lordassriel
Superior Member
Well spoken and good perspective. I would say the context of the dropping of the towel bit was playful, in spite of himself and the nature of expectation, and a play on words. On balance, it sounds regardless of it, the other content has shown nudity, ie his dick. Which would therefore make the thinly vailed reason to as why people would subscribed ‘fulfilled’. He is not obligated contractually under the terms and conditions to expose himself. While the towel debacle may have shown light to how things maybe interpreted by a reader, he still showed his dick, some thing he could have chosen not to do. Where this a court of law, people got what they paid for, they threw a sum of money for anything. He could have shown you a pencil on a table and by definition he would have fulfilled the transaction as Onlyfans does not need to be regarded in black and white contractual form as a site strictly for the sale of pornography content. Furthermore a judge would be very tongue in cheek, pursed lips if he has to preside over what appears to be a boy with a birthday hat on in a towel on one side and on the other side a bunch of men older then him feeling cheated the boy did not cut the cake with his dick. The words entitlement, legal precedents come to mind. By nature, Onlyfans is like a mystery box you an individual chose to pay for. Nobody forces you to, and in court will you argue in front of your family and friends that you were forced to buy content on Onlyfans. On balance, did he drag it out and entire 1-5 years before showing his dick? Or did he practically come right out of the gates with it? Now, as for the moral, ethical, grandstanding, there’s not a lot of solid ground for what is by demographic and older male to sue this boy for the purchase of his online “mystery boy” and its contents. You don’t appear very noble or non-objectifying scolding what in the general non porn purchasing public a young boy about the non implicit, implied, non contractually obligations that don’t appear in a legally binding contract signed between you the purchaser and he the seller. I know the cynic nature of the internet, human micro aggressions, passive aggressive behaviour, entitlement and sexual objectification, and may I say, sexual frustration enforce. Buuut... had a community of curious or nefarious people wanted to see more to follow and further transactions, they certainly messed the shop floor up days after opening by trudging in dirt rather than establishing a good rapport. I think I would rather bolt and react poorly after that ‘grand opening’ reception. In what is called playing devil’s advocate, had you wanted to see further content, “you” (who ever it pertains to) certainly cocked it up. A term here meaning lessened the success of such action. We can taut common decency and argue morality and ethics with great hypocrisy, but was the goal to be a captive audience for an impromptu show, some people certainly pummelled the act before it’s 1st year on tour. I judge might have a few choice words or little sympathy towards the offended in question. He might turn it around and argue people look towards you to reflect and demonstrate what would be a good community and to be better ambassadors. While it is easy to kick the shit out of anybody online, as humans, people look to you to reflect what is noble or good standing in themselves. I wonder if he’s been able to talk to his mother about this issue. Obviously it isn’t something you would wish to raise with your parent, but after putting yourself out there and regardless of it and taking the nature of it with a grain of salt and humour, getting such a lashing, one might want to debrief and talk about it. One must step back and self assess within the shades of grey if they were entirely innocent and a good sport through and through or made someone’s coming of age a less than desirable experience.
If you broke this down into paragraphs I would read it...