Topic: Considering paying for porn but feel pathetic for doing so
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #114,280
There's a girl on Fansly (basically OnlyFans) whose content I really want to see and cannot find anywhere. I'm so close to paying for a subscription but I know as soon as I nut I will feel deep shame for wasting money on porn when there's plenty of good porn out there for free. Have any of you guys found yourselves in such a conundrum?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 23 minutes later[^] [v] #1,264,824
do you ever pay for books or a movie?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 51 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,828
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,830
If you pay for porn you deserve to be executed.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,833
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,834
OF is a scam, you’ll pay to get the OF but then they will charge for individual videos usually
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,838
@previous (D)
This one claims that subscribing gets you access to everything except a small number of "special" videos.
This one claims that subscribing gets you access to everything except a small number of "special" videos.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,849
Porn stars are humans who need to eat
boof joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 27 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,856
hey if the cash is trivial in the grand scheme of what you spend, then it's just another entertainment expense for something you like
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,858
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,861
@1,264,849 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Yes but she has 6000 followers. At $25/month to subscribe, minus the 20% that Fansly take, if only 3% of her followers subscribe (and it's probably a lot more than that) then she is already at 3x the national poverty level. I doubt running a Fansly account is a full time job so if she has another job I assume she is already doing quite well for herself and will not starve if I don't pay for her content.
@1,264,856 (boof)
Yeah it's just $25 and I would just get one month, download everything and cancel, so it's not like I'd be out much money. I just can't help but feel like that money would be better spent elsewhere.
Yes but she has 6000 followers. At $25/month to subscribe, minus the 20% that Fansly take, if only 3% of her followers subscribe (and it's probably a lot more than that) then she is already at 3x the national poverty level. I doubt running a Fansly account is a full time job so if she has another job I assume she is already doing quite well for herself and will not starve if I don't pay for her content.
@1,264,856 (boof)
Yeah it's just $25 and I would just get one month, download everything and cancel, so it's not like I'd be out much money. I just can't help but feel like that money would be better spent elsewhere.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,863
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 2 years ago, 36 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,864
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 27 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,869
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
It doesn't matter as far as it affecting me, just pointing out that no one in this scenario is going hungry.
It doesn't matter as far as it affecting me, just pointing out that no one in this scenario is going hungry.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,870
Dont pay for that shit. Make thots get jobs.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,871
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 26 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,874
Anonymous H double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,875
Anonymous H triple-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,876
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,877
@1,264,863 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Porn is a predatory industry that preys on lonely men and people who promote it are fucking scumbags.
Porn is a predatory industry that preys on lonely men and people who promote it are fucking scumbags.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,878
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 2 years ago, 29 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,879
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 45 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,881
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,883
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,884
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
What are you talking about? I'm strictly anti-porn, but even if I wasn't, I would go for free content.
What are you talking about? I'm strictly anti-porn, but even if I wasn't, I would go for free content.
Typical Porn consumer replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,887
Feels so good Baby...OH. GOD! YESS!! YEAHH!!UHHH OHHHHH AND I JUST SQUIRTED MY HOT SPUNK ALLLLLL OVER MY LIVING ROOM!! See you on the Weekend.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 16 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,894
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,901
Don't bother. Porn is terrible for the women who produce it and the men who consume it. It's not worth it.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 29 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,908
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
Depends on the kind of porn. If you watch amateur couples that are clearly both enjoying a healthy sex life, it's probably a net benefit for the viewers and performers. If you're watching some like 18 year old
crying as she gets railed up the ass by 9 dudes that's probably harder to justify as positive.
Depends on the kind of porn. If you watch amateur couples that are clearly both enjoying a healthy sex life, it's probably a net benefit for the viewers and performers. If you're watching some like 18 year old
crying as she gets railed up the ass by 9 dudes that's probably harder to justify as positive.
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,911
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> If you watch amateur couples that are clearly both enjoying a healthy sex life, it's probably a net benefit for the viewers and performers.
Depends. None of this happens in a vacuum. How are you viewing that? What platform? If it's PornHub, for example, you're actively contributing to a platform that openly displayed CSAM for years and refused to remove it. Same company, MindGeek, own RedTube and YouPorn and Brazzers and Reality Kings and myriad more.
