247
I Went Undercover as a Secret OnlyFans Chatter. It Wasn’t Pretty
(www.wired.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
247 points (95.6% liked)
Technology
59648 readers
1583 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In vogue these days? That just reminds me of how every generation thinks they invented sex. Or the Simpsons quote where Mr. Burns describes a past encounter: "We expressed our love physically, as was the style at the time."
Some body types are more...fashionable than others. For example, a woman who is deemed "chubby" now would've been a perfect 10 centuries ago.
Since beauty is subjective, tastes will be different from person to person, but certain types will dominate depending upon the culture at that time and place.
You don't have to go that far - if you look at 90's female models, or actresses that were considered "hot" at the time, they had a significantly different body type from today. They were a lot skinnier, there was more diet and less gym involved in the female bodies of the 90s and early 2000s.
Are we talking about high fashion models doing runways and magazine shoots for glossy fashion magazines, or are we talking about porn?
The bodies that you're talking about weren't exactly featured in the leading porn magazines or studio films, or even lad mags like Maxim/Stuff/FHM that didn't do full nudity.
For porn, erotica, and other risqué content, there's been significantly less shifts in trends and preferences.
I'm talking about TV ads, magazine covers. General models (not the super-skinny runway models which don't necessarily follow typical beauty standards) or porn (which follows its own set of trends I'd say, like over exaggerated bodies, breast implants...).
I don't know if it's the best example but I'm talking generally about the difference between people like Jennifer Aniston in 1997 vs Scarlett Johansson in 2020, for example.
Well this article and line of comments is specifically about porn and women as objects of sexual desire, that would cause people to want to chat with OnlyFans models. I don't think that's changed over the years, if you look at the body types that were featured in Playboy, Hustler, Perfect 10, or lad mags like Maxim, Stuff, FHM, or even things like Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issues. Pretty much across the board, from the 70's through the 2000's, these types of magazines featured young women of what I'm assuming are the "in vogue" proportions alluded to in the article. And I assume aren't that different from things like the Raquel Welch poster featured in the Shawshank Redemption.
Speaking of posters, the 90's included Baywatch and Pamela Anderson, who was on a lot more dorm room posters than Jennifer Aniston (who, by the way, wasn't that far off of what I'm describing as the standard across multiple decades).
Even if they are not the media image of beauty, I’ll tell you right now that big women are always in demand.
I think you've got that backwards. The article suggests that this person has a pronounced bottom.
Chubby 10 centuries ago? Mate, have you ever been to a museum? There were no chubby women apart from rich and obese aristocrats.
…yeah that’s kind of the literal point