Interesting one.
Content-wise, obviously comparable to lingerie / fashion adverts.
On the one hand, it's directing the viewer to where they can access pornographic material (I assume), which is not appropriate for under 18s.
On the other, it's a paid service (again, I assume) which is a barrier to entry. It could be comparable to beer adverts which people seem to be more comfortable with - not an appropriate item for under 18s, with a purchase barrier.
Another comparison might be adverts for horror or otherwise graphic movies with an 18 rating.
Perhaps there's a difference in that the latter two have a physical interaction to check the appropriateness of purchase, while the online one doesn't?
They don't just hit the porn subs, we get OF spammers trying to post to this subreddit every day (usually at least 3-5). Our automod rules prevent them ever being seen by our users though!
Some of them are definitely scattergun, like posts offering escort services based in the US posting on this sub. Others are very targeted, being clearly from the UK (from post titles) and hitting up mainly UK-based subreddits.
Either way, the spam rarely ends up visible on the subreddit thanks partly to Reddit's own filters and our own automation!
I imagine a bit of bot and a bit of human. Some clearly pick what they want to hit, if there is a certain theme to a photo anything in that theme gets hit. Some clearly just hit all the vague nsfw subs. I can easily imagine it's a job to make sure your images are targeting what and who you want.
I imagine here gets hit by a vaguely (England, UK, United Kingdom, British) bot
They definitely don't do it thoughtfully, most of the OF spammers are entirely scattergun, even in the NSFW subs you end up with women (and I assume men in gay ones) who are nothing like the sub focus but are pushing their links. It's like having a Ford appreciation sub and someone with a BMW posting trying to grab subs for a BMW forum but with boobs and bums
Wow! How do you recognise them via the automod, on keywords and stuff?
I get them sending me DMs sometimes. Even though I never post in any NSFW subs and as a 40+ woman I'm unlikely to be a prime customer haha
Often even the content creators aren't necessarily aware that it's happening.
They pay for third party marketing services that spam them everywhere. Some are sketchy as hell and almost predatory in how they sell, others are more discerning and legitimate.
It's VERY hard to tell one from the other, but the services the good ones offer are too useful to ignore.
Don’t forget the recent one with strangers requesting a chat, not sending any message but just getting you to click on their profile with only an OF link on it.
But that's just a problem with spamming adverts and is normally council restricted anyway for the same reason I think, or at least priced to make it unviable.
Personally I hate billboards. Anti pedestrian and a traffic hazard just so the city council can be indirectly funded by the McDonalds Corporation.
Have you seen the “toast me” sub?
It’s full of girls saying simple things like “tough day today, could use some support”, which is all well and good, until you click through to their profile and realise they’ve been spamming other subs with similar messages, while their profile is also full of sexy images and their only fans link.
Sure, there’s a chance these girls are just genuinely feeling down in the dumps… but it feels a lot more like poorly disguised marketing to me. And it kind of ruins those subreddits for me.
I didn't realise that was happening. That sucks and defeats the point of those subreddits. They should ban those accounts and make them post from a throwaway if they really need support
This person stated they made 200,000 a month and it cost them 18k for 4 billboard here and on times square I believe.
I'm not against the billboard, but leave OF off it, that's not appropriate at all, especially near schools.
There is no way physical billboards are a cost effective way to advertise OF, this particular incident was a PR stunt, the controversary was the advertising, if it becomes common it wouldn't be controversial and would be a waste of money.
I'm a red blooded male, so like most of us, I like to browse certain content now and again but yeah, the OF spam is tiresome as fuck. Reddit is becoming useless for that sort of material
I've learned a couple of things from instagram. It seems impossible for most women to do anything in the gym if they aren't wearing leggings that are painted on and top cut so low you can see their navel. They also all seem to have a 'spicy' link in their profile.
The other one being that everyone and their dog is into pyramid schemes.
I think this is a problem with billboards in general.
Advertising in print and TV - and even annoying popups - at least funds something that I actually want. I like TV shows. I like streaming. I like magazines. So at least the advertising benefits me. And if I don't like it, I can choose not to watch TV or whatever.
What do billboards fund for me?
They're just urban spam and we put up with it because we always have done.
>Since OF caught on, so many NSFW subs are almost entirely populated by OF creators looking to make a sale and drive traffic. The more "IDGAF" of them post content not even relevant to the sub, and if you check out profiles these accounts submit to dozens of subs within 5 minutes.
Yes but it also gets more subtle than that. You get a lot of accounts that do nothing but post to adult subs about their OF, then, once in a blue moon, they venture into another sub. They always have a sexual username like 'littletittygetswetforyou' or something along those lines which is a pretty clear indication of what the account is for.
In TIL you'd see them randomly post topics, that while technically TIL were sometimes sexual TILs in nature, but the whole point of posting was what I called 'fishing' they were doing one off random posts like this simply to try and get people intrigued by their username to click on it and drive traffic back to their OF. They didn't regularly posts in any these subs, just like once every couple months they'd pick a random sub and make a post but have no other record of interaction there.
They making dating apps a fucking nightmare too.
Tinder’s basically unusable, especially in London. A pretty hefty proportion of accounts are either directing you to an OnlyFans, or a wannabe influencer’s bikini pics.
Nothing against sex work at all, i just don’t want to be wondering if there’s a price tag every time my phone pings with a match
Excellent point, PM_ME_BEEF_CURTAINS. Online access with probably less than effective age-gating.
I was considering how people would feel if (e.g.) strip clubs popped up at the same rate that BetFreds do on the high-street. Is the fact that we don't due to moral objection from locals, or that it's more challenging to staff...
There are oddly quite a few rules that might prohibit the advert if it was used to advertise beer.
> Advertisements must not link alcohol with sexual activity or success or imply that alcohol can enhance attractiveness
Quite right, the "controversy" is just pure prudishness.
Watch any football game now (which tons of kids will also), whether in person or via TV and most are literally wall to wall gambling ads. Not sure why a lone billboard advertising OF is somehow worse but regardless, it's had the intended effect and will doubtlessly drive clicks in this person's direction.
Smart bit of advertising, tbh.
That's the critical question. If a relatively famous porn star was in her underwear, looking like a lingerie model, but advertising a pornography website/film would we all just shrug and say "this is fine"?
Would it make a difference if there was a pay barrier? Or some kind of access check?
Not just a 'Please confirm that you are 18+ before continuing', but something more effective.
Makes a difference in my head, but can't say it's robust reasoning.
It is obviously better as it limits access to the material but my issue is with the advert itself.
Any sane person agrees exposing young children to sexual material and/or introducing them to the concept of pornography and sex work is inappropriate.
There are certain ages at which that is OK to do, we might disagree on exactly when but the idea that there is an age that is too young is uncontroversial.
So, why is it OK for a company to use a blunderbuss marketing approach to try to get me to pay for a wank by showing me and my young kid a sex worker in her underwear and advertise her explicit social media and pornography accounts?
I don't want to have that conversation with my kid at a time of their choosing, I don't want to be marketed to in this way.
I don't think we should allow corporations to be so irresponsible, even if we allow their products to exist.