Very few of these websites are decent. Even if you put aside the objectification and sexualisation of women that comes even from 'amateur' porn, how do you know it was filmed consensually? Amateur porn sounds nice on paper, but it's typically where there's a greater risk of a lack of consent. The appearance of enthusiastic consent on tape means nothing. You can't have any idea. OnlyFans is the typical reply but, again, who's behind this? There's something clearly morally wrong about women being 'forced' by economic circumstances, which is typical, into prostituting themselves.
Beyond that, men in their 20s and 30s are experiencing ED at an alarming rate. Porn-induced ED is becoming absurdly common. Nothing is good about porn. It's degenerate and bad and it's sad it's become a 'right-wing' thing to oppose it. Nothing is freeing or liberating about it. It's just sad. For all involved. It destroys people and relationships.
> If you watch amateur couples that are clearly both enjoying a healthy sex life, it's probably a net benefit for the viewers and performers.
Depends. None of this happens in a vacuum. How are you viewing that? What platform? If it's PornHub, for example, you're actively contributing to a platform that openly displayed CSAM for years and refused to remove it. Same company, MindGeek, own RedTube and YouPorn and Brazzers and Reality Kings and myriad more.
Very few of these websites are decent. Even if you put aside the objectification and sexualisation of women that comes even from 'amateur' porn, how do you know it was filmed consensually? Amateur porn sounds nice on paper, but it's typically where there's a greater risk of a lack of consent. The appearance of enthusiastic consent on tape means nothing. You can't have any idea. OnlyFans is the typical reply but, again, who's behind this? There's something clearly morally wrong about women being 'forced' by economic circumstances, which is typical, into prostituting themselves.
Beyond that, men in their 20s and 30s are experiencing ED at an alarming rate. Porn-induced ED is becoming absurdly common. Nothing is good about porn. It's degenerate and bad and it's sad it's become a 'right-wing' thing to oppose it. Nothing is freeing or liberating about it. It's just sad. For all involved. It destroys people and relationships.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 years ago, 46 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,914
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> Depends. None of this happens in a vacuum. How are you viewing that? What platform? If it's PornHub, for example, you're actively contributing to a platform that openly displayed CSAM for years and refused to remove it. Same company, MindGeek, own RedTube and YouPorn and Brazzers and Reality Kings and myriad more
I always run an adblocker so I am actually costing them money every time I use their site, which is the only way I'm "contributing".
> Even if you put aside the objectification and sexualisation of women that comes even from 'amateur' porn, how do you know it was filmed consensually?
I am not sexualizing the woman getting naked on camera. She is sexualizing herself. And I've seen porn that is not consensual and there's a pretty noticeable difference between that and the porn I watch. It's possible that some videos I watch aren't consensual but I'm not going to go into it with the assumption that all porn videos are rape videos unless proven otherwise, especially since there's no way to "prove" that anyway.
> There's something clearly morally wrong about women being 'forced' by economic circumstances, which is typical, into prostituting themselves.
They're not "prostituting themselves" if they are having sex with their spouse/partner on camera, and adult women making money selling feet pictures on Onlyfans are not uniformly victims of some kind of intolerable economic deprivatoin. If you want to talk about actual prostitution, i.e. women who stand on street corners at night and get in cars with strange men, yeah those people are basically always in some kind of abusive relationship with a boyfriend/"manager", and/or facing severe economic distress. But they live extremely different lives from women who decide that they can earn a lot more money selling a video of them riding a silicon dildo in their bedroom online than they can working as an office drone at GeneriCorp Inc.
> Porn-induced ED is becoming absurdly common. Nothing is good about porn. It's degenerate and bad and it's sad it's become a 'right-wing' thing to oppose it. Nothing is freeing or liberating about it. It's just sad. For all involved. It destroys people and relationships.
Have rates of ED gone up substantially over time in a way that is uniquely tied to porn? Rather than men being more willing to discuss it with their doctor, the prevalence of Cialis/Viagra ads on TV leading to more men to "ask their doctor if Cialis is right for you", the general aging population (ED becomes increasingly more common the older men get), etc. I've never seen evidence of that.
