domain:thezvi.wordpress.com
Crowstep
1d ago
The Divine Economy, by Paul Seabright.
Basically it's a look at religion through the lens of consumer economics. It can be a bit dry at times (although thankfully there's no equations so far) but otherwise it's really interesting. Living in the secular West it's good to be reminded that, for most of the world, religion is a huge part of daily life and is genuinely important.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
1d ago
The shift in the public perception of Israelis and Jews is so downright seismic and probably couldn't be replicated in a world without a "Jewish state" soaking up bad press.
Yet it's happened hundreds of times for thousands of years across different civilizations, cultures, eras of technological progress. These are the fruits of the Jewish state and Jewish civilization, and nobody can say it's unfair to identify Israel as such.
Well, hate for Wernher von Braun is a thing of its time. It's not quite "you had to be there", because if you were right there you didn't live long enough to hate, but maybe "you had to get news from outside the blast radius of there"? Even non-shitheads can become somewhat hostile after word gets out that "half off at Woolworth's" might now mean the other halves of the babies were still in their prams.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1d ago
I finished Jeff Vandermeer’s Southern Reach trilogy last week. Good finale, if a bit weaker than the others. The irrationality of Area X is just less compelling than the anti-rationality it displayed in the first and second books. But I suspect that’s inherent to writing a plot where characters are supposed to do anything rather than have it done to them.
I still absolutely recommend trying the first book for anyone into literary sci-fi or the New Weird or surreality.
Now I’m halfway through Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City based on a recommendation from @pbmonster. Five out of five stars so far. It’s such a pure example of what that thread was calling “competency porn,” except it also dodges the excesses which litter the genre. The protagonist is smart and driven and charismatic in a way which makes it clear that he, along with everyone around him, is under tremendous stress. This does wonders for the believability. I’m staying up too late reading it.
It kind of reminds me of a more serious counterpart to the Moist von Lipwig Discworld novel Making Money.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
very INTP of me, I know /s
Haha, yeah that stuff has been on my mind a lot lately. I'm very much an NF type. I have an appreciation for both the strictly logical side and the vibes-based side.
I think Marcuse's claim is level 3 as presented in your list.
I'd say that's basically mission accomplished then.
Something like "Death Note was not that good" is an evaluative judgement of quality, not a statement of fact.
I don't particularly disagree with what you've said here. I just don't draw the same judgements that you do with regards to the text.
If someone writes a review of Star Wars that starts with "Star Wars is the worst movie franchise of all time.", you don't say "ah, the author has presented a value judgement as a statement of fact. Confused as he is about this basic distinction, I must now consign his words to the flames". Instead you say, "he's presenting his value judgement in a hyperbolic manner as a rhetorical tactic. If I already have preexisting reasons to trust this author's judgement, I will continue reading with the reasonable expectation that he will provide reasons for his value judgement that I may be responsive to”.
You were quite correct to say "a big part of convincing people in this regard is trying to force them into your mental framework; to get them to understand you on a qualia-level". That's part of what Marcuse is doing here. When he says "the individual steps out of the network of exchange relationships and exchange values, withdraws from the reality of bourgeois society, and enters another dimension of existence", you're not supposed to go "erm, doesn't he know there's only one dimension of existence?" You're supposed to go, "ok, he's sort of painting a picture with words here. He's communicating his value system and inviting me to share in it. Is that something I'm interested in exploring? If yes, why? If not, why not?"
If there's one thing you should take away from continental philosophy, it's that your values are not set in stone. You can choose to change them.
If you already have a strong prior against Marxism (as I do too!), then you're obviously not going to be interested in sharing his value system exactly. And that's ok! You might still be able to mine his work for concepts and ideas that you can repurpose for other ends of your own.
On the other hand, assertions such as "Art that emphasises subjective experience helps people reject capitalism" aren't of the same nature that "this show was bad" is, in that they are not value judgements. It is a factual claim about the effects of a certain course of action.
Right, that's another part of what he's doing. He's suggesting that his way of looking at things might have pragmatic value for advancing a certain political agenda, and this is a claim that is at least conceivably subject to empirical verification and falsification. Can he prove his claim? No. But I don't think he necessarily needs to. It's fine to just throw stuff out there and speculate sometimes. We can just chill and mull it over for a while. We're just brainstorming. Opening ourselves up to new possibilities.