I don’t think we would, but I do think we’d be being a bit weird and would struggle to really backup our “this is not fine”.
If it’s fine to advertise the next 18 rated movie then why is it not fine to advertise porn?
If we want porn to be illegal we need to make it illegal, not have it be perfectly legal yet treat it like it isn’t quite.
The complaint was that it was overtly sexual (which it is sexy, but no more so than other acceptable forms of advertising), the fact it is for a site that is largely porn was not the complaint and i don't believe there are any laws against advertising porn like there are things like tobacco products, so there's nothing they can do.
I think as a society we're allowed to decide what outdoor advertising we will accept and what we feel uncomfortable with. It doesn't have to be super logical or "fair". We all share these public spaces. The UK does much better on restricting political adverts compared to some countries, for example.
Having individual porn stars in semi-provocative poses on the side of buildings for absolutely all to see feels a bit... trashy. I know adverts for things like beer and gambling are allowed, but I think there's a bit of a difference there still. Which of beer/gambling/porn would you feel comfortable explaining to a kid?
Maybe it's just me being prude. I do think this crosses a line, but I know others will put that line in a completely different place. There isn't really an objectively correct answer here.
Very true, the reaction doesn't have to be logical. Always interesting to see how that is squared by (e.g.) regulators, who have to base their judgements on a more objective approach.
That said, I guess there's always the 'likely to cause offence' avenue of justification which considered that.
One subtle difference between the age rating on porn vs drinking - it's legal for anyone over the age of about 5 to drink alcohol in private, it's legal in public over the age of 16 with a meal, it's only an 18 age limit if you want to buy it and/or drink it in public. For porn, it's 18+ regardless (although hopefully that's done in private anyway!!)
Rubbish. If a child gets hold of a porn mag (or porn on a computer) there's no law which makes it illegal for them to look at it, in private or otherwise. The laws about pornography are similar to alcohol in that regard; it's illegal to procure underage but not to view.
I think you misread my comment.
I'm not suggesting that there's a law against *looking* at it, my point is that for porn it's illegal for porn websites to distribute porn to someone if they're under 18 even if it's free (that's why they ask for your age).
The 18+ age restriction on alcohol is only if you're *buying* it, or drinking in public places.
I find this rather fascinating, and think it's difficult to make a strong argument against this on a technical level. Part of me also thinks this is going to support the arguments for having stronger age-verification controls for websites that can be allowed to operate in the UK.
>Perhaps there's a difference in that the latter two have a physical interaction to check the appropriateness of purchase, while the online one doesn't?
Yeah onlyfans isnt carding people when they attempt purchase, there is zero rigorous age verification methods employed when creating a "subscriber" account and there probably should be if they are going to advertise like this?
Same as gambling, or viewing 18+ movies online? Both of which get advertised extensively.
The argument being that if these are fine them why not OnlyFans? Of course, maybe these aren't fine. Or maybe it is the lack of rigorous age verification? Which worries me because it involves the government taking stricter control over the Internet.
You raise some really good points there.
With stricter verification control, you'd likely inherently limit freedom of access somewhere down the line.
This is an interesting debacle for sure.
There is no barrier to entry on the Instagram page which was also advertised (@elizarosewatson).
The second, pinned post on her profile is her wearing a sheer top that exposes her nipples.
Might as well just start advertising pornhub actresses and Fansly stuff on billboards, would it have the same reaction?
I get it, the image itself isn't as bad as lingerie, but it's quite literally advertising porn in the streets, what the hell? People complain about 15-16 year olds watching it (pretty normal) but it seems we want to introduce them even younger now
We comparing Deadpool to Gangbang and fetish porn now?
No, I'm not against advertisement for +18 movies depending on the topics of the movie, they aren't the same thing, they don't transmit the same feelings.
Why the question? Do you think we should start screening porn in cinemas?
i asked the question because both are examples of 18+ content being marketing in view of people under 18.
personally i would have no problem if a cinema screened a porno. porn is and should be legal and people should be able to pay to watch porn.
why would you want to outlaw cinemas from being to able to screen porn?
Since you seem to think people are not answering your question i will be clear. No me and it seems most are not against adverts for 18+ movies.
The reason for this is because you see an advert for a movie and it has to be age appropriate for the audience who sees the trailer hence no 18+ themes in a trailer during the day which may be for a 18+ movie. There are also safeguards in place already for children trying to watch an 18+ movie. Cinemas cant sell tickets to minors for an 18+ movie also websites and streaming sites, although easy to circumnavigate, have warnings and confirmations that the viewer is 18+.
The difference for this advert in question is she links not just her onlyfans but her social media platforms none of which state you have to be 18+ to view the content and as another user has stated they have seen her nipples on Instagram which many kids use. A lot of people will search an advert to find out what it is for as this is the nature of advertising. If a child would do this it is fairly certain they would be exposed to porn. At least with movies it states what the product is. Maybe she should include in her advert she is an adult film star.
Not really though. They're both perfectly legal pieces of video content designed to make you feel some feelings, with age-restricted audiences.
I'm not wild about the idea of OF creators advertising porn in billboards, but I'm also not wild about gambling or alcohol being advertised on billboards for the same reasons. I think they are comparable, are very similar in fact, and should be under much tighter restrictions.
> They're both perfectly legal pieces of video content designed to make you feel some feelings, with age-restricted audiences.
Porn is far more detrimental to your brain though.
Not only porn, but the type of porn that says to young girls that they can do it too and be really successful as soon as they turn 18 at the click of a button, even though the likelihood is that they would earn little money and suffer negative consequences that would follow them through adult life.
It costs money to access the NSFW stuff on OF. It's no different than gambling or alcohol: it gets advertised where under 16s can see it, but they can't actually access it (legally anyway).
Lots of people in the thread have already checked and confirmed her Instagram is actually even lewder than her OnlyFans home page, and yeah, I just checked too, literally just tits and nipples on the first photo, with nearly showing her cooch too.
Seems pretty easy and free to access to me
We have to make a new kind of technical argument though. 18+ content being advertised isn't new. We allow it for films as well as things like gambling and alcohol. Either we allow 18+ content to be advertised, or we don't.
At some point we are going to have to have a long hard look at the state of young people in our society and the roles social media and normal media are playing in it.
Having 15 and 16 year old girls having Only Fans marketed to them as an employment opportunity is worrying but to be honest they are probably hit with that kind of thing much more on social media and the influencers there.
> they are probably hit with that kind of thing much more on social media and the influencers there.
Especially with the Twitter Blue prioritization
Like every top reply to a popular post is an OF girl now, good lord.
Though things seem to be slightly better in recent weeks.
>Having 15 and 16 year old girls having Only Fans marketed to them as an employment opportunity
That would be illegal and against the terms of service. You definitely need to be 18 to be an only fans content creator.
My social media is full of adverts me how much I can earn if I retrain on cyber security, or how welcoming wetherspoons is to work in. This would only be a problem if the advertising is actually dishonest. For OF, I don't think it is necessarily. People do make money from it, and it is a viable career option, for some people at least.
The only difference is that it is a career in sex work, but I don't see anything unique about that.