And FWIW this is classic 90s left wing radfem anti-porn stuff. Being anti-porn is not tied to any one ideological wing of politics. Lenin ordered the massacre of prostitutes, and he was hardly a politically conservative fellow.
> Depends. None of this happens in a vacuum. How are you viewing that? What platform? If it's PornHub, for example, you're actively contributing to a platform that openly displayed CSAM for years and refused to remove it. Same company, MindGeek, own RedTube and YouPorn and Brazzers and Reality Kings and myriad more
I always run an adblocker so I am actually costing them money every time I use their site, which is the only way I'm "contributing".
> Even if you put aside the objectification and sexualisation of women that comes even from 'amateur' porn, how do you know it was filmed consensually?
I am not sexualizing the woman getting naked on camera. She is sexualizing herself. And I've seen porn that is not consensual and there's a pretty noticeable difference between that and the porn I watch. It's possible that some videos I watch aren't consensual but I'm not going to go into it with the assumption that all porn videos are rape videos unless proven otherwise, especially since there's no way to "prove" that anyway.
> There's something clearly morally wrong about women being 'forced' by economic circumstances, which is typical, into prostituting themselves.
They're not "prostituting themselves" if they are having sex with their spouse/partner on camera, and adult women making money selling feet pictures on Onlyfans are not uniformly victims of some kind of intolerable economic deprivatoin. If you want to talk about actual prostitution, i.e. women who stand on street corners at night and get in cars with strange men, yeah those people are basically always in some kind of abusive relationship with a boyfriend/"manager", and/or facing severe economic distress. But they live extremely different lives from women who decide that they can earn a lot more money selling a video of them riding a silicon dildo in their bedroom online than they can working as an office drone at GeneriCorp Inc.
> Porn-induced ED is becoming absurdly common. Nothing is good about porn. It's degenerate and bad and it's sad it's become a 'right-wing' thing to oppose it. Nothing is freeing or liberating about it. It's just sad. For all involved. It destroys people and relationships.
Have rates of ED gone up substantially over time in a way that is uniquely tied to porn? Rather than men being more willing to discuss it with their doctor, the prevalence of Cialis/Viagra ads on TV leading to more men to "ask their doctor if Cialis is right for you", the general aging population (ED becomes increasingly more common the older men get), etc. I've never seen evidence of that.
And FWIW this is classic 90s left wing radfem anti-porn stuff. Being anti-porn is not tied to any one ideological wing of politics. Lenin ordered the massacre of prostitutes, and he was hardly a politically conservative fellow.
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 37 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,915
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I always run an adblocker so I am actually costing them money every time I use their site
This just isn't true. Websites sell themselves to advertisers in terms of total visits and engagement; even discounting clicks or impressions. The more visitors, the better. Every visit improves the website's standing in terms of total visits, perhaps SEO, internal engagement (as determined by analytics, even if blocked), overall views, etc. There is no way to 'harmlessly' visit websites.
> I am not sexualizing the woman getting naked on camera. She is sexualizing herself. And I've seen porn that is not consensual and there's a pretty noticeable difference between that and the porn I watch. It's possible that some videos I watch aren't consensual but I'm not going to go into it with the assumption that all porn videos are rape videos unless proven otherwise, especially since there's no way to "prove" that anyway.
Someone getting naked on camera means nothing. What is nonconsent 'supposed' to look like, sorry? Women don't have to clearly be in distress. They can be having a great time ostensibly and in reality it's an illusion. What if they revoke consent? How could you know? Plenty of 'amateur' videos are posted after the fact, and women then struggle immensely to have websites like PornHub take them down. This is very public. And beyond that - how could you EVER know what factors led them to produce what you're jacking off to? You can only make assumptions. PornHub deleted all of their amateur content, and it wasn't just because Mastercard, Visa, et al. gave them a telling off. Women were abused and had the content posted publicly for YEARS before anyone took action, after a longstanding campaign (look at Laila Mickelwait's work). That's the content you're consuming. You would've had no idea whatsoever. Rape victims don't have to look any particular way or another. You wouldn't know.
