8 ms·

While the rise of OnlyFans is potentially more lucrative for the people who in years past might have gotten a one-time payment from Playboy/Playgirl, for societ

While the rise of OnlyFans is potentially more lucrative for the people who in years past might have gotten a one-time payment from Playboy/Playgirl, for society OnlyFans is a symptom of late-stage degenerate capitalism. During the last financial crisis I ran across Money and the Crisis of Civilization [0], a piece about the monetization of services which have traditionally been performed for free: child care, meal preparation, etc. While I'm not opposed to women making more than a one-time fee for showing their nipples to the world, I don't think it's sustainable. The vast majority of OnlyFans' payments go to a very small percentage of the "content creators". And how many of those who actually pull in 6 figures will be able to bank it for after they inevitably lose their looks? Could meaningful work be subsidized so women who don't actually want to show their nipples to the world can get by without feeling pressured into trying to make a quick buck? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29190513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29190513 (just submitted pls upvote thx. :) Some quotes: > In ancient times entertainment was also a free, participatory function. Everyone played an instrument, sang, participated in drama. Even 75 years ago in America, every small town had its own marching band and baseball team. Now we pay for those services. The economy has grown. Hooray. > Essentially, for the economy to continue growing and for the (interest-based) money system to remain viable, more and more of nature and human relationship must be monetized. For example, thirty years ago most meals were prepared at home; today some two-thirds are prepared outside, in restaurants or supermarket delis. A once unpaid function, cooking, has become a “service”. And we are the richer for it. Right? > > Another major engine of economic growth over the last three decades, child care, has also made us richer. We are now relieved of the burden of caring for our own children. We pay experts instead, who can do it much more efficiently.