But the majority don't make the vast amount of money, and advertising it to teenagers as something empowering they can do to make money at 18 is insane- to be paid well you either have to have a following or do degrading shit people want to see, not to mention at 18 you're not always thinking through the consequences that sex work will have on the rest of your life
I don't see the problem. Protein powders are not going to get people the beach body, despite the insinuation. Going to OF will actually get you access to the porn (if you pay the money). One is misleading and exploitative advertising, the other is just advertising.
> There is the problem/ moral debate over children being advertised to like this
There are plenty of other things rated 18+ or not suitable for children that get advertised though, why is this different to say posters for Evil Dead Rise, alchohol, or gambling, which are all also 18+?
Compare the pictures [of Krakow](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/11sbctl/krak%C3%B3w_before_and_after_new_billboard_law/) before and after a ban on outdoor advertising.
They degrade our environment, making our lives worse, and their purpose is to manipulate our purchasing decisions to some else's benefit.
There should be no billboard in public spaces in Britain, of any kind.
100% support something like this. We're bombarded by ads on every device we use, all day. The least they could do is exclude real life from it as well.
I agree.
I also put my vote to banning awful branding on shops, particularly in historic towns and cities. If you go to Canterbury, for example, the lovely buildings in the centre are hidden by gaudy facades that have been cobbled on to the front.
If you go to the Only Fans website, there doesn’t appear to be any overtly sexual content; it’s all comedy, cooking, exercise and lifestyle.
It seems strange that OnlyFans is more honest when promoting its content on billboards, rather than its own website.
Anyway congrats to the BBC on blurring out the model’s details to prevent the free advertising… I mean, I can still read it, but I had to squint…
I’m pretty sure Onlyfans attempt to give that appearance to try to stay in the good books of card companies/payment systems. This was an individual promoting herself on a billboard, not the company itself.
Ah, I skimmed the article because I thought I’d essentially read it before. But I’d misunderstood and thought that this was an OnlyFans endorsed advertisement. In that case it makes more sense, but the BBC and others have given OnlyFans a hell of a lot of free advertising on this one.
Cheers, you’re not the first to point that out. I’ve acknowledged that in the thread.
I guess I’d rephrase my thoughts that it’s a bit strange that this billboard is more honest about Only Fans content than the Only Fans website itself.
I mean is there any difference in advertising alcohol, gambling, 18 rated movies, 18 rated video games, cars,
All of them require a certain age limit to be able to do them, its a legal paid service / product, people are just prudish because “sex”
Denigrating porn on moral reasons but allowing gambling and alcohol to continue advertising would just show the cognitive dissonance between what causes more harm
Yeah I always find there an almost arbitrary way people react to this kind of stuff. The Sun still has page 3 girls from what I understand and that gets sold without age restrictions in corner shops that get frequented by kids daily.
I don't recall porn ever being advertised so blatantly before, I've read a few comments in the thread and their arguements make sense but I do not think I've ever seen playboy billboards or pornhub billboards before and I may very well be incorrect and simply not seen them but I do wonder why this is allowed?
Are the regulators out of touch on this one? do they know what goes on behind those closed doors of the only fans subscription?
We have enough issues with how easily accessible porn is on the internet for underage kids which then creates a whole other issue of young kids thinking that is how they should be treating women...
I mean, this sounds like a problem of parents not paying attention to their kids’ internet use
We publicly advertise plenty of stuff that isn’t appropriate for kids.
While I also don't pay for porn, I can see why someone who could afford it may want to pay to watch their favourite porn star's content. This could either be for the big stars etc or the ones just starting out whose content isn't elsewhere.
This is what I've always wondered; I've subscribed twice (for a whopping £8 in total) and all the content was somehow worse than what you can find floating online.
Then I remember about the guy who paid 10K to see his favourite "model" and ended up paying for her and her partners round the world trip.
It's entirely based on milking the lonely and stupid.
Lots of men do both to look at female and male "creators" (or whatever the term is). Maybe theres women customers too. There's clearly a lot of customers out there. I think people claim it does feel more "real" than just random clips off other websites. One person I know thought it was more ethical because the women are choosing to do it unlike pornhub which has secretly filmed stuff, trafficked people, revenge porn etc. Sadly I expect OF has people being forced to do it too though.
Unfortunately millions of men do.
Sad fucks think they will get an emotional and sexual connection with pretty girl online. "Just one more donation and I'm sure she will love me". Pathetic losers.
I would only ever consider it for someone I knew irl that I had a huge crush on, even then it would be for the shortest duration just to see it and then unsubscribe.
These fellas gonna be blown away when they realise they can type their exact fetish into a browser and get millions of hits instantly.
Just as with Gambling anything OF / PornHub / Fansly related on a billboard should be vandalised.
Neither of them offer anything positive or productive to society and are absolutely things we should not be pushing to the general population.
Porn and Gambling addictions are very real, devastating things. OnlyFans is \*NOT\* an aspirational goal.
I swear not a year ago regulators were trying to block porn by making you sign up IDs online
And then banning extreme content but this is okay?
This country is strange
It's always interesting to see how differently sexual content is treated to violent content.
We wouldn't blink an eye about an advert for an 18+ violent video game or horror movie. There are even plenty of 12A or PG films/games which show lots of violence, death and some gore, but wouldn't show a woman's nipple.
In terms of the advert it's almost an exact replica of the Hello Boys wonderbra advert if the 90s that caused "controversy". Similar to that advert the biggest success it had was being "controversial". Perhaps my only issue is the model herself has obviously had a lot of cosmetic work done and it might lead to unachievable concepts of beauty (although personally I don't find that look attractive).
If you got bills to play get a job?
Theres absolutely loads of jobs in trading and STEM industries that we will need even more of in the future
Oh yeah that takes effort which we are literally promoting to children as a bad thing to do in life, make the effort.
This isn’t really a new thing, so much as its a new term. A fairly longstanding tactic by libertines is to attack anyone who disagrees with them as being some sort of loser, particularly sexually repressed or a sexual failure. This is because they don’t really have any positive arguements for anything, so anyone who either rejects the idea that restriction is intrinsically bad, or who at least doesn’t beleive that it is always worse than the alternative, is simply going to trounce them in any serious arguement, so instead its easier to simply discredit them as a person.
Yeah and I don't like gambling ads or booze being shoved down kids throats particularly either. Ads of this sort should be seen only by people 18+ who can actually consume such products
incel can be whatever you want it to be at this point. for example this poster has convinced herself that it’s big shaggers who pay for porn and lonely virgins who don’t.
You'd probably call me puritan for thinking this is a bad thing, but it's hard not to see it as an indicator of a hyper-commodified "gig economy" society where nothing has any value beyond the financial.
Every part of the interpersonal can now be a product. Your dating is gamified through apps. Your sex life is recorded and sold as a product. If that sex results in kids, you can shove a camera in their face and turn them into content for TikTok and Youtube.
It just feels like we're heading in such a soulless direction, where literally everything is for sale in such abundance that it ends up losing its value. Where instead of selling our time and labour for part of a day then reverting to ourselves, we turn ourselves into the product and live a life of commodification. It feels so empty.