The question of "standards of academic scholarship" is an interesting one. This is, again, something that will vary heavily based on context, but I'd say that in general continental authors would have some issues with your conception of academic rigor, and would be more likely to see their work as being continuous with "ordinary" thought and speech, as opposed to being distinguished by a particular kind of academic methodology. More like internet shitposters than scientists. (And your revealed preference is that you do see a place in the world for internet shitposting -- you're here, after all.)
VIM
1d ago
How does Israel make Jews safe?
I've seen it suggested that having a Jewish state creates a refuge that isn't dependent on the goodwill of non-Jews. Yet the past several years have demonstrated that Israel isn't actually self sufficient and that it is, in fact, totally dependent on trade with Europe and aid from America for it's continued existence. Israeli Jews would hardly be any safer than American Jews in a scenario where their primary patron went anti-semitic.
Yet even in a world where America does unconditionally support Israel I can't help but think of anyone who takes Aliyah as a certified moron. Modern Israel is not a safe place for Jews, it's a place where thousands of Jews can be killed or maimed in a day and hundreds kidnapped. If you are kidnapped, the "Jewish State" will not pull all the stops to save your life but will instead attempt to murder you to prevent you from being used as a bargaining chip. If you survive that then your best hope is that public pressure will eventually force Israel to free some mass killing gigaterrorists in exchange for your life, since Israel has demonstrated that it is incapable of rescuing hostages by force after more than 2 years of intense combat against the weakest militia on it's border.
All this for the low, low price of North Korean taxes, mandatory conscription, reserve service, and getting arrested if you choose to vacation anywhere outside of the US
Even for non-Israeli Jews who don't care about Israel either way, the brutal yet failed campaign to destroy Hamas is a giant anti-semitism producing machine. If the ghost of Hitler possessed Netanyahu with the goal of empowering a new generation of anti-semites then he could hardly have done better. Before 10/7, the slightest hint of anti-semitism was instantly denounced. Today, when the giga-normie Nelk Boys interview Bibi the next day they're forced to go on an apology tour with all the big name internet anti-semites like Nick Fuentes and Sneako. The shift in the public perception of Israelis and Jews is so downright seismic and probably couldn't be replicated in a world without a "Jewish state" soaking up bad press.
Yesterday, I was out for a late morning run, coming up my city's main commercial and restaurant street towards the capitol square. As I approached a stoplight and took a little break in the sweltering heat, a man across the street was blaring music on Bluetooth speakers; mildly annoying, but common enough in the public square. What startled me was another man on the other side of the road who began rapping (for lack of a better description, since it was basically just yelling with a slight match to the cadence) a stream of invective - he was going to kick people's asses, motherfucker this, n-bomb that, people better not fuck with him, and so on.
Reflecting a bit, this made me think of the recent discourse on asylums and what to do, and it occurs to me that I think many people are still missing the actual point. The man I described above didn't show outward signs of any particular mental illness, I have no idea if he uses drugs, and while he did look like a vagrant, I don't know whether he sleeps rough or not. Do any of those things actually matter to me? In some sense, it would matter if there was a serious and treatable mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia), but I don't actually care whether he has diagnosable narcissistic personality disorder or is merely what we would colloquially describe as an asshole. What's to be done if there is no such diagnosis and no drug-induced psychosis, but merely an asshole yelling at people about how he's going to kick their ass? My answer is basically that I want police officers to exercise their discretion to inform him that his options are that he can knock it off, do it elsewhere, or they'll arrest him for disorderly conduct. We don't need to escalate to immediate criminalization, starting with "move along sir" is fine, but no, you don't get to keep yelling at people all day.
So much of the discourse about bums persons experiencing houselessness seems like we're just talking past each other. At the end of the day, I genuinely don't care what the state does with these people, I just want them removed from my neighborhood. This attitude is derided as not solving the problem, but that claim merely highlights that we don't agree on what the problem is. For the people that insist on handling root causes, that part will be up to them, I'm perfectly satisfied with literally any solution that removes the people that throw chicken bones and vodka bottles on the ground in the park. I'm not actually very interested in whether they're addicts, mentally ill, or simply terrible people. The answer from the BeKind crowd seems to be that everyone has the right to behave the way they want to and that I'm a very bad person for wanting these guys removed; this seems like an unsolvable impasse in preferences for how to live.
oats_son
1d ago
Chewing tobacco where I am specifically indicates to me that someone works manual labor (industrial or agricultural) and they probably own a truck. At both universities I attended, I don't think I ever saw anyone who chewed while I was on campus.
