A bigger part of all of this is the people who manage many Only Fans performers.
I did not know this was a thing until I came across this watching a few podcasts. Then more and more and more I realized this management industry was quite big.
And it makes sense, the performers are performers and not really business oriented for the most part. So its a vacuum that was waiting to be filled.
Then again, is it really any different from managers for actors, musicians, artists and other "normal" industries? I remember my father who was an artist had a few gallery owners who managed his sales, showings, personal commissions and other artist activities.
Now that I think about it decades later, its remarkably like pimping. Hahaha. No wonder dad had a love/have relationship with those people.
Not just that... they also lease huge buildings, build "cubicles" inside, furnish them to look like bedrooms, get girls the same way as they would for any other adult business (from human trafficking to working from a very poor country, with enough desparate people for that), and then take a huge cut of profits.
I would distinguish between human trafficking which is illegal, and simply hiring people for work which is perfectly legal and normal.
Also because it’s digital, no one actually has to leave their country. As a person living in a very poor country, we look upon this as safer than immigrating to work as a maid for a rich family in Dubai.
>I would distinguish between human trafficking which is illegal,
Yes, the trope of every single person in the adult entertainment world or escort world is automatically a victim of human trafficking is quite tired. Yes, it absolutely happens and should be stopped when found, but at the same time, there are people doing this work of their own volition and actually enjoy it.
And the way to stop the trafficking is to make the industry legal, and regulated and the workers in it given protection (like pretty much any other worker - OHSA style).
When you make a demand illegal, it doesn't stop that demand, but instead a black market and exploitation happens around it. Making it legal will stop the crimes, make it possible for the police to patrol and arrest people doing the wrong thing, and provide a way for those exploited to seek help without themselves being exposed to another type of danger.
Not so sure that making it legal alone will stop trafficking (not saying it shouldn't be legal though). People are trafficked to do legal work all the time, like in nail salons, laundromats, construction, canvasing, etc.
I agree, but I'd like to get back to my original point which is that we should distinguish between human trafficking and normal immigration and outsourcing.
Show me the evidence? In Amsterdam, where this is a thing, a large percentage of the girls are actually trafficked. Of course they deny it, because to accuse a pimp means severe repercussions either for herself or family back home.
I could accuse you of the same thing, if you're saying a large percentage of the girls a.k.a. a majority are trafficked yet they don't report it, how are you coming to that conclusion and getting that data in the first place?
I’m not sure the question is whether legality completely extinguishes a black market for the goods or services in question. After all, there’s still a black market for individual cigarettes (“loosies”) in poor neighborhoods, even though cigarettes remain legal. It’s a question of whether the situation is substantially and incrementally better in those places where the conduct is lawful than where it isn’t. So if there is less trafficking, I’d say that’s a net win.
> And the way to stop the trafficking is to make the industry legal, and regulated and the workers in it given protection... @chii
That's complete horseshit...
Human trafficking isn't just applied to sex workers. Human trafficking happens with butlers, maids, housekeepers, drivers, gardeners, and other house-staff.
Human trafficking is a demand problem not a supply problem. People demand slaves, so a slave market is born; period.
Human trafficking is a: 'Humans Suck', problem. Can't stop human trafficking without curing the 'humans suck' thing.
Doesn't matter the protections in place, they're there already. Doesn't matter about exposure to the issue, we all know it's happening. Doesn't matter the legal repercussions we enact, the penalties are on the books.
Doesn't matter... Humans suck, and there are those who will pay a premium for a literal slave.
I think the solution to demand problems is better options. Tiger poaching to sell their balls as boner pills went away with viagra. Viagra worked better than fake animal snake oils.
Domestic robots will solve the human trafficking for domestic slaves as robots will be cheaper and better.
I think there’s also social progress as neither I, nor anyone I know has human trafficked to get a butler or whatnot, but 100 years ago that probably wouldn’t have been true.
I think automation can reduce the dependency on humans but it can't completely eliminate it. People don't use maids because they lack washing machines, microwaves, and food delivery services. The usage of maid service has to do with social customs than it does with actual necessity.
> I think there’s also social progress
Speaking about the US, there's a general aversion to employing people for personal service jobs. Tech workers making 300k can certainly afford a maid who makes 60k, but actively go out of their way to instead employ a variety of people through 'gig' work and 'apps' to do simple tasks. They simply don't want to be seen as employing a maid, but still get all the benefits of having one (via the errand running service).
