It's hard for me to reply to your post without being insulting because I pretty much disagree with everything in it. Don't you think that a lot of what you posted is dickish in nature? I mean to say that in your eyes the best most porn performers can hope for is to be considered decent looking but definitely not an 8/10 on the looks scale is pretty insulting to them and the rest of us who don't share that view. The fact that you argue that IG models are better looking is ludicrous and counter to your previous statement since most porn performers are on IG. Is the platform those porn performers are one somehow bestow magical properties that make them look hotter or are you picking and choosing IG models that you find attractive and disregarding all the others. I also can't help but point out that most IG models will never do anything remotely close to porn. In fact I'd say partial nudity is likely the most these women will ever do so comparing them to porn performers is a waste of time.
Onlyfans is just twitter with good moderators for people that like being harassed. If they stuck with the original concept where mainstream celebs/models and social media models could use to replace playboy, adult industry people could make a side hustle, or they only place cam models can make content without it leaking easier than a wet tissue I'd probably respect it more but a Radom horse in a pasture some farmer takes a picture of once a week can make one so now it's nonsense and I've seen WAY too much potential on all aspects get flushed but for this forums sake we'll stick to porn. I'm just glad CJ Miles was able to jump through the thin opening she had left thanks to the site, but Shaden Rouge is probably slapping herself in her realtor outfit along with all the others who could have been the next big thing, hell Bell Daphne's (idc if I spelled it right I only have negative opinions of her so 🤐) could be a legitimate celeb but they all wasted their time on this site. It would probably be different if talent scouts used this site to their advantage but with with so many trash bags that flood the net no one would believe them or worse they would and P. Diddy would be that much more rich (too soon? 🤭🖕🏻) if you're going to do pornographic content just contact a studio and find out how you can get famous doing so, more important know the difference between pornography, nude modeling, and clothed modeling I.e bikinis are clothes don't let some fat ugly woman that makes me look like Megan Fox (I'm a bald dude with a beard) tell you differently. On that note Fuck all the social media platforms for amateur adult entertainers
I agree with John, actually, so I don't know how you can say "the fact that you argue that IG models are better looking is ludicrous" and your claim that his view is contradictory "since most porn performers are on IG" is uncharitable to his point. You know exactly what his point is, and it's a fair one.
Here's my tl;dr perspective that agrees with his. There are fewer hot pornstars because there are fewer women willing to do hardcore porn, so the pool of available women almost necessarily requires companies to take lesser attractive women who just happen to be willing to do hardcore porn. There are some absolutely beautiful women doing [or who have done] porn (imo, women like Lila Love, Ashlynn Brooke, Raina Rae). However, this isn't common. Tbh, I think John was being rather charitable, and I'd (respectfully) say that most women in porn are somewhere around a 6-7 who, with make up, become 8s and 9s. No shame in that; good for them.
Anyway, I'll never pay for an OnlyFans, but I will say the videos I have seen from OnlyFans accounts have gotten immensely better in the past 6-12 months, and there are both amateur and professional pornstars doing really high quality videos now. Or, let's maybe not so much "higher quality," but perhaps "more attractively produced." Just to give an example, I'd prefer an OnlyFans video of even two pornstars having amateur-like sex taken with a cell phone or high quality camera rather than a professionally done porn video with stupid fucking dialogue, scene changes, camera changes, overdone moaning, and cuts before the pop shot.
Blake Blossom,Crystal Chase,Leana Lovings,Ashlyn Peaks and Santana Ayo are all goddesses 1101 Posts 9/19
Posted - Mar 31 2024 : 4:17PM
There's more costs with OF if you're outside the US. Not only are you paying for the content, but your bank charges you fees every time you unlock content.
I suppose you can get around this by setting a budget of how much you want to spend every month and use your OF wallet, but it still adds up.
And therein lay the conundrum. Great performers end up not needing a "mainstream" site, even with its higher production values, to gain visibility. But a lesser performer who would rate a 6 or 7 on veridical's scale actually does need the production help to come off rating an 8 or 9. If we play out this story, it might explain the complaints on other threads about why certain sites appear to have only 6's and 7's in their performing companies.
I found a list of topics that are forbidden on OF. Things like pegging and piss play. You're not even supposed to use the words. I understand not allowing pissing in OF videos, because of concerns about credit card companies, but not allowing the words to be used in DMs makes no sense to me. Also, they appear to allow "squirting." And forbidding pegging? That's crazy, since they allow guy on girl anal and guy on guy anal; but not pegging? Anyone know more?
