UFC star made more in 24 hours on OnlyFans than she did 'in her entire fighting career'
UFC star made more in 24 hours on OnlyFans than she did 'in her entire fighting career'
UFC star Paige VanZant launched her OnlyFans account in 2020 and now charges fans $9.99 per month to view her photos, saying she's made "life-changing money."
UFC star Paige VanZant said OnlyFans allows her to make 'life-changing money'
You're viewing a single thread.
It's so cool that we are giving young woman the idea that they can make money by selling their body. I'm sure that is great for society.
Dude, she was a professional fighter. She was already selling her body.
now she's selling her dignity
WTF is dignity? Sounds like something religious nut jobs made up to control women with
I would say getting spitroasted on camera for the world to see is pretty degrading, and I think a lot of people share that opinion.
Sorry bro but someone else's feelings doesn't seem to be for you and your friends to decide. But you're free to simply see it that way
God forbid I give my opinion on the internet
And now your opinion is permanently floating around on the internet. The horror!
I feel sorry for that guy, now his opinion is floating around forever, all for 100 measly upvotes if that. I can't imagine anything more degrading, it's sad to see someone sell their dignity for nothing.
posting your opinion on the internet is exactly like whats being discussed. you are very smart
It's so cool that
we areCapitalism is giving young women the idea that they can make money by selling their body. I'm sure that is great for society.FTFY
Whether doing sex work, manual labor, or a desk job, you are selling your body for profit. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with Capitalism.
Neat friend, can you please clarify what it is we are doing with our bodies under not-capitalism?
You mean selling your body for fighting in UFC?
The story of the opposite - she makes more money not selling her body!
Yo... You think people never thought about selling sex before this was posted on Lemmy?
This is like giving people the idea of the wheel. I'd be willing to bet that human beings bartered for sex before they bartered for food or water.
... human beings bartered for sex
I think you mean men bartered for sex before food or water.
Women are smart enough to put their lives before sex.
This is some of the dumbest shit I've read in a while.
Doing porn is a permanent stain on your reputation. I hate seeing young girls turn to it because of the easy money to be made. For every girl that has success on only fans is 50 girls who will have their nudes circulate the internet for eternity for a measly 100$.
It's only a permanent stain to people who care.
The people who make a big deal out of it are the ones that should be ashamed.
And a lot of people care. So it does matter.
I mean with this logic:
You know a lot of people were okay with slavery......
Just to be clear I'm pointing out that morality is not something that humanity votes on. Because humanity voted okay on slavery.
When was slavery voted upon?
Barring any of the other context here, you need to back up and think about why you think it's so awful for a nude picture to exist.
Are you helping or are you pushing your own moral code onto those who may not share it?
I'm giving my opinion. If nudes are so harmless, why is revenge porn such a big deal? The answer is because once your nudes are public, you are no longer in control. Any man can see your most intimate moment and do with it how they please, and you can do nothing to stop it. Your child will have to grow up knowing there are videos of your mom shoving a cucumber up her butt for a months rent.
And what’s wrong with that? I have a cucumber in my ass right now. So what?
I don't think it's healthy for a child to have their friends show them pictures of their mother in intimate situations.
I don’t think it’s healthy for you to worry so much about what other people do with their bodies.
You know that society is a big system right? Things other people do can have an indirect affect on me and my family. If everyone in my town smoked crack, I would get the fuck out of there, I wouldn't gaslight people into thinking its "wrong to care about what other people do with their bodies".
You’re just prudish and ashamed of sex. Other people are not. Your aversion and lack of openness about sexuality is not anyone else’s problem other than your own.
Agency, that's the difference between revenge porn and this.
Do you think that young women don’t figure it out on their own? I’m not saying this is a responsible article, but it’s more like a glowing article about how much oil field workers make. But sex work is old and young women have always figured it out.
I think we have yet to see the full impact of the damage to young women who were sold a dream of making money on only fans. Instead they will have their nudes permanently passed so disgusting old men can jack off to them. There is no undoing that and I suspect that will haunt a lot of girls far into the future.
You sure are doing women a favor by fear mongering over it and acting like it's something shameful. With modern tech all you need is a picture of someone's face anyway. And I say this as someone who has had content posted without my knowledge or consent. What exactly do you want me to do, live my life being "haunted" by this or tell people like you to fuck off and quit making it worse?
