| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
zune69
Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 8184
Back to top |
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5382
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
 Posted: 12/10/21 1:34 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| zune69 wrote: |
Liz is doing more than just modeling lingerie...
 |
Just in time for your Christmas list, aye Silky? |
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/10/21 1:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Nothing wrong with this. More power to her IMO.
_________________
RebKell's 2021-2022 NCAA Fantasy League Regular Season Champion π
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/10/21 1:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I suppose one could issue a "dick rating" for behavior.
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3323
Back to top |
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24380
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/10/21 3:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I love the idea that you'd just be paying her $50 to get an answer to the question "how much of a dick do you think Andrew Bogut is?"  |
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16365
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/10/21 4:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I choose to believe that every dick she rates gets a "meh."
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/11/21 3:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Yeah, I personally love this. For her, or for anyone that wishes to go this route.
And honestly, more power to her no matter how far she takes it. Whether it stays in this mild territory or if she were to go full on sexwork, as long as she is in control of her content and she does whatever she does willingly, make your money Liz.
I'm so tired of people treating sexwork/sexworkers like it's something to be ashamed of. Since like forever other people/institutions have been making tons of money by commodifying women to one degree or another. Stuff like this allows the woman (or man, or non-binary individual) to take back ownership of themselves.
There is a British actress named Sarah Jayne Dunn who was on Hollyoaks for years. She started an OnlyFans, and they fired her because she "Didn't represent their brand", when she refused to take it down. Of course they had no issue selling sexy calendars with her on them that we very similar to the content she was selling for herself. So much of this shit is about control and who it is that gets to profit.
_________________
ββββββββBA
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24380
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/11/21 3:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Yeah, good luck to her. And being on a team in Las Vegas seems like perfectly synchronised branding  . |
|
undersized_post
Joined: 01 Mar 2021
Posts: 2864
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/11/21 5:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
Yeah, I personally love this. For her, or for anyone that wishes to go this route.
And honestly, more power to her no matter how far she takes it. Whether it stays in this mild territory or if she were to go full on sexwork, as long as she is in control of her content and she does whatever she does willingly, make your money Liz.
I'm so tired of people treating sexwork/sexworkers like it's something to be ashamed of. Since like forever other people/institutions have been making tons of money by commodifying women to one degree or another. Stuff like this allows the woman (or man, or non-binary individual) to take back ownership of themselves.
There is a British actress named Sarah Jayne Dunn who was on Hollyoaks for years. She started an OnlyFans, and they fired her because she "Didn't represent their brand", when she refused to take it down. Of course they had no issue selling sexy calendars with her on them that we very similar to the content she was selling for herself. So much of this shit is about control and [i]who it is that gets to profit.[/i] |
preach!
_________________
RebKell's 2021-2022 NCAA Fantasy League Regular Season Champion π
|
|
female-buckets
Joined: 08 Nov 2021
Posts: 32
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/21 4:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
Yeah, I personally love this. For her, or for anyone that wishes to go this route.
And honestly, more power to her no matter how far she takes it. Whether it stays in this mild territory or if she were to go full on sexwork, as long as she is in control of her content and she does whatever she does willingly, make your money Liz.
I'm so tired of people treating sexwork/sexworkers like it's something to be ashamed of. Since like forever other people/institutions have been making tons of money by commodifying women to one degree or another. Stuff like this allows the woman (or man, or non-binary individual) to take back ownership of themselves.
There is a British actress named Sarah Jayne Dunn who was on Hollyoaks for years. She started an OnlyFans, and they fired her because she "Didn't represent their brand", when she refused to take it down. Of course they had no issue selling sexy calendars with her on them that we very similar to the content she was selling for herself. So much of this shit is about control and who it is that gets to profit. |
You can keep trying to "woke" your way through this one. Or, you can stop and think about it from a realistic perspective.
Whether Liz is profiting or not, men are benefitting from getting to treat the world as their brothel. Men now find it socially acceptable to pressure female public figures to start Onlyfans. That's a world Liz is comfortable with endorsing. She's making a choice to endorse a company that provides a platform for sexual exploitation. There are a ton of Onlyfans accounts that are run by pimps and traffickers. Did you really think sex trafficking wouldn't overlap with a site like Onlyfans? Of course it overlaps! Onlyfans knows this. They just don't care because they're profiting from those accounts. They take a 20% cut.
