That’s just a casino.

Degenerates would just add the biggest items to their cart and gamble for the chance at ‘free’ money

Question for you - what do you think produces the profit for IGN? Is it the quality of their content or just their branding?

Are they too big to fail? That no matter what content they put out it will continue to produce the same profit regardless of how good it is?

Do you believe that a contractor at lower salary and benefits armed with AI will be able to handle the 2-3x workload that current employees are doing at comparable competency?

Do you believe that IGN will also be backfill all these positions that suddenly opened up and provide training without suffering a noticeable dip in productivity?

If you believe all that then sure, these employees have little to no power. Let’s see if IGN shares this sentiment and, if they do, let’s see if it works out for them.

While your objectives are admirable, I can’t say I agree with the mindset.

You keep using that term that you’re “saving” these people. But what you’re really doing is trying to control these individuals by removing their options and removing their agency. You just don’t believe they can make their own choices or that their choice is ever really their own. Teenagers who already have a solid grasp of what OF is, then has up to 6 extra years or more of exposure and experience to the content creation sphere and then decide it is what they want to try? I’m not overly concerned about that.

We don’t have the “time” to save these individuals of today, but most of them don’t need your saving. Realistically you are talking about the subset of these individuals that are being exploited or forced into this against their will. But there is no magic button to exterminate exploitation completely. (Not saying people should not try) We are better served shaping the world in a way where those who choose to go into nontraditional work are not stigmatized or facing social consequences.

No one is suggesting a passive approach to fixing society. Getting involved locally. Voting. Protesting. These things are not passive. And yes we do have time. Who knows this conversation could agree very badly for one of us but history has shown life does on. Society does tend to grow more progressively even if growth is slow. But you know what? Growth and progress, by and large is not measured by the number of OF models we’re “saving”.

To your first and last point, I ask you this: do you believe the Patriarchal world we live in today is the same as the Patriarchal world from 100 years ago? 50 years ago? Even 25 years ago. I don’t believe so and that is due to the incremental progress we made.

Could it be better if we just tore it all down and installed some new system we don’t know about yet and have not agreed upon? Maybe. And it could also be much much worse. We have no way of knowing so while you are concerned about the end being near, you also correctly surmised there is no better known solution.

And yes I believe many enter as a way to make ends meet and not thinking they are going to be the next viral Model. So either they are delusional/unaware/see no other option.

And you realize this is not what the study is showing right? The study says that the teenagers have a “sophisticated” understanding of how OF works.

And yes I believe many enter as a way to make ends meet and not thinking they are going to be the next viral Model.

I mentioned this already but this does not square with your understanding that OF for most people do not pay enough to make ends meet. You can’t say there is a sizable number if OF models making a living and also acknowledge that point the top .5% or so actually make real money from the platform.

So for the vast majority of OF models, they would try it, find out it does not work for them, and exit. Their identity is mostly drowned out by the sheer numbers that exist. Is there still possible societal consequences should they get outed? Yes. BUT i argue that is more reason to change societal views through acceptance rather than promote existing Patriarchal standards in stopping them.

You ask a lot of questions regarding the data you neither have nor can correlate to “oppression”. You’re kind of just throwing it out there and saying it is.

One last point - the article says (emphasis by me)

"While some teens exposed discomfort with the sexual content associated with OnlyFans, others framed participation as a rational economic decision, especially for girls who might not pursue traditional education or employment

So the teens think it’s a viable economic plan for those who already were but planning to pursue traditional education or employment.

While it would obviously be better if those who are in this nontraditional bucket had even more options, i would prefer not to limit them more than they are already limited.

(Humanity has had some pretty low points recently but that was definitely after some highs. And as much as we would like it to be a straight shot up to utopia progress is generally more bumpy than that and it’s what makes achievements more satisfying. People probably felt the end of the world during WW2 but look how many highs came after)

I’m personally glad we are stepping back to a place of rational discussion. And to preface, i don’t mean for any criticism directed at you to be a personal attack but rather challenging the opinion you are holding.

To start off, yes I’ll agree that our society is designed and in service of the patriarchy. I wouldn’t agree to a blanket destruction of said system simply because you cannot guarantee any system that comes after it will be “better”. It’s easier (not that it is easy) and more pragmatic to change the parts we don’t like incrementally.

To that end, one of the ways to make OF modelling less destructive is to reprogram society to not shame women’s sexuality and to make it so the choice of OF modeling is not so consequential. This would be preferably than to remove a woman’s agency. Funny enough this would upend the patriarchy more than discourging women from expressing their sexuality. And please please note I am not suggesting you mean to literally take away women’s choice, nor am I suggesting teens be allowed to do this.