So is the grad student paying for her education by stripping. I trust some strippers are independent doing it out of their own will. That's cool, but there's no easy way to tell if they are coerced or not. Few coerced would tell so to a stranger; they obviously have a lot to fear.
So we can prioritize the protection of people forced into sex work at the expanse of willing sex workers, just like we prioritize protecting workers from forced overtime at the expanse of those that are willing to work 24/7 (and like any other work related enforcement, it should be directed at employers, not workers)
As a society we should prioritize the protection of people. I recall how the Swedish police announced at spring a few years ago that they would then stop all further investigation at construction work places because there were so many human trafficking violation at such places that just going to a single construction place would drain the budget to the point that they could do any more human trafficking investigation for the rest of the year.
I suspect the news article was a bit of subtle protest by that police department, but it kind of illustrate how low we as a society is prioritizing protecting workers. Some people in the construction industry has also came out saying that construction as an industry would not function without the cheap labor that human trafficking contribute. It should be a major alarm clock that protecting workers from the most basic of threats, ie threat of violence and/or threats by the employer to not pay the employee. Some of the enforcement should land at the consumer who benefit from the situation, which would require companies to insure against shady subcontractors.
Sweden is a great example for sex work laws: they made it illegal to consume and to pimp, but sex work itself is legal. Which fits with most labor laws: when there's exploitation of labor, it's hardly the workers' fault
Dubai is one of the main places where people from my country emigrate to for servant work. However safe it is in regards to crime, it's not really safer for the immigrant underclass who makes up maidservants and construction workers.
If you have immigrated to a country where you don't speak the language, don't share customs or culture, and your religion is illegal to practice (ergo no social safety net) then it's not particularly 'safe' for you if you have a disagreement with your employer.
Survivorship bias. You often hear only about the top earners and not the poor person doing onlyfans and working another job. Or two. I'd expect the majority of performers not to live in large, nice houses.
Majority of performers aren’t really serious about it either. Due to morality constraints, very few people find it easy to buckle down and work 8 hours a day at that job… whereas if they were to pick a body damaging job like construction they would have social support to help them get through the day.
This girl is very managed from what I can tell.. I remember seeing the manager and production crew setting up in one video and it was a realization seeing big studio lights and reflectors and people running around.. and I can't tell if they are trying to be ironic with the name they use for their talent:
I think pimping is the right word for it. This is a controversial topic to broach, but it's difficult if not impossible to know what's going on in the lives of these performers behind the camera. On the face of it, they all seem to consent. But putting on a smile for the camera doesn't rule out coercion behind the scenes. That the presence and role of these managers is not more widely stood should be read as a warning sign; that lack of transparency is precisely the protection a pimp would want.
There are few meaningful safeguards. Platforms positively identifying performers is good, it helps combat trafficking of kidnapping victims if nothing else. But it doesn't begin to address all the other scenarios in which a performer might be coerced. The platform knowing that Performer X has real name Y doesn't give them any insight into the existence of Pimp Z who has access to all her documents/accounts and threatens to kill her if she ever tries to leave.
Maybe you think "I know this woman, I watch her stream for many hours a week in unrehearsed situations, I have a strong parasocial relationship with her and I know she's not being abused" But you don't know that. Abuse can be hidden from close friends, family, neighbors, and certainly it can be hidden from stream simps.
This condition is subsidized by a government that neither legalizes nor protects sex workers (such as their being unbanked), and when it directs its attention to them (FOSTA/SESTA) makes their situation more difficult, rather then less, driving it farther underground.
America prefers to pretend like it doesn't see things, so it isn't expected to do anything about them. Sufficiently underground child trafficking is as good an outcome as none because how could we have known? The same way you know about any other workplace abuses; you inspect, you interview, and you make resources available. But we'd rather treat it like we treat farmwork, and simply wear blinders and continue to buy vegetables.
edit: there's no reason that providing services to sex workers has to be lead to pimping other than that we prefer it that way.
Human trafficking remains a grave concern in European locales where prostitution is broadly legal. This is not an America-issue, it's a human nature issue.
Sport managers, model managers, music managers, film star managers... There are few job titles that has such a rich history of abuse. It almost seems that in every case we hear about a manager it is how they are abusing someone. Maybe this is a job that governments should start to regulate more heavily in order to prevent abuse.
