The Economics of the New Amateur Sex Industry

The Tale of The Beauty and The Whale.

Readership: All
Reader’s Note: This post continues discussing The Rise of the Amateur Sex Industry (2021 January 4).  Readers may like to read this post first before continuing.
In this series, prostitution is defined as the sale of either (1) sexual services, (2) faux relationships (calculated by the hour, number of messages, etc.), or (3) personalized, self-produced, sexually titillating media content — for cash.
Length: 2,670 words
Reading Time: 9 minutes

Introduction

In The Rise of the Amateur Sex Industry, I described the dynamic whereby the internet’s ability to disintermediate — or to remove the “middle-man” in any given distribution channel for a specific good or service — has permitted women and their customers to create a new, amateur online sex industry that does not involve the traditional “middle men” of the “brick and mortar” sex industry — that is, pimps and madams, strip club owners, and pornographers.

In addition to its inherent ability to disintermediate, the internet, by its nature, has the power to aggregate things into large numbers that would normally, without the presence of the internet, be present in any one place in only small numbers.

In this post, we’ll briefly examine the microeconomic theory behind internet-based aggregate marketing, to explain how internet queens can rake in thousands of dollars a month.

“A Thousand Points of Light” … or, er, rather more like 104 million of them, but we’ll get to that shortly …

The Internet Expands Aggregate Marketing

In the business world, the internet’s power of aggregation has created new business models, with new pricing schemes, that are designed to take advantage of the new, extremely large, potential market size created by an internet that is literally present in the pockets of billions of people.

While traditional business models have focused on both growing the customer base and increasing revenue and profit generated per customer, the assumption behind traditional business models was that there were certain “realistic caps” on the market size, arising from the inherent limitations on the ability to reach people everywhere, due to geographic spread. Marketing tended to be more targeted, with a smaller market size being the focus, and therefore the business plans and economic models tended to focus on maximizing revenue and profits per customer, in light of the presumed limitations, at some point, on the ability to continue to grow the potential market reach.

The internet fundamentally changed this by providing businesses with the ability to access a market that was extremely larger, in potential size, than had ever before been the case, thanks to the number of people who were connected to the internet all the time after the rise of the smartphone in 2011 and thereafter. This had the effect of reducing marketing costs, and increasing market size, which somewhat changed the approach to economic modeling in certain industries. Specifically, in markets where the product or service could be provided virtually or electronically, the sheer size of the new internet market made it possible for business models to begin to be developed which were based around the size of the market, and leveraging that size itself, rather than focusing on maximizing the revenue and profit generated by each customer.

Case Study 1: The QTπ Conglomerate

Some of the more salient manifestations of this have related to the rise of the “LGBT” movement, that was largely facilitated by the growth of the internet, which took a group which is relatively small in any one place (outside of certain outlier concentrations like San Francisco and Manhattan), and aggregated it into a not small number, overall, by means of the internet drawing every LGBT person, wherever located, into one movement, with one face, and one voice. This amplifies political power considerably, as we have seen, in a way that would simply have been unthinkable for this group, and especially for certain parts of it (like the “T” wing), which have dramatically benefited from the power of aggregation.

How Aggregate Marketing Works — Freebies and Whales

In a business model that is based on aggregation, the general approach is to provide free or low-cost access to a product or service as a baseline, and then to provide selective upsells that are priced very much to the profit-fat upside. The core idea is to provide an attractive enough baseline “free” (or “low cost”) product so as to have a large market penetration and a large group of people that can then be directly marketed for upsells, which are more aggressively priced and drive almost all of the profit generated by the business activity.

These models tend to generate 80%+ of their total profits from these upsells, which are often made to less than 5% of the total customer base. These customers are known as “whales”, because they are the “big fish” in the customer base. They spend a LOT more than the average customer does, and therefore can provide most of the profit for a given business, even where 95% of the customers are paying nothing or a small access fee.

The salient anatomy of a newly-discovered species: the Internet Whale

Case Study 2: A Hypothetical Example of Aggregate Marketing

Let’s suppose a company provides access to a video game for free. And let’s say it attracts 100,000 customers to play for free. At the same time, it creates a “pay shop” in the game that contains various items that either may speed up the advancement of the players in the game, or give the players a certain, limited and distinctive cosmetic appearance in the game, or additional “quality of life” options during gameplay, or what have you, and prices these in such a way that every player who uses the shop spends at least $10. And let’s suppose that, on average, 10% of the total number of the game’s players ever buy anything at all from the shop, and that the average spend of these players at the shop is $20.