I just think you shouldn't try to rationalize it with some reason why actually this is a very reliable predictor of whether or not someone is a good or smart person or even politically aligned with you.
Fair. I do think it indicates something in every case, but the signal is noisy enough that it's definitely not a very reliable indicator of bad things. I think even unreliable indicators can be useful, but it's not a smoking gun. Pretty much nothing is. That's partly why I wrote such a long list. Used in concert, you can tell a lot about someone just from how they look, even if it's "just" superficial.
Yes, gentlemen, I hope all of you are telling the women in your lives (mothers, grandmothers, aunts, female cousins, sisters, daughters, wives) that you don't consider them equal partners,
That's a bit of a trick.
"Equal Partners" in the sense that both are contributing to the household. But how does one measure the value or even magnitude of each contribution when they're inherently different in their nature.
If the guy builds the house, builds all the furnishing in it, and does the actual maintenance work on it over the years, (i.e., it ONLY exists thanks to his own labor)...
It is REALLY fair that the woman would get the house in a divorce scenario?
Well, we acknowledge she was the one who was 'keeping house' and doing all the day-to-day work that makes it a pleasant place to live and keeps it from falling into neglect which leveraged the value the man already provided, creating something better than what the man alone could achieve.
So we've got 'unequal' contributions by each side, but each has contributed value to the whole.
The actual contributions are usually not accounted for in a literal ledger. So we often end up with a guy who thinks he's being shortchanged because he created all of the necessary preconditions for a happy, successful marriage, and pulled his weight, and yet gets screwed over for trusting that he would be 'repaid' by his partner with her love and esteem and, eventually, a kid, and yet he's still getting screwed over when it ends.
In short, how does one balance material contributions with, I guess, mostly emotional and intangible but still valuable contributions?
Since the material contributions are legible, those are the ones that end up getting parceled out by the court. So the wife gets a cut of the material contributions made by the husband, but the man doesn't get to take away any of the emotional, intangible elements contributed by her. So he loses both the material wealth AND the intangibles.
You can imagine that this feels unfair.
I don't consider myself a misandrist, but some of you guys make it tough going, and more and more I am grateful to the Lord God Almighty for making me without the wiring to desire and need love and romance, because blow me down, I'd be fucked if I had to rely on a guy for anything from emotional validation on up.
I mean, I've pointed it out before, women end up marrying a corporation (for all pursuits and purposes) and it turns out that is pretty much a dead end for their 'emotional validation.' Eventually the biological clock ticks over, and the corporation will never be able to provide her with kids and the actual long-term loyalty that a good husband would grant.
But men have to match up to the corporation's material benefits while seeking a partner, anyway, because those factors are intangible and rarely counted in the calculus.
Its always and forever a question of 'compared to what?'
I don't think women are doing the math on what they'll get if they stick with MegaCorp for 25 years, laboring dutifully under their manager's eye, then what they'll get if they stick with a Husband for that same period, laboring dutifully under 'his' roof.
It becomes a bit annoying to have to justify men's contributions to upholding the entire edifice of civilization.
On the flip side, women, by dint of bearing and raising children, are obviously and constantly glorified for their contribution. As well they should be.
So men, demanding a little bit more leverage and control of their wealth so they can actually achieve good outcomes for themselves in the world they built seems utterly fair to me.
My actual point is that Divorce laws should really, in actuality, be designed around encouraging marriage and family creation and maintenance of a long-term bond. And OBJECTIVELY they are simply not doing that.
Billionaires getting divorced and splitting 10-12 figure households are a symptom of this, and a particularly noticeable one.
And guys who notice "wait, even the billionaire couldn't keep his wife, what actual chance do I have" are a lot more common than billionaires.
The incentives are simply not aligned. A guy wants a partner, a homemaker, and someone to bear and raise children.
No-Fault Divorce penalizes the guy by forcing him to give up his accumulated wealth and support the wife regardless of how well she actually behaved during the marriage. Whether he got a kid out of it or not.