Regulate how exactly and what would it help with? Accounting requirements can help with things like money laundering and fraud. I am not certain of what measures would help with abuse there. Not saying it is impossible but we should know what we are doing.
Take a sport manager. If the manager give their athlete drugs to improve performance in order to boost their own status or profit, then clearly something is wrong with the incentive structure. Managers could be held to a higher legal standard and liability, require a license like accounting, and we could fund police investigation when abuse is suspected. If the problem still remain we could regulate how managers are allowed to profit from athletes, removing some of those incentives for abuse. Going even further and more restricted, managers could be government appointed rather than hired, requiring that managers go through a strict government process.
I am sure there are even more ways that I can't personally think of, and obviously some would not be culturally accepted.
I have the feeling that many adult performers went to OnlyFans in the first place so they could have control over the price, content, schedule etc. But it looks like OnlyFans like every industry will consolidate over time and bring many of the problems of mainstream porn with it.
Many adult performers started using OnlyFans because it allowed them to refer their own non-adult social media following (i.e. IG/TikTok/Twitter/Reddit) to an adult friendly platform that didn’t take an insane cut.
What most people don’t realize is that traditional cam platforms like LiveJasmin and Streamate allocate a 30% cut for themselves and a 30% cut for the referring affiliate, typically a porn site. The remaining 40% is allocated to the model - 30% if the model uses a studio.
Another unspoken player is the credit card processor who typically captures 10% of the revenue for “risk”.
I don't know why the scare quotes on risk. It is absolutely there in this industry. Chargeback rates are crazy from the kid who swesrs he didn't steal his mom's credit card or the husband who promises he wasn't the one buying this stuff, it must have been a hacker. This is also not entirely unfounded because some areas of this indistry are very easy to juice revenue from stolen credit cards.
There is a reason that even with those high fees to be made, most processors will not touch the industry.
If we would just get on-board with smartcards, hey 30 years late is better than nothing, then chargebacks would be a lot harder to justify.
With the system the way it is, the card processors eat a little loss from "fraud", and then use that as a justification to exert editorial control over what industries they want to process payments for, because there's a lot of "fraud" in them. No it's not fraud, it's someone being embarrassed about their spending habits and claiming their card was stolen. If it was harder to steal cards, that would change.
Visa/MC's crusade against legitimization of sex work is a political/religious stance that has absolutely no place in what should be infrastructure. Infrastructure should be neutral.
The answer is deeper still. Remove charge backs so the credit card companies become "dumb" utilities rather than some sort of service that can provide "value add". I actually don't know why it's even a genuine thing other than it's digital so "you can". In every other realm we deal with this concept using courts, police and as plain old fraud.
Take away chargebacks and then the tables will turn. Tons of super shady sites will capture your money and run off with it.
There is a reason CC fees are so high in the porn industry and it isn’t just huge companies ripping off the little guy. The CC processor not only has to factor in the risks of client chargebacks but also the merchant themselves doing something shady (malicious or not)… say getting their DB hacked and having all the CC data in plaintext or something. Or just the merchant folds up shop and bails on the customers…. 10% rates exist for a very good reason
Why would you want to remove charge backs? If you pay for something and don't get it, have your payment instrument stolen, get tricked by a scam, etc then charge backs seem like an excellent tool to have. Charge backs are also not independent of the courts, if you trigger an illegitimate charge back then the counterparty can sue you.
No need to remove chargebacks. But there does need to be an electronic analogue to paying with cash, a utility provided by the federal government. Supposedly it is being worked on and called "FedNow".
Pretty good given the first ammendment and lack of other rationale such as scarcity of airwaved. A pretext to deny would be difficult for domestic companies.
The feds have been pressuring financial services companies to "de-platform" legal businesses, including those in the adult industry, for years.
The govt's pretext has been "reputational risk." Isn't it nice of the feds to tell a bank that "someone" might not think well of them if they provide services to "those" people?
It is established law that a business that acts at govt behest is a state actor, so that "pressure" is enough to bring the 1st amendment in. That is, if there's a 1st amendment argument. However, said de-plaforming doesn't seem to succumbed to a 1st amendment challenge.
Maybe such a business would win with a first amendment argument on FedNow, but how many can survive until that decision comes down?
I don't have numbers but I thought the motivation is that they make more money by making it safe for people to use - it encourages use and nets them more transaction fees. It probably helped kick off online shopping.