What is the average age of Reddit users?
The average age of Reddit users is approximately 22-34 years old, with a majority being between 18 and 29 years old.
Gonna sound pretty incelly here but I'm gonna assume there is a decent percentage of young people who have had access to hardcore porn since they were about 12 years old, and know multiple people from a couple of years ago at school whose back catalogue of nudes is available for a fiver.
I'd suspect that a fair contingent of those 18-25 year olds, both men and women, are aware enough to think "maybe this isnt great".
Like it would be incredibly easy to say that huge portions of these kids lives have sent mixed message about the objectification, or at least commodofication of women's bodies.
My attitudes towards porn were a lot more positive until I started to truly understand how damaging frequent masturbation and porn use was to the human mind, and how exploitative the industry truly was. While the research on this is still inconclusive because of how prevalent it is in our society, there is a tonne of anecdotal evidence from people who have abstained from it having higher energy levels, easing erectile dysfunction symptoms and overall just living better lives.
OF is one of the worst things to have happened to our society and is a large reason for the enshittification of a lot of social media platforms. Turns out exploiting vulnerable/desperate men and wringing their wallets dry is big money.
Really sad that the Advertising Standards Authority lack the vertebrae to ban these ads for risqué adult content on billboards.
This is going to set a worrying precedent for Britain. I don't want to live in a country where billboards are dominated by ladies selling their nude photos for top dollar.
I don't see how people can defend porn like its the best thing thats ever happened as an ex addict its possibly the worst thing that ever happened to me
Everything else aside, the woman behind this is clearly a marketing genius. She definitely knew that there'd be backlash against it, and now the BBC has told everyone her name, and the two sites she is advertising. That is more publicity than she'd have got if people just ignored those billboards and let them do what they do.
Also, FWIW, there was a huge billboard of Lewis Capaldi in his pants outside Shepherds Bush station, and nobody cared about that!
It only preys on sad lonely men so no one will give a shit about the repercussions. Onlyfans and porn in general are awful industries with no upside. Shouldn't be allowed to advertise them in public.
It also affects the women who advertise on onlyfans, who I expect will discover when they want to stop that society isn't actually as liberal about sex as they have been led to believe.
Every future partner and employer will be able to look at her photos and videos, because the internet never forgets. She'll never know if a new friend has seen it. Maybe her colleagues are passing it round the office. Who knows when it will be used to discredit or shame her?
Only the companies who take a cut win. They'll exploit both sides and say it's social progress.
I don't understand this stuff its clearly people objectifying themselves for the sexual gratification of absolute loners who are easily manipulated, Personally thats my opinion on the matter and that shouldn't be advertised
I do find them a bit weird, but fundamentally it’s an 18+ service with a barrier to entry, like beer, so fine there, and content wise it’s no different to lingerie ads, so fine there. I get that people find it uncomfortable, and it is a bit weird, but I see no legitimate reason for it being banned.
It is overtly sexual, but then so is every single piece of advertising for lingerie. It seems like the law might need some reform here because they're having to stretch the words used to an unnatural interpretation because of the practice which has developed.
They might do better just to use the words "pornographic" or "unsuitable for viewing by under 18s".
If anyone's ever holidayed in a country where sexual advertising is much rarer, it really is a blessing not to be bombarded with it constantly. You only notice how much it affects you when you experience not having it there for the first time in many years.
Humans reflexively get mentally distracted and/or sexually aroused by sexual imagery - it's nice not to make a conscious effort to ignore that every few minutes and to not have your thoughts disturbed by that primal drive all the time, in the same way that it's nice to be able to go through life without being hungry all the time or without being put into fight or flight or without some annoying fucker making a load of noise when you're trying to concentrate.
I'm all for sex shops, safe sex work and people having a healthy sex life, but it should mostly be something you seek out rather than something you're forced to interact with.
Interesting one. Content-wise, obviously comparable to lingerie / fashion adverts. On the one hand, it's directing the viewer to where they can access pornographic material (I assume), which is not appropriate for under 18s. On the other, it's a paid service (again, I assume) which is a barrier to entry. It could be comparable to beer adverts which people seem to be more comfortable with - not an appropriate item for under 18s, with a purchase barrier. Another comparison might be adverts for horror or otherwise graphic movies with an 18 rating. Perhaps there's a difference in that the latter two have a physical interaction to check the appropriateness of purchase, while the online one doesn't?
[удалено]
They don't just hit the porn subs, we get OF spammers trying to post to this subreddit every day (usually at least 3-5). Our automod rules prevent them ever being seen by our users though!
>we get OF spammers trying to post to this subreddit every day (usually at least 3-5). Our automod rules prevent them 3 cheers for auto mod
Hip hip [removed]
Hehehe this made me chuckle
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Yup Edinburgh sub got hacked and had an OF pinned as a top mod post.
[удалено]
Some of them are definitely scattergun, like posts offering escort services based in the US posting on this sub. Others are very targeted, being clearly from the UK (from post titles) and hitting up mainly UK-based subreddits. Either way, the spam rarely ends up visible on the subreddit thanks partly to Reddit's own filters and our own automation!
[удалено]
pimps
I imagine a bit of bot and a bit of human. Some clearly pick what they want to hit, if there is a certain theme to a photo anything in that theme gets hit. Some clearly just hit all the vague nsfw subs. I can easily imagine it's a job to make sure your images are targeting what and who you want. I imagine here gets hit by a vaguely (England, UK, United Kingdom, British) bot
They definitely don't do it thoughtfully, most of the OF spammers are entirely scattergun, even in the NSFW subs you end up with women (and I assume men in gay ones) who are nothing like the sub focus but are pushing their links. It's like having a Ford appreciation sub and someone with a BMW posting trying to grab subs for a BMW forum but with boobs and bums
I hereby volunteer to assess their profiles.
Wow! How do you recognise them via the automod, on keywords and stuff? I get them sending me DMs sometimes. Even though I never post in any NSFW subs and as a 40+ woman I'm unlikely to be a prime customer haha
Often even the content creators aren't necessarily aware that it's happening. They pay for third party marketing services that spam them everywhere. Some are sketchy as hell and almost predatory in how they sell, others are more discerning and legitimate. It's VERY hard to tell one from the other, but the services the good ones offer are too useful to ignore.
Don’t forget the recent one with strangers requesting a chat, not sending any message but just getting you to click on their profile with only an OF link on it.
Yeah, we get a lot of those too. All binned!
But that's just a problem with spamming adverts and is normally council restricted anyway for the same reason I think, or at least priced to make it unviable. Personally I hate billboards. Anti pedestrian and a traffic hazard just so the city council can be indirectly funded by the McDonalds Corporation.
Have you seen the “toast me” sub? It’s full of girls saying simple things like “tough day today, could use some support”, which is all well and good, until you click through to their profile and realise they’ve been spamming other subs with similar messages, while their profile is also full of sexy images and their only fans link. Sure, there’s a chance these girls are just genuinely feeling down in the dumps… but it feels a lot more like poorly disguised marketing to me. And it kind of ruins those subreddits for me.