Does OF provide content creators with an AI chatbot to help create DMs? A lot of responses I get sound like they could have been automatically generated, and I doubt many of these creators are sitting by their computers waiting to interact with their subs. On a (somewhat) related subject, is there any way of finding out how many subs a creator has? You can see that on FB, but I don't know a way to find this information on OF.
Kind of confirms worst fears about what's going on with many accounts. I was already unimpressed by OF content quality and value, but after reading this, I'd be hesitant to spend a dime.
^ Very interesting, and confirms what I suspected. I asked one creator "Do you eat pussy?" and the response I got was "wdym?" You can tell from the girl's videos that she's American, a native English speaker, and would know what eating pussy means, so I suspect some chatter from another country.
What's going on is clearly fraud, as the article suggests, and the future is clearly A.I., regardless of what the chatters quoted here say.
I only subscribe to free accounts, and I never tip or purchase content. At least one content creator got so pushy that I unsubscribed from her account. Most try to get me to purchase something, but so far they engage even though I'm not spending anything. As suggested in this article, that may change and I may start to be ignored.
A lot of creators have a free site and also a VIP site that you have to pay for. And on the free site, they have content you have to pay to unlock, sometimes at a cost that is as much as a subscription to their VIP site. What gives?
Why doesn't OF provide a thumbnail or, better yet, a brief clip of the content its creators are offering for sale? Why would I pay upwards of $30 for who know how many minutes of what the creator claims is the content you've asked for?
[Link]
Ian_13 Deactivated User
29 Posts 6/23
Posted - May 21 2024 : 11:26AM
I admit, I treat it like a non-dating dating site, with the expectation that I'll never meet any of the women in person unless they feature dance in my area, I go to Exxxotica NJ (I've seen photos of the fans that go to them, and they're not exactly what I would call good looking), I somehow insanely hook up with them (which happened once!), or I do a collaboration with them (I surprisingly have 104 accounts subbed to my verified profile, and I upload solos at least once every month, in which I fantasize to photos taken with features). As for authenticity, I think a fair number of them are actually them, such as Jenna Foxx, Vanna, Maddy May, Aliya Brynn, Kali Roses, Angel Youngs, Lexi Lore, and Liv Revamped to name a few. I am limited in being able to tip, so I absolutely don't expect them to respond right away, but when they do, it's a nice feeling.
Yet another example of how shady OF is. I received identical DMs from two content providers soliciting tips for content. When I say identical, I mean word for word, including emojis. I reported them, for what that's worth. I don't expect OF to do anything, since they facilitate such conduct in pursuit of profit.
From reading this thread, my impression was that some OF models hired assistants to chat with viewers. That may be true in some cases though after listening to this, the speaker sounds like agencies hire the chatters and they might not even work directly for the models or have ever communicated with them.Edited by - Tessa on 5/22/2024 10:30:59 AM
The Wired story concludes by alluding to the prospects of a class-action lawsuit against OF, claiming it's essentially committing fraud. OF is being wise by casting itself as an impartial facilitator of transactions between independent operators, relying on the "safe harbor" provisions that protect Facebook and the-X-formerly-known-as-Twitter. Which means, if you want to pursue a legitimate fraud suit, you'd need to sue the creators, not the platform.
Still, I can't help but think of the parallels between this industry and professional wrestling. In the '80s, pro wrestling fans would pick fights with you to defend the premise that it's all real. Now, everyone knows it's a show, and that they can't use words like "sport" or "sports" or "sporting event" to describe it, and yet it's still at least as popular as it ever was, if not more so. I was thinking of all the OF subscribers who may know in their hearts, minds, and other organs, that they're not at all chatting with the creators they think they're addressing. . . and yet they'd be willing to continue, shelling out the cash, knowing it's all fake.
Here's the fly in that ointment: Along comes AI chatbots, which could conceivably do a better job of portraying the creators as any four-bucks-an-hour, human (or mostly human) "chatter." If we're assuming the "fan base" consists of the same people who know it's all fake, then they may be willing to continue their fantasies chatting with the bots and knowing they're doing so. But why not cut out the middleman in the process? Wouldn't these same, perfectly wise, fans be open to the idea of a chatbot that's personally tailored to their fantasies, that's been trained with the personal data and interests of their favorite stars or creators, and that would generate the same utterances and platitudes and JOI without tapping them for more cash every 20 minutes?