These are the same problems any streamer faces, whether the audience is there for sex or videogames. Good content takes a significant time and effort to create.
It's a little like AOL in the 1990s. A great business model, but one that won't outlast reliable internet access from service providers. Businesses like webcam studios bridge the gap until internet access catches up.
There are unsexy, short term business models for entrepreneurs.
I was reading a story/interview of a depressed cam worker who while not enjoying her work she could not give it up because the money was too good and she wouldn’t be able to find something to pay her something even close. It sounded like a sure golden cuffs type of situation that a lot of SW devs find themselves in. Can’t find the link for it but if I do I’ll post it.
What percent do these monitors make? It seems like this is written as an “interesting job” type story, but if their percent is exhorbitant (maybe anything over 10%) or if these monitors also take part in human trafficking or drugs then this could be horrible.
The story doesn’t answer this question so I suspect that the answers aren’t good.
I missed that part, thanks for providing it. 2% seems pretty reasonable. What’s their base salary and who pays it? I read one monitor supports 13 workers, do they split the base pay?
A lot of cam/onlyfans/... girls (and guys) are "managed" by people (pimps) in the same way as prostitutes (and strippers) are, but now digitally instead of physically (or, in many cases, both).
They lease a building, build "cubicles", make them look like bedrooms, throw in a bunch of girls/guys, who then do stuff there for their viewers, and managers (pimps) collect a part of the earned money. They have a schedule, have to meet quotas, etc. They also hire people to do their make-up, buy toys, manage their accounts, do accounting, price lists for "custom" photos/videos, and even dirty up the underwear that they then sell.
Porn is a huge industry, solo actresses are just a very small part of that, even if onlyfans would like you to believe otherwise.
You’ll be really mad when you hear about all the other businesses that lease buildings and build cubicles and have people come there to do work while skimming off most of the profits. It’s an epidemic.
At what point does a manager stop being a pimp? Seems like everyone doing anything businessey that doesn't involve taking off their own clothes in anything even vaguely sex related gets called a pimp.
Is a strip club GM a pimp? The whole "maintain and operate facility" thing sounds a lot like a strip club.
I read an article by adult performer discussing her career and the “manger/pimp” distinction …
Basically “managers” are a thing when you have a large number of employers who need to coordinate.
Legit managers can look a lot like pimps. For example, they usually require employees “to be on time” and “always have a good attitude.”
But if someone isn’t on time, than everyone else is waiting, and typically not getting paid. So failing to show up on time means your coworkers are paying for you to do your own thing.
So there an element of “you know it when you see it.”
earlier in the thread someone provided a definition along the lines of: "a pimp is a manager who is allowed to use violence, drug addiction and other forms of non-consensual coercion."
I am under the impression that the distinction of a pimp is due to using violence, drugs, or other coercion on vulnerable subjects such as runaways, underage, or trafficked/kidnapped persons.
The linked article links to another article describing the CEO of OnlyFans as facing accusations of theft and fraud[0].
In reality, it appears the owner of OnlyFans also owns MyFreeCams, which is a massive cam platform. The actual complaints of theft and fraud are accusations of randomly frozen accounts. Companies like PayPal and even banks periodically freeze accounts, but the CEOs of their company are not targeted in a manner such as the linked article.
Further, it is not uncommon to freeze accounts for suspected fraud. Cam platforms are ripe for money laundering with stolen credit cards. Thieves will steal a credit card and use it to pay a model on the platform that they’re working with. The model is paid weeks later and they’ve successfully laundered the money. It does not surprise me that some false positives happen, it’s a pretty tricky cat and mouse game.
The article also mentioned requiring people to switch to a bank in Belize. It’s not surprising given that adult payments and adult companies are routinely targeted by puritanical US and International financial institutions.
So those are types of pimping.. sometimes put into a broad category of 'guerilla pimping'.
The main distinction of a pimp is someone who is willing to deal with all the bull shit of the business to help hoes - this was mainly protection from abusers and help with advertising, but also includes a ton of other help - rides, shelter, healthcare appts.
'pimping' became a pop slang term what, around the myspace time? and it's become synonymous with gaudy but cool glamour - 'those shoes are pimpin' - to also jest about 'control' - like "pimpin' these robots to get that paper (money)".. "you are being pimped by toptal".