It's in the fitness subreddits too. "Can you tell me if I'm doing deadlifts right?" (Wearing hotpants, Only Fans links in bio)
I didn't realise that was happening. That sucks and defeats the point of those subreddits. They should ban those accounts and make them post from a throwaway if they really need support
I'd suggest the expense of physical advertising would limit that though
[удалено]
This person stated they made 200,000 a month and it cost them 18k for 4 billboard here and on times square I believe. I'm not against the billboard, but leave OF off it, that's not appropriate at all, especially near schools.
There is no way physical billboards are a cost effective way to advertise OF, this particular incident was a PR stunt, the controversary was the advertising, if it becomes common it wouldn't be controversial and would be a waste of money.
I'm a red blooded male, so like most of us, I like to browse certain content now and again but yeah, the OF spam is tiresome as fuck. Reddit is becoming useless for that sort of material
I've learned a couple of things from instagram. It seems impossible for most women to do anything in the gym if they aren't wearing leggings that are painted on and top cut so low you can see their navel. They also all seem to have a 'spicy' link in their profile. The other one being that everyone and their dog is into pyramid schemes.
So you're okay with adult content as long as you're not being told to pay for it?
If you can't tell the difference between advertising and spam, that's a you problem
All advertising is spam.
Like all how all unwanted interactions are harassment
I think this is a problem with billboards in general. Advertising in print and TV - and even annoying popups - at least funds something that I actually want. I like TV shows. I like streaming. I like magazines. So at least the advertising benefits me. And if I don't like it, I can choose not to watch TV or whatever. What do billboards fund for me? They're just urban spam and we put up with it because we always have done.
>Since OF caught on, so many NSFW subs are almost entirely populated by OF creators looking to make a sale and drive traffic. The more "IDGAF" of them post content not even relevant to the sub, and if you check out profiles these accounts submit to dozens of subs within 5 minutes. Yes but it also gets more subtle than that. You get a lot of accounts that do nothing but post to adult subs about their OF, then, once in a blue moon, they venture into another sub. They always have a sexual username like 'littletittygetswetforyou' or something along those lines which is a pretty clear indication of what the account is for. In TIL you'd see them randomly post topics, that while technically TIL were sometimes sexual TILs in nature, but the whole point of posting was what I called 'fishing' they were doing one off random posts like this simply to try and get people intrigued by their username to click on it and drive traffic back to their OF. They didn't regularly posts in any these subs, just like once every couple months they'd pick a random sub and make a post but have no other record of interaction there.
They making dating apps a fucking nightmare too. Tinder’s basically unusable, especially in London. A pretty hefty proportion of accounts are either directing you to an OnlyFans, or a wannabe influencer’s bikini pics. Nothing against sex work at all, i just don’t want to be wondering if there’s a price tag every time my phone pings with a match
They don't just spam NSFW subs, they also spam craft and makeup subs (among others).
> Another comparison might be adverts for horror or otherwise graphic movies with an 18 rating. Gambling sites...
Excellent point, PM_ME_BEEF_CURTAINS. Online access with probably less than effective age-gating. I was considering how people would feel if (e.g.) strip clubs popped up at the same rate that BetFreds do on the high-street. Is the fact that we don't due to moral objection from locals, or that it's more challenging to staff...
The limitation on strip clubs is almost 100% NIMBYs in action
That and British stripclubs are grotty as fuck.
Mostly because of the lack of competition
I mean, you could put a beer next to her and nobody would bat an eye. That’s an 18+ product, that is often advertised with scantily clad women…
There are oddly quite a few rules that might prohibit the advert if it was used to advertise beer. > Advertisements must not link alcohol with sexual activity or success or imply that alcohol can enhance attractiveness
Quite right, the "controversy" is just pure prudishness. Watch any football game now (which tons of kids will also), whether in person or via TV and most are literally wall to wall gambling ads. Not sure why a lone billboard advertising OF is somehow worse but regardless, it's had the intended effect and will doubtlessly drive clicks in this person's direction. Smart bit of advertising, tbh.
Not all onlyfans accounts are paid. There is free content available. Would a pornhub ad be acceptable on a billboard? Probably not.
That's the critical question. If a relatively famous porn star was in her underwear, looking like a lingerie model, but advertising a pornography website/film would we all just shrug and say "this is fine"?
Yep
Would it make a difference if there was a pay barrier? Or some kind of access check? Not just a 'Please confirm that you are 18+ before continuing', but something more effective. Makes a difference in my head, but can't say it's robust reasoning.
It is obviously better as it limits access to the material but my issue is with the advert itself. Any sane person agrees exposing young children to sexual material and/or introducing them to the concept of pornography and sex work is inappropriate. There are certain ages at which that is OK to do, we might disagree on exactly when but the idea that there is an age that is too young is uncontroversial. So, why is it OK for a company to use a blunderbuss marketing approach to try to get me to pay for a wank by showing me and my young kid a sex worker in her underwear and advertise her explicit social media and pornography accounts? I don't want to have that conversation with my kid at a time of their choosing, I don't want to be marketed to in this way. I don't think we should allow corporations to be so irresponsible, even if we allow their products to exist.
I don’t think we would, but I do think we’d be being a bit weird and would struggle to really backup our “this is not fine”. If it’s fine to advertise the next 18 rated movie then why is it not fine to advertise porn? If we want porn to be illegal we need to make it illegal, not have it be perfectly legal yet treat it like it isn’t quite.
You also forgot gambling adverts
The complaint was that it was overtly sexual (which it is sexy, but no more so than other acceptable forms of advertising), the fact it is for a site that is largely porn was not the complaint and i don't believe there are any laws against advertising porn like there are things like tobacco products, so there's nothing they can do.
I think as a society we're allowed to decide what outdoor advertising we will accept and what we feel uncomfortable with. It doesn't have to be super logical or "fair". We all share these public spaces. The UK does much better on restricting political adverts compared to some countries, for example. Having individual porn stars in semi-provocative poses on the side of buildings for absolutely all to see feels a bit... trashy. I know adverts for things like beer and gambling are allowed, but I think there's a bit of a difference there still. Which of beer/gambling/porn would you feel comfortable explaining to a kid? Maybe it's just me being prude. I do think this crosses a line, but I know others will put that line in a completely different place. There isn't really an objectively correct answer here.
Very true, the reaction doesn't have to be logical. Always interesting to see how that is squared by (e.g.) regulators, who have to base their judgements on a more objective approach. That said, I guess there's always the 'likely to cause offence' avenue of justification which considered that.
I don't want to see any advertising in our public spaces, especially not beer/gambling or this or billboards that distract drivers
One subtle difference between the age rating on porn vs drinking - it's legal for anyone over the age of about 5 to drink alcohol in private, it's legal in public over the age of 16 with a meal, it's only an 18 age limit if you want to buy it and/or drink it in public. For porn, it's 18+ regardless (although hopefully that's done in private anyway!!)
Sometimes it can be done accidentally in public, like if you are trying to view tractors for example.
I got that reference!
