Current Events > Bella Thorne scams her donators on OF, ruins it for other sex workers

(+) Yeah! (+)

there is nothing empowering about sex work whatsoever and it's a pretty bleak reflection of men

---

BudDupree48 posted...

Wait is this bella Thorne or the Bath water girl

The former.

---

Hexenherz posted...

This whole thing is fucking stupid then, why does anyone pay $200 for nude pictures of a single person, especially when those pictures are bound to pop up online in like a week if you just wait.

What is wrong with people

The people that actually paid for that bullshit are the real problem here

---

They're both plain white, one is just a South African white.

---

KlRBEH posted...

The people that actually paid for that bullshit are the real problem here

Just like a troll isn't the problem. Only his enablers.

---

KlRBEH posted...

Hexenherz posted...

This whole thing is fucking stupid then, why does anyone pay $200 for nude pictures of a single person, especially when those pictures are bound to pop up online in like a week if you just wait.

What is wrong with people

The people that actually paid for that bullshit are the real problem here

agreed
---

GregShmedley posted...

teepan95 posted...

Naaaah

OF is consensual (on the part of the woman). Objectification isn't.

It being consensual doesn't necessarily mean it is purely "consensual." These women are putting up a lot of adult content that will be out there forever; a lot of them may even get trapped in the "career." A lot of whom basically had no choice either from being unemployed or severely underpaid.

They may not be doing blow with some shady camera man in some studio apartment, but the psychological risks are still there.

I just don't see how this isn't self-objectification. 90% of the people paying them don't even think about them other than when their hand is in their pants.

Yes, there are risks. No one is saying there aren't. But they're choosing to take on these risks.

As for the last point, yes it's self-objectification. But that's the point, self-objectification. No one's forcing it upon them, they're choosing to do so themselves. There's agency.
---

Veggeta_MAX posted...

Just like a troll isn't the problem. Only his enablers.

Lmao yup

---

teepan95 posted...

As for the last point, yes it's self-objectification. But that's the point, self-objectification. No one's forcing it upon them, they're choosing to do so themselves. There's agency.

This is still detrimental to the empowerment movement no matter how you present it.
---

Going theory on why they changed the pending payment timeframe is because they don't actually have the money to pay her lmao.

That would explain why they didn't make it just a "going forward" thing and instead applied it retroactively (which doesn't sound it should be legal???)
---

pinky0926 posted...

"fucked over" seems a bit dramatic when some of these women (and the ones who have been hit by this) are pulling in the average annual salary in a week or two

Seems more accurate to me to say that this was always going to happen and the bubble finally burst.

There are always smaller content creators who get bent over by these sweeping changes, we've seen it on YouTube and it's likely a similar case here.

Bubble bursts are natural economic developments, like if guys collectively realized it was pointless give som random chick on a camera free money. This is just punitive fuckery.

Some celebrity abuses the platform, platform punishes the little guy to look like it's doing something. Every time.
---

$200 for pics of Bella Thorne swallowing a hot dog?

*clicks to find out more*

---

She said she is only doing what she is doing for a movie anyways.

---

I didn't know much about her before this. I feel like since this happened, I know even less about her.

---

GregShmedley posted...

Again, someone "choosing" doesn't necessarily mean it's a good choice or one made out of pure consent.

The argument was never about 'good' choices, but rather the right to choose and not have the choice made for you

GregShmedley posted...

Not sure you understand what self-objectification is.

Entirely possible
---

teepan95 posted...

GregShmedley posted...

teepan95 posted...

Naaaah

OF is consensual (on the part of the woman). Objectification isn't.

It being consensual doesn't necessarily mean it is purely "consensual." These women are putting up a lot of adult content that will be out there forever; a lot of them may even get trapped in the "career." A lot of whom basically had no choice either from being unemployed or severely underpaid.

They may not be doing blow with some shady camera man in some studio apartment, but the psychological risks are still there.

I just don't see how this isn't self-objectification. 90% of the people paying them don't even think about them other than when their hand is in their pants.

Yes, there are risks. No one is saying there aren't. But they're choosing to take on these risks.

As for the last point, yes it's self-objectification. But that's the point, self-objectification. No one's forcing it upon them, they're choosing to do so themselves. There's agency.

cool so we're agreed porn doesn't sexually objectify women now
---

Alexanaxela posted...

teepan95 posted...

GregShmedley posted...

teepan95 posted...

Naaaah

OF is consensual (on the part of the woman). Objectification isn't.

It being consensual doesn't necessarily mean it is purely "consensual." These women are putting up a lot of adult content that will be out there forever; a lot of them may even get trapped in the "career." A lot of whom basically had no choice either from being unemployed or severely underpaid.

They may not be doing blow with some shady camera man in some studio apartment, but the psychological risks are still there.

I just don't see how this isn't self-objectification. 90% of the people paying them don't even think about them other than when their hand is in their pants.

Yes, there are risks. No one is saying there aren't. But they're choosing to take on these risks.

As for the last point, yes it's self-objectification. But that's the point, self-objectification. No one's forcing it upon them, they're choosing to do so themselves. There's agency.

cool so we're agreed porn doesn't sexually objectify women now

The people who are genuinely choosing to go into porn? No it doesn't.