It's a compelling question: If I could train a chatbot to behave as, or portray, not necessarily a particular performer or creator but someone who acts and talks exactly the way I would expect that real person to act or talk, even if my perceptions are wildly inaccurate or disproportionate to reality, and if I'm under no delusions that it's not all artificial, then why wouldn't I just install that chatbot directly to my phone or desktop and skip all the "subscription" nonsense?
^If someone comes up with a free or reasonably priced chat bot, that would be a game changer. More complicated would be realistic AI photos and videos.
^^^ Certainly so. But if I (or more likely, if a developer) trained a chatbot to be "Jayden Jaymes" for me, I could come up with any fantasy character I wanted for who I think Jayden could be, even if I wasn't close. And I could let reality provide me with real pictures of the real Jayden. The AI would only need to fill in the blanks, not re-invent the wheel.
I don't know if the pro wrestling comparison really works. Leaving aside that by the 1980s only children and particularly dumb fans still believed that it's real athletic competition (you'd probably have to go back another 20 or 30 years for the era when it was truly a consensus belief), the allure of pro wrestling as a form of theatrical performance has always been the sports-like "you don't know what's going to happen" angle. That's why it survived full exposure as "fake" and the transition to an acknowledged "soap opera for men". By contrast, OnlyFans and all the other fake-interaction platforms (even going back to the days of phone sex hotlines and the like) thrive on telling people exactly what they want to hear. That's a very different target audience. I'm not convinced that this is a crowd that wants to have it thrown in their faces that it's all phony.
If there is a fraud lawsuit, who do they sue- the creators, the agencies, or both? I don't think they could sue OF since OF is just a platform where creators post content. OF issn't responsible for responding to DMs to the models, posting stories on the models pages, etc. If customers can sue for fraud, then can models also sue viewers for fraud or scams or whatever we call they go both ways (like if viewers try to trick models into sending them free pictures or videos or giving them free shows).Edited by - Tessa on 5/22/2024 6:01:03 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that OF is liable because they are facilitating fraud, since they have to know that fraud is taking place. Just as other platforms are liable if they are aware that people are using their platforms to commit crimes and do nothing about it.
Agreed. This argument turns on whether it's determined that OF knows that illegal activity -- fraud -- is happening on the site without consequence. FB/Twitter, for example, might "promote free speech," but if they know illegal acts are happening there and are doing nothing about it, then they can be held partially liable. If OF never penalizes/bans creators who are committing these fraudulent acts, then they similarly can be held as a liable party for the actions of their members.
^If the models run their pages or agencies do, how does OF know who's responding to their DM's or writing as them on their profile? How do they know whether the model is or somebody else? Even if a customer complains that somebody else is responding to DM's as if they're the model, how does OF confirm it? Can they be sued without them knowing who exactly is doing this? If they don't know, how can they do anything about it without being able to confirm? I haven't read their "Terms of Service," though they can include a statement in their saying that creators must be honest about who is writing content and responding to DMs and they (the creators) are responsible for this. Legally speaking, it may be in OF's best interest to include such a statement if they haven't already.
How do the content creators (models) connect with the third party agencies without OF's facilitation? How do they post on the creator's profile without OF's facilitation? If OF isn't involved, the creator would have to receive the DMs from the third party and post them themselves, which obviates a lot of the labor the creator is trying to avoid in the first place. Seems clear that OF is allowing third parties to post as the creators, which makes them complicit in the fraud.
[Link]
Lezzyist Deactivated User
Make Porn Erotic Again 1736 Posts 9/19
Posted - May 22 2024 : 11:29PM
There's nothing in the sign-up process that guarantees a user is going to chat with the actual onlyfans lady. Best thing to do is not engage in that garbage.
Support creators who have legitimate video stores.
^Many creators state or imply in their info section that they will chat or sext with their subs. Some go further and say things like "Only place you can chat directly with me."
"How do the content creators (models) connect with the third party agencies without OF's facilitation?" Easy. Third party agencies may advertise online and have their own websites. Or, models may learn of agencies from other content creators. In fact, this topic was discussed on a live cam models' platform I'm part of. Some cam models also do OF and have asked about agencies. Since you don't have to be a verified model to post on part of that site, agency representatives can post. There are various ways content creators can share info. with each other about agencies.
"How do they post on the creator's profile without OF's facilitation?" Another easy question. A model can give an assistant or agency their username and password.