This game would then be producing, in revenue, $200,000. From that $200,000, it would need to pay for its development cost, and the cost of producing new virtual products for sale, but let’s assume that this provides comfortable profitability (or that the numbers are adjusted to do so). The critical point is that the game company is managing to do this while monetizing only 10% of its players, and with 90% of them not paying a dime to play the game.

If the game company had decided to charge an access fee of, say, $10 per month, let’s assume that its customer base would have dropped by 90%, to 10000 customers. At that point it would be making $100k. That sounds like a drastic drop in customers, and therefore unrealistic, but in fact this is precisely the degree of difference between participation rates in things that cost a baseline fee and things that have free access. The free access spikes participation rates dramatically — humans really, really like free stuff!

What this does is permit the company to focus on growing the overall market size and penetration, knowing that even without monetizing a higher percentage of its customer base, it will still increase its revenues and profits substantially simply by growing the size of the overall customer base. So in our initial example, if the number of players rises from 100k to 200k, the total revenue of the game similarly doubles in lockstep from $200k to $400k, without making any assumption about increasing the monetization rate at all or doing anything other than increasing the total number of players.

The importance of the proper identification of a whale’s sub-species

Based on this baseline concept — making most of your revenue and profits from a small percentage of your customers, your “whales” — a number of variant models can be utilized to optimize the overall ROI of the business. These can include charging a nominal fee, or even a larger fee (if the market demonstrates it can bear it), which mixes the kinds of revenue streams together, providing both a baseline “floor” of revenues per month, as well as more variable, and more profit-rich, sales to whales at the same time. A clever and perceptive, and adaptive, proprietor will be able to adjust the model to optimize what they are seeing as demand, in order to generate the most efficient rate of return and reach their profit and revenue goals more effectively, adjusting pricing as needed to address over or under-shooting the actual demand, and the price sensitivity of that demand, in real time.

Applying this to OnlyFans

One of the interesting things about OnlyFans is that the women who participate in it as “content creators” are generally unabashed by what they are doing and are remarkably open about it. Many of them are participating under their real names, and are connected to a broader social media presence on Instagram and YouTube under the same names. In addition, a number of them are quite open about what they are earning from the OnlyFans activities, and seem quite proud of their accomplishments in this regard. This relative openness sheds a remarkable degree of light on the economic practices of OnlyFans content creators.

Case Study 3: Makayla Samountry — a Representative Case

In his recent post Why is the Online Sex Industry Attractive to Women, Jack, in his discussion of the amount of money available to women who choose to participate in OnlyFans, described the situation of Makayla Samountry. Samountry, currently 25, is a college grad and a minor social media personality based in Minnesota, with a social media following that is comfortably above average for a non-celebrity (70k followers on YouTube, 15k on Instagram, and on down from there) but not spectacularly sky-high.

In January 2020, Samountry began an “experiment” by trying her hand at OnlyFans, and vlogged about it on her YouTube channel, in the video that Jack linked in his post. As Jack mentioned, in her first month on OnlyFans, Samountry did fairly well for a newcomer, earning around $1100 that first month.

Samountry continued with her “experiment”, as a review of her YouTube channel reveals. In June 2020, she disclosed on YouTube that she had earned, by then, around $30k, and her monthly take was up to around $4500 (an annualized level of $54k). By late October 2020, she relates that she had earned around $70k on OnlyFans year-to-date, which means that she had increased her take, after June, to around $10k per month (annualized $120k).

How does she earn this money? What is her business and pricing approach?

She actually describes this in some detail on her YouTube videos in response to questions received from her readers/viewers, and as assistance to aspiring would-be “content creators” on OnlyFans. Samountry charges a fairly high access fee of $26 per month (many OF sites are free or have a nominal access charge of $5 or $10), but she makes a large portion of her money from her “upsells”.

What are these? According to one of her YouTube videos, Samountry packages sets of racier images — which she insists are not pornography! — in sets of 3-6 images for prices that range from $50 to $150, with a few choice options retailing for $200. She helpfully explains that her pricing escalates based on how “explicit” she thinks the image is, how customized it is, and so on, with the higher price tags attaching to more titillating material, but all off it is apparently solo pictures — no “hardcore” images or videos whatsoever — which is probably why she claims it is “not porn”.

“When you were young, and your heart life was an open book ….”

Readers can judge for themselves the relative beauty of Samountry. In fact, she jokes in one of her YouTube videos about how she gets notes from men criticizing her for not being attractive enough to be on OnlyFans — a criticism she dismisses with a laugh and a handwave. And, to be honest, since she has earned a substantial amount on OnlyFans, I have to agree with her dismissal of the criticism — whatever one may think of Samountry, she is making a good deal of money selling pictures of herself on OnlyFans, regardless of what some men think of her beauty level.