After some years of research I would say not just most (51%) - but more like 99% of 'pimps' want nothing to do with underage, kidnapped, forced/coerced type hoes.
This is more of a stereotype that fits some groups' narratives who are often trying to get money to fight boogeymen.
Not to say that there shouldn't be money / resources dedicated to destroying the 1% who would use violence to traffic - but I've noticed how easy it is to skew the recently changing narrative / perceptions, and mostly the news is promoting false stereotypes to gain clicks and clout at the expense of real help.
This is not to say it's not completely different stats say, south of the border or Baltic or whatever.
As someone who personally knows people working in anti-trafficking efforts within the USA, whatever the actual numbers are, they are sadly far, far away from your 1% number. People have barely begun to shine a light in the darkness and hand-waving truth away as “stereotypes” is very harmful.
It's easy to fudge numbers if we all disagree on terms.
Sure you are right if you included the thousands of Asian hookers being coerced by some int'l trafficking org. Sure if you include the small number of Somali gangs doing kidnaps and sales.. some of the more hardcore gangs in the inner cities that actually use all sorts of methods for the overall syndicate -
sure - those people may be technically 'pimping' (at least some) - but I do not think that those types of people come to mind when someone is casually discussing 'pimps' - I believe people are more likely to conjure up someone in their mind more like snoop dogg or 'I'm gonna get you sucka' type of character. Or like 'money mike' the pimp in the next Friday movie by Kat Willaims.
I have come to learn that a majority of those types of people don't want underage or beat-down girls and they generally frown upon, and try to reduce drug use as well.
Like I said in original comment there are those out there that are using force or other coercion (we have your passport, and have your family in regime place X - do this or else jail and loss of family) - and they should be stopped.
It gets more fuzzy when you run into people who are voluntarily sex working for things like debts to flee a place - however it's easy to lump in those numbers.
My point was not to try to throw hard numbers at X amount of sex workers are not being forced, that too depends on how certain terms are defined of course as well.
My point was that many orgs included news orgs are happy to paint all sorts of things as 'trafficking' that are nothing more than people looking for sex or people who are looking for ways to trade it - without violence, and it's not accurate to think 'pimps' or 'pimping' is:
"the distinction of a pimp is due to using violence, drugs, or other coercion on vulnerable subjects such as runaways, underage, or trafficked/kidnapped persons."
as is the comment I was replying to, and trying to shed additional light on.
I've had an eye on that part of the industry for some years now (since '95).
My first full time club gig including finding and ejecting hoes and pimps (some are quite sneaky / hard to define) - you could say we hated pimps and despised hoes (it was believed they hurt our business and took clients from our business permanently)- for the first several years of that part of my past club/djing career.
It wasn't until hbo's pimps up series came out that I started looking deeper into all that and learned that many / most are there to help each other not trying to hurt each other - it's pretty complicated.
People have different definitions in their mind on many of the terms used in describing these things, so defining the terms instead of stereo typing is better - which was my point in the first place.
That's not pimping. For starters those girls aren't forced to do what they do. (Yeah, there probably is an overwhelming minority of cases where they are forced to show their tits. But let's not grasp at straws...)
By this logic any job that offered a way to make money during covid could be called "preying on" people. Offering work when people need it is not predatory. I think there are a lot of consequences to this type of work that young women don't consider, not least that they will have a lot more trouble finding a husband (and maybe a job) in 8 years, but that doesn't by itself make the work predatory.
I understand that some onlyfans creators are being exploited, but the freedom of those who aren't exploited (which are a majority) shouldn't be restricted because of that.
Didn't you just describe all jobs in all countries? There are people who feel forced to do immoral or illegal things. For instance I was just reading about one server at a restaurant in USA. He accidentally dropped a steak on the floor but was told to wash it off and serve it to the customer anyways. The argument being the customer would get mad if his food came out later then the rest of his party.
How many factory style jobs do people work not because they want to but because circumstances force them to? How many employers exploit their workers because its unlikely the workers will fight back?
You may have replied to the wrong person. I didn’t describe jobs in any countries.
I don’t think comparing people working in factories to pimps and exploited sex workers (or perhaps pimps and fairly compensated sex workers). They are different things.
How much of the profit do you get from your company? Pennies I’m sure, you are just okay with it because it’s more pennies than other penny makers, but you are not taking home close to the value add on your labor.
I don’t think it’s equally comparable because there’s typically lots of indirection between a worker and profit.
