OnlyFans

[GORDON]

What is the legality line between "I am pretending to be a ghost on Halloween gimme candy," and "I am pretending to be a model on the internet gimme money and i'll give you validation?"

I'm not arguing. Just contemplating this situation.

[Leisher]

I guess we do have laws againt taking advantage of dumb people.

While I'm as down on humanity as anyone here, I do caution about just blanket labeling all these folks as "dumb".

Yes, there's a level of stupidity, but I think the majority is ignorance and loneliness. They're ignorant to how the system works, and thus, fall prey to it. And the loneliness one speaks for itself. People do crazy shit when they're lonely. Ask suicide bombers.

I wouldn't do it either, but it's fraud to pretend it's the OF creator when it's not.

Exactly. These creators do custom content. So let's say you think you're talking to a OF girl, not understanding you're actually talking to some contractor in India, and you ask for a special picture, just for you. The contractor tells the model, the model creates the picture, and then you're talking about it with the contractor thinking it's the model.

Should you know better? Probably, but if you're not paying attention to headlines, maybe you fall for this? Here's a girl you're talking to sending you a custom picture. Why wouldn't you think it's real?

What is the legality line between "I am pretending to be a ghost on Halloween gimme candy," and "I am pretending to be a model on the internet gimme money and i'll give you validation?"

You don't pay a fee to get that candy. If you're a subscriber to an OF account, and then you're being tricked into thinking you're talking to the model, who is encouraging further purchases, that's fraud.

[GORDON]

While I'm as down on humanity as anyone here, I do caution about just blanket labeling all these folks as "dumb".

Yes, there's a level of stupidity, but I think the majority is ignorance and loneliness. They're ignorant to how the system works, and thus, fall prey to it. And the loneliness one speaks for itself. People do crazy shit when they're lonely. Ask suicide bombers.

They're so lonely it affects their brain and their actions are indistinguishable from those of dumb people.

So, dumb.

[GORDON]

You don't pay a fee to get that candy. If you're a subscriber to an OF account, and then you're being tricked into thinking you're talking to the model, who is encouraging further purchases, that's fraud.

I'd argue that on Halloween you are spending costume money and time, and are performing, for payment of candy. On OF, you are providing visuals, and an assistant is providing text, for payment of money. And on OF there may even be fine print in the user agreement that disclaimers all of this.

[Leisher]

They're so lonely it affects their brain and their actions are indistinguishable from those of dumb people.

So, dumb.

Dumb implies a lack of intelligence. This is more a lack of good decision making due to a desperate situation.

I'd argue that on Halloween you are spending costume money and time, and are performing, for payment of candy. On OF, you are providing visuals, and an assistant is providing text, for payment of money.

No, where you're losing the plot is the assistant. The assistant doesn't exist in the Halloween example. Also, the assistant isn't advertised, thus fraud.

And on OF there may even be fine print in the user agreement that disclaimers all of this.

Nope, which I'm pretty sure we have an article about in this very thread. If I remember correctly, OF wisely might have added it recently, and was telling models to reveal such things or possibly face the very lawsuits we're discussing.

[GORDON]

No, where you're losing the plot is the assistant. The assistant doesn't exist in the Halloween example. Also, the assistant isn't advertised, thus fraud.

The assistants are those tall people waiting at the end of the sidewalk.

As far as the homeowner knows, that is actually a skeleton, and an Optimus Prime, ringing their doorbell and threatening mischief, unless they are paid confectionary tribute. It's almost extortion. And their backup is looking over their shoulder, as if a vague threat.

Just kidding, obviously. But it seems like we're walking a bunch of very fuzzy tightropes, with the OF arguments. Like, even, "is this legalized prostitution, and are you putting yourself on a court document as a john?"

[TheCatt]

Doesn't feel fuzzy to me, feels pretty clear-cut. It's not prostitution because there's no contact. It's fraud, the end.

[GORDON]

And so is halloween.

So again, Halloween on one end of the spectrum, tricking pay-to-masturbate men on the other. As we go left to right, legal..... legal.... legal.... legal.... NOT LEGAL. Where's that line?

[GORDON]

It seems like it will be......

right about....

where men who probably can't maintain a relationship with a woman in real life think the hot chick on the screen actually finds them interesting. But don't we need to consider the mental state of the dude? I say dumb, Leisher says broken, but maybe they shouldn't be allowed outside without supervision at all, if they're so broken or dumb.