This again serves to emphasize a core truth: a woman does not have to be a consensus, world-class beauty or famous personage to make a good amount of money on OnlyFans. She only needs to be smart about what she is marketing, and aggressive in her pricing, and it appears that Samountry is both.

On the Internet, the Sky Really Is the Limit

It is one thing for a smart and enterprising young woman to hustle her way to $100k on the internet, but really — how high can this get for girls who are on OnlyFans? Isn’t this just an example of an outlier-type level of return?

Well …. the internet is a really big place. Really big.

As Jack pointed out in the comments under his post last week, OnlyFans has surpassed 100 million users — currently the OnlyFans online tracker lists just under 104 million user accounts, and as of late 2020 there were just over 1.5 million content creator accounts. For comparison, Twitter has 330 million users. This means that OnlyFans, a site focused on monetized private pornography, has about 1/3 of the users that Twitter, one of the largest internet communication platforms, does.

By any measure, OnlyFans is a truly massively sized market. It is an outstanding place to execute a business strategy based on some form of aggregation — either by providing a free site, or by charging a nominal price (60% of OF sites charge between $5 and $15 per month), and taking in a lot of additional revenue by means of upsells, tips and the like. And some women who have already very large followings, like certain professional porn actresses, can command a lot of revenue based on subscription fees alone — onlysearcher.com reports that the single highest earner of subscription fees is a professional porn actress who has earned, to date, $460k on subscription fees alone, leaving aside tips, upsells and the like, which are not reported.

But it can get higher than that.

Do you know who I am?

Case Study 4: Belle Delphine, Whale Huntress Extraordinaire

Belle Delphine is a 21-year old British/South African young woman who came to prominence as a streamer of video games on the Twitch gaming livestream service, because she managed to sell her bathwater to her followers for a great profit. She recently disclosed to media that she is earning around £1 million per month on OnlyFans (which is around $1.36 million).

Delphine, who, despite her celebrity from Twitch, seems to appeal to a niche market, appears to earn her money through a hybrid model. She charges $35 as a subscription fee, which is very high (top 5% of all pricing for OF subscription fees), but she isn’t on the top ten list of subscription fee generators — almost all of the women on that list charge a low subscription fee to generate a large number of subscribers and benefit from the aggregation effect I describe above. Rather, Delphine must earn her extraordinary OnlyFans income mostly by means of upsells and tips — to the tune of something close to £1 million per month! And this is from people who are already paying a $35 monthly access fee!

In other words, Delphine is a whale hunter — and an exceptionally good one at that.

Essentially, what Belle Delphine is doing is hunting the whales in the entire user base of OnlyFans, rather than trying to maximize the size of her own subscriber base — because she would certainly have a larger subscriber base if she charged a more typical access fee.

In effect, Delphine is instead leveraging the aggregate marketing potential of the entire user base of the OnlyFans site, and is hunting for the whales in that entire base, to assemble a subscriber base comprised almost entirely of whales! Regardless of what one thinks of Delphine and her brand of anime/fetish-schtick, she has one heck of an intelligent strategy, and one that has been nearly flawlessly executed.

If you were me, you’d be smiling, too!

And that, gentlemen, is truly the power of aggregation in the hands of a skilled operator!

Conclusion: Money, Money, Everywhere!

On the internet, the sky really is the limit, and OnlyFans, by virtue of the enormous size of its market, provides a large pool of money for a large number of women to draw on, to a greater or a lesser extent — dipping in for a few thousand dollars, or a hundred thousand, or even more, on an annualized basis, depending on how hard they are willing to work the site. Notably, Delphine herself admits to working the site very hard indeed on a daily basis, making as many as 30-40 interactions daily on her OF site. (What can you say? The girl knows how to take care of her whales!)

Finally, what’s in this for OnlyFans itself? Why does OnlyFans provide this menacing, corrupting den of iniquity that is silently rippling through our culture currently?

Twenty percent!

OnlyFans takes 20% of all revenues from all content creators, bar none. Simply put, the owners of OnlyFans are getting very, very rich at the moment. In an industry where the actual profitability has been dwindling for years due to the ubiquitous availability of “free” porn, OnlyFans stands in marked contrast. And it’s growing like wildfire.

My next post in this series will take a deep dive look at one specific case of how the new landscape of the online amateur sex industry can impact a marriage in a way that was simply not possible even 5 years ago.

Related

This entry was posted in Building Wealth, Female Power, Homosexuality, Influence, Internet Dating Sites, Models of Success, Statistics Reports, Strategy. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to The Economics of the New Amateur Sex Industry

  1. Farm Boy says:

    My next post in this series will take a deep dive

    You are really good at staying on theme

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Farm Boy says:

    Next, you will probably “blow the hole” thing wide open

    Liked by 3 people

  3. lastmod says:

    This whole thing will oversaturate.