> Have rates of ED gone up substantially over time in a way that is uniquely tied to porn?
I believe so, yes. There's a decent amount of research. I can share links tomorrow if you'd like.
> And FWIW this is classic 90s left wing radfem anti-porn stuff.
They were as correct in the '90s as they are today. Except nowadays there's a legion of ostensibly 'lefty' men who line up to defend the abuse of women under some guise or the other, usually something along the lines of it being "empowering".
But typically you're called a RW prude or some such for saying maybe porn isn't good actually.
> I always run an adblocker so I am actually costing them money every time I use their site
This just isn't true. Websites sell themselves to advertisers in terms of total visits and engagement; even discounting clicks or impressions. The more visitors, the better. Every visit improves the website's standing in terms of total visits, perhaps SEO, internal engagement (as determined by analytics, even if blocked), overall views, etc. There is no way to 'harmlessly' visit websites.
> I am not sexualizing the woman getting naked on camera. She is sexualizing herself. And I've seen porn that is not consensual and there's a pretty noticeable difference between that and the porn I watch. It's possible that some videos I watch aren't consensual but I'm not going to go into it with the assumption that all porn videos are rape videos unless proven otherwise, especially since there's no way to "prove" that anyway.
Someone getting naked on camera means nothing. What is nonconsent 'supposed' to look like, sorry? Women don't have to clearly be in distress. They can be having a great time ostensibly and in reality it's an illusion. What if they revoke consent? How could you know? Plenty of 'amateur' videos are posted after the fact, and women then struggle immensely to have websites like PornHub take them down. This is very public. And beyond that - how could you EVER know what factors led them to produce what you're jacking off to? You can only make assumptions. PornHub deleted all of their amateur content, and it wasn't just because Mastercard, Visa, et al. gave them a telling off. Women were abused and had the content posted publicly for YEARS before anyone took action, after a longstanding campaign (look at Laila Mickelwait's work). That's the content you're consuming. You would've had no idea whatsoever. Rape victims don't have to look any particular way or another. You wouldn't know.
> Have rates of ED gone up substantially over time in a way that is uniquely tied to porn?
I believe so, yes. There's a decent amount of research. I can share links tomorrow if you'd like.
> And FWIW this is classic 90s left wing radfem anti-porn stuff.
They were as correct in the '90s as they are today. Except nowadays there's a legion of ostensibly 'lefty' men who line up to defend the abuse of women under some guise or the other, usually something along the lines of it being "empowering".
But typically you're called a RW prude or some such for saying maybe porn isn't good actually.
(Edited 10 minutes later.)
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 18 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,916
Have to say I'm with Tteh on this, and I'll repeat what I've said before on here: I have no idea how the likes of Rocco Siffredi and Pierre Woodman aren't in jail. They LITERALLY (I'm not misusing that frequently-misused word) filmed themselves raping clearly distressed women.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 2 years ago, 26 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,917
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 16 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,921
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,925
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,926
@1,264,915 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> There is no way to 'harmlessly' visit websites.
That's a fair point!
> What is nonconsent 'supposed' to look like, sorry? Women don't have to clearly be in distress. They can be having a great time ostensibly and in reality it's an illusion. What if they revoke consent? How could you know?
Right. I'm saying I don't watch videos where they are clearly in distress. For all other videos, some still are sexual abuse and some are totally consensual, and I pick the ones that seem not coerced the best of my knowledge. I have no way of knowing for 100% sure, the same way I don't know for 100% sure about anything. But to say that because I can't know that for 100% sure, it is just better to assume all of them are rape unless I can meet an impossible evidentiary burden of knowing the complete relationship history of the couple from the first time they met until today, and also the opinions of both parties about the filmed sexual encounter from the time of filming until right this very second in case one of them changed their mind at some point seems...like a standard no one applies to anything else in life ever.
> PornHub deleted all of their amateur content, and it wasn't just because Mastercard, Visa, et al. gave them a telling off. Women were abused and had the content posted publicly for YEARS before anyone took action, after a longstanding campaign (look at Laila Mickelwait's work). That's the content you're consuming. You would've had no idea whatsoever.
