cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1891139
Archived version: https://archive.ph/OvFse
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230825144949/https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/08/23/billboards-featuring-onlyfans-model-ruled-not-overtly-sexual-by-uk-advertising-watchdog
Heh heh heh. They said “erected”.
It’s no different than seeing a Victoria’s Secret or Calvin Klein billboard, IMHO.
I’m ignorant about what content OnlyFans has. Is the woman on the billboard a porn star?
The point of most only fan is to have you pay to be able to see sexual stuff
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
‘inherent value’?
Don’t be gross
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, you really went directly from “possibly just a poorly written comment” to “actually is just an absolute cunt”, didn’t you?
Who are these people that pay for pornography?
Who are the people who pay for netflix instead of torrenting?
Someone has to.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
So it’s like, a porn advert? I kind of assumed that wasn’t a thing.
Nobody will think of the children if they can’t infringe on our rights to privacy and freedom, right?
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.
You can in Vermont and Hawaii, where billboards are illegal.
Oh that’s wonderful, I need to visit vermont
Maine has a similar law too I believe.
Hey, I did notice that driving down in Vermont, it makes for such clean looking highways and cities! We need to bring this regulation to Quebec.
If being on onlyfans constitues being a model now than I am a highly esteemed 3d enviromental designer
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.
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.
European/Canadian spotted lol
Meanwhile the US bans books for being too sexual
The US doesn’t ban shit, individuals hand down mandates to public institutions that then tell them to go fuck themselves.
Please don’t lie to other countries. We’ve had several articles of libraries getting attacked by state legislature. Especially in Florida.
Does it really matter what level of government is doing it if the end result is the same.
Not paying attention to anything happening right now, are you?
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.
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.
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.
*Mein Kampf
Thanks, corrected.
The US does not ban books outright but they do ban some of them from public libraries, especially school libraries, and for good reason.
What’s the good reason to ban a book? Because it makes you think?
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?
Probably because your previous comment said that books are banned “for good reason”
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.
Oh look another American who doesn’t understand the first amendment
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.
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”Teaching kids about reality isn’t grooming. That usually happens in church.
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.
“Los Angeles Apparel” billboards.
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.
Come to Denmark where we have advertising on busses with full on boobs in full show. It’s advertiseing for breast implants btw
Um, link?
Thanks.
Huh, OP was not exaggerating.
For science, of course.
I was hoping it would be for something totally inappropriate like, “Look at these tits, now drink Pepsi”
I can’t believe what I’m seeing…
Slavoj Žižek and Adam Curtis were correct. Every person (very few like me) who advocates against the use of slot machine style colours in our daily consumer goods and ads around us is correct. People who have no idea how neuroscience and human psychology works, and defend this shit, are direct supporters of the very Black Mirror/1984 dystopia they keep claiming China is. Western world is the real 1984 Skynet dystopia.
Meanwhile, China is imposing limits on children using Tiktok and video games per day/week, as Western society continues to pursue happiness in consooming and sealing its doors away from success for atleast a couple generations.
What a bunch of degenerates we all are. This is just sad.
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.
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!
Summary fails to mention who the billboards erected.
Good bot!
I’ve seen worse ads about perfume
My thoughts exactly.
They are overtly sexual… but not moreso than many other ads.
On one hand, I find nothing wrong with the photograph.
On the other hand, I’m sick of fucking OnlyFans spam online, it’s disgusting to see more spam in real life.
Also billboards as a whole can get fucked.
I don’t see how it’s worse than other kinds of advertisment. We are spammed by ads everywhere. What difference does it make whether it’s an OnlyFans or a car you will never buy?
Netflix has some of the raunchiest posters I’ve ever seen
Netflix has zero skill anymore. They rely completely on sex and controversy to sell shows now. Gone are the days of sell a show based on a good story.
Or dances that trend on TikTok.
deleted by creator
Remember jeans ads from the 90s? Jeans were all they had on!
That’s tame. Mark Whalburg was a underwear model.
In the 2000s women were straight up having orgasms in shampoo commercials.
French guys 40 upwards were having their first orgasm to shampoo adverts
They don’t make shampoo the way they used to :-(
Good times
Those were the days, B&W pictures of coked-up anorexic Calvin Klein jeans models shot topless from the back with maybe a bit of sideboob depending on where they put their arm.
*broken jeans
GUESS!
But is it about what’s directly on the billboard, or about what it’s advertising?
Like, Pornhub could make a billboard with nothing risqué on it, but the fact that it’s advertising a porn website would be an issue wouldn’t it?
Maybe not, I’m just curious tbh.
A billboard would have just ‘Hub’ written in a yellow rectangle and we’d know what it is lmao.
Is it a good or a bad thing when you’re told your onlyfans ad can stay because it’s not sexy enough?
It can be sexy without being sexual
Yeah. Like really good pizza.
Really fuckable pizza hnmmnnnnnn 🍕❤️
The closest I’ve had to a sexual experience involving pizza was the first time I had tried GHB. I thought cannabis made food magical, but it’s nothing compared to G. It was a magical experience.
Ok, now I’m turned on.
Are they mozzarella sticks in your pants or…
It is sexual, but not overtly sexual.
I think she’d be proud she nailed the legally distinct line between selling sex and sex sells.
Agreed