    Remember the dot.com craze of the late 1990’s? I sure do. I was living in San Francisco… and by the end, you had people forming “internet businesses” and paying millions for the naming rights for “cheesegrater.com”. These companies were getting millions in VC funding, overvalued stocks… and had not even turned a profit. It was so over the top.

    COVID is the driving force behind this. Sure, you say it was trending this way (and it was) but COVID REALLY made this happen.

    All these “loser, thirsty beta men who cannot get a woman in real life” don’t have that much money to make every woman a gazillionaire on Only Fans. Eventually the pics and clips will be leaked, and sold through third parties… people will get bored with one girl and go to another…

    When the lockdowns ease up or we learn to “live” with this, and life returns to a more normal state… much of this will drop off.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Oscar says:

    Jack,

    Multiple reasons why the dating market is so screwed up, all in one chart.

    The best ways to meet a future spouse (family, friends, church) all declined sharply. The worst ways (online, at a bar) increased sharply.

    Like

  5. Scott says:

    Imagine being a guy, who (by my very best guess) is somewhere around a strong 7/Weak 8/10 currently married to a woman in a very satisfying relationship. A string of long term monogamous relationships (and other sub-optimal situations) in your past. The paradigm of the days while you came of age was “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?”

    Then reading stuff like this blog post.

    I am a dinosaur, an old race horse that just needs to be put out to pasture.

    Like

    • Scott says:

      Now the new message is…wait. What is the new message?

      “No cows (marriage). No milk (sex). Just two people sitting in front of their computers pretending to be in a relationship and money exchanges hands”

      Is that right?

      Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        “No cows (marriage). No milk (sex). Just two people sitting in front of their computers pretending to be in a relationship and money exchanges hands”

        I think it’s more like — “this milk for free stuff doesn’t actually make sense, when you can charge for it! And you don’t even have to actually touch or talk to any creepy guys! I don’t know about you, but since I’m sexting boys anyway, why not make some $$$ for it?”. Guys response, which is always guys response: “OK! Whatever you say, girls. Now, I like the ones with the …. yes, yes, I’ll give you $10 for it …”. And so it goes.

        The whole thing is premised on sex becoming more expensive. Women wised up, and stopped giving away the milk for free — the first evidence of that was the concentration of sex in some men and not others that has been discussed to death. But the next step, once the tech was there, was the monetization of that unsatisfied desire. So you create the demand by concentrating sex in some men and not others, and then you monetize that unsated demand by means of OnlyFans.

        Everything is related, to be honest.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        They’re still giving the “milk” to somebody. Ms. Samountry mentioned her boyfriend in the video Jack posted. I’ll never understand men who approve of their girlfriends or wives selling themselves.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        They’re still giving the “milk” to somebody. Ms. Samountry mentioned her boyfriend in the video Jack posted. I’ll never understand men who approve of their girlfriends or wives selling themselves.

        True, but, again, the new piece is getting paid on the side — instead of rejecting the rest of the men, you monetize the rest of the men as you are rejecting them. Much smarter strategy.

        In her specific case, the boyfriend didn’t last (shock!). He was apparently her landlord, and there were some other complications — totally not related to OnlyFans at all, not at all, no way, etc. Uh-huh.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        instead of rejecting the rest of the men, you monetize the rest of the men as you are rejecting them.

        Talk about having your cake and eating it, too.

        Much smarter strategy.

        Nice work, if you can get it.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Then reading stuff like this blog post.

      I am a dinosaur, an old race horse that just needs to be put out to pasture.

      Yeah, although in fairness technology can and does cause massive, often unforeseeable, changes in relatively brief periods of time.

      What we are seeing with OnlyFans is an echo of what happened with porn. When I was growing up, porn was a stack of playboys in your uncle’s garage or seedy XXX theatres that nobody went to. Now? Utterly different — the difference in degree is so great, that it became a difference in kind. Porn in 2021 means something different than it did in 1980.

      OnlyFans is doing the same thing — it’s taking some of the in-person but not prostitution elements of the sex industry, putting them online, and changing them by that alchemy into something new — something with a much broader reach, and therefore a much broader impact — again, as happened with porn. Neither porn nor this stuff is “new”, but the hand-held online version of it is new, and has a much broader reach for the same reason that porn did, especially once smartphones come along.

      Most of us here are dinosaurs, but the world keeps changing. It helps to keep up with the changes, in my view — and this is doubly true if one has kids who are either currently young adults in this culture, or are soon to be.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        And the changes occur faster and deeper. Porn in 1980: Stack of dirty mags and adult theaters. Porn in 1990: hardcore porn videos for rent at your video store.

