• some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s completely tame. There are far more sexual images in just about any direction. It’s only because people know there’s actual nakedness being advertised that anyone has a problem with it. And that’s just silly.

      • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        People are just mad that women have a new and effective way to monetize their inherent value (edit as a human, in a way that men can’t compete as well with). they are mad because they either have moral objections, or want to deny said intrinsic value. Its a sad effect of people not loving themselves. Its also hilariously transparent when people get mad about things like this.

          • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            to be clear i mean inherent value as a human. Men’s inherent value isn’t questioned, so i didn’t mention it. I can see how you would think that how i meant it, and I’ll see about editing the comment so it doesn’t read that way.

            • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              She’s advertising her ability to titillate, not her personality or intrinsic value and self-worth. Even with your edit, you’re still equating the persona she adopts for her business with her value as a person.

              • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                The ability to titillate IS an intrinsic value, a human one at that. You’re probably just sour that you don’t feel you have that ability, so you want to deny the existence and power of the ability to titilate on a human value basis.

                • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Projecting much?

                  I don’t have any personal desire to do any sex work. But women who are less conventionally attractive or who don’t feel confident on camera are not any less valuable than those who do. You’re equating a woman’s value as a human to her sex appeal and that’s disgusting.

                • Arrakis@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Wow, you really went directly from “possibly just a poorly written comment” to “actually is just an absolute cunt”, didn’t you?

    • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Victoria’s Secret

      I gotchu

      Queen Victoria and her husband (and also her cousin) Prince Albert popularized the custom of Christmas Trees in 1848 when Albert sent decorated trees to schools and army barracks around Windsor.

      Prince Albert was apparently hung like a horse.

    • venusenvy47@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m ignorant about what content OnlyFans has. Is the woman on the billboard a porn star?

      • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        OnlyFans is generally a porn distribution platform, yes. It was created with wider intent, but was taken over by amateur porn makers. You basically sign up for free, then you subscribe to people you wanna jerk off to or whatever. some accounts are free, some are paid, most offer paid content on the side, like custom requests or old videos. I help one of my friends make content for her OF account here and there; I’m happy to answer questions you have about it.

        • venusenvy47@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t really have questions about OF beyond getting context for the billboard. In the US I don’t see porn stars advertising in such everyday places. I have certainly seen billboards that are similar to the one shown in this article, but those are from companies with a big advertising budget like Victoria’s Secret, as you mention. I think porn stars are generally not wealthy enough to have a big advertising budget for billboards.

          • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Average OF model makes less than $200 per month so I agree. (average model’s subscribers = 21, Average monthly rate = $7.20, OnlyFans keeps 20% profits).

            However, when you look at where you CAN get to, the investment could be considered worthwhile, if you think it will increase subscriber count.

            Someone in the top 1% of OF models (on income basis) can make over $6K per month

            Someone in the top 0.1% makes over $100K per month (but thats like… literally Cardi B, Mia Khalifia, etc so good luck)

            Billboards in the cheaper ranges are $2K -$6K, but can go to $20K/month in dense urban areas.

  • Dom Poose@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not only did the billboard work, but now that news outlets are posting it, with her @ and all, she’s likely getting so much more attention/subs.

    Genius.

  • AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is it a good or a bad thing when you’re told your onlyfans ad can stay because it’s not sexy enough?

  • mercury@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    The only problem with this is the fact that it’s an advertisement. At least in the US, you cant drive down a country highway without seeing at least one advertisement for a strip club.

  • TDCN@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Come to Denmark where we have advertising on busses with full on boobs in full show. It’s advertiseing for breast implants btw

      • deus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Guilty as charged. Netflix has a lot of good content and their app works well so I don’t mind paying for it, though I still put on my eyepatch from time to time when I want to watch something they don’t have.

        • SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          My VPN (and mail, storage and email masking service) costs 60 eur per year, while Netflix for just me on good quality is 144 eur per year and that’s sponsoring a service that cancels good shows left and right.

          If I particularly like a movie, I’ll buy it on YouTube, but other than that I’ve got my little ship and I’m sailing with it.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Billboards erected in London showing model Eliza Rose Watson in underwear advertising her OnlyFans account page have been cleared by the UK regulator following complaints that they were inappropriate for children to see.

    The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 30 complaints stating that the posters seen in Harrow, Tottenham, Lambeth and Edgware in June and July featured adult content and were inappropriate.