I'm serious.

[GORDON]

BECAUSE I SAY IT'S OBVIOUS THE PEOPLE ON HALLOWEEN KNOW IT ISN'T ACTUALLY A SKELETON AND OPTIMUS PRIME...

Just as I think it's obvious even dumb men should know the hot internet sex model isn't actually into them.

That's the line the court will have to decide.

[Leisher]

where men who probably can't maintain a relationship with a woman in real life think the hot chick on the screen actually finds them interesting.

It's already happening all over the place. Younger men cannot maintain erections because they've become desensitized due to the availability of porn and whatnot. There's also a big trend of guys having "relationships" with OF models instead of real GFs or "cheating" on their GFs with OF models.

Also, your Halloween analogy doesn't work. This is a better description: The candy is the OF model, not the person handing it out. You think you're getting full size Snickers, but in reality you're getting circus peanuts. You keep getting offered better candy (Cadbury Creme Eggs at Halloween!!!), but to get it, you need to keep buying new costumes to impress the person with the candy. However, there are no Cadbury Creme Eggs, just circus peanuts. In other words, fraud.

[TheCatt]

Also, your Halloween analogy doesn't work. This is a better description: The candy is the OF model, not the person handing it out. You think you're getting full size Snickers, but in reality you're getting circus peanuts.

This.

[GORDON]

Just as I think it's obvious even dumb men should know the hot internet sex model isn't actually into them.

[TheCatt]

Just as I think it's obvious even dumb men should know the hot internet sex model isn't actually into them.

Sure, and the stripper doesn't think you're cute, and the hooker doesn't think you're amazing in bed, etc. And Gandalf isn't a wizard. And Hogwarts doesn't exist. People buy an illusion, and some people are stupid.

[GORDON]

And again, the original question no one has answered, where is the line?

When is the person who thinks he's Napoleon allowed to sue that no one will let him rule the French Empire? It's various stages of insanity/stupidity.

So why should a dumb person be allowed to sue because he believed the stripper actually liked him? I think it isn't fraud. I think it's "no rational person would believe this was true, and this was for entertainment purposes only."

[TheCatt]

The chatter is pretending to the be the OF creator. Fraud.

[GORDON]

Penthouse once posted an advertisement pretending to be an excerpt of Jerry Falwell talking about how he fucked his mother in an outhouse. Went to the Supreme Court. Was deemed not fraud, because no reasonable person would believe it.

[Leisher]

But there's never been any "for entertainment purposes" or "you might be talking to a dude in India" warnings (until recently when OF realized what was going on). In fact, many advertise that you're talking to them personally. You can ask for a specific picture to prove you are and get it. You can ask for live private sessions and get them. Most OF models don't have teams to handle this stuff, so they would absolutely be doing it IF they offered such things.

Point being, it is NOT out of the realm of possibility. I'm sure if you searched, OF girls have fucked customers and probably more. And I mean besides the ones who blatantly advertise that service (some even hold raffles and the winner gets to fuck the model).

You think a stripper never fell for a customer? You think all sex workers are single and never, ever find love in a client? So much hate for Pretty Woman!

A reasonable person would realize love is love and even sex workers seek it.

Also, every single guy that's ever walked into a strip club has thought, "If _________ happens, I could pull a girl from here." Yes, even those of us who understand the strippers' role. We still have that confidence, even if that's not the goal.

It's plausible AND advertised as being real, and thus, fraud.

[TheCatt]

I'm sure if you searched, OF girls have fucked customers and probably more. And I mean besides the ones who blatantly advertise that service (some even hold raffles and the winner gets to fuck the model).

OF does explicitly ban in person meetups. So this may happen, but it's against the TOS.

Also, every single guy that's ever walked into a strip club has thought, "If _________ happens, I could pull a girl from here." Yes, even those of us who understand the strippers' role. We still have that confidence, even if that's not the goal.

My friends and I once went to a club, and the strippers bought us drinks, invited us out to party, etc by the end of the night. Of of the dudes I was with had just insane pull. Especially considering he was like 5'4" or something.

[Leisher]

OF does explicitly ban in person meetups. So this may happen, but it's against the TOS.

I wonder how enforced it is or if it's a newer addition. I know I've seen OF models talking about filming scenes with fans and such.