        Porn in 2000: Hardcore porn stillshots on the internet. Porn in 2005: Hardcore porn streaming videos on the internet. Porn in 2010: Hardcore porn streaming videos for free, with premium content for a paid subscription. Porn in 2020: Hardcore porn premium content, personalized and individualized.

        In 2010 the joke was “why would you ever pay for porn?” In 2025 the joke will be “why would you ever pay to take a real woman on a date?”

        Liked by 2 people

  6. Oscar says:

    This again serves to emphasize a core truth: a woman does not have to be a consensus, world-class beauty or famous personage to make a good amount of money on OnlyFans.

    It doesn’t take a whole lot of beauty to stimulate desire in a man, and that’s even more true in person than online. Women whine about “unrealistic beauty standards” mostly because it gives them an excuse to not make any effort to look good, but the reality is that the vast majority of men would be perfectly happy with a woman of ordinary attractiveness.

    Besides, these days the only thing a woman needs to do to be above average is not get fat.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Oscar says:

    Samountry continued with her “experiment”, as a review of her YouTube channel reveals. In June 2020, she disclosed on YouTube that she had earned, by then, around $30k, and her monthly take was up to around $4500 (an annualized level of $54k). By late October 2020, she relates that she had earned around $70k on OnlyFans year-to-date, which means that she had increased her take, after June, to around $10k per month (annualized $120k).

    I made that much ONCE in my life, it probably won’t happen again for a while, and I’m 45, with 32 years of continuous work history, and two engineering degrees.

    Behold my male privilege, and despair!

    Liked by 3 people

  8. thedeti says:

    1000 BC to AD 1960: Create, grow, or manufacture a tangible product and sell it for money, large price per unit, volume dependent on market, market local to regional (Big Tobacco, BigManufacturing, Big3Auto; exceptions are BigTransport like trucking and railroads)

    1960-2000: Provide a service and sell time for money, large price per hour, volume dependent on market, market regional to national (I.e. BigLaw, BigAccounting, BigAdvertising, BigTV/Radio, BigMedicine, BigPharma, aviation)

    2000-present: Create internet content and sell it for money, small price per unit, volume potentially enormous, market worldwide. (BigDigitalTech)

    Presently the only other growth industry in the US right now is BigHealthcare which has conglomerated BigMedicine and BigPharma into one mammoth industry.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. redpillboomer says:

    So, does this ‘bubble’ eventually burst? Do OF girls continue to perform financially like the ones mentioned above when more and more women continue join OF to conduct business on-line? And what are the downline consequences for them? Porn has been around long enough so that we have a pretty good idea the downline consequences in the lives of not only the average girl doing porn, but the porn star girls as well. I’m just working on trying to wrap my head around all this OF stuff. The blog posts are helping. I guess I’m trying to draw some sort of parallel between the world of porn and the world of OF to try to make sense of it all. Going to have to re-read the various blog posts on OF a couple of times. Keep educating us. Thanks!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Thanks, RPB. Since it’s new I think one idea Jack and I had was that it was a significant thing to be a bit more knowledgeable about it because it’s both new and, now, extremely large. I think we are all in a learning phase about it, as a society, really.

      So, does this ‘bubble’ eventually burst? Do OF girls continue to perform financially like the ones mentioned above when more and more women continue join OF to conduct business on-line?

      It’s a great question but given the sheer size of the OF market already it seems likely that it would take a while for the “burn out” to happen. 100 million is a lot of users. Even if they all spend only $1 each, on average, that’s a massive revenue pool. And as we know, it’s certainly much larger than that, due to the “whales” — so there’s just a lot of money sloshing around, and it continues to grow. That suggests that there’s still quite a lot of upside all around financially, at least viewed from the “demand” side.

      And from the “supply” side, OF has 1.5m “content providers” currently. Think about that number. It’s a LOT more, multiples more, than the total number of women in pro porn. It’s objectively large. Just to compare — in the US there are 3.8m nurses, 1.3m lawyers, 1.6m engineers. The number of participants providing “content” to OF is in this vicinity. It’s very, very, very large compared to the number of women who have participated in porn. Even when one keeps in mind that there is an international element to the OF participant numbers (though it skews US), it’s still much larger than the number who participated in the traditional sex industry. And even with these large numbers of participants, girls who apply themselves are making a lot of money, while a handful are making obscene money (far more than any porn actress ever dreamed of making).

      It’s simply a different thing. This makes it hard for us, because the benchmark we have — professional porn — doesn’t apply here. This is different. Many, many more women are participating in this who would never do pro porn or even entertain the idea of working at a strip club. It’s a different thing, and much bigger, with a much broader cross-section of women participating already. And there’s still a lot of money being made.