As for the choice itself, I think there are 2 other points.

1. it seems the study may be conflating teens saying they feel content creation is a viable future career to them saying they want to be OF models. In general content creators has been a top teen choice for a while now.

2. You should give the girls more credit as they seem to understand what OF modeling means. The entire article talks about how surprising it is that the teens understood in detail the aspects of OF. Here is an exerpt

Girls in particular recognized the tension between agency and coercion. Some said it was a personal choice, while others pointed out that financial need often makes the decision feel less than voluntary. A few even likened it to prostitution, questioning whether anyone truly chooses to sell intimate content if they are struggling economically. This tension echoed broader concerns in the literature about how the language of empowerment can mask deeper power imbalances.

Teens acknowledging that OF modeling is a viable career option does not necessarily mean they want to do it themselves.

Let me address one now point

Do you believe there would be more or less OF models if everyone’s basic needs were met?

This question suggests that OF models are being coerced or that it’s paying enough to cover basic needs.

Well i don’t believe you have the data on number of OF models being coerced into doing it and we do know and agree that 99% plus of OF models do not make much money, so it can’t be covering basic needs.

So from that, if we lived in a utopia with UBI and everyone could choose what they want to do, I don’t know for sure there would be a decrease in OF modeling. It would be the same as asking if I feel there would be a decrease in YouTube or twitch creators. There are a lot of content creators out there because there is a low barrier of entry. I imagine there will always be people wanting to try and eventually growing out of it. It’s not about basic needs. It’s a lottery ticket to economic mobility.

some of what you say may be true but it’s completely irrelevant to the number of OF models vs teachers.

some of what you are saying is neither true nor exists outside of your disney tinted view of the world.

Should a degree be less appealing to individuals on mass than showing your body online?

People who choose to show their body on onlyfans has no bearing on the appeal of a degree. Not only is your opinion prudish and outdated in our sex positive world, you are attempting to take away their agency through shame.

You have shown no proof that the same people aren’t interested in pursuing a degree or don’t have a degree. It’s not an either or.

There are a myriad of reasons for the teaching shortage and general state of education today. Wealth distribution should be better and the US needs to vastly improve their social safety nets.

None of that has to do with OnlyFans. Hell even if you magically fixed just about every one of those issues there would probably still be more OF models than teachers. And I’m sure you’d still find more ways to shout that society is dead.

A Degree should be valuable again. Not because it qualifies you for a job but it shows you put in work to learn something greater than yourself.

Btw, a degree is less valuable now because there are more of them. That’s a supply and demand problem.

A degree is only partially about “learning something greater than yourself”. That’s some romanticized version from books or movies or maybe for affluent white folks. No parents are putting their children in tens/hundreds of thousands in debt for the pursuit of greater learning.

It has always been about the return on investment from the degree in the way of better opportunities, with a splash of greater learning and finding yourself as an adult.

Anyway point being no need to blame OF for your cynical views of society.

I am aware. But it is not the norm. The point being is that OPs conclusion and logic train is deeply flawed. The numbers do not “prove” the downfall of society but rather simply that one “job” has a barrier to entry and the other does not.

Do OF models need a degree to start modeling?

8 weeks. Haha man that’s like a pipe dream.

I think PTO works kind of the same in most places? My point is you can’t really force an employee to take PTO and if they ignore their PTO policy that should be on them.

If a business closes down for Xmas new years, then you’re but really taking PTO right? Workplace is closed. If you force PTO to be taken and most of your staff dragged their feet or didn’t read their email, then essentially you’re unable to operate for the last month of every year

They have a responsibility to let you know, yes. And they have to actually let you take it. Beyond that should be personal responsibility.

Here are my expectations and how I normally experience pto policy at work.

• HR has in writing company PTO policy. When and how to apply, how many per year, rollover policy.
• HR provides friendly reminders in email to use it or lose it and the deadline is coming up.
• HR provides a decent software system that tracks your PTO balance and history and is easy enough to use to request time off
• HR reminds managers to approve PTO unless there is some issue in which case HR should help handle

If a company does the above then the employee has no one to blame if their days are lost.

Maybe unpopular but I’m not of the opinion that a business should babysit a grown adult and monitor their PTO and make them take it.

How do you even imagine it? Can you force someone to take their PTO at any time? Or only when they will absolutely lose it? (End of year)

So a company will lose how many days at the end of each year trying to force their staff to take days off?

Telling you to use it or lose it is essentially forcing you.

The missed pro tip: don’t believe everything you see on tv