Mikeb85 5y ago
> the monetization of services which have traditionally been performed for free: child care, meal preparation, etc. The idea of paying for meal preparation outside the house goes back at least 5000 years. Bars, restaurants and food vendors have been around at least as long as written history.
- tuatoru 5y ago
  As have town ovens (prepare your loaves, and pay for them to be baked) and probably laundry services too, for those who could afford more than one set of clothes. Childcare was mostly done by slaves, which is a capitalised form of the same thing. It's really a question of degree.
junon 5y ago
> late-stage degenerate capitalism You're not going to win a lot of hearts with that sentiment.
- drBonkers 5y ago
  I think many pro-capitalists agree that our current iteration of capitalism is unsustainable and degenerate.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
paulpauper 5y ago
While the rise of OnlyFans is potentially more lucrative for the people who in years past might have gotten a one-time payment from Playboy/Playgirl, for society OnlyFans is a symptom of late-stage degenerate capitalism. Capitalism has always had some 'degeneracy'. Prostitution, alcohol, cigarettes, gambling and other vices long predate the modern era. While I'm not opposed to women making more than a one-time fee for showing their nipples to the world, I don't think it's sustainable. The vast majority of OnlyFans' payments go to a very small percentage of the "content creators". And how many of those who actually pull in 6 figures will be able to bank it for after they inevitably lose their looks? I dunno, how is it any worse than working in your 20s at crappy jobs, versus making considerably more money at only fans. If it were such a lousy deal for content creators, wouldn't they choose other work instead? Could meaningful work be subsidized so women who don't actually want to show their nipples to the world can get by without feeling pressured into trying to make a quick buck? There are tons of possible career paths.
- mikestew 5y ago
  versus making considerably more money at only fans There's an large amount of assumption in that statement, while parent asked, "how many are really making any decent money?" I mean, you even quoted it, but then just kept on going as if the question were never asked. I have no idea if OnlyFans pays about the same as retail work for the majority, or if OnlyFans content creators need to go buy rakes to collect their money, and I have no idea how to even find out. But if you have insight the rest of us don't, I'm ready to read it, because IMO it's kind of the basis of the point parent was making. If it were such a lousy deal for content creators, wouldn't they choose other work instead? The same could have been said about coal miners 100 years ago...or maybe even today. I don't want to whip out the privilege card, but to assume "just go find another job!", well...
- _nothing 5y ago
  > If it were such a lousy deal for content creators, wouldn't they choose other work instead? I don't disagree with you overall, but by the sheer number of people I know who hate their jobs yet feel like they can't leave, I can tell you it often doesn't work this way. Not saying you're doing this, but people have used "well if it's such a bad job then they should just find a different one" to justify everything from bad warehouse work conditions to underpaid fast food positions to sweat shops elsewhere. I think it's been well demonstrated that it is not always so simple for people to leave lousy jobs.
jrm4 5y ago
Our modern economy is so complex that "meaningful" is (meaningfully, lol) impossible to precisely define.
vorpalhex 5y ago
People have always paid for their food to be prepared outside their homes even in ancient Rome with food stalls. People paid for the colliseum, and well known fighters reaped rewards for their wins. Yes, I am sure OnlyFans attracts many people who think it's easy money only to realize that just like Youtube or Twitch it's a difficult fulltime job that requires very heavy interpersonal skills. That doesn't seem like a failing of capitalism. > Could meaningful work be subsidized so women who don't actually want to show their nipples to the world can get by without feeling pressured into trying to make a quick buck? If it isn't making money, it probably isn't meaningful, with the exclusion of volunteer work. Capitalist societies use money as our value indicator for services as tempered by demand. What meaningful work do you think should be subsidized?
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  The economic notion of "value" is weighted by wealth. Feeding a poor starving kid has no "value" -- because the kid has no money to pay you with. Merging up all the banks to win bailouts has extraordinary "value," because it helps people with lots of money obtain even more money. Associating the wealth-weighted "value" that economies optimize with the non-wealth-weighted concept of value that we all treasure is the largest PR coup of the last few centuries. Markets and economies do a lot of good for the world, but whoo boy is there a big difference between what they pretend to optimize and what they actually optimize.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    There's a reason we don't practice pure capitalism. The starving kid can't pay you but the Fed absolutely will, and the cost of food is amazingly low current inflation meat prices aside. You can make grandiose statements about value but at some point you need to offer a concrete example. What is currently not valued that should be?
    - jjoonathan 5y ago
      Labor. Having capital is overvalued, doing work is undervalued. Doing shit work is especially undervalued. Systematically and intentionally. Take note that I am using the colloquial definition of value, here -- not the economic definition. Equating the two is not innocent, it is equivalent to the assumption "capitalism is good," which rather ends the conversation. The failure of American capitalism to live up to even the weakest of its promises -- "a rising tide floats all boats" -- for 80% of Americans over the last 40 years is nothing if it is not grandiose. Still, the "grandiose statements" of mine were meant to exercise the limits of the weight function. The actual realization of this prioritization is a million and one instances of "I thought markets are supposed to improve and optimize over the long term, why did this thing get worse?" Followed by "Did it get worse? Think about it again from the perspective of a market that values rich peoples' investment accounts over anything you care about, and ask yourself if made things worse for them or if it is functioning exactly as intended." Spoiler alert: it's functioning exactly as intended.
stopagephobia 5y ago
Disproportionate $ go to the top because everybody want the hottest girl. Digital media mean that everybody can get her stuff the same, basically as many as will pay. It aint like a strip club where maybe the hottest girl is already giving somebody else a lapdance so you take the next one down.
kevinmchugh 5y ago
> Even 75 years ago in America, every small town had its own marching band and baseball team. They still do, it's through the high school. Very, very few people have ever paid for a marching band's services.
tuatoru 5y ago
> late-stage degenerate capitalism. What specifically is your objection? Strip clubs and peep shows have been around for a long time, including during protocapitalism, degenerate or not. This is not a new incursion of the economy into social life. It's just much safer for the workers, and on average much more poorly paid because of the scale-free medium. Is your objection to the inevitable result of scale-free networks, the winner-take-all nature of internet-mediated commerce? I can agree with that. A society in which 0.01% become very rich while everyone else starves is not a healthy society. No-one seems very keen on balkanising the internet, though, and no-one's been able to crack the coordination problems involved in other possible solutions.
SamPatt 5y ago
Many - possibly even most - sex workers do it because they like it. Have you actually talked to sex workers? It's super common to lament what sex work says about society bla bla bla but never even listen to the women themselves. Maybe many women love showing off their bodies and making friends and money and maybe many men like seeing naked women and talking to them and maybe there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of this.

Mikeb85 5y ago

> the monetization of services which have traditionally been performed for free: child care, meal preparation, etc. The idea of paying for meal preparation outside the house goes back at least 5000 years. Bars, restaurants and food vendors have been around at least as long as written history.

tuatoru 5y ago
As have town ovens (prepare your loaves, and pay for them to be baked) and probably laundry services too, for those who could afford more than one set of clothes. Childcare was mostly done by slaves, which is a capitalised form of the same thing. It's really a question of degree.

junon 5y ago

> late-stage degenerate capitalism You're not going to win a lot of hearts with that sentiment.

drBonkers 5y ago
I think many pro-capitalists agree that our current iteration of capitalism is unsustainable and degenerate.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

paulpauper 5y ago

While the rise of OnlyFans is potentially more lucrative for the people who in years past might have gotten a one-time payment from Playboy/Playgirl, for society OnlyFans is a symptom of late-stage degenerate capitalism. Capitalism has always had some 'degeneracy'. Prostitution, alcohol, cigarettes, gambling and other vices long predate the modern era. While I'm not opposed to women making more than a one-time fee for showing their nipples to the world, I don't think it's sustainable. The vast majority of OnlyFans' payments go to a very small percentage of the "content creators". And how many of those who actually pull in 6 figures will be able to bank it for after they inevitably lose their looks? I dunno, how is it any worse than working in your 20s at crappy jobs, versus making considerably more money at only fans. If it were such a lousy deal for content creators, wouldn't they choose other work instead? Could meaningful work be subsidized so women who don't actually want to show their nipples to the world can get by without feeling pressured into trying to make a quick buck? There are tons of possible career paths.

