UFC star Paige VanZant launched her OnlyFans account in 2020 and now charges fans $9.99 per month to view her photos, saying she's made "life-changing money."
UFC star Paige VanZant said OnlyFans allows her to make 'life-changing money'
In my opinion people should be able to do what they want with their own bodies (with the exception of meth, crack, etc) my problem with this only fans situation is that it's just underscoring that our society only seems to value women for their sexuality. I don't follow UFC but assuming she's good at what she does it's sad to me that society values her body more than her abilities. The same thing goes for the only fans teachers. I just wished we valued people for their skills and education more than their flesh. Like I said do what you want with your own body though.
Why don't I have the right to do whatever drugs I like? I know what I'm getting into, and it's my body. A lot of psychiatrists preach the benefits of mushrooms and acid for mental health. And meth and crack certainly aren't as powerful as mushrooms or acid.
My personal opinion is that there are some chemicals that are so detrimental to a person that society has the obligation to limit their use. Also, there is no articulable right to drugs in the Constitution except alcohol through the 21st amendment.
the Constitution and decisions by the supreme Court determines what your legal rights are. Your opinions are your own and you can base them on whatever you want
So there are two things at play here: rights and opinions. Legal rights in America are based on the constitution and the decisions made by the supreme Court. I'm not saying that they're correct or not; justified or not; or ethical or not. I'm just making a statement of fact that's where rights originate from in US law.
Opinions can be based on whatever you want. You are free to agree with or disagree with both the Constitution and the supreme Court. You can consider them valid or invalid institutions.
I'm not trying to tell you that you should be of a particular opinion or not.
Rights in America are not given by the constitution, they are in-born. The constitution helps enforce your naturally given rights, but it is certainly fallible at this, for example it's initial failing to protect the right to freedom held by slaves.
There are opinions, and there are facts. The right to freedom is a fact. Many of the founders were wrong on one of the foremost issues of their time, slavery, at a time when most of the rest of the world was not wrong about it anymore. As such, we should strongly discount all of their beliefs that are not independently verifiable. For instance, the electoral college. This was created in order to maintain the power of slave owners on government, and should be seen as a tool to oppress the will of the people. The EC is not flawed because it was created by slave owners, but it is suspect due to that, and on further inspection, it turns out to be a tool of oppression.
So your initial comment was something along the lines of, "why don't I have the right to do whatever drugs I want?" And I said that there wasn't a constitutional right to drugs. Are you of the opinion that there's a right to do drugs?
The reason porn pays is because so few woman are willing to give up their dignity for the sake of temporary cash flow. If everyone did porn, people would be making scraps.
The reason porn pays is because so few woman are willing to give up their dignity for the sake of temporary cash flow. If everyone did porn, people would be making scraps.
You're making a basic supply and demand argument. As supply goes down (i.e. becomes scarce) and assuming demand remains constant the cost will increase.
If you're selling apples. And 100 people want apples. The price you charge will fluctuate depending on how many apples you have. If you have 10 the cost goes up. If you have 1,000 the cost goes down.
My argument is pornography is not scarce. Meaning there's a lot of it available (on the market) so I disagree with your assessment as to why "porn pays"
In my opinion people should be able to do what they want with their own bodies (with the exception of meth, crack, etc) my problem with this only fans situation is that it's just underscoring that our society only seems to value women for their sexuality. I don't follow UFC but assuming she's good at what she does it's sad to me that society values her body more than her abilities. The same thing goes for the only fans teachers. I just wished we valued people for their skills and education more than their flesh. Like I said do what you want with your own body though.
Why don't I have the right to do whatever drugs I like? I know what I'm getting into, and it's my body. A lot of psychiatrists preach the benefits of mushrooms and acid for mental health. And meth and crack certainly aren't as powerful as mushrooms or acid.
My personal opinion is that there are some chemicals that are so detrimental to a person that society has the obligation to limit their use. Also, there is no articulable right to drugs in the Constitution except alcohol through the 21st amendment.
Why would I base my opinions on what slave owners who had never seen a light bulb thought?
the Constitution and decisions by the supreme Court determines what your legal rights are. Your opinions are your own and you can base them on whatever you want
Okay but why would I base them on the opinions of slave owners? That sounds stupid and nonsensical.
So there are two things at play here: rights and opinions. Legal rights in America are based on the constitution and the decisions made by the supreme Court. I'm not saying that they're correct or not; justified or not; or ethical or not. I'm just making a statement of fact that's where rights originate from in US law.
Opinions can be based on whatever you want. You are free to agree with or disagree with both the Constitution and the supreme Court. You can consider them valid or invalid institutions.
I'm not trying to tell you that you should be of a particular opinion or not.
Rights in America are not given by the constitution, they are in-born. The constitution helps enforce your naturally given rights, but it is certainly fallible at this, for example it's initial failing to protect the right to freedom held by slaves.
There are opinions, and there are facts. The right to freedom is a fact. Many of the founders were wrong on one of the foremost issues of their time, slavery, at a time when most of the rest of the world was not wrong about it anymore. As such, we should strongly discount all of their beliefs that are not independently verifiable. For instance, the electoral college. This was created in order to maintain the power of slave owners on government, and should be seen as a tool to oppress the will of the people. The EC is not flawed because it was created by slave owners, but it is suspect due to that, and on further inspection, it turns out to be a tool of oppression.
So your initial comment was something along the lines of, "why don't I have the right to do whatever drugs I want?" And I said that there wasn't a constitutional right to drugs. Are you of the opinion that there's a right to do drugs?
The reason porn pays is because so few woman are willing to give up their dignity for the sake of temporary cash flow. If everyone did porn, people would be making scraps.
Pornography is not a scarce commodity.
not anymore its not, which is why very few make money.
There is a lot of pornography available. It is not a scarce commodity.
What is your point?
Your original comment:
You're making a basic supply and demand argument. As supply goes down (i.e. becomes scarce) and assuming demand remains constant the cost will increase.
If you're selling apples. And 100 people want apples. The price you charge will fluctuate depending on how many apples you have. If you have 10 the cost goes up. If you have 1,000 the cost goes down.
My argument is pornography is not scarce. Meaning there's a lot of it available (on the market) so I disagree with your assessment as to why "porn pays"