Rubbish. If a child gets hold of a porn mag (or porn on a computer) there's no law which makes it illegal for them to look at it, in private or otherwise. The laws about pornography are similar to alcohol in that regard; it's illegal to procure underage but not to view.
I think you misread my comment. I'm not suggesting that there's a law against *looking* at it, my point is that for porn it's illegal for porn websites to distribute porn to someone if they're under 18 even if it's free (that's why they ask for your age). The 18+ age restriction on alcohol is only if you're *buying* it, or drinking in public places.
I find this rather fascinating, and think it's difficult to make a strong argument against this on a technical level. Part of me also thinks this is going to support the arguments for having stronger age-verification controls for websites that can be allowed to operate in the UK.
>Perhaps there's a difference in that the latter two have a physical interaction to check the appropriateness of purchase, while the online one doesn't? Yeah onlyfans isnt carding people when they attempt purchase, there is zero rigorous age verification methods employed when creating a "subscriber" account and there probably should be if they are going to advertise like this?
Same as gambling, or viewing 18+ movies online? Both of which get advertised extensively. The argument being that if these are fine them why not OnlyFans? Of course, maybe these aren't fine. Or maybe it is the lack of rigorous age verification? Which worries me because it involves the government taking stricter control over the Internet.
You raise some really good points there. With stricter verification control, you'd likely inherently limit freedom of access somewhere down the line. This is an interesting debacle for sure.
Also I can watch an advert about erectile disfunction or Viagra, at any time of day on TV. Which is about as overt as sexual content can get too
There is no barrier to entry on the Instagram page which was also advertised (@elizarosewatson). The second, pinned post on her profile is her wearing a sheer top that exposes her nipples.
The Twitter and Instagram handle also has raunchy. I checked as an experiment. No barriers to entry there.
Might as well just start advertising pornhub actresses and Fansly stuff on billboards, would it have the same reaction? I get it, the image itself isn't as bad as lingerie, but it's quite literally advertising porn in the streets, what the hell? People complain about 15-16 year olds watching it (pretty normal) but it seems we want to introduce them even younger now
are you against advertisements for 18+ movies?
Are you for porn company billboards?
We comparing Deadpool to Gangbang and fetish porn now? No, I'm not against advertisement for +18 movies depending on the topics of the movie, they aren't the same thing, they don't transmit the same feelings. Why the question? Do you think we should start screening porn in cinemas?
i asked the question because both are examples of 18+ content being marketing in view of people under 18. personally i would have no problem if a cinema screened a porno. porn is and should be legal and people should be able to pay to watch porn. why would you want to outlaw cinemas from being to able to screen porn?
Proper porn guy, here.
Cinemas need a special licence to screen porn, and even then it's only stuff with the R18 certificate.
[удалено]
there can be billboards advertising 18+ movies can there not?
Presumably they're referring to posters and billboards? I saw plenty of those for Evil Dead Rise, which was 18 rated.
no, but I am against this. It's not just a 'think of the children' issue, it's about not making the street grimier and sleazier in small ways
It's the kind of advert I'd expect to see in Blackpool but nowhere else.
[удалено]
advertising 18+ content in view of under 18s. thought that was self-evident
Since you seem to think people are not answering your question i will be clear. No me and it seems most are not against adverts for 18+ movies. The reason for this is because you see an advert for a movie and it has to be age appropriate for the audience who sees the trailer hence no 18+ themes in a trailer during the day which may be for a 18+ movie. There are also safeguards in place already for children trying to watch an 18+ movie. Cinemas cant sell tickets to minors for an 18+ movie also websites and streaming sites, although easy to circumnavigate, have warnings and confirmations that the viewer is 18+. The difference for this advert in question is she links not just her onlyfans but her social media platforms none of which state you have to be 18+ to view the content and as another user has stated they have seen her nipples on Instagram which many kids use. A lot of people will search an advert to find out what it is for as this is the nature of advertising. If a child would do this it is fairly certain they would be exposed to porn. At least with movies it states what the product is. Maybe she should include in her advert she is an adult film star.
Porn is in no way comparable to 18+ movies. They are completely different things.
Not really though. They're both perfectly legal pieces of video content designed to make you feel some feelings, with age-restricted audiences. I'm not wild about the idea of OF creators advertising porn in billboards, but I'm also not wild about gambling or alcohol being advertised on billboards for the same reasons. I think they are comparable, are very similar in fact, and should be under much tighter restrictions.
> They're both perfectly legal pieces of video content designed to make you feel some feelings, with age-restricted audiences. Porn is far more detrimental to your brain though.
Not only porn, but the type of porn that says to young girls that they can do it too and be really successful as soon as they turn 18 at the click of a button, even though the likelihood is that they would earn little money and suffer negative consequences that would follow them through adult life.
[удалено]
The younger generation are more open about liking porn I guess.
I honestly view OnlyFans advertisements as akin to grooming at this point
It costs money to access the NSFW stuff on OF. It's no different than gambling or alcohol: it gets advertised where under 16s can see it, but they can't actually access it (legally anyway).
Lots of people in the thread have already checked and confirmed her Instagram is actually even lewder than her OnlyFans home page, and yeah, I just checked too, literally just tits and nipples on the first photo, with nearly showing her cooch too. Seems pretty easy and free to access to me
Nipples?!?! Oh heavens! There's no actual sex there, or pictures of sexual organs, because you'd need to pay for that.
They're less harmful than gambling adverts, let's keep that in perspective. An we have gambling adverts legally advertising to children.
We have to make a new kind of technical argument though. 18+ content being advertised isn't new. We allow it for films as well as things like gambling and alcohol. Either we allow 18+ content to be advertised, or we don't.
Under 18s shouldn't be able to access only fans, unlike a porn site lol We're not living in Sharia law, nothing shameful about sex or women.
Introduce them even younger? That’s already the case. I’d be shocked if most 12-13 years old haven’t accessed it by that age.
At some point we are going to have to have a long hard look at the state of young people in our society and the roles social media and normal media are playing in it. Having 15 and 16 year old girls having Only Fans marketed to them as an employment opportunity is worrying but to be honest they are probably hit with that kind of thing much more on social media and the influencers there.
> they are probably hit with that kind of thing much more on social media and the influencers there. Especially with the Twitter Blue prioritization Like every top reply to a popular post is an OF girl now, good lord. Though things seem to be slightly better in recent weeks.
>Having 15 and 16 year old girls having Only Fans marketed to them as an employment opportunity That would be illegal and against the terms of service. You definitely need to be 18 to be an only fans content creator.
[удалено]
My social media is full of adverts me how much I can earn if I retrain on cyber security, or how welcoming wetherspoons is to work in. This would only be a problem if the advertising is actually dishonest. For OF, I don't think it is necessarily. People do make money from it, and it is a viable career option, for some people at least. The only difference is that it is a career in sex work, but I don't see anything unique about that.
But the majority don't make the vast amount of money, and advertising it to teenagers as something empowering they can do to make money at 18 is insane- to be paid well you either have to have a following or do degrading shit people want to see, not to mention at 18 you're not always thinking through the consequences that sex work will have on the rest of your life
Beach body ready protein adverts = wrong Literal advert for porn = perfectly fine
[удалено]
I don't see the problem. Protein powders are not going to get people the beach body, despite the insinuation. Going to OF will actually get you access to the porn (if you pay the money). One is misleading and exploitative advertising, the other is just advertising.