So he is pretty damn motivated to try to keep the marriage afloat to avoid said penalties.
Divorce penalizes a woman by... ?
What is a woman actually losing out on by initiating divorce?
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
Some of the comments about women and marriage on here are also creating incentives for women to avoid marriage.
Unlikely, in that no significant number of women who haven't already made up their mind are reading them.
Anyway, "How dare you talk about this in a way that doesn't put all the onus on the man and put the woman on a pedestal?" is not going to be an effective tactic; it's so ubiquitous already that anyone still talking about the subject is obviously already inured to it.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
1d ago
I saw it and enjoyed it. It was clearly Ford's film from start to finish, he was never "outdone" by Waller-Bridge [whose relative beauty I might also disagree with you on], they brought back the very welcome Karen Allen--and John Rhys-Davies--from the first film, and generally Dial of Destiny was one of the best in the series apart from the first. As well, the vast majority of any action done by "80-year old" Ford was when he was young. The de-aging was the best on this film of any I've ever seen. Having said this, you are of course free to dislike the film as much as you like.)
I did not watch the movie, so I may be incorrect, still, she is somehow being shoehorned into a successor spot, which I am against. This is a male role.
I am not familiar with The Despot of Antrim that you mention in your last paragraph, but that's just because i'm pretty out-of-touch.
Found him due to jim, he has a good breakdown of what I listed, whilst being a proper reactionary, others like the critical drinker and nerdrotic are slightly less aware but still good. Them telling younger folks about this stuff is a good thing.
I do feel for older fans, Lucasfilm lost the plot badly.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
1d ago
So true, maybe he did since she was born in Africa, so it's a double whammy, here I thought Eggers was /ourguy.
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
1d ago
She had it coming.
VIM
1d ago
Assad, no. Iran and Hezbollah, yes. One needs supplies.
The overwhelming majority of Hamas's supplies are made in Gaza, though. There's a blockade, after all.
This is not true. Israel was largely considered to be the loser in that conflict, or at least having underperformed. In 2025, Israel blew the fuck out of Hezbollah after demonstrating that Hezbollah was almost entirely militarily ineffective.
Yet the ceasefire imposed after 2006 and resulting situation, other than the assassination of Nasrallah, was identical from Hezbollah's perspective. They were bombed one-sidedly after the ceasefire was signed, they were repressed by the Lebanese government and they were portrayed as being incapable of fighting again. If anything the Lebanese government of 2006 was both more powerful and more explicitly anti-Hezbollah than the current one.
To this day the majority of Israelis from northern communities have yet to return and a significant proportion have stated they'll never return. Considering that the goal of the Lebanon War was to return Israelis to the border I'd call that a failure.
When Israel actually blew the fuck out of the PLO their ground forces weren't held up at the first villages they entered, they pushed all the way to Beirut, forced the PLO out of Lebanon and occupied all of southern Lebanon for the next two decades. Whereas this time around they were unable to even conquer the first frontline villages of Khiam and Al-Naqoura without getting, as you say, "blown the fuck out".
I've seen some credible-sounding reports that moderates/reformers are rising in power/prominence due to the embarrassing defeat
All the credible reports I've heard from Iran are that the hardliners are the ones rising in power while the reformers were humiliated by getting betrayed in the middle of negotiations. If your story were accurate we would expect new concessions in negotiations whereas in reality Iran hasn't moved an inch and has refused to even reopen negotiations.
However, it's in a much weaker position than it was before, and longstanding problems like the economy continue to worsen.
An odd comparison, how is Israel's economy doing? Last I checked the Houthis had entirely shut down the Port of Eilat, the Bazan Gas Refinery is still partially shut down more than a month after eating Iranian missiles and the Israeli deficit is gigantic. And this is in a world with unlimited American and European backing, what do you think happens to Israel's economy in a world where it's trade partners turn hostile?
Iran's missile production and launching capacities were hammered pretty hard, so you really have to squint to see the silver lining in the dark clouds of "we launched a bunch of our prized military capability at Israel and had nearly zero military effect."
Iran's missile production and launching capacities are quite literally underground. There's zero evidence that they took significant losses in that respect, whereas the fact that it took less than 10 missiles on day 12 to land hits when on day 1 it took more than a hundred proves that Israel's air defenses were collapsing. If anything it's the Israeli strikes that had zero military effect.