    ASA said that although Watson’s clothing was revealing, the image did not feature any nudity, and the pose adopted by her was “no more than mildly sexual."

    “While we acknowledged that the image of Ms Watson and reference to OnlyFans might be distasteful to some, we considered that because the ad was not overtly sexual and did not objectify women, we therefore concluded it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.”

    The ASA continued: “The ad was shown on several posters throughout London, which was an untargeted medium, and was therefore likely to be seen by a large number of people, including children.”

    Commenting on the reaction to the billboards, she said: "If people are offended by my ad, I’m assuming they’re also complaining about Ann Summers and Jack Daniels ones.


    The original article contains 408 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 52%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • SMITHandWESSON@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Im fascinated by the fact that people are starting to be monogamous with thier porn stars they watch.

      I might be the odd one out, but if I’m paying for porn I’m definitely getting the one that’s like Netflix with a whole bunch of different shit on it.

  • Mandy@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    If being on onlyfans constitues being a model now than I am a highly esteemed 3d enviromental designer

  • realcaseyrollins@kbin.projectsegfau.lt
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What an incredibly European headline.

    This is why I love America, the first amendment is dope.

    Edit: It’s hilarious to see the usual Lemmy leftists spazzing out in the replies. A lot of them is just them being made about grooming being banned in certain contexts, but the only thing they’re materially wrong is about the general state of physical displays in America as a whole. The local policies of Florida for example aren’t nationalized, they’re locally specific to the state of Florida exclusively.

      • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The US does not ban books outright but they do ban some of them from public libraries, especially school libraries, and for good reason.

          • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            What’s the good reason to ban a book?

            There aren’t any.

            Because it makes you think?

            Christ, no. “Making you think” is kinda the whole reason books exist, so I don’t know why you would think that?

              • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It also said “public libraries” which the comment I replied to (intentionally) omitted.

                It’s a bad faith argument. They want to intentionally conflate removing books from children’s libraries with banning them from the country altogether.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US doesn’t ban shit, individuals hand down mandates to public institutions that then tell them to go fuck themselves.

          • MxM111@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            In schools. There is such thing as curated material for children. You can call it ban, but do you want, for example, pornography available to anyone in elementary school library? Or Mein Kampf?

            Public libraries are different thing. No books are banned there.

          • Zorque@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh, I am well aware that people in the US are banning books. There’s a culture war against libraries… but the US, as an institution, doesn’t ban anything. Saying otherwise is disinformation at its finest.

            • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The US is a collection of institutions. If you go back to 1980 and find that every single individual republic of the Soviet Union is censoring The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (wild and nonsensical example), except for Latvia, you should still say that the USSR is censoring The Hunchback of Notre-Dame.

        • AnonTwo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          Please don’t lie to other countries. We’ve had several articles of libraries getting attacked by state legislature. Especially in Florida.

    • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      If an onlyfans ad was on a park bench in the US it would be hung up in the courts for years and people would be sued for tainting their conservative Christian beliefs. It would be removed, and replaced with an NRA ad.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ha, you think a billboard in the US can put whatever they want? Try putting up a nude picture (trying to think of something that would be considered “overtly sexual”) and seeing how long it stays up.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which is on the level with this. I fail to see what this proves. You can’t even breastfeed in public and many public libraries don’t even allow the mention of gender. You think they’ll allow a nipple on a billboard? The US is waaaaay behind Europe who has had nudity in public TV (with limitations, but far less restrictive than the US). I’d like to see more liberal rules on speech, but for now they’ll continue to be more conservative due to various sects of people in this country.

    • Norgur@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Erm… You misjudge the implications here I think. You may read this as “Attack on free speech”, but you know how Europeans are likely to read it?
      “American moral outrage bullshit tried to take hold in UK but was stopped in court”

    • settoloki
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      America seems to be a complete cluster fuck shithole of a country lately. The rest of the world is pretty dire but America seems to take the lead. When you elected a corrupt media personality to lead who is now being charged with election fraud and multiple other crimes where he tried to install himself as a dictator and a large portion of the population not only lap up his bullshit but are ready to outright kill people in his name and still believe he did nothing wrong is all the proof needed. The grooming by the church, the grooming by republicans etc just sounds awful. Now admittedly I don’t live there and my only insight is from stories that make national headlines I have to believe it’s not as bad as it sounds, but the majority of sane Americans I talk to don’t give me much hope. Not claiming that where I am in the world is much better, but we can still say at least it’s not as bad as America.