Describing that work as "being naked in front of a webcam" is like calling software development "typing at a computer". You can make any job sounds trivial and downplay its value by describing it in a way that removes the skill and effort involved.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to imply some else's work isn't valuable to make the point that this work should be more valuable.

ok, I'll bite. What kind of skill to you need to have, besides being born attractive, to succeed in such business?

Besides the obvious falsehood that being attractive is being 'born attractive', onlyfans and such sites are full of very attractive people who suck at marketing, customer engagement, etc, who essentially make beer money being naked (with the hope that things will spike up 'real soon now').

The people at the top have a lot of hard-work, skill, and "being born attractive". Sex work is work.

Someone attractive can have the charisma of a dead fish.

People will pay for that

I personally find that super attractive if they lack all skills and intelligence and their only redeemable feature is being hot. If I was the type to pay for OnlyFans, I would certain shell out for a girl like that.

Would you rather pay for a boring hot person or an interesting hot person?

Like a lot of businesses in the addiction space, cam workers make a lot of their money off whales. So the profit comes from high effort relationship maintenance / customer service.

And software engineers make way more money than most healthcare workers... "There's something seriously wrong with the world"...

Main reason this is so is because of scale. One healthcare worker can look after a ward at most, one software engineer can write software that affects millions in a very small way, and some onlyfans accounts hit a smaller scale but with more revenue per user on average.

The same argument I made for SE could be easily done for health workers. They are very important.

but I'll say this: I saw everywhere how underrated health workers are, and I agree. They should be paid a lot more; even more than athletes, in my book.

but how about SE and CS, have you heard anything? the whole economy would crumble, if weren't for online business. internet, apps, video chats, smart phones... I'm yet to see an AD saying thank you for what those brilliant CS and SE people have done for the world.

> some of the only fans users makes in a month what a plain SE would make in a year.

Sure, of course some software engineers make in a month far more than a plain onlyFans user would make in a year.

>but seeing how much someone makes by being naked in front of a web cam vs a software engineer salary is kinda sad.

>some of the only fans users makes in a month what a plain SE would make in a year

I'm sure if you could think of a way to make software engineers as appealing as naked women, you'd probably find yourself a pretty great job paying well over the people on onlyfans.

So... that's just not how any of that works. Do you really think most of the women you know are choosing to be on onlyfans and are making huge money off it? Hint, no. Not a choice most would make and most accounts there are not making anykind of money like that.

But you seem really upset about all this. To be clear, what you are mad about is how there are lots of men willing to pay to see naked and sexual content online, right? That really upsets you?

That money is coming from men (mostly men) willing to pay it, I think that's what you ought to be upset about if the situation upsets you, although I don't really understand what about it "broke your back".

I think you are hugely overestimating the number of women making any kind of significant money on onlyfans, let alone the kind of "in a month what a software engineer earns in a year" money you're talking about. That's very few people. If that makes you feel better for whatver reason.

Like every other internet hustle (say instagram "influencers"), so many people are hustling and maybe being taken advantage of and making very little. Who does make serious money is some combination of luck, business sense, aptitude, and lots of work. Some women get rich being models too (and this is of course a kind of modeling, or at least that's part of it), but it's not like any woman can just decide to become rich by modeling.

I'm not sure what you're alarmed about, but if you are foreseeing a future where all women choose to pursue no career but onlyfans, which seems to be literally what you are describing being alarmed about, I don't think you have to worry about that, so perhaps you can sleep better.

Also not sure why we're talking about this on a post about Facebook security vulnerability and their bounty program, but ok.

>who was my counselor, runs several projects trying to make SE and CS more attractive to girls.

This is a good thing. Sorry if my above comment was dismissive and callous. Honestly, it is kind of sad as a society, that's what ends up being valued more highly.

>knowing that a girl could rely on her beauty to makes thousands of dollars exposing herself to strangers.

That's not really anything new. Such things have always existed.

To be honest, my comment was mainly in reference to the business model itself. It's hard to compare a salary or wage with lots of money from donations or subscriptions.

I'm sure there's people on onlyfans that make barely anything and there's lots of software engineers with high paying jobs.

>Damn it, I have a two year old niece, I guess me and my brother better think something fast, so when shes a teenager she'll be interested in STEM.

I dunno, teach her self respect and explain the value in success using ones talents and abilities as opposed to exploiting their appearance or bodies.

There's always been the option for girls to do the second one. I'm glad your teacher and people like her are trying hard to give girls more options like the first.

It was always thus. In fact, until the ‘60s, a girl had to rely on her beauty and personality to eat and survive, i.e. by marrying.

I have a daughter and, while obviously I’d prefer she didn’t end up on onlyfans, I really don’t want to limit what she should do or what talent she should leverage to reach happiness and/or prosperity.

> It was always thus. In fact, until the ‘60s, a girl had to rely on her beauty and personality to eat and survive, i.e. by marrying.

The way this is framed today by people is soo disgusting.

1) Women did work before 1960.

2) Two incomes are better than one. Married couples are better off financially. Many women worked part time while the children were at school or in the evenings when the husband was back at home. I know this because my grandmother did and many of her friends.

3) A married couple typically provides the best environment for raising children. Most people want children.

4) Most people were dirt poor in the past in the western world by today's standards.

The disgust is very much in the eye of the beholder, I guess. The reality is that priority n.1 for a woman pre-1960s was to get married and priority n.2 was to bear kids; otherwise, men-dominated society would see her as “useless” and ostracise or abuse her, consider her inferior and unworthy, and effectively condemn her to a life of poverty (unless she had an inheritance to manage). That was the case for centuries, or rather millennia; the further back you go, the more violence was so widespread that a single woman (outside the elites) could not practically defend herself in everyday situations, hence making it basically impossible to have an independent life. Being disgusted by the strategies devised to survive this situation is like being disgusted at animals evolving to escape their predators.

We now see the vestigial remains of this “natural state” in western countries, thanks to the changes brought by mass-industrialization and consumerism (both forces being constantly hungry for bodies, and hence working as Great Levellers between sex, race, age, culture, etc) but it’s still very much present all over the world - the problems in Afghanistan or Pakistan are well-reported, for example, but hardly unique.

> The way this is framed today by people is soo disgusting.

> Most people were dirt poor in the past in the western world by today's standards.

You have just adjusted one simplification to end up over exaggerating another one. A boomer's family could live off one salary. Since then women have joined the workforce and kind of the whole world by moving (migrating) or remote. While it is definitely true that those "none westerners were dead poor in the past compared to today" there is a 20+ year long wage stagnation in the west and increase in prices on some of the very fundamental needs like housing, which results in memes about gen XYZ not being able to afford them, create stable conditions, have a spouse and then a family (kids).

Anyway, we are in this together, always on(line), connected, one global world and it depends how you view it: Appreciate the advancements the non-western world has made or focus on the gap they still have to the west. Though this all comes to the expense of the western world, which is kind of required to close the global gap.

The wage stagnation relative to inflation started happening 1960s-1970s, so that was well after the time period we were discussing (pre-1960s).

* 20+ year ==> 50 to 60 year

> I’d prefer she didn’t end up on onlyfans

You must hate women empowerment and be sexist. You must actively support such wishes to be politically correct.

You can become popular on onlyfans too, your audience will just be gay men.

Is that really a problem? A dollar is a dollar.