Advert for OF = moral outrage from the sexually repressed handwringing brigade Adverts for alcohol, junk food and gambling = perfectly fine
I'm not sexually repressed lmao I just think we're in a sad state where we're now pushing porn as "empowering" and encouraging young girls to do it
It's almost like the ASA and TFL are different organisations
Theres no difference to this and say a billboard with xvideos or xhamster on it. This is not okay.
💯 agree completely its inappropriate
Why is it not OK? What - other than “it feels icky” please - makes this wrong but a Wonderbra advert ok?
There is the problem/ moral debate over children being advertised to like this. It’s not exactly subtle.
> There is the problem/ moral debate over children being advertised to like this There are plenty of other things rated 18+ or not suitable for children that get advertised though, why is this different to say posters for Evil Dead Rise, alchohol, or gambling, which are all also 18+?
Compare the pictures [of Krakow](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/11sbctl/krak%C3%B3w_before_and_after_new_billboard_law/) before and after a ban on outdoor advertising. They degrade our environment, making our lives worse, and their purpose is to manipulate our purchasing decisions to some else's benefit. There should be no billboard in public spaces in Britain, of any kind.
100% support something like this. We're bombarded by ads on every device we use, all day. The least they could do is exclude real life from it as well.
I agree. I also put my vote to banning awful branding on shops, particularly in historic towns and cities. If you go to Canterbury, for example, the lovely buildings in the centre are hidden by gaudy facades that have been cobbled on to the front.
If you go to the Only Fans website, there doesn’t appear to be any overtly sexual content; it’s all comedy, cooking, exercise and lifestyle. It seems strange that OnlyFans is more honest when promoting its content on billboards, rather than its own website. Anyway congrats to the BBC on blurring out the model’s details to prevent the free advertising… I mean, I can still read it, but I had to squint…
I’m pretty sure Onlyfans attempt to give that appearance to try to stay in the good books of card companies/payment systems. This was an individual promoting herself on a billboard, not the company itself.
Ah, I skimmed the article because I thought I’d essentially read it before. But I’d misunderstood and thought that this was an OnlyFans endorsed advertisement. In that case it makes more sense, but the BBC and others have given OnlyFans a hell of a lot of free advertising on this one.
I don’t think OnlyFans the company made this billboard, rather the model paid for it.
Yeah, I didn’t read the article properly. Thanks.
It’s not an onlyfans billboard…
Cheers, you’re not the first to point that out. I’ve acknowledged that in the thread. I guess I’d rephrase my thoughts that it’s a bit strange that this billboard is more honest about Only Fans content than the Only Fans website itself.
Yeah apologies I read that after I posted
It hardly seems more overly sexual than a great deal of the ads that you see.
Direct links to a porn channel isn't 'overly sexual'?
much less so than whatever's in the window of an Ann Summers tbh
I was referring to the image.
[удалено]
Thing is it’s not billboard for only fans. It’s a board for an Internet model / influencer with a link to her IG and OF. Just being factual.
I'm not sure which is weirder..
I mean is there any difference in advertising alcohol, gambling, 18 rated movies, 18 rated video games, cars, All of them require a certain age limit to be able to do them, its a legal paid service / product, people are just prudish because “sex” Denigrating porn on moral reasons but allowing gambling and alcohol to continue advertising would just show the cognitive dissonance between what causes more harm
Alcohol and gambling advertising is immoral and should be illegal imo.
Yeah I always find there an almost arbitrary way people react to this kind of stuff. The Sun still has page 3 girls from what I understand and that gets sold without age restrictions in corner shops that get frequented by kids daily.
Hasn't been page 3 girls for a while
The sun hasnt had page 3 girls in like a decade...
Honestly, I think we should add fast food and vaping products to the list and severely restrict advertising of all these industries.
True, all are bad and should be removed. Though jut because alcohol ads are allowed that doesn't justify porn ads...
And when they decide to promote AI porn. "It's not overtly sexual and it's not a real person"
I don't recall porn ever being advertised so blatantly before, I've read a few comments in the thread and their arguements make sense but I do not think I've ever seen playboy billboards or pornhub billboards before and I may very well be incorrect and simply not seen them but I do wonder why this is allowed? Are the regulators out of touch on this one? do they know what goes on behind those closed doors of the only fans subscription? We have enough issues with how easily accessible porn is on the internet for underage kids which then creates a whole other issue of young kids thinking that is how they should be treating women...
I mean, this sounds like a problem of parents not paying attention to their kids’ internet use We publicly advertise plenty of stuff that isn’t appropriate for kids.
Question is... who actually pays for an onlyfans account? If you're going to pay for something, at least make it real.
> who actually pays for an onlyfans account? Lonely men desperate for the "connection".
While I also don't pay for porn, I can see why someone who could afford it may want to pay to watch their favourite porn star's content. This could either be for the big stars etc or the ones just starting out whose content isn't elsewhere.
This is what I've always wondered; I've subscribed twice (for a whopping £8 in total) and all the content was somehow worse than what you can find floating online. Then I remember about the guy who paid 10K to see his favourite "model" and ended up paying for her and her partners round the world trip. It's entirely based on milking the lonely and stupid.
Lots of men do both to look at female and male "creators" (or whatever the term is). Maybe theres women customers too. There's clearly a lot of customers out there. I think people claim it does feel more "real" than just random clips off other websites. One person I know thought it was more ethical because the women are choosing to do it unlike pornhub which has secretly filmed stuff, trafficked people, revenge porn etc. Sadly I expect OF has people being forced to do it too though.
Theres a lot of cases of onlyfans women being controlled by their partners and forced to do shit for money
Quite a lot of people considering how much money some are making
Unfortunately millions of men do. Sad fucks think they will get an emotional and sexual connection with pretty girl online. "Just one more donation and I'm sure she will love me". Pathetic losers.
I mean I’m not denying that’s a factor, but some of it is also just “I find this specific person hot and want to see their pics”
I would only ever consider it for someone I knew irl that I had a huge crush on, even then it would be for the shortest duration just to see it and then unsubscribe. These fellas gonna be blown away when they realise they can type their exact fetish into a browser and get millions of hits instantly.
Just as with Gambling anything OF / PornHub / Fansly related on a billboard should be vandalised. Neither of them offer anything positive or productive to society and are absolutely things we should not be pushing to the general population. Porn and Gambling addictions are very real, devastating things. OnlyFans is \*NOT\* an aspirational goal.
Its an advert for porn. Im not sure how they reached that conclusion.
I swear not a year ago regulators were trying to block porn by making you sign up IDs online And then banning extreme content but this is okay? This country is strange
It's always interesting to see how differently sexual content is treated to violent content. We wouldn't blink an eye about an advert for an 18+ violent video game or horror movie. There are even plenty of 12A or PG films/games which show lots of violence, death and some gore, but wouldn't show a woman's nipple.