This take is directly contradicted by the NYT article I cite. I'm not sure exactly how accurate that portrayal was or is now, but the IRGC hardliners look like they just died a lot.
clearly you missed the funeral where half the "dead IRGC hardliners" miraculously turned up alive. Again: if the hardliners lost big then where are the diplomatic concessions?
It remains to be seen what Israel's red lines will actually be for e.g. Iran rebuilding certain military capacities. But the IAF demonstrated the ability to conduct air strikes at will and there's little hope for Iran that they can suddenly acquire or develop top-tier air defense systems.
Israel has demonstrated that it can launch missiles from over the horizon and hit targets in Iran, but they don't have the ability to actually fly directly over Iran dropping bombs, something that would be necessary to inflict any damage to their underground strategic infrastructure.
If anything, the fact that Israel barked so hard about the possibility of resuming strikes is another indication that they lost. Because Israel doesn't bark when they want to bomb Syria, they just do it. Syria actually has zero air defenses, and there is actual footage of Israeli jets flying freely over Syria dropping bombs. There is no such footage of Israeli jets over Iran.
that Israel could do it all again.
Again, if Israel didn't receive an ass-whooping from Iran they would still be bombing Iran. Remember, Trump also told them to stop bombing Syria and Lebanon and they were ignored.
HereAndGone
1d ago
Just understand you're creating an incentive for men to avoid marriage as a institution since it takes most of the control of their wealth away from them at the drop of a hat if they get married before they build their kingdom.
Some of the comments about women and marriage on here are also creating incentives for women to avoid marriage. Even relatively tame, like "The thing is, that work doesn’t hugely differ whether you’re the wife of a coal miner or a self-made billionaire."
Yes, gentlemen, I hope all of you are telling the women in your lives (mothers, grandmothers, aunts, female cousins, sisters, daughters, wives) that you don't consider them equal partners, that you are the superior person in this relationship because you are the breadwinner and her little job (if she works outside the home) doesn't count. Working in the home only? Absolutely does not count for anything, she's replaceable by a coal-miner's wife because being the spouse and mother for an upper-middle class household doesn't involve any kind of extra work at all, and maybe even less work because you're rich enough to hire help. If you do decide to dump her, she deserves maybe ten bucks and a pat on the head, but certainly nothing more. Not one drop of your vast wealth (should you have vast wealth), even if that share does not, in fact, leave you penniless but you retain possession of the majority of the vast wealth.
Why, with such examples of how respected they are, why aren't women jumping at the notion of not getting an education and a career of their own and instead getting married as soon after high school as possible then producing a few kids as rapidly as possible? And if hubby gets tired of you after a while, well, you can probably find work somewhere scrubbing floors or something, automation and AI hasn't yet taken those jobs away!
Women - such ungrateful bitches, to turn down a wonderful offer like that!
I don't consider myself a misandrist, but some of you guys make it tough going, and more and more I am grateful to the Lord God Almighty for making me without the wiring to desire and need love and romance, because blow me down, I'd be fucked if I had to rely on a guy for anything from emotional validation on up.
Mudchute farm is great and kids love it, but I wouldn't call it a commercial farm.
The M25 is 15-20 miles out of central London and there is some agricultural land inside it, particularly in Kent and around Watford. Mostly a mixture of wheat and rough grazing. The serious market gardening is further out - presumably because it is labour intensive and needs to be somewhere where migrant farm worker dorms are cheaper.
The density of ASDAs in London outside zone 1 is such that I am surprised you can be more than 2 miles away from the nearest one. If the "Walmart equivalent" is any big-box retail discounter (including Aldi/Lidl) then make that 1.5 miles.
For my own answers to the questions (also in London suburbs)
- 8 miles, 45 minutes door-to-door whether you bike, train, or drive outside rush hour. (In central London)
- 1.5 miles for a studio which sends designs to Italy for cutting. Savile Row is 9 miles away.
- 13 miles, about 1 hour by bike or public transport, 40 minutes driving. (Nearest land which is clearly farmland based on Google satellite)
- Nearest commuter rail station is <0.5 miles. If I leave the house 7 minutes before the train is due I won't miss it. Nearest station with intercity trains is 5 miles away on the edge of central London.
