Edit to add more thoughts: I think strip clubs are the right analogy for how to evaluate these channels (the "just chatting" ones and any of the gaming ones that prominently feature very attractive performers). They are fundamentally about creating and maintaining an illusion with the (usually male viewers). Unfortunately, this can be very dangerous. It's pretty common knowledge that strippers are much more likely to suffer violence than the average woman. They may be safer than street-walking prostitutes, but nowhere near as safe as a woman in a white-collar job.
How safe are these streamers in the long run? The distance and pseudonymity provided by the internet may afford a level of safety, compared to the closeness of a strip club. On the other hand, streamers can have several orders of magnitude more viewers than even the largest of strip clubs. A large viewer count can magnify the risk that one disillusioned fan decides to "go rogue" and stalk the streamer, dox her, and attack her in person. I would not be surprised if we see a case of serious violence (or murder) against a top streamer within a few years.
Streamers getting doxxed is not really a thing, and they have viewers from around the world. Anyhow, I think your concern is not warranted, otherwise we would already be hearing more about these kind of incidents.
I have heard of a few incidents like this happening to Kpop groups, but there you have 1) mega audience 2) crazy fans 3) physical interaction (concerts) so streamers at least at an advantage re: 3.
...what?! I mean, really? I have friends who have had this issue, I am baffled by this perspective. It's always been an issue, it will always be. What?
Is there no "crazy fans" in the OnlyFans/Twitch community? I'd argue that the probability of crazy/mentally unstable fans would be a lot higher in this weird "parasocial relationship" environment compared to a typical music band fanbase.
Well, good old prostitution has been pretty successful since the dawn of mankind, so the answer must be "yes" for a lot of people.
To be fair, much like drug dealing, it's not clear how "successful" prostitution is.
Much like anything else, there is a power law distribution in effect. A few make a lot of money, but a lot make very little.
Of the women I have known on that path, I know of only two who actually didn't wind up in a bad place at the end. Drug addiction was the primary problem--if you work in the sex industry you work with a LOT of scumbags who want to hook you on drugs in order to control you.
Maybe, but "It's worth it" encompasses from "I have lots of choice and can afford it." (Heidi Fleiss clients) to "I have no other means of access so it's this or nothing." (the slum streetcorner)
You could pay for michelin star quality food, or eat chickpeas. Both will sustain you just fine, but which is "worth it"?
I know a handful of people who have been hugely successful at doing both.
This is similar to high school sports in terms of percentages (but probably not quite such a terrible adverse outcome). A handful do well. The rest would have a MUCH better life spending that energy on education/trade/anything else instead.
Why is long term always better than short term? Aren't there people who enjoy junk food, and in fact love it? Is going to the movies a wasteful act, since most movies don't give you long term enjoyment? Is playing videogames? Is having sex with a person you don't intend to marry something that will "leave you hollow"? Is casual sex worthless, or is it only a problem if you pay for it?
As for prostitution, you have to admit such a long tradition of existing -- the "oldest profession", as the saying goes -- is strong evidence that it's indeed worth it to a lot of people.
I'm not making a moral argument, by the way. Only your own personal convictions, or your religion's, can tell you that.
Where's this trivial disproof? Citation needed.
> You have to admit such a long tradition of existing -- the "oldest profession", as the saying goes -- is strong evidence that it's indeed worth it to a lot of people.
No. It's strong evidence that a lot of people momentarily decide to pay for it. That's not at all the same thing, because addiction exists and is fundamentally not a phenomenon of rationality. A lot of addicts explicitly recognise that the thing they crave won't, and doesn't, make them happy.
As for your second point about addiction: you are entering the realm of the highly subjective, randomly deciding which things are addicting and which are worthy. I'm uninterested in that discussion. How do you even determine which things are capable of bringing people long term joy and which aren't? Are videogames worthy? Are movies? Is the fleeting less worthwhile than the permanent? Etc.
I'm not saying you have to agree with me about which things are or aren't worthy. All I'm claiming is that it is possible for something to be addictive and not worthwhile, and so to show that something is worthwhile you need to do more than showing that someone was willing to pay for it. Do you disagree with that much?
Here's how I see this discussion so far:
"But is sex worth it if you pay for it, or do you later feel it was a hollow experience?"
"Well, prostitution's huge success points to the answer being: yes, it's worth it to a lot of people"
"(Tangent about the nature of addiction and worth)"
That's all there is to it, really.
We pay for lots of (social/emotional) illusions in entertainment. People tend to suggest that this is a risk of the kind of illusions they don't indulge in, and you certainly can see examples of it with lots of those illusions, but I don't think it's exclusive to any of them.
Though in the illusion of personal connection, it's probably more dangerous to the seller when the buyer gets lost and expects reality instead of illusion.
I mean, I suspect that the gender imbalance in "willing to pay for lewdness and smiles" is greater than the imbalance for "willing to sell lewdness and smiles"
but as always we should be wary using too much deduction on soft science topics
Sexual reproduction evolves convergently from the fusion of similar gametes (isogamy) to those of dissimilar gametes (anisogamy).
Sexual differentiation produces dimorphic sexual asymmetry, a binary mating system of two types. Males produce many small gametes, females produce few large gametes.
Factored by the expensive cost of selection, copulation, gestation, and rearing, and females are naturally inclined to be more selective.
In a sellers market where everyone wants to buy, humans mate assortatively.
I highly recommend ‘The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems’ (1983) by Randy Thornhill and John Alcock. The diversity of insects provide excellent insight into the evolution of sexual reproduction.