jjwhite1985 wrote:hyapet wrote:I wouldn't want people to have the absolutely valid mental justification for thinking I'm a whore just because of my gender.
OF has about 2 million creators, the vast majority are US women between 18-45, of which there are 1.4m creators. If you're thinking of all women as whores based on 2% of 18-45 women having an OF, then that is very much a you problem.
Your absolutes destroy any argument you may have had. Most likely because you don't have one. Let me explain.
To assume every woman I meet is a whore because of the actions of a small subset of the population would be absolutely fucking retarded.
Nothing is clear-cut. But! If you see a girl with rings through her nose, three different colors in her hair, and has tattoos all over her body - these days - are you telling me the thought, "She probably has an OF account," wouldn't pass through your mind?
Really ?
And why would that be? Because you've seen more girls who look exactly like that on OF who celebrate the lifestyle and make it seem synonymous with "the brand." Where between the shops to the hair salon and Hot Topic the girl is just going to drop by the sex-shop for the 12 inch black dildo that will end up paying for it all. I know people like this.
Usually when something becomes a stereotype - there's a bit of truth to it. And what allows the stereotype to form in the first place is witnessing something enough times that your mind starts making the prediction.
So, no. Not all girls everywhere are whores. Fucking obviously. But - when meeting certain personality types - when meeting people who dress in a certain fashion - and espouse certain ideologies - the lines all start to point to something which, while it very well may not exist for said person, one really wouldn't be surprised if it did.
And it's this entrance into the field of "the ordinary" that such a huge fucking portion of the population going into the OF business presented, that the very basis of girls everywhere cannot escape the very real mathematical probability that they very well could be doing OF work. It's not whether or not they actually do do it - it's whether or not the perception of them doing it can logically exist.
And with two percent of the population - it absolutely fucking can.
"Oh, 2%, that's nothing big," you might think. Wrong.
Look at it this way.
When you go onto the subway train during a busy time of day, there can be up to 100 girls inside a single car alone. That means you're in the presence of 2 OF girls just on the subway car. If you walk into a University that has an enrollment of 5,000 people, that's 100 OF workers located on the premise. When you go to a lecture hall, any lecture hall, and see 200 students sitting there, 100 of them female ... that's two OF workers you're looking at.
By those metrics - and just the number of people you pass on the street in a busy city every day - you can very well pass by 100 OF workers in a given day. That's if the numbers are being consistent. Pass by a group of girls who are all dressed slutty, but have extremely expensive phones and purses, and somebody points to a photo on one of them, and they all start giggling?
It could be anything. But - when you normalize what used to be an absolute fringe profession - and get 2% of the female population engaging in it - that just becomes a part of the collective female's experience at that point.
Put another way - can you name any other industry where two percent of a gender's population works in it?
Put that way - it's a huge portion of the population now, right?
And, let's say there was such a profession for guys, let's say ... IT professionals, could you then say that people wouldn't pick up on the signs that somebody might be working in IT? The dress casual shirt, the laptop in the briefcase, the thin rimmed glasses. All stereotypes - sure - but when you would approach such a person and ask - a fair number might actually confirm that, yes, they work in IT.
That's what's going on here.