- Nearest ASDA is <1 mile away.
- 5 miles
HereAndGone
1d ago
Any controversy about, say, recordings in bathrooms is going to go through the roof if these things become commonplace. You can (maybe) grab some pervert with a phone in the women's bathroom or changing room, but someone just wearing a pair of spectacles?
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1d ago
HereAndGone
1d ago
I'm honestly not sure how much of this is that management thinks we're too retarded to estimate people's ages
There is that, of course, but I think this is just CYA from management for scenarios such as the one outlined by Westphalianpeace. Can't be accused of racism if you're scanning everyone's ID.
(Of course they still can, and will, accuse you of racism and management will still throw you under the bus despite any video evidence to the contrary because a law suit is the last thing they need and some bleeding-heart activist judge will rule that asking a potentially underage urban youth for ID is racism on the same level of voter suppression, don't you know minorities have little free time to get, or access to, forms of ID you bigot? But it's a tiny shred of protection for both the business and the employees.)
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
1d ago
There are plenty of mountain lions in the US, and I think they're "big cats". I've also seen claims of jaguars' range extending across the border from Mexico, but relatively few documented encounters.
I've personally seen a bobcat, but that probably is too small to count.
FistfullOfCrows
1d ago
Now that is a name I haven't heard in a long time. I simply must link this old classic. Dear lord has it really been 19 years. Uncle Ghastly's Ghastly Hubjo - Savior blues.
FistfullOfCrows
1d ago
Listening to his dunking on Wernher von Braun was enough for me to know he's a shithead.
There's probably some way to play a high INT+secondary stat with an appropriate weapon that scales with both.
Edit: Just looked it up since I didn't quite remember it, there are INT+FTH and INT+ARC staffs, so these are technically hybrid, but not really relevant for you. No +STR or +DEX or others sadly.
Edit edit: The demihuman queens staff has high base scaling and low INT scaling, so that would be the correct staff for a hybrid physical build I think.
But generally FTH is easier for hybrid builds in two different ways: First, there are more explicit hybrid seals that make your incantations scale with another stat, and second there are much more utility incantations that have no or very little scaling. Golden Vow for example is a great generalist dmg/def % buff that has no scaling whatsoever, anyway.
faceh
1d ago
Sounds like the streamers and their watchers really deserve each other.
Its fair to say that's almost a symbiotic relationship. It just seems obvious that they'd all be a bit better off/happier in a different equilibrium.
There are in fact 'non-toxic' streamers and communities out there, of course!
Its just more common than not that once streamers 'get big' its a ticking clock on when they get outed as either terrible people or they have their big obvious 'sell out' moment.
Getting outed as a terrible person might not even hurt their popularity (I'm thinking of Dr. Disrespect, but there's a lot of them).
I can certainly believe that people, despite having literally an internet full of all sorts of porn at their fingertips, nevertheless prefer hot women streaming video games.
There definitely seems to be a factor where a lot of normies are wired up to perceive themselves as part of a community and having a 'friendship' of sorts with livestreamers, since at least they can 'interact' (using that term pretty damn lightly) with that person and see their impact on the streamer's show.
If you are streaming while wearing makeup and elaborate sexy clothes, then you are already accepting that part of your appeal is that guys will be aroused by your videos.
Yep.
By not having a paywalled explicit channel, you are likely leaving most of the monetarization opportunities on the table. So getting an explicit account where you sell videos of your feet or tits likely has a big payoff.
YEP. I've noticed this is a path that some streamers have taken. Creating actual content is HARD. So a women might get popular for being good at a game, or she's pretty but stays very modest. But how to keep interest in your channel going? See my point about the zero-sum attention economy.
But over time if the popularity starts to taper (or she just wants more money) she'll follow the incentive gradient to risque cosplays, to bikini/pool streams, to lewd but not explicit content, then there's the decent shot she goes from there to straight up porn (and, who knows, maybe escorting behind the scenes). And every step of the way generally being coy and plausibly deniable ("just getting more confident in my body, guis!").
World's oldest profession, after all. Of course when I say "incentive gradient" I mostly mean her overly invested fans who, if they feel like they don't have a shot at dating her, will probably be satisfied just getting to see her naked eventually.
More options
Context Copy link