zlacker

>>mef+(OP)
Not a moralistic take, but one issue that interests me is the second-order impacts associated with the long tail of producers in OF who do not make a career from it.

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), and there is a decent theoretical economic framework to measure that.

I am not sure if there's the same this new army of "civilians" joining OF, let alone the additional toll it will take on the creators in terms of social ostracism, future prospects, future opportunities, and mental health.

>>braza+3yb
> 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.

>>kwhite+tJb
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.

>>bright+tLb
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.

>>Rhapso+7Mb
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.

>>acdha+NVb
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.

>>bluGil+Hac
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.

>>acdha+7xc
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.

>>bigstr+8Fc
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.

>>acdha+gGc
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

>>inemes+WQd
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.