The problem with porn is trafficking and that it often isn't a choice. But stuff like amateur porn is generally ok
---

I have no idea what, but if people paid for a service and didn't get said service give 'em a refund

GregShmedley posted...

"She chose to be a prostitute."
"She chose to be a pornstar."
"She chose to bang director for the role in the movie."

Those "choices" usually aren't really "choices."

Often, due to stuff like trafficking and exploitation, they're not. That's the problem. But (imo) people should be free to make that choice for themselves.

Iirc, Lana del Rey is someone who's been open about banging music directors to try and get advantages, but it didn't work out. The choice wasn't necessarily a good choice, but it was her choice to make
---

From an article a few days ago that I won't link to since it has the name of the site in the URL:

It's a feature we are researching as I'm living it currently. What are the ins and outs? What does a platform like this do to its users? What's the connective material between your life and your life inside the world of OF? ... How can it change your life for the worse and the better? How far are you willing to go, and how far do you WANT to go? You can be me, or this talented girl from Montana, and OF could change your life if you want it to, of course.

All of this is research for another movie she's creating and the proceeds were to go to charity. From what I can find out, she never promised nude photos and repeatedly stated she would not appear nude----people just assumed she would without researching it.

That leads to one of OF's biggest issues in that there's no way to tell what you're getting until you pay for it. There's no sampling. There are a few places you can find reviews for the bigger names, but that's about it. Considering presumed nudity is associated with the site and that this event has occurred before, it was only a matter of time before it became a major issue and had to be addressed.

As for Thorne's actions, I get the feeling she was running with the general member's presumption most had in which costly material = nudity. You can tell she was already doing so by offering photos no different than her Instagram yet people immediately signed up and continued to pay for more content.

Setting caps and a longer pay period doesn't feel like the right reaction to take from this as it does nothing to tackle the root of the problem: people not understanding what they're paying for and expecting one thing instead of another.

---

teepan95 posted...

The people who are genuinely choosing to go into porn? No it doesn't.

The thing people almost always forget is how your choices make you look.

---

So_Hajile posted...

From an article a few days ago that I won't link to since it has the name of the site in the URL:
All of this is research for another movie she's creating and the proceeds were to go to charity. From what I can find out, she never promised nude photos and repeatedly stated she would not appear nude----people just assumed she would without researching it.

That leads to one of OF's biggest issues in that there's no way to tell what you're getting until you pay for it. There's no sampling. There are a few places you can find reviews for the bigger names, but that's about it. Considering presumed nudity is associated with the site and that this event has occurred before, it was only a matter of time before it became a major issue and had to be addressed.

As for Thorne's actions, I get the feeling she was running with the general member's presumption most had in which costly material = nudity. You can tell she was already doing so by offering photos no different than her Instagram yet people immediately signed up and continued to pay for more content.

Setting caps and a longer pay period doesn't feel like the right reaction to take from this as it does nothing to tackle the root of the problem: people not understanding what they're paying for and expecting one thing instead of another.

Ohhhh I see now lol - I thought OF was just sexual in nature but I guess people can make an OF for rubbing pickle juice on their tummy.

Still though, all they really need to do is add some kind of tag feature that explicitly states the content wont contain nudity.

Factoring whether or not something is right or objectifying is really beyond the scope - it offers insight into the mentality of people and thats about it

a service is a service and it should be labeled correctly especially if people are going to make cash transactions

RedJackson posted...

Still though, all they really need to do is add some kind of tag feature that explicitly states the content wont contain nudity.

The tag I keep seeing now is "Implied Nudity" which is kinda stupid.

---

But the 22-year-old Thorne told fans in a tweet Tuesday, Also nooooo Im not doing nudity!!! Last year, Thorne proactively posted nude photos of herself on Twitter after a hacker allegedly tried to blackmail her and threatened to release the pics

---

GregShmedley posted...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



I don't think it's illegitimate work; but sex work comes with many risks--mentally and physically. I'm not sure what jobs you could be referring to, but I am finding it hard to compare any "shitty" jobs to sex work. A lot of sex workers also come from traumatic upbringing typically filled with extreme emotional and/or sexual abuse, which I feel plays a significant role in making the choice to be a sex worker.

I'm not hating on women doing OF. But this idea that they are empowering themselves because they're getting paid to show their naked bodies or ride a dildo is laughable to me.

There's also the financial aspect of it. I suspect a lot of these models will be in terrible positions when tax season comes or if they get used to a certain lifestyle they can no longer upkeep at a certain point, much like professional athletes.

It just seems like the guy who created the site is basically taking advantage of women but because they can potentially make bank, it's defended because "something something empowerment."

for sure, 20% is quite a bit lol
---

GregShmedley posted...

It just seems like the guy who created the site is basically taking advantage of women but because they can potentially make bank, it's defended because "something something empowerment."

