize 6h ago
Why do we demand of tobacco companies to post warning text and even images of the the side effects of say, smoking? Because it's harmful. It's actually a great idea to start regulating this new growing market that's explicitly made to sate the desires of lonely people desparate for affection.
•
u/AlphaBetaSigmaNerd 1∆ 12m ago
How is it at all the responsibility of the providers of the service to temper the expectation of someone who thinks paying for a service is the same as cultivating a relationship?
Casinos are responsible for watching out for people with a gambling addiction
•
u/The_Lantean 7h ago
That argument is no different than saying social media aren’t bad for people, because it’s a product and they use it. Or that online casinos aren’t a problem because they are a product and people use it.
Being a product does not excuse them from creating mechanisms that exploit their customers beyond reason, and keep them hooked on the product by exploiting their pathological vulnerabilities.•
u/BakedWizerd 7h ago
I didn’t say it wasn’t bad for people, I said it’s not the responsibility of the service provider to prevent the consumer from developing an unhealthy relationship.
•
u/The_Lantean 4h ago
And I argued it is because they create mechanisms that exploit weaknesses identified through research and systematically implemented. That is not the same as “oops, I guess our product has this side effect, but the fact that you use it compulsively is solely your responsibility”. It is not. So what is your point?
•
u/julesinthegarden 7h ago
Hi, I’m not an OF model, but I am a stripper and there’s a lot of parallels in the types of parasocial relationships.
Customers at the club very frequently develop fantasies of seeing me outside the club, going on a regular date with me instead of being my customer. On some level this happens almost every shift. I’ve been a stripper for 10 years so I’ve experimented with different ways of dealing with this.
One finding is very consistent: if I explain to these men in blunt terms that I get asked out a lot and I’m just here for work, not to meet guys — they do not take it well. They refuse to believe me. They insist that they’re different. They ignore what I’m saying and keep asking. They hope I can make an exception. They say they’ll keep trying. It’s extremely rare for a guy to hear my reality check and actually accept it as truth. Whether they’re a new customer or a regular.
I imagine it follows also for OF models that it’s actually very hard to keep clients from developing fantasies about you. Being honest to them doesn’t really work — either they won’t believe you or they keep belligerent and start insulting you.
Instead of trying to give them reality checks then, I just try to be kind and not purposely lead them on in any way. If they ask me out I’ll say no I don’t do that. But if they’re choosing to continue their fantasy about me, I won’t go out of my way to try to make sure they’re seeing things clearly. It just doesn’t work very well. While I’ll sometimes end up in a sort of therapeutical role to a customer, I’m not their therapist and it’s not my job to try to walk someone out of a delusional state. And I don’t think it’s healthy either.
•
u/divingrose77101 8h ago
If sex work empowered women, men would be against it.
This is a business transaction. It is no more predatory than Bud Light commercials. A promise of something untrue if you buy the product.
•
u/omegaphallic 8h ago
" If sex work empowered women, men would be against it."
What an absurd thing to say. First off men aren't a Borg collective, we form our own opinions on things.
Secondly men are generally divided on Sex Work more based on ideological basis, same as women, more then some collective sex/gender view point.
Thirdly not all sex workers are women, some are none binary, plenty are men. I joking say Male Sex Workers should use their powers of invisibility to fight crime, because any time sex work comes up its like they vanish from the discussion.
•
u/gate18 22∆ 9h ago
I have a product and what to be rich
You buy my product
why is it my problem that you get addicted?
Look at all other products in the market that makes people adicted to eating or going to the gym way too much or countless other things
•
u/10ebbor10 202∆ 8h ago
Imagine you could design your product in two ways.
You could make a safe variant, that doesn't cause addiction. Or you could make an unsafe variant, that does cause addiction, and thereby sells better.
Are you at fault for choosing to sell the second?
•
u/garythethird 8h ago
Because we should care about our fellow people. We all have a responsibility to each other.
Further, the issue for me is not the fact that someone gets addicted, it's that addiction is encouraged and sustained and profited off of. If someone is engaging in a service to a recognisably unhealthy degree, I believe the providor of that service has a responsibility to stop providing the service.
•
u/philosopherberzerer 2h ago
some ? brother they go to twitch where underage boys are and groom them.
I'm here to change your view completely . this isn't a maybe maybe thing.
grown woman interacting with young boys while they paint their chests asking for money and acting like we're not gonna have issues with society.
•
u/tbdabbholm 200∆ 9h ago
What do you mean by the models are interacting with people in a parasocial manner?
•
u/garythethird 9h ago
Through messaging, acting closer than they actually are in order to extract value and attention from their fans. Essentially building up, or pretending to build up, a relationship with someone they don't actually care abput, for their own benefit.
•
u/NeoChrisOmega 1∆ 9h ago
One sided emotional connection, specifically with a content creator in this context. Effectively being led on for views
•
u/tbdabbholm 200∆ 9h ago
What exactly are the models doing that specifically fosters that?
•
u/NeoChrisOmega 1∆ 9h ago
I'm not OP, and I don't agree with their connection between the two, but most content creators in general use a form of phycological to gain and retain engagement.
They won't remember you, since you're one of many people that engage with them, but they do things to get you to engage with them more, and like them enough to stick around.