Yeah, that's right. All those prices on Liz's slimy menu? Onlyfans is taking a 20% cut of everything she makes. What does that remind you of? What does that sound like to you?
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/21 4:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| female-buckets wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
Yeah, I personally love this. For her, or for anyone that wishes to go this route.
And honestly, more power to her no matter how far she takes it. Whether it stays in this mild territory or if she were to go full on sexwork, as long as she is in control of her content and she does whatever she does willingly, make your money Liz.
I'm so tired of people treating sexwork/sexworkers like it's something to be ashamed of. Since like forever other people/institutions have been making tons of money by commodifying women to one degree or another. Stuff like this allows the woman (or man, or non-binary individual) to take back ownership of themselves.
There is a British actress named Sarah Jayne Dunn who was on Hollyoaks for years. She started an OnlyFans, and they fired her because she "Didn't represent their brand", when she refused to take it down. Of course they had no issue selling sexy calendars with her on them that we very similar to the content she was selling for herself. So much of this shit is about control and who it is that gets to profit. |
You can keep trying to "woke" your way through this one. Or, you can stop and think about it from a realistic perspective.
Whether Liz is profiting or not, men are benefitting from getting to treat the world as their brothel. Men now find it socially acceptable to pressure female public figures to start Onlyfans. That's a world Liz is comfortable with endorsing. She's making a choice to endorse a company that provides a platform for sexual exploitation. There are a ton of Onlyfans accounts that are run by pimps and traffickers. Did you really think sex trafficking wouldn't overlap with a site like Onlyfans? Of course it overlaps! Onlyfans knows this. They just don't care because they're profiting from those accounts. They take a 20% cut.
Yeah, that's right. All those prices on Liz's slimy menu? Onlyfans is taking a 20% cut of everything she makes. What does that remind you of? What does that sound like to you? |
Absolutely zero of this has anything to do with Liz. It's a bunch of scarecrows and red herrings thrown together with a dollup of fear mongering and garnished with a few sprigs of "what ifs" and pearl clutchings.
Of course I could have just stopped reading at the point "woke" was used as a negative. It pretty much told me it was going to be about as fact-filled as a "Stop the Steal" rally.
And as to what taking 20% reminds me of? How about hair stylists, or consignment shops, or AirB&B, or just about any other place where an individual sells a product or service through someone else's platform.
Gotta love insinuations that alude to the lowest common denominator for something that is an ubiquitous business practice.
_________________
ββββββββBA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66984
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/21 4:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| Gotta love insinuations that alude to the lowest common denominator for something that is an ubiquitous business practice. |
That's a standard anti-capitalist tactic
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
female-buckets
Joined: 08 Nov 2021
Posts: 32
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/21 5:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| female-buckets wrote: |
You can keep trying to "woke" your way through this one. Or, you can stop and think about it from a realistic perspective.
Whether Liz is profiting or not, men are benefitting from getting to treat the world as their brothel. Men now find it socially acceptable to pressure female public figures to start Onlyfans. That's a world Liz is comfortable with endorsing. She's making a choice to endorse a company that provides a platform for sexual exploitation. There are a ton of Onlyfans accounts that are run by pimps and traffickers. Did you really think sex trafficking wouldn't overlap with a site like Onlyfans? Of course it overlaps! Onlyfans knows this. They just don't care because they're profiting from those accounts. They take a 20% cut.
Yeah, that's right. All those prices on Liz's slimy menu? Onlyfans is taking a 20% cut of everything she makes. What does that remind you of? What does that sound like to you? |
Absolutely zero of this has anything to do with Liz. It's a bunch of scarecrows and red herrings thrown together with a dollup of fear mongering and garnished with a few sprigs of "what ifs" and pearl clutchings.
Of course I could have just stopped reading at the point "woke" was used as a negative. It pretty much told me it was going to be about as fact-filled as a "Stop the Steal" rally.
And as to what taking 20% reminds me of? How about hair stylists, or consignment shops, or AirB&B, or just about any other place where an individual sells a product or service through someone else's platform.
Gotta love insinuations that alude to the lowest common denominator for something that is an ubiquitous business practice. |
Every time you accuse people of pearl clutching, who are you defending? You're defending people who consume Onlyfans content, right? Just clarifying.
Onlyfans is a multi-level marketing scheme. Onlyfans pays "content creators" to recruit new members into selling on Onlyfans. Again, what does that sound like?