      All this suggests to me that we are very much still on the upside of the slope in terms of the cycle for this product — that is, the growth phase — which means there is still a LOT of money to be harvested, with more entering the market daily as it continues to grow fairly quickly.

      And what are the downline consequences for them?

      This we won’t know. It’s too new to know. We won’t see the “OF regret” stories start to pop-up on social media, Medium and so on, for a while still — likely a few years.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        I just looked it up and there’s only 106,000 licensed psychologists in the US

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        That’s a pretty small number — it’s good for any profession to keep the numbers down, if it can, relative to demand.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        And there’s a lot of crazy people out there.

        Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        “OF has 1.5m “content providers” currently. Think about that number. It’s a LOT more, multiples more, than the total number of women in pro porn. It’s objectively large. Just to compare — in the US there are 3.8m nurses, 1.3m lawyers, 1.6m engineers.”
        That is an amazing comparison; already they outnumber the lawyers, closing in on the engineers and a little less than half way to the total number of nurses in the US. Astonishing numbers!

        Liked by 2 people

  10. thedeti says:

    This is relevant

    https://nypost.com/2021/01/11/former-high-school-teacher-turns-onlyfans-model/

    A 33-year-old married mother of four, a former schoolteacher, gets on OnlyFans, quadruples her income and quits her teaching job. She’s making six figures on OF. Her hubby is totally on board with it, too! She started out as an Instathot, got into fitness bodybuilding and modeling, but didn’t make any money at it. At least not until she got onto OnlyFans.

    It’s not just about the money, though. It’s also about sexual empowerment, women being unashamed of their sexuality, and helping women feel powerful and sexy. She runs a “life coaching” business with female clients, helping them to express their sexuality. Well, it’s another side hustle, so, yeah, I guess it is about the money.

    For men it’s about the sex, or simulated sex, they’re willing to pay for. For women it’s about the money.

    FWIW, here’s her husband:

    https://www.facebook.com/nicholastillia

    Looks like an alpha BAMF biker type: Healthy beard, full head of hair, tatted up, looks to be around 40, looks like he’s seen his share of rough nights, looks like he’s hung around his share of similar BAMF types of men, and also looks like he’d just as soon knife you as look at you. So he’s probably got the hypergamy angle covered, and so it’s no wonder he’s OK with his wife showing 95% of it on IG and OF.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Good find.

      Next week we will have a deep-dive post on one such case, which goes into detail about how things happened — although with a different result in terms of the family life impact.

      Key point of this: a woman like that would never have left her job to become a stripper or porn star. That just doesn’t happen, because of what’s involved in doing those jobs in person AND they paid nothing at all remotely close to what OF does. And even if she had opted to strip or star in porn films, husband would almost certainly not have been “ok with it”.

      This is different. It’s sanitized. No contact with real humans, either at a club or on set. No sex with any other men, on camera or otherwise. And lots, lots, LOTS more money for the effort and hassle, all done from the privacy of your own home, with as much technical difficulty as what it took to upload the photos and videos you have been uploading to the ‘gram for the past several years already.

      And, like many things with women, it tends to become more prominent as more women do it. As more and more women are doing this, and are open about it, more and more other women become open to doing it, and it starts to mushroom. Women are very influenced by other women they see around them whom they consider to be “like them” — if those women are doing certain things and talking well of it, other women who see themselves as being similar to them will at least look into what she is talking about. And so it grows.

      This is different from strippers, because very few women look at a stripper and say “I am like her” — strippers tend to be ostracized by most women or, at the very least, not closely identified with in their own minds. But a married woman who is a teacher (or another job), a mother, etc., who happens to get fit and hot and get followers on the gram … and is able to turn this attention into big $$$ for a few harmless nude pics, no sex, no porn, etc … hmmmm. Maybe I should look into that. Could I pull that off? Walks over to the mirror, assesses, herself ….

      And so it goes. Brace for impact, gentlemen. This is growing like topsy right now.

      Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        Yes, and like all things in life that appear to be ‘to good to be true,’ there has to be a downside, a hidden cost that will rear it’s head downline. With the empowered CC riders of the past few decades, we know the downline cost from their hooking up twenties with Chad, Tyrone, Achmed and Juan–STDs, inability to pair bond, issues with drugs and/or alcohol, emotional and mental issues, an MMV through the bottom of the floor, etc. None of this was advertised to the ‘You Go Girl’ generations and look what we now have, hundreds of thousands of thirty and fortysomething women with no husband, no family, desperately looking for a ‘Capt Save a Ho’ to rescue them from their predicament. I wonder what will be the cost to the OF girls? This one up here, Mrs. 33 year old wife and former school teacher, bet something happens down line; just guessing something inside that marriage maybe.

        Oh, I will add a sort of P.S. to this….just tonight, on Facebook, I saw a 38/39 year old that I know. She is a complete attention whore on social media. Not bad looking for her age, curvy-in-right-places type figure for getting men’s attention, has a decent job/career, and of course, all the pics on social media are of her in some way, shape or form ‘having it all,’ even into her late thirties. Every once and awhile, these women that I personally know from someplace like that education program I participate in, posts an honest, ‘here’s what is really going on with my life’ type of post. This one was stunning, I mean an absolutely breathtaking emote on FB. It was accompanied by a picture of her balling her eyes out, I mean it looked like total grief and anguish. As I read through her quite lengthy discourse, you’d think that you had gotten a bunch of RP content creators ‘greatest hits’ together on female nature. I mean, one sentence after another just confirmed/validated what the manosphere says about these ladies and their lives post wall. I give her credit for being willing to emote like that in public, takes some doing to share all her stuff like that; but omg, talk about the downline consequences for these ladies! I actually felt sorry for her, not like in the sense she hasn’t ‘gotten what she deserved’ for how she lived her twenties and thirties, but more in the sense of the toll this takes on all of us as a society, the societal costs to this relational shit show we’ve created. It did touch a nerve.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        there has to be a downside, a hidden cost that will rear it’s head downline

        Remember the guy that kept demanding that God’s law be “suspended” because it’s too difficult to follow today?

        This is one reason why trying to outsmart God is foolish. We don’t know all the possible consequences of our actions. God does.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Key point of this: a woman like that would never have left her job to become a stripper or porn star. ….. This is different. It’s sanitized. No contact with real humans, either at a club or on set. No sex with any other men, on camera or otherwise.

        And therefore it’s “respectable” work. It’s just nude modeling with more work to it because you have to create more personalized content for your subscribers, and you have to do video work instead of photo shoot work. Modeling is “respectable.” Nude modeling might be less “respectable”, but there’s still no actual physical contact with humans. It’s more restricted than nude modeling, because (ostensibly) your subscribers are the only ones who can see it and access it.

        The key is, women (and a lot of men) consider this legitimate and therefore “respectable” work. It doesn’t cost her any status points or threaten her marriage, where pole work and porn work would.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        The key is, women (and a lot of men) consider this legitimate and therefore “respectable” work. It doesn’t cost her any status points or threaten her marriage, where pole work and porn work would.

        Yes.

        There clearly is a line being drawn by a lot of people between OnlyFans, on the one hand, and videos on PornHub, on the other.

        Most of the people who read here would not draw that line — but we’re pretty extreme outliers, I think, as far as the general culture goes. Ultras, I guess, when it comes to sexual morality issues. For most people it seems like the line runs between “physical contact for money”, one one side of the line (whether prostitution or porn shoots) and “pictures, nude but not of sex with someone” on the other. It seems like that is where the line is being drawn, currently.

        As I say, not everyone is drawing the line there. I think the younger you go the more likely the line is around there, and also the more liberated you go as well, whereas older/more conservative, the line gets further away from there. But the general reaction to OnlyFans — surprise, due to newness, but not widespread condemnation from women — indicates, I think, that this is where the general cultural line is right now. It could move, of course, and given the way the culture is moving in general it likely will, but for now that’s where the general cultural line is.

        Like

  11. Oscar says:

    Testing out the BitChute option.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/ez1qwFxpr2jb/

    Like

  12. lastmod says:

    “why would you ever pay to take a real woman on a date?”

    Well, that has been a joke already…..any man that does this is a “AFC / Beta” right? I was told for almost twenty years….you never take a woman on a date or pay for anything. That is, if you can get a date. Didn’t you guys read Roosh? Neil Strauss, David DeAngelo? She goes out with you or agrees to a date to be around you and your “masculine confidence”

    You guys don’t have to worry. You’re happily married already. Your sons? Don’t worry, you’re raising them to be red-pilled-Christian men…..they will easily find a good, wholesome, virginal, Christian woman who will submit to their “authority” by the time they are 21 and have had plenty of experience dating or otherwise before then.