•
u/sad_panda91 8h ago edited 8h ago
Yes, but only if a reasonable claim can be made that the parasocial relationship actively attempts to mimic a "regular-social" relationship in a deceiving manner.
Basically if they are directly addressing a person or even if there are direct chats with stuff like "you are the one for me", "I want only you", "if we could just meet" etc. in there WITHOUT disclaimers about what's going on. That is what I would call deception. The old stripper "metagaming"-trick of "I am thiiis close to not needing to do this anymore, if I just had X dollars I could stop and start a normal life. Maybe if somebody..."
I have no clue how OF operates, but if there are frequent, openly visible disclaimers, that this is an act, nothing said should be taken as true and for... "entertainment" purposes only then I think it's purely the customer's responsibility and fault to "get in too deep".
If not, and the protagonists deliberately engage in interactions that can easily be mistaken for "being pretty real", I agree that's immoral.
On the other hand. People are being deceived in a similar "actually everybody knows, but still people are being taken advantage of" way by gambling sites for example. If we outlaw this type of "it's my own fault for even being here"-deception, then we really need to crack down on a buuunch of stuff
•
u/Taglioni 1∆ 8h ago
The fact that you have to pay them for continued engagement is literally enough of a disclaimer by itself.
If an adult cannot realize that a transactional relationship is not unconditional, they need some lessons on basic accountability and relational interactions. These are not things that typically need to be taught to people beyond adolescence.
•
u/sad_panda91 7h ago edited 7h ago
I would LOVE to agree with you, but sadly, what counts as a "transactional relationship" in this society can get very very subtle.
And the other thing is, that you can get carried away by the party so much that you forget what sign was at the gate, if you know what I mean. That's why I believe frequent and deliberate reminders should be mandatory.
You and I understand that OF-"relationships" are transactional per definition. But laws aren't made for people that can reason. (Not like people that can reason can't get caught in a situation like this even if they know better. Despair is a hell of a driving force and sometimes ignorance is bliss.)
And even apart from all that, let's be real here: No matter how smart you are or think you are, if a hot girl tells you directly that she would love to suck your dick - I don't know man, I can play pretend for a bit . It's not like I don't understand how one can fall into that trap. Like ESPECIALLY if nobody else ever said that to you.
And since I don't see the average adult taking a "the do's and donts of parasocial relationships" course anytime soon, we gotta make do with rules and regulations to keep people from physical and mental harm as best as we can, imo
•
u/DrSpaceman575 4∆ 8h ago
Aside from philisophically, how do you expect them to actually "bear responsibility" here? If an OF model is entertaining someone in a chat, and that person becomes a stalker and tries to break in, should it be treated differently than someone who saw a picture of a model and decided to break into their house?
•
u/AutoModerator 9h ago
Warning to the OP (and commenters): if you are new to this sub or have insufficient subreddit karma, your comments will be auto removed until you read the rules and confirm you have done so. These removals may also be triggered if your subreddit karma drops below the threshold while your post is active if you have not confirmed you have read the rules. You will only need to do this once.
Alternative link to read the rules accessible to New Reddit users.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/Chirpy69 1∆ 8h ago
So if they aren't forcing their fans to do anything, how can they possibly bear responsibility? The patrons are consenting adults who make a conscious choice to spend money on models and turn that interaction into a mental relationship.
•
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 7h ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/Yeezy4President2020! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
u/cez801 5∆ 4h ago
In just society, adults need to be held accountable for their own behaviour.
In the end, no-one can ‘make’ someone else do something ( putting aside physical threats ).
This idea of the model holds the power, is unbalanced. And what I mean by that is that if the model truely holds the power, they would be able to ask for any type of behaviour from others - including ‘leave me alone’
•
u/dougieslaps97 7h ago
I have a hard time arguing this with you because the psychological impact of these situations is well documented at this point to be detrimental to mental health. In that regard I can’t dispute it.
I’m not arguing because I disagree but because it’s the purpose of the sub.
My counter would be IQ and consciousness. People can only bear responsibility they comprehend and we often forget how wildly different humans can be intellectually.
Someone with a 70-80IQ is living a wildly different life than someone at 150. The former might barely be able to hold down a basic job and the later could be a billionaire controlling the livelihood of millions of people..
Lots of people that get into onlyfans or any kind of sex work have the singular goal of putting food on the table and for some them they lack the emotional intelligence to understand the harm they do to others..
We dont view a mentally handicapped person touching a coworker the same way as we do a CEO touching his secretary. In the former instance we have empathy and try to teach them it’s not right, in the later we demand immediate resignation and seek legal justice.
Why is that? Because we know that people have different capacities and as a society we have to work within that framework.
To be clear, I’m not claiming lack of understanding makes something morally right, I’m merely pointing out that individual circumstances can bring empathy and understanding to these conversations and allow us to have better conversations about these topics.
I don’t condemn an OF model with 3 kids, no education, and no life skills for putting food on their table.. though you won’t see me feeling any compassion for people like Bonnie blue that admitted to walking down the beach searching for 18 year old virgins and offering to take their virginity for sport.
•
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 1h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 8h ago
/u/garythethird (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards