203
Billboards featuring OnlyFans model ruled ‘not overtly sexual’ by UK advertising watchdog
(www.euronews.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
203 points (95.1% liked)
World News
32351 readers
1001 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's no different than seeing a Victoria's Secret or Calvin Klein billboard, IMHO.
It's completely tame. There are far more sexual images in just about any direction. It's only because people know there's actual nakedness being advertised that anyone has a problem with it. And that's just silly.
People are just mad that women have a new and effective way to monetize their inherent value (^edit^ as a human, in a way that men can't compete as well with). they are mad because they either have moral objections, or want to deny said intrinsic value. Its a sad effect of people not loving themselves. Its also hilariously transparent when people get mad about things like this.
'inherent value'?
Don't be gross
to be clear i mean inherent value as a human. Men's inherent value isn't questioned, so i didn't mention it. I can see how you would think that how i meant it, and I'll see about editing the comment so it doesn't read that way.
She’s advertising her ability to titillate, not her personality or intrinsic value and self-worth. Even with your edit, you’re still equating the persona she adopts for her business with her value as a person.
The ability to titillate IS an intrinsic value, a human one at that. You're probably just sour that you don't feel you have that ability, so you want to deny the existence and power of the ability to titilate on a human value basis.
Projecting much?
I don’t have any personal desire to do any sex work. But women who are less conventionally attractive or who don’t feel confident on camera are not any less valuable than those who do. You’re equating a woman’s value as a human to her sex appeal and that’s disgusting.
You don't need to do sex work to be a human and appreciate the human experience fmif being titilated or titillating someone else. It's a wonderful part of the human experience.
You keep insisting that you know what I'm talking about, for whatever fucking reason, and you're consistently wrong. Why are you like this?
Stop putting your words in my mouth, they taste like shit
I gotchu
Queen Victoria and her husband (and also her cousin) Prince Albert popularized the custom of Christmas Trees in 1848 when Albert sent decorated trees to schools and army barracks around Windsor.
Prince Albert was apparently hung like a horse.
I'm ignorant about what content OnlyFans has. Is the woman on the billboard a porn star?
OnlyFans is generally a porn distribution platform, yes. It was created with wider intent, but was taken over by amateur porn makers. You basically sign up for free, then you subscribe to people you wanna jerk off to or whatever. some accounts are free, some are paid, most offer paid content on the side, like custom requests or old videos. I help one of my friends make content for her OF account here and there; I'm happy to answer questions you have about it.
I don't really have questions about OF beyond getting context for the billboard. In the US I don't see porn stars advertising in such everyday places. I have certainly seen billboards that are similar to the one shown in this article, but those are from companies with a big advertising budget like Victoria's Secret, as you mention. I think porn stars are generally not wealthy enough to have a big advertising budget for billboards.
The point of most only fan is to have you pay to be able to see sexual stuff