You're not wrong, but I don't see how it's different to, say, selling on eBay or publishing on Steam. Just the nature of the service is different
---

https://twitter.com/pkugrse/status/1298608258861674497?s=20

The plot thickens...
---

This bitch is eating everyone out at the palm of her hands LMAO but I guess you can't hate the hustle m i rite

---

Veggeta_MAX posted...

This bitch is eating everyone out

Go on...

---

RedJackson posted...

Ohhhh I see now lol - I thought OF was just sexual in nature but I guess people can make an OF for rubbing pickle juice on their tummy.

Still though, all they really need to do is add some kind of tag feature that explicitly states the content wont contain nudity.

Factoring whether or not something is right or objectifying is really beyond the scope - it offers insight into the mentality of people and thats about it

a service is a service and it should be labeled correctly especially if people are going to make cash transactions

Who says pickle-juice-rubbing isn't sexual? >_<

Seriously though, tags and previews would help although some creators make bank on people buying the unknown. There was someone else a few weeks ago (a rapper?) that started an OF and only used photos from her Instagram and made huge amounts of money in a few days.

---

teepan95 posted...

https://twitter.com/pkugrse/status/1298608258861674497?s=20

The plot thickens...

If that's the case, she led them on for sure even if she was technically naked (without clothes) yet covered by a bed sheet.

---

So_Hajile posted...

If that's the case, she led them on for sure even if she was technically naked (without clothes) yet covered by a bed sheet.

She didn't lie

---

So_Hajile posted...

teepan95 posted...

https://twitter.com/pkugrse/status/1298608258861674497?s=20

The plot thickens...

If that's the case, she led them on for sure even if she was technically naked (without clothes) yet covered by a bed sheet.

Apparently she wasn't wearing clothes, but had a handbra/was covering her chest with her arms
---

So_Hajile posted...

RedJackson posted...

Ohhhh I see now lol - I thought OF was just sexual in nature but I guess people can make an OF for rubbing pickle juice on their tummy.

Still though, all they really need to do is add some kind of tag feature that explicitly states the content wont contain nudity.

Factoring whether or not something is right or objectifying is really beyond the scope - it offers insight into the mentality of people and thats about it

a service is a service and it should be labeled correctly especially if people are going to make cash transactions

Who says pickle-juice-rubbing isn't sexual? >_<

Seriously though, tags and previews would help although some creators make bank on people buying the unknown. There was someone else a few weeks ago (a rapper?) that started an OF and only used photos from her Instagram and made huge amounts of money in a few days.

that would be rapper rubi rose. Literally just posted pics from her instagram lol
---

Eh, I think this could easily be fixed with required tags or something for the types of content posted. While this is technically not a lie, it is purposefully misleading. If a business did a similar thing advertising its product, I think more people would side with the people who were misled, rather than the entity selling said product.

But here, you have issues of sex work, misogyny, and objectification as meaningful components in the conversation, so things aren't so clear cut. But when companies use misleading advertising tactics on purpose, there is usually a call for a policy that will force companies to stop. I wouldn't be surprised if these changes are temporary solutions until OF can develop a way to keep their content creators somewhat accountable. If too many notable cases of people reuploading their instagram pictures or intentionally misleading advertisements continue to occur, people will view OF in general as a scam and probably move to another platform. What OF is doing is probably not very difficult to replicate in such a way that the "consumer" feels safe from "scammers."

Either way, I'm not going to demonize anybody doing this. The actual gravity of the situation is not that serious since it's just lewd photos.

---

McgeesAlice808 posted...

You seem to be acting like what you feel is a good choice overrides theirs. Sex work by women is considered empowering because its women taking agency of their own bodies and going against the puritanical, slut-shaming and patriarchal society who wants them to stay pure.

Men don't like it because it's like the one thing women can do to exert power over men so anything they can do to frame it as a bad idea or fake concern over sex trafficking / objectification / future individual prospects is in the playbook

---

The internet has really blown my mind as to what people blow so much fucking money on, it's insane. $200 just to see pics of an average naked woman, people dumping $1000s into mobile games, donating $1000s to streamers, and probably all bitch about rich people existing. The chick posts near naked selfies on IG all the time, just jack off real quick to that and save yourself some damn money.

Again, the lot of you people seem to forget that choices results in things such as judgement. Just because a women chooses to sell her body, regardless for good or bad reason, doesn't mean a person can't judge her for her decision.

---

if anything it makes even more supporters holding their moneys a little tighter than usual.

she should troll us all like belle delphine and do risque nudes and handbras lol that way, she can get higher tiers of content paywalls.

belle took it to another level though and is playing with toys in herself but, bella thorne dont have to go that far.

---

McgeesAlice808 posted...

Well, only the first part of my post was directed to you in specific. If you dont think that and just dont like volatile jobs in general then thats fine.

Im not sure what point youre trying to make. Ok? Sure, you can judge someone for that decision. You can also judge a person for being in a gay relationship. All you would be doing is revealing your own character.

You say this as nothing you're saying is revealing your character.

---

OF isnt for porn though.

Its just supposed to be where fans can get exclusive content from Celebs.

Its just that a lot of people started using it for porn lol.

She might be scamming people but its not like it was built as a sex worker platform and she came in with a bait and switch pretending to be a sex worker to get in

---