Do you have empathy for the women being exploited on this site? Or do you prefer to only focus on the honor and integrity you believe men have when they log on?
Back to Liz. I don't want to see men commenting on other players instagrams and telling them to start an Onlyfans. As the players in this sport continue to fight for equal pay, men are changing their comments from "get in the kitchen" to "get on Onlyfans." I'm grumpy about this. I think my grumpiness is a normal reaction. Clearly, you disagree, and that's okay. To each their own.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/21 9:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| female-buckets wrote: |
]
Do you have empathy for the women being exploited on this site? Or do you prefer to only focus on the honor and integrity you believe men have when they log on? |
You do realize the content creators (ie: most of the time the women) are the ones who have all the power, right?. They get to choose what sort of content they create, get to put whatever price they want on it (as long as it falls within the OnlyFans rules), and they get to choose which subscribers they interact with. They have the ability to mute or straight up block anyone who gives them problems, and they get to do all this from the safety of their own homes.
Who, exactly, is it that's being exploited? Spend some time reading what the sexworkers have to say about the site and how it has given them so much more agency in what they do. Not to mention safety. If you can find it, Stoya, the adult film star and columnist for Slate has discussed how amazing it had been for so many actresses in the adult film industry. Being able to control your own body and not be dependent upon directors or producers--some of whom are extremely sleazy--is huge. And she also notes that the 20% they take is actually a very good deal for the creators when you consider bthe framework that is provided to them.
BTW, that article you linked was written from the standpoint that any form of sexwork is inherently exploitive, which makes sense, seeing as he is the head of an organization that says that explicitly. And that is the puritanical pearl clutching that needs to change. Sexwork is work
_________________
ββββββββBA
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19779
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/21 11:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think the reality is, men make money off of women's bodies and sexualizing women all the time.
Onlyfans didn't encourage men to objectify women, it just allowed women to make the rules and make the money.
If a woman is comfortable with that - good for them. Make that money.
I agree with the above though, Liz should charge way more for feet pictures.
_________________
βAnyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is βLord Dampnutββ- Colin Mochrie
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3323
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/21 11:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| Of course I could have just stopped reading at the point "woke" was used as a negative. It pretty much told me it was going to be about as fact-filled as a "Stop the Steal" rally. |
Oh, you read the whole thing? Shout out to you: I tuned out after the dog whistle.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18042
Location: Queens
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/21 11:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| female-buckets wrote: |
| Back to Liz. I don't want to see men commenting on other players instagrams and telling them to start an Onlyfans. As the players in this sport continue to fight for equal pay, men are changing their comments from "get in the kitchen" to "get on Onlyfans." I'm grumpy about this. I think my grumpiness is a normal reaction. Clearly, you disagree, and that's okay. To each their own. |
I think the issue here is people who feel entitled to tell people what to do with their bodies because of the choices other people make. If trolls are flooding players' comment sections with "start an Onlyfans" and other horny content, Cambage having or not having an Onlyfans isn't going to make a difference. I do not have to like, or endorse, or engage with, her more prurient content, so why should I make a point of making her body my business?
(the answer, or an answer, is the puritanical moral code baked into American culture from the moment the Puritans became our mythological Founders, even though they weren't even remotely close to being the first people on the continent, or the first Europeans; unlearning that's gonna take a while)
Now, if down the road, there's a situation where a player is pressured into providing this sort of content, and it's clear they're under duress, then I'll start passing out the pitchforks and we can lay siege to the patriarchy together.
_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21944
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/21 11:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| female-buckets wrote: |
| Yeah, that's right. All those prices on Liz's slimy menu? Onlyfans is taking a 20% cut of everything she makes. What does that remind you of? What does that sound like to you? |
Sounds a lot like my previous job, where the large company I worked for paid me an annual salary, but charged their clients a significantly higher rate for my services than what I got paid.
Sounds like pretty much every job, actually. Except that the "menu" of most jobs is fairly defined, whereas in Liz's case she can make it as "slimy" or unslimy as she chooses to.
I wonder how the 20% cut compares to the cut of her value that the Aces/WNBA + her management takes.
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
female-buckets
Joined: 08 Nov 2021
Posts: 32
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/13/21 4:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| female-buckets wrote: |
]
Do you have empathy for the women being exploited on this site? Or do you prefer to only focus on the honor and integrity you believe men have when they log on? |
You do realize the content creators (ie: most of the time the women) are the ones who have all the power, right?. They get to choose what sort of content they create, get to put whatever price they want on it (as long as it falls within the OnlyFans rules), and they get to choose which subscribers they interact with. They have the ability to mute or straight up block anyone who gives them problems, and they get to do all this from the safety of their own homes.