    This problem was created by “thirsty men who cannot get a woman” evidently, so what has changed? I am hearing talk of genetics and the like in this threas now as well….so in many cases “its inborn” and cannot be helped, stopped or changed

    Like

  13. redpillboomer says:

    “This is one reason why trying to outsmart God is foolish.”
    Agree. This might be an apt description for the last 50 years or so, society trying to ‘outsmart’ God and his Word. It always seems to ‘work’ in the short run, then comes the long term consequences; a long with it, trying to place the blame somewhere else and claim ‘victimhood.’ That in a nutshell is what a large portion of our society has bought into today, no personal responsibility, a ‘victim’ of someone or something. As I re-read the lady friend’s emotional FB post, there is a subtle, in the background kind of view of ‘I’m not really responsible for how this all turned out, I’m a victim of it.’ She doesn’t attribute it to men directly, but it is there in the background in a subtle, “This is men’s fault my life turned out this way. They did this to me.” No sweetheart, no one did it to you, you were following a ‘script’ that produces those kind of results in the long run. You were duped by modern day social conventions and messaging for sure, but it was you who actually made all those choices for the last two decades, not the men you were with. They gladly went along with your choices because it served their carnal purposes, not your true relational purposes as a woman (husband and children–family).

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      This might be an apt description for the last 50 years or so, society trying to ‘outsmart’ God and his Word.

      It’s a natural cultural cycle, and not just for Christian cultures. Romans 1 says that “Professing to be wise, they became fools” (v. 22). Even pagans know what God wants them to do, because God has written His law in their hearts (Rom. 2:15), and revealed His nature through them through nature itself (Rom. 1:18-21).

      That’s why even pagan cultures often arrive at conclusions found in the Bible, even though they never read the Bible, often times before the Bible was even written.

      Cultures discover God’s will either by reading the Bible, or by generations of painful trial and error (sometimes both), but eventually a generation comes along that thinks they know better.

      Jesus tells us in Matthew 19 that God intended from the beginning (quoting Genesis 1-2) for human sexuality to be confined to marriage, which Jesus, quoting Genesis 1-2, defined as a union of one man to one woman for life.

      But, every generation since the Boomers knows better, right? We know that heterosexual promiscuity is better. In fact, it empowers women. So do birth control pills and abortions.

      Oh, and homosexual promiscuity is even better.

      Oh, and transgenderism is even better.

      What’s next? Pretty much all the depravity in Leviticus 18.

      Buckle up. It’s going to be bumpy ride.

      Like

  14. Joe2 says:

    For most people it seems like the line runs between “physical contact for money”, one one side of the line (whether prostitution or porn shoots) and “pictures, nude but not of sex with someone” on the other.

    I wonder where the line was drawn back during the Renaissance. Consider David of Michelangelo and Venus of Urbino by the Italian painter Titian, as examples. Were these nude artworks criticized by the Church or by Christians, in general? If they weren’t, then the line may have been in a similar place back then as it is today for most people.

    Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      To be honest I don’t think you can seriously compare the nudity in Renaissance art with erotic nude photos that are specifically crafted to excite the male libido. These aren’t “art shots” — they’re erotic nude photographs.

      Like

      • Joe2 says:

        Thanks for your reply.

        Venus of Urbino was intended to be erotic and had hidden meanings as well. It represents the allegory of marriage and was a teaching model to the young wife of the Duke of Urbino of eroticism, fidelity (represented by the dog) and motherhood (the background figure).

        David of Michelangelo – Leonard Barkan from Princeton University has made a study of homosexuality in the Renaissance. He argues that this was a time when homoeroticism was on display. Michelangelo was open about his sexual preference for men, even in a period when it was dangerous to be gay. He concludes it’s perverse to view this perfectly muscled specimen, genitals to the fore, as having nothing to say about sex.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        So let me understand. You’re saying that Playboy style erotic pictures are comparable to Michelangelo and Titian, in terms of assessing acceptability of nude images?

        Got it.

        Like

  15. Scott says:

    That’s a pretty small number — it’s good for any profession to keep the numbers down, if it can, relative to demand.

    It would be a pretty interesting discussion on how the APA manages to keep the supply artificially low (like WAY below demand). Its why I get 5 emails a day from recruiters willing to write me a blank for psychologist jobs all over the country.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Pingback: The Learning Psychology of Women who Participate in the Online Amateur Sex Industry | Σ Frame

  17. Joe2 says:

    So let me understand. You’re saying that Playboy style erotic pictures are comparable to Michelangelo and Titian, in terms of assessing acceptability of nude images?

    I never mentioned Playboy. Any comparison is false because the media (camera and film) did not exist and the acceptability of nude images is done within the context of the standards acceptable to the population at the time the images were made.

    I asked whether these nude artworks were ever criticized by Christians because, as I later explained, art experts today mention the artworks revealed their erotic and homoerotic natures to the population at that time. However, we do know that prostitution existed in Florence and was highly regulated; a necessary evil.

    Thus, the line may have been in a similar place back then as it is today for most people with an extremely wide latitude regarding “pictures, nude but not of sex with someone” on the non-prostitution side of the line.

    Like

  18. Pingback: Revealing the motives behind unconcealed sex and nakedness | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s