I used to do tech consulting where I would be bodyshopped through a contracting firm and they would typically take 20-40%. I wouldn’t work for a firm that took 75%.
It’s a soul crushing job over time. Feeding the lizard brain of guys jerking off to whatever instructions you get gets old, and the money is usually just good enough to keep people around.
As opposed to waiting tables, selling finance products, working to deny people insurance coverage programming on surveillance on websites, working in retail, nursing, or any other activity where you're working hard barely scraping so some rich guy can buy 37th private jet?
Because it really is a psychological mindfuck in a way those other professions aren't. My wife is a former camgirl. After six years of it, she was a mess. I was very pro sex-work before I met her, even during our first year or two together then she started needing therapy and then I just offered to support her because watching your wife's mental health deteroriate every day was pretty rough.
I know the kind of people who frequent HN are very pro sex work but there is another side of it that is hushed or pushed aside and that is former sex workers speaking out. It is psychologically punishing to turn yourself into a sex object, repeatedly in front of the unslaking thirst of thousands. It changes how you view men, it changes how you view your own body, it changes how you value this "thing" out from which you peer.
Go listen to what old construction or steel mill workers will tell young kids about how their bodies are physically shredded to nothing. Entire joints literally ground down & deteriorated to dust. There is zero recovery from this, not to say that there also aren’t cases where there’s zero recover from mental damages.
Are you anti-any of these professions? They for the most part definitely knew what they were getting into as well.
I did a short stint of continuous improvement engineering at a steel mill in Pittsburgh… it was an arguably decent place, but so many those labor workers gave zero fucks about the money they were making & would’ve left so long ago if they didn’t have family completely reliant on them.
I specifically called out the psychological harm that is a frequent companion of sex work. I have no doubt that manual labor, day in and day out, breaks down the body: I have my fair share of stories doing such tasks when I was younger.
The mistake is in making like for like comparisons as you just did. Sex is not a simple commodity. We would do better to listen to the stories of the sex workers who have left the industry or who are offered therapy through orgs specifically created to help sex workers like Pineapple Support as part of workers' contracts with Streamate et al.
I suspect if one did look at the statistics, construction workers who are victim of human trafficking do not generally end up with wife's/husbands that write on HN. A social study about what happen to those people would likely be a quite depressing read.
There's no need for whataboutism. The issue raised is that this work is seen as empowering and liberating, and the message that it can take an enormous mental toll is not similarly publicised, or is dismissed as right wing moralising. No one's doing that to stories about steel mill workers.
Probably reducing wealth inequality, offering free education and health care would be a good start but I am neither a sociologist or political theorist.
> Probably reducing wealth inequality, offering free education and health care would be a good start but I am neither a sociologist or political theorist.
People in poor countries working for people in rich countries is how wealth is equalized. That's how developing countries develop and how developed countries stagnate. So the existence of an international market for this is probably already part of the solution. After they have enough wealth, they can give themselves free healthcare and education without being a basket case forever depending on foreign charity.
Your argument is orthogonal to free healthcare and education being offered by the state. You don't need to be an immigrant to be poor in your country of birth, such as the US.
I was responding to a specific question, “what makes this
dirty work” and specifically made no moral judgement or assertions.
Obviously, there’s a chip on your shoulder about the topic. Camgirls have a shitty job and aren’t nurses. That doesn’t mean that camming is uniquely shitty or that it’s some sort of act of personal liberation.
because -- for many humans, actual sex is intimate and touches the "soul" much more than those other activities. Repeated defense of ugly and abusive sex comes from a vocal minority on the Internet
How is taking nude photos of yourself "ugly and abusive sex"? I feel like you're regurgitating stale anti-porn talking points rather than actually engaging with the topic at hand.
A cam girl is her own boss, picks her own hours, works from home, sets her own boundaries as to what she's comfortable doing, and does not have to be involved in any office politics. All of the things which normally put the "soul-crushing" in "soul-crushing job" are absent. It's a great deal for a lot of people.
I find your appeal to spirituality shallow and unconvincing, especially given that lots of people engage in casual sex and don't end up with their souls crushed.
Yes, that is what I was expecting. The anti-sex people claim they are interesting in stopping exploitation or whatever, but in the end it is about regulating other people's sex lives and pushing their morality on them.
Read my other comment but this is honestly a weird take conflating a broader puritan anti-sex pattern with pushback on sex work.