Who, exactly, is it that's being exploited? Spend some time reading what the sexworkers have to say about the site and how it has given them so much more agency in what they do. Not to mention safety. If you can find it, Stoya, the adult film star and columnist for Slate has discussed how amazing it had been for so many actresses in the adult film industry. Being able to control your own body and not be dependent upon directors or producers--some of whom are extremely sleazy--is huge. And she also notes that the 20% they take is actually a very good deal for the creators when you consider bthe framework that is provided to them.
BTW, that article you linked was written from the standpoint that any form of sexwork is inherently exploitive, which makes sense, seeing as he is the head of an organization that says that explicitly. And that is the puritanical pearl clutching that needs to change. Sexwork is work |
I linked that article because that's the one that provided the most sources and statistics. Here's one that provides less sources, agrees with you about sex work, and still points out how Onlyfans is an exploitative company.
My problem with Liz has nothing to do with purity culture. I don't think nudity and sexuality are inherently negative or harmful.
But I've read about Onlyfans as a company and it's a nasty one. Maybe they don't have sweatshops like Nike, but they use extremely deceptive marketing tactics to recruit people. Obviously someone who makes a lot of money through the site is going to promote it. They're at the top of the pyramid scheme. The site pays them to recruit people. But how much have you read about the people at the bottom? If you're so passionate about defending Onlyfans, at least read about those who had negative experiences using it.
Liz is endorsing a shady company. She wouldn't be the first W star to promote multi-level marketing on social media. I just don't understand what Onlyfans has done to earn such passionate defenders. In everything I've read, there's nothing to suggest Onlyfans is a bastion of fair business practices.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14113
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/13/21 3:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| female-buckets wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| female-buckets wrote: |
]
Do you have empathy for the women being exploited on this site? Or do you prefer to only focus on the honor and integrity you believe men have when they log on? |
You do realize the content creators (ie: most of the time the women) are the ones who have all the power, right?. They get to choose what sort of content they create, get to put whatever price they want on it (as long as it falls within the OnlyFans rules), and they get to choose which subscribers they interact with. They have the ability to mute or straight up block anyone who gives them problems, and they get to do all this from the safety of their own homes.
Who, exactly, is it that's being exploited? Spend some time reading what the sexworkers have to say about the site and how it has given them so much more agency in what they do. Not to mention safety. If you can find it, Stoya, the adult film star and columnist for Slate has discussed how amazing it had been for so many actresses in the adult film industry. Being able to control your own body and not be dependent upon directors or producers--some of whom are extremely sleazy--is huge. And she also notes that the 20% they take is actually a very good deal for the creators when you consider bthe framework that is provided to them.
BTW, that article you linked was written from the standpoint that any form of sexwork is inherently exploitive, which makes sense, seeing as he is the head of an organization that says that explicitly. And that is the puritanical pearl clutching that needs to change. Sexwork is work |
I linked that article because that's the one that provided the most sources and statistics. Here's one that provides less sources, agrees with you about sex work, and still points out how Onlyfans is an exploitative company.
My problem with Liz has nothing to do with purity culture. I don't think nudity and sexuality are inherently negative or harmful.
But I've read about Onlyfans as a company and it's a nasty one. Maybe they don't have sweatshops like Nike, but they use extremely deceptive marketing tactics to recruit people. Obviously someone who makes a lot of money through the site is going to promote it. They're at the top of the pyramid scheme. The site pays them to recruit people. But how much have you read about the people at the bottom? If you're so passionate about defending Onlyfans, at least read about those who had negative experiences using it.
Liz is endorsing a shady company. She wouldn't be the first W star to promote multi-level marketing on social media. I just don't understand what Onlyfans has done to earn such passionate defenders. In everything I've read, there's nothing to suggest Onlyfans is a bastion of fair business practices. |
I'm confused as to what exactly are you trying to say about the platform. Isn't that how all social media is, the more followers you have the more content you are creating that is getting interaction the more money you make. If you don't have a following because of what you charge or you aren't that "sellable" that's not the fault of the Onlyfans that you can't make money from it. The more subscriptions (and depending on the cost per subscription) you sell of course the money you will make.