In terms of the advert it's almost an exact replica of the Hello Boys wonderbra advert if the 90s that caused "controversy". Similar to that advert the biggest success it had was being "controversial". Perhaps my only issue is the model herself has obviously had a lot of cosmetic work done and it might lead to unachievable concepts of beauty (although personally I don't find that look attractive).
Not against FO models advertising, everyone got bills, to pay but billboards in the street wouldn't be my first choice ;)
If you got bills to play get a job? Theres absolutely loads of jobs in trading and STEM industries that we will need even more of in the future Oh yeah that takes effort which we are literally promoting to children as a bad thing to do in life, make the effort.
Getting some incel vibes from so of the comments on here 😂
Is not wanting objectively harmful things promoted to impressionable young people now an incel position tf
This isn’t really a new thing, so much as its a new term. A fairly longstanding tactic by libertines is to attack anyone who disagrees with them as being some sort of loser, particularly sexually repressed or a sexual failure. This is because they don’t really have any positive arguements for anything, so anyone who either rejects the idea that restriction is intrinsically bad, or who at least doesn’t beleive that it is always worse than the alternative, is simply going to trounce them in any serious arguement, so instead its easier to simply discredit them as a person.
Well said
[удалено]
Yeah and I don't like gambling ads or booze being shoved down kids throats particularly either. Ads of this sort should be seen only by people 18+ who can actually consume such products
incel can be whatever you want it to be at this point. for example this poster has convinced herself that it’s big shaggers who pay for porn and lonely virgins who don’t.
Of course if you disagree with reddit you are far rightist
Everything is apparently incel nowadays
[удалено]
They would be the first to complain about rape and sexual assault cases in teenagers rising oh wait isn't that happening?
There's a weird puritan streak running through the GenZ, where does it come from?
You'd probably call me puritan for thinking this is a bad thing, but it's hard not to see it as an indicator of a hyper-commodified "gig economy" society where nothing has any value beyond the financial. Every part of the interpersonal can now be a product. Your dating is gamified through apps. Your sex life is recorded and sold as a product. If that sex results in kids, you can shove a camera in their face and turn them into content for TikTok and Youtube. It just feels like we're heading in such a soulless direction, where literally everything is for sale in such abundance that it ends up losing its value. Where instead of selling our time and labour for part of a day then reverting to ourselves, we turn ourselves into the product and live a life of commodification. It feels so empty.
What makes you think the complaints came from Gen Z?
What is the average age of Reddit users? The average age of Reddit users is approximately 22-34 years old, with a majority being between 18 and 29 years old.
Ah so your talking about the thread, sorry I thought you meant the original complaints in story
If thinking that people being made to go as low as selling out their own bodies is immoral makes me a puritan then I guess I am
Gonna sound pretty incelly here but I'm gonna assume there is a decent percentage of young people who have had access to hardcore porn since they were about 12 years old, and know multiple people from a couple of years ago at school whose back catalogue of nudes is available for a fiver. I'd suspect that a fair contingent of those 18-25 year olds, both men and women, are aware enough to think "maybe this isnt great". Like it would be incredibly easy to say that huge portions of these kids lives have sent mixed message about the objectification, or at least commodofication of women's bodies.
My attitudes towards porn were a lot more positive until I started to truly understand how damaging frequent masturbation and porn use was to the human mind, and how exploitative the industry truly was. While the research on this is still inconclusive because of how prevalent it is in our society, there is a tonne of anecdotal evidence from people who have abstained from it having higher energy levels, easing erectile dysfunction symptoms and overall just living better lives. OF is one of the worst things to have happened to our society and is a large reason for the enshittification of a lot of social media platforms. Turns out exploiting vulnerable/desperate men and wringing their wallets dry is big money. Really sad that the Advertising Standards Authority lack the vertebrae to ban these ads for risqué adult content on billboards. This is going to set a worrying precedent for Britain. I don't want to live in a country where billboards are dominated by ladies selling their nude photos for top dollar.
I don't see how people can defend porn like its the best thing thats ever happened as an ex addict its possibly the worst thing that ever happened to me
Not to mention how horrific the industry is to the people working in it, particularly women.
So this is OK but a single mural with a trans man in it isn't? What is wrong with this fucking island?
Everything else aside, the woman behind this is clearly a marketing genius. She definitely knew that there'd be backlash against it, and now the BBC has told everyone her name, and the two sites she is advertising. That is more publicity than she'd have got if people just ignored those billboards and let them do what they do. Also, FWIW, there was a huge billboard of Lewis Capaldi in his pants outside Shepherds Bush station, and nobody cared about that!
I'm not sure how I feel about this, but I am sure a lot of the issues raised around children seeing it could/ should be combatted by education.
It only preys on sad lonely men so no one will give a shit about the repercussions. Onlyfans and porn in general are awful industries with no upside. Shouldn't be allowed to advertise them in public.
It also affects the women who advertise on onlyfans, who I expect will discover when they want to stop that society isn't actually as liberal about sex as they have been led to believe. Every future partner and employer will be able to look at her photos and videos, because the internet never forgets. She'll never know if a new friend has seen it. Maybe her colleagues are passing it round the office. Who knows when it will be used to discredit or shame her? Only the companies who take a cut win. They'll exploit both sides and say it's social progress.
Does this billboard have the best ROI of all time? I can't think of another time when someone got so many headlines out of one billboard.
I’m sorry, this is just plain wrong. We’re just openly advertising porn in public now? Do we really want a society like that?
I don't understand this stuff its clearly people objectifying themselves for the sexual gratification of absolute loners who are easily manipulated, Personally thats my opinion on the matter and that shouldn't be advertised
I do find them a bit weird, but fundamentally it’s an 18+ service with a barrier to entry, like beer, so fine there, and content wise it’s no different to lingerie ads, so fine there. I get that people find it uncomfortable, and it is a bit weird, but I see no legitimate reason for it being banned.
It is overtly sexual, but then so is every single piece of advertising for lingerie. It seems like the law might need some reform here because they're having to stretch the words used to an unnatural interpretation because of the practice which has developed. They might do better just to use the words "pornographic" or "unsuitable for viewing by under 18s".
There’s a large part of the male population who have sex issues derived from porn. I honestly think porn videos should come with a disclaimer
If anyone's ever holidayed in a country where sexual advertising is much rarer, it really is a blessing not to be bombarded with it constantly. You only notice how much it affects you when you experience not having it there for the first time in many years. Humans reflexively get mentally distracted and/or sexually aroused by sexual imagery - it's nice not to make a conscious effort to ignore that every few minutes and to not have your thoughts disturbed by that primal drive all the time, in the same way that it's nice to be able to go through life without being hungry all the time or without being put into fight or flight or without some annoying fucker making a load of noise when you're trying to concentrate. I'm all for sex shops, safe sex work and people having a healthy sex life, but it should mostly be something you seek out rather than something you're forced to interact with.
Has pornhub or other such websites ever been advertised on billboards? No and neither should this.
So page 3 was immoral and had to be eradicated but this is fine?
And the same government wants to do i.d checks on the internet to access porn...