That's not sexist at all. She can look however she wants. Every man who clicks on her account has the power to not give her his money. It's not like all men are helpless slugs who immediately exude dollars when they see a mound of breasts (though a shocking number behave this way).

I'm unclear on how it's sexist. Presumably we run in different circles because some of the most "feminist" people I've ever met do burlesque, which is literally using their looks to earn money. My impression is that part of female empowerment is they have the choice to do whatever they want.

> Isn't that sexist?

Nope. Now, it might leverage sexist elements of the surrounding society, but it's not sexist itself.

> Using your looks to attract visitors and earn more money?

It's certainly the case that the reason this works asymmetrically for women vs men is because of sexist attitudes about gender roles; exploiting knowledge of that isn't inherently sexist, though. It might be criticized for reinforcing and validating the existing norms (OTOH, to the extent that it is an exploit to overcome a block which then allows people to see non-sexual value offered by the women, it might actually be undermining the norm rather than reinforcing it.)

> Where are the angry feminists now?

Mostly, worrying about sexism rather than women doing what they can to survive in a sexist world.

Sexist? No. Where I see the largest issue is in using sex appeal to sell nudes on Patreon using twitch as an advertising platform. Given the number of minors on twitch and the demographics, I personally see this as exploitive. This extends to "Premium" snapchats and such as well, unfortunately.

Because, as we all know, no man has ever gained any fame by using his looks.

You might want to consider removing this comment to save some face.