It is not a wholly positive thing. There are advantages (remote work from anywhere, etc.) but it doesn't do any favors to the actual people doing this to place sex work on a pedestal.
How exactly is a person going to injure themselves by getting naked on camera? Oh, maybe they'll get hypothermia from the chilly air in their bedroom! I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.
Wouldn't be especially dirty either — nothing a few tissues couldn't wipe away, frankly, not as a solo performer. You get dirtier than that just by using the bathroom.
You seem to be forgetting the porn industry if filled with women from Western countries. Not to mention the large number of US, Canadian, British and Australisn creators on OnlyFans.
Actually, for Western countries with very high wealth equality such as the Nordics you really see comparatively few. The US in particular has very high wealth inequality and a lot of performers.
I couldn't believe it so googled a bit but yes you're right. I pay top tax here and was certain that was leveling the field in terms of income but apparently not. For what it's worth DK does appear to be a shade paler than the US and Norway two shades.
Fun fact: Denmark was an early pioneer in legalizing porn and in its production credited with the US "Golden Age of Porn" between 1969 and 1984. There are many more variables to look at.
I think most Danes are aware of our history here. Trailblazing porn because we as a country (and more broadly Scandinavia) were interested in the outer limits of free expression has almost nothing to do with the problems I've highlighted and even less to do with the number of people entering the industry.
Two eras portraying pornography is about as much as you can say is similar between then and now.
For more on the kinds of films Denmark was producing, have a read of this article [1] by Jack Stevenson who used to hold little events of porno history at a local art theater here in Copenhagen.
I hope you can explain your point more. Coincidentally you won't find many nannies from the wealthy western countries.
Which doesn't tell me very little about this kind of work. But maybe it does to you.
> Coincidentally you won't find many nannies from the wealthy western countries
Probably because they can find other work which pays more while non western nannies do the job because they cant find other work due to their English language issues.
>The Colombian camming industry alone, which is unregulated but legal
How can the industry be unregulated if it's legal? I doubt it has the clout to get itself exempted from whatever the normal employment regulations in that country are.
To be clear, that was mostly a rhetorical question and I think the author's implied assumption that every industry deserves bespoke regulation by default is asinine. A small industry that's not causing big problems doesn't need legislative attention.
I think GP is arguing that (in a lot of jurisdictions)
> the norm is to be legal and unregulated
doesn't hold for anything that touches employment; as soon as there is deemed by the courts to be an employer--employee relation, all the existing statutes and case law are applicable, so without carve-outs for this specific type of employment it is automatically regulated.
Assuming the above, if the employment is _treated_ as though it is not subject to regulations, despite this not being the case, then presumably the law is being broken somewhere.
A sibling comment makes the point that if the legal system is underdeveloped, then the it may not be able to capture all the instances of employment that would otherwise fall under regulation.
I live in Ecuador, so not a Coloumbia expert, but I have insight on this. In short, many latin countries do not have a very well developed legal system, so there probably just isn't any law on this. I don't think there is in EC at least, and prostitution is legal here anyway. Also, it is very common in latin america to hire people as contractors, which removes essentially all employment regulations. Every US company I've ever heard of that hires here exploits this fact. They all just give you money per month as a "contractor" and you get no benefits, health insurance, etc. Its okay though, more than a few of us are running the scam backwards and have multiple front people with all the right pronouns or whatever they want acting like junior developers, when really there is just one senior guy behind the lot. Exploitation goes both ways:)
That's exactly what I was getting at. If they're following the catch-all employment laws and not causing big problems specific to their type of business why would anyone care enough to give them special regulatory attention?
Groceries are regulated in most counties. You can’t just start selling expired food, or food without any known provenance.
For sex work, some regulation would be a good thing. At they very least requiring condoms when the couple isn’t married (and are untested for STIs) would be a start.
I did not know this was a thing until I came across this watching a few podcasts. Then more and more and more I realized this management industry was quite big.
And it makes sense, the performers are performers and not really business oriented for the most part. So its a vacuum that was waiting to be filled.
Then again, is it really any different from managers for actors, musicians, artists and other "normal" industries? I remember my father who was an artist had a few gallery owners who managed his sales, showings, personal commissions and other artist activities.
Now that I think about it decades later, its remarkably like pimping. Hahaha. No wonder dad had a love/have relationship with those people.