mikestew 5y ago
versus making considerably more money at only fans There's an large amount of assumption in that statement, while parent asked, "how many are really making any decent money?" I mean, you even quoted it, but then just kept on going as if the question were never asked. I have no idea if OnlyFans pays about the same as retail work for the majority, or if OnlyFans content creators need to go buy rakes to collect their money, and I have no idea how to even find out. But if you have insight the rest of us don't, I'm ready to read it, because IMO it's kind of the basis of the point parent was making. If it were such a lousy deal for content creators, wouldn't they choose other work instead? The same could have been said about coal miners 100 years ago...or maybe even today. I don't want to whip out the privilege card, but to assume "just go find another job!", well...
_nothing 5y ago
> If it were such a lousy deal for content creators, wouldn't they choose other work instead? I don't disagree with you overall, but by the sheer number of people I know who hate their jobs yet feel like they can't leave, I can tell you it often doesn't work this way. Not saying you're doing this, but people have used "well if it's such a bad job then they should just find a different one" to justify everything from bad warehouse work conditions to underpaid fast food positions to sweat shops elsewhere. I think it's been well demonstrated that it is not always so simple for people to leave lousy jobs.

jrm4 5y ago

Our modern economy is so complex that "meaningful" is (meaningfully, lol) impossible to precisely define.

vorpalhex 5y ago

People have always paid for their food to be prepared outside their homes even in ancient Rome with food stalls. People paid for the colliseum, and well known fighters reaped rewards for their wins. Yes, I am sure OnlyFans attracts many people who think it's easy money only to realize that just like Youtube or Twitch it's a difficult fulltime job that requires very heavy interpersonal skills. That doesn't seem like a failing of capitalism. > Could meaningful work be subsidized so women who don't actually want to show their nipples to the world can get by without feeling pressured into trying to make a quick buck? If it isn't making money, it probably isn't meaningful, with the exclusion of volunteer work. Capitalist societies use money as our value indicator for services as tempered by demand. What meaningful work do you think should be subsidized?

jjoonathan 5y ago
The economic notion of "value" is weighted by wealth. Feeding a poor starving kid has no "value" -- because the kid has no money to pay you with. Merging up all the banks to win bailouts has extraordinary "value," because it helps people with lots of money obtain even more money. Associating the wealth-weighted "value" that economies optimize with the non-wealth-weighted concept of value that we all treasure is the largest PR coup of the last few centuries. Markets and economies do a lot of good for the world, but whoo boy is there a big difference between what they pretend to optimize and what they actually optimize.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  There's a reason we don't practice pure capitalism. The starving kid can't pay you but the Fed absolutely will, and the cost of food is amazingly low current inflation meat prices aside. You can make grandiose statements about value but at some point you need to offer a concrete example. What is currently not valued that should be?
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    Labor. Having capital is overvalued, doing work is undervalued. Doing shit work is especially undervalued. Systematically and intentionally. Take note that I am using the colloquial definition of value, here -- not the economic definition. Equating the two is not innocent, it is equivalent to the assumption "capitalism is good," which rather ends the conversation. The failure of American capitalism to live up to even the weakest of its promises -- "a rising tide floats all boats" -- for 80% of Americans over the last 40 years is nothing if it is not grandiose. Still, the "grandiose statements" of mine were meant to exercise the limits of the weight function. The actual realization of this prioritization is a million and one instances of "I thought markets are supposed to improve and optimize over the long term, why did this thing get worse?" Followed by "Did it get worse? Think about it again from the perspective of a market that values rich peoples' investment accounts over anything you care about, and ask yourself if made things worse for them or if it is functioning exactly as intended." Spoiler alert: it's functioning exactly as intended.

stopagephobia 5y ago

Disproportionate $ go to the top because everybody want the hottest girl. Digital media mean that everybody can get her stuff the same, basically as many as will pay. It aint like a strip club where maybe the hottest girl is already giving somebody else a lapdance so you take the next one down.

kevinmchugh 5y ago

> Even 75 years ago in America, every small town had its own marching band and baseball team. They still do, it's through the high school. Very, very few people have ever paid for a marching band's services.

tuatoru 5y ago

> late-stage degenerate capitalism. What specifically is your objection? Strip clubs and peep shows have been around for a long time, including during protocapitalism, degenerate or not. This is not a new incursion of the economy into social life. It's just much safer for the workers, and on average much more poorly paid because of the scale-free medium. Is your objection to the inevitable result of scale-free networks, the winner-take-all nature of internet-mediated commerce? I can agree with that. A society in which 0.01% become very rich while everyone else starves is not a healthy society. No-one seems very keen on balkanising the internet, though, and no-one's been able to crack the coordination problems involved in other possible solutions.

SamPatt 5y ago

Many - possibly even most - sex workers do it because they like it. Have you actually talked to sex workers? It's super common to lament what sex work says about society bla bla bla but never even listen to the women themselves. Maybe many women love showing off their bodies and making friends and money and maybe many men like seeing naked women and talking to them and maybe there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of this.