"If OF isn't involved, the creator would have to receive the DMs from the third party and post them themselves..." No they don't for reasons explained above.
FWIW, I meant specifically the assumption that they're likely to fare similarly after being exposed as "fake".
[Link]
Lezzyist Deactivated User
Make Porn Erotic Again 1736 Posts 9/19
Posted - May 23 2024 : 2:37PM
^Of course they will faire similarly. Most dudes who bother to message on these platforms won't stop just because someone says it's a fat guy typing back. These guys can look at a video where literally nothing is happening to a performer as she screams comically, and believe she is cumming.
A very reasonable step would be for OF to require creators to stipulate whether or not they are personally responding to messages. Be transparent and honest.
The AI chatbot discussion as the ultimate endgame is interesting. Riley Reid is working on one, and I have to give her props for exploring new technology and being transparent about what it is.
Nowadays you have to be aware that the OF creators or adult performers could have an agency for the PMS. Because its unrealistic to respond so many messages and why they should spend time to read mostly weird messages . I think OF is only good if you want to order customs from specific performers. The ones who want to interract dunno, you will never know if you are talking with your fav star
True but you must admit that it would automatically affect their income. I doubt a single fan of an OF model would continue chatting with her if he knew that there was a high probability that instead of talking to his favorite girl. He was actually chatting with a man and worse had likely been doing so since day one. In fact I would argue that for many fans that discovery would be so shocking that they would stop following that OF model.
The entire OF business model as always been the antithesis of transparency. They promote and sell an illusion. They day you peek behind the curtain is the day you discover that the wizard was always an old man.
^I recently subscribed to a model (former Playboy Playmate of the Year) who is upfront that her account is managed by an assistant and that she does not personally respond to DMs.
I've stopped subbing to mainstream star accounts, as most times its recycled stuff they've shot in the past with a sprinkling of newer shoots, However, I've subbed more and more to latex fetish producer content. The stujff they produce I cant find on a website, be it outfits worn, type of scene shot (besides ReflectiveDesire there isn't many shooting the stuff i want to see.) live shows, etc.
plus, the performers there 90% of the time are running it themselves (Sometimes with partners that help with the content)
I wasn't a fan until recently when l discovered a local model l know has an OF account under another name. That's lead to finding out she does an assortment of other spicy stuff under that name too.
[Link]
Ian_13 Deactivated User
29 Posts 6/23
Posted - Jul 3 2024 : 10:11PM
I do think a lot of accounts are run by farm teams/management (Riley Reid, Savannah Bond, Karmen Karma, Cherie DeVille, Bella Rolland, and Madi Collins, to name a few), but OTOH, some are actually the ladies themselves, such as Teanna Trump, Adria Rae, Lexi Lore, and Haley Reed. I actually asked the last one why she subbed to me, and she replied "oohh that's because I find you interesting", which I really appreciated. Since then we've been talking quite a lot, and while she has been a little pushy at times, we've shared pet pics and the like, a lot of wholesome topics.
I was genuinely shocked the first time I tried OFs to discover subscribing doesn't get you access to the content, just the posts. I had an argument with a well known girl, as I felt performers were not making it clear what your subscription got you. It felt like a con to me. Her response was she was just here to get as much money off you as possible.
It's like having to pay to enter a store, but the store won't tell you whats inside.
I know not all performers rip off their fans in this way, but a lot do.
I just recently had an interaction with a very well known performer - top of the industry, huge name performer. I sent a message commenting on how I'd like to see her perform a big fetish of mine. She replayed "if you're paying I'm down", I asked about the price, which she quoted a ridiculous price, but I asked what all I get at the price point she quoted. She came back with "tip and find out" (first wtf) - to which I responded "I dont think it's unreasonable for me to ask what I get for that kind of money, I'm not unwilling to pay, just want to know what all I get" - and she came back with "I'm not going to do it, I just threw out a number thinking you wouldnt go for it". - what the total fuck is that shit about? Dont tell a potential customer that you're "down" for doing something only to immediately come back and say no after quoting a bullshit price. The chances of me spending a single cent on this performer is now ZERO! And yes I screen shotted that interaction and shared it with others so they wont get taken advantaged of.
Phoenix Marie. Which is disappointing as she is my fav. But as has been mentioned on here already, very doubtful it was her that I was chatting with, but still she authorizes the agency running her account to answer for her, so it reflects badly on her.
Chloe Temple Interview
Posted - Mar 26 2024 : 7:33PM