They did not delete all amateur content. They still have amateur and verified amateur tags with tens of thousands of videos. As far as I know they deleted all content from unverified users, which I 100% support. Looking at Laila's work, she seems to focus on minors or men who film unwitting women which is NOT the content I'm consuming, what the fuck. I don't watch videos if the woman isn't at least in her mid-20s and the women in the videos are always very clear it's being filmed. I've never heard lesbian MILF porn described as hidden camera pthc but maybe secretly that's what it's been all along?
> I believe so, yes. There's a decent amount of research. I can share links tomorrow if you'd like.
Thanks!
> They were as correct in the '90s as they are today. Except nowadays there's a legion of ostensibly 'lefty' men who line up to defend the abuse of women under some guise or the other, usually something along the lines of it being "empowering".
Meh, I'm sure for some women it is empowering as a way to rebel against growing up in a sexually conservative environment or something of that nature, but that's a relatively small subset. For most women who enjoy doing it, it's probably because it's some combination of fun and lucrative, not because it's some profound feminist statement against the patriarchy or nonsense like that.
> There is no way to 'harmlessly' visit websites.
That's a fair point!
> What is nonconsent 'supposed' to look like, sorry? Women don't have to clearly be in distress. They can be having a great time ostensibly and in reality it's an illusion. What if they revoke consent? How could you know?
Right. I'm saying I don't watch videos where they are clearly in distress. For all other videos, some still are sexual abuse and some are totally consensual, and I pick the ones that seem not coerced the best of my knowledge. I have no way of knowing for 100% sure, the same way I don't know for 100% sure about anything. But to say that because I can't know that for 100% sure, it is just better to assume all of them are rape unless I can meet an impossible evidentiary burden of knowing the complete relationship history of the couple from the first time they met until today, and also the opinions of both parties about the filmed sexual encounter from the time of filming until right this very second in case one of them changed their mind at some point seems...like a standard no one applies to anything else in life ever.
> PornHub deleted all of their amateur content, and it wasn't just because Mastercard, Visa, et al. gave them a telling off. Women were abused and had the content posted publicly for YEARS before anyone took action, after a longstanding campaign (look at Laila Mickelwait's work). That's the content you're consuming. You would've had no idea whatsoever.
They did not delete all amateur content. They still have amateur and verified amateur tags with tens of thousands of videos. As far as I know they deleted all content from unverified users, which I 100% support. Looking at Laila's work, she seems to focus on minors or men who film unwitting women which is NOT the content I'm consuming, what the fuck. I don't watch videos if the woman isn't at least in her mid-20s and the women in the videos are always very clear it's being filmed. I've never heard lesbian MILF porn described as hidden camera pthc but maybe secretly that's what it's been all along?
> I believe so, yes. There's a decent amount of research. I can share links tomorrow if you'd like.
Thanks!
> They were as correct in the '90s as they are today. Except nowadays there's a legion of ostensibly 'lefty' men who line up to defend the abuse of women under some guise or the other, usually something along the lines of it being "empowering".
Meh, I'm sure for some women it is empowering as a way to rebel against growing up in a sexually conservative environment or something of that nature, but that's a relatively small subset. For most women who enjoy doing it, it's probably because it's some combination of fun and lucrative, not because it's some profound feminist statement against the patriarchy or nonsense like that.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,929
@1,264,917 (H)
I'm not a virgin! I just think you can watch porn without inherently endorsing the rape and sexual abuse of women and girls.
@1,264,925 (L)
Lol I don't care if other people watch it or not. When I'm in a relationship I basically never watch it, and when I'm single I watch it probably an average amount. I'm not some whacked out porn freak.
I'm not a virgin! I just think you can watch porn without inherently endorsing the rape and sexual abuse of women and girls.
@1,264,925 (L)
Lol I don't care if other people watch it or not. When I'm in a relationship I basically never watch it, and when I'm single I watch it probably an average amount. I'm not some whacked out porn freak.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,264,931
@1,264,926 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Thank you! I will reply thoughtfully tomorrow after work when I am not sleepy as heck. <3
Thank you! I will reply thoughtfully tomorrow after work when I am not sleepy as heck. <3