There are people who brag about people millions on instagram or tiktok and then there are people who can't even break 100 followers on there, I guess I'm not seeing the difference.
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3323
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/13/21 9:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
| I'm confused as to what exactly are you trying to say about the platform. Isn't that how all social media is, the more followers you have the more content you are creating that is getting interaction the more money you make. If you don't have a following because of what you charge or you aren't that "sellable" that's not the fault of the Onlyfans that you can't make money from it. The more subscriptions (and depending on the cost per subscription) you sell of course the money you will make. |
It almost sounds like what they're saying is that the only version of a platform like Onlyfans that they would accept would be one that was both owned and managed, from the top down, by women, and in which the content creators had some sort of equity in the company, and that anything less than that is exploitative of the content creators. Or (more likely, IMO), they're on some kind of moralistic nonsense, and they're hiding behind concern trolling about women being exploited.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
female-buckets
Joined: 08 Nov 2021
Posts: 32
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/14/21 3:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
| female-buckets wrote: |
I linked that article because that's the one that provided the most sources and statistics. Here's one that provides less sources, agrees with you about sex work, and still points out how Onlyfans is an exploitative company.
My problem with Liz has nothing to do with purity culture. I don't think nudity and sexuality are inherently negative or harmful.
But I've read about Onlyfans as a company and it's a nasty one. Maybe they don't have sweatshops like Nike, but they use extremely deceptive marketing tactics to recruit people. Obviously someone who makes a lot of money through the site is going to promote it. They're at the top of the pyramid scheme. The site pays them to recruit people. But how much have you read about the people at the bottom? If you're so passionate about defending Onlyfans, at least read about those who had negative experiences using it.
Liz is endorsing a shady company. She wouldn't be the first W star to promote multi-level marketing on social media. I just don't understand what Onlyfans has done to earn such passionate defenders. In everything I've read, there's nothing to suggest Onlyfans is a bastion of fair business practices. |
I'm confused as to what exactly are you trying to say about the platform. Isn't that how all social media is, the more followers you have the more content you are creating that is getting interaction the more money you make. If you don't have a following because of what you charge or you aren't that "sellable" that's not the fault of the Onlyfans that you can't make money from it. The more subscriptions (and depending on the cost per subscription) you sell of course the money you will make.
There are people who brag about people millions on instagram or tiktok and then there are people who can't even break 100 followers on there, I guess I'm not seeing the difference. |
In case you skimmed the article, this is the multi-level marketing/pyramid business model Onlyfans is built on:
"There are referral programs that allow a referrer to earn up to $50,000 for a referral (if the creator they referred earns $1 million). According to OnlyFans, referring a creator earns you 5% of that creator's earnings for the first year only. Referrals started prior to May 1, 2020 will have one more year to receive earnings from referrals. This is why youβll see TikToks and girls in videos brag about the house they bought and include their link in bio to get referrals."
If Liz posts her referral link, that's an ethical problem.
It's not appropriate for a WNBA athlete to make a profit by recruiting her followers to sell explicit content.
It doesn't matter how much she makes through her referral link. It's unethical. The WNBA promotes her and provides her with a fanbase. WNBA athletes can use those fanbases to push sponsorships and endorsements. They might get a bonus from the company sponsoring them when fans use their promo codes. But I see a big difference between a promo code and an Onlyfans referral link. In the former, the athlete makes money because WNBA fans are buying mineral water. In the latter, the athlete makes money because WNBA fans are selling explicit content of themselves.
I also thought it was questionable when I saw a WNBA athlete recruiting her followers into an essential oil pyramid scheme. But the fans getting roped into selling essential oils? They're not going to have the same negative mental health impacts as the fans getting roped into Onlyfans.
|
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3517
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/14/21 5:34 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| I think some of OnlyFans practices are exploitative. Liz and other celebs have (usually) enough maturity, advisors, and other sources of income to keep OnlyFans in perspective. However, there are a lot of young unknown women on there who are trying to make a living from OF, and they are encouraged by OF to increase their, err, exposure from lingerie-clad photos, to naked photos, to videos, to private videos, on and on up the pay scale. There are many stories out there by women ending up in cyber-situations where they weren't comfortable, and acquiring cyber or real-life stalkers. Then there are the complaints about OF not paying what their performers are owed. And yeah, these young women are over 18 and entitled to sell their photos, but not through coercive practices by their employer.
|
|
|
|
