The only other unique thing they offer is that they aren't "dating" only and have the option for "business" and "friends."
I don't think most people even know that these options exist however, so I doubt its providing a large supply to pick from nor is the type of guy/business desperate enough to use it someone you want to interact with.
Maybe if you moved to a new area and really want to find a fishing buddy or something.
Sounds like the same stupid stunt Onlyfans pulled trying to claim it's not just for porn, when that's the first thing everyone assumes it will be if someone states to have an account. Nobody is subbing to an OF account to watch someone cook while clothed when that exists on YouTube and other platforms already, ans probably with fewer clothes!
Extreme psycho perverts have paid to see women not get naked online for decades. Even back when solo girl paysites existed instead of Onlyfans, there were some women who could get away with charging $30/month for basically Instagram shots.
I know some content creators prefer OnlyFans to Patreon because, well, fuck Patreon, but each and every one of them then needs to spend a few seconds after shilling it to say "and yes, it's just a Patreon substitute, I'm not naked on it, it just is a superior payment platform, despite its reputation."
The only other unique thing they offer is that they aren't "dating" only and have the option for "business" and "friends."
I don't think most people even know that these options exist however, so I doubt its providing a large supply to pick from nor is the type of guy/business desperate enough to use it someone you want to interact with.
Maybe if you moved to a new area and really want to find a fishing buddy or something.
I've heard of women on apps saying they just want "friends", which is code for beta orbiters. Chad still gets to smash of course.
Well yeah but this wasn't that.
It was straight up guy to guy friendship meeting, or girl to girl I guess. Nothing coded, just odd.
Sounds like the same stupid stunt Onlyfans pulled trying to claim it's not just for porn, when that's the first thing everyone assumes it will be if someone states to have an account. Nobody is subbing to an OF account to watch someone cook while clothed when that exists on YouTube and other platforms already, ans probably with fewer clothes!
Extreme psycho perverts have paid to see women not get naked online for decades. Even back when solo girl paysites existed instead of Onlyfans, there were some women who could get away with charging $30/month for basically Instagram shots.
I know some content creators prefer OnlyFans to Patreon because, well, fuck Patreon, but each and every one of them then needs to spend a few seconds after shilling it to say "and yes, it's just a Patreon substitute, I'm not naked on it, it just is a superior payment platform, despite its reputation."