Not on OF, but I've got nudes out there. I really don't give a shit who sees em. I'm not ashamed of them. Where do you get the idea that irreparably damages women?
Cool, you have no shame for your actions. Glad you are able to live with your choices. A lot of people can't though.
In my opinion people should be able to do what they want with their own bodies (with the exception of meth, crack, etc) my problem with this only fans situation is that it's just underscoring that our society only seems to value women for their sexuality. I don't follow UFC but assuming she's good at what she does it's sad to me that society values her body more than her abilities. The same thing goes for the only fans teachers. I just wished we valued people for their skills and education more than their flesh. Like I said do what you want with your own body though.
Why don't I have the right to do whatever drugs I like? I know what I'm getting into, and it's my body. A lot of psychiatrists preach the benefits of mushrooms and acid for mental health. And meth and crack certainly aren't as powerful as mushrooms or acid.
My personal opinion is that there are some chemicals that are so detrimental to a person that society has the obligation to limit their use. Also, there is no articulable right to drugs in the Constitution except alcohol through the 21st amendment.
Why would I base my opinions on what slave owners who had never seen a light bulb thought?
the Constitution and decisions by the supreme Court determines what your legal rights are. Your opinions are your own and you can base them on whatever you want
Okay but why would I base them on the opinions of slave owners? That sounds stupid and nonsensical.
So there are two things at play here: rights and opinions. Legal rights in America are based on the constitution and the decisions made by the supreme Court. I'm not saying that they're correct or not; justified or not; or ethical or not. I'm just making a statement of fact that's where rights originate from in US law.
Opinions can be based on whatever you want. You are free to agree with or disagree with both the Constitution and the supreme Court. You can consider them valid or invalid institutions.
I'm not trying to tell you that you should be of a particular opinion or not.
Rights in America are not given by the constitution, they are in-born. The constitution helps enforce your naturally given rights, but it is certainly fallible at this, for example it's initial failing to protect the right to freedom held by slaves.
There are opinions, and there are facts. The right to freedom is a fact. Many of the founders were wrong on one of the foremost issues of their time, slavery, at a time when most of the rest of the world was not wrong about it anymore. As such, we should strongly discount all of their beliefs that are not independently verifiable. For instance, the electoral college. This was created in order to maintain the power of slave owners on government, and should be seen as a tool to oppress the will of the people. The EC is not flawed because it was created by slave owners, but it is suspect due to that, and on further inspection, it turns out to be a tool of oppression.
So your initial comment was something along the lines of, "why don't I have the right to do whatever drugs I want?" And I said that there wasn't a constitutional right to drugs. Are you of the opinion that there's a right to do drugs?
Oh, lol honestly I just assumed I was in a different sort of discussion based on your comment. But actually, yes I am, to a degree. Most recreational drugs anyone's heard of are, for the most part, safe enough. Otherwise they wouldn't be widely used. Average functioning adults should be allowed to put whatever they like in their body, provided they're informed of the effects it will have. Gatekeeping getting high is idiotic, when we are fully capable of providing safe places to do it. There are a ton of benefits to mental health in recreational drug use, not to mention that it is fun and nice and so should be acceptable in society, if done safely. And if the government was actually researching which drugs are fun and good when done safely, we wouldn't have to rely on either dealers, our idiot friends, or the Internet to tell us which ones not to do.
The reason porn pays is because so few woman are willing to give up their dignity for the sake of temporary cash flow. If everyone did porn, people would be making scraps.
Pornography is not a scarce commodity.
not anymore its not, which is why very few make money.
There is a lot of pornography available. It is not a scarce commodity.
What is your point?
Your original comment:
The reason porn pays is because so few woman are willing to give up their dignity for the sake of temporary cash flow. If everyone did porn, people would be making scraps.
You're making a basic supply and demand argument. As supply goes down (i.e. becomes scarce) and assuming demand remains constant the cost will increase.
If you're selling apples. And 100 people want apples. The price you charge will fluctuate depending on how many apples you have. If you have 10 the cost goes up. If you have 1,000 the cost goes down.
My argument is pornography is not scarce. Meaning there's a lot of it available (on the market) so I disagree with your assessment as to why "porn pays"