+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Other Adult Websites (/forumdisplay.php?fid=194)
+--- Forum: Personal Fan Sites (/forumdisplay.php?fid=395)
+--- Thread: Bella Thorne OnlyFans (/showthread.php?tid=87001)
Pages: 1 2
Bella Thorne OnlyFans - get in the van - 15-02-2022 01:32
I see that Bella Thorne's OnlyFans is free to join now, rather than the $20 a month she used to charge. I don't know if she's still doing PPV messages, but probably people wouldn't fall for that again, bearing in mind she scammed her subscribers with the $200 PPV which was supposed to be a nude photoset.
RE: OnlyFans - bigglesworth - 15-02-2022 02:30
She has always denied being a scammer, saying that the photoset was never described as nude and she'd already said on Twitter that she wouldn't be going nude on OnlyFans. But the photoset was advertised as showing her in 'a state of undress' and it's not surprising that many people took that to mean nude.
RE: OnlyFans - ShandyHand - 15-02-2022 11:18
^ Yes but this is just more evidence guys often think with their dicks before their heads. We knew this. Ffs we've been warned enough with these tactics by now.
RE: OnlyFans - Rammyrascal - 15-02-2022 14:33
(15-02-2022 02:30 )bigglesworth Wrote: She has always denied being a scammer, saying that the photoset was never described as nude and she'd already said on Twitter that she wouldn't be going nude on OnlyFans. But the photoset was advertised as showing her in 'a state of undress' and it's not surprising that many people took that to mean nude.
Yep. If I saw someone saying they were in a state of undress, my first thought would be that they were naked in the photos
RE: OnlyFans - marlowe - 17-02-2022 00:04
If you wanted to, you could give Bella Thorne the benefit of the doubt on the basis of the wording alone, but the context of this PPV offer is that it was made on the famous/infamous OnlyFans, a platform which is mostly known for nudes and adult material. I know she denies being a scammer, but it's hard to believe that she wasn't deliberately leading people on and encouraging them to think they would get more than they actually did. Plus the whopping pricetag of $200 would surely suggest that you'd be receiving more than lingerie pictures.
RE: OnlyFans - ShandyHand - 17-02-2022 10:30
(15-02-2022 14:33 )Rammyrascal Wrote:(15-02-2022 02:30 )bigglesworth Wrote: She has always denied being a scammer, saying that the photoset was never described as nude and she'd already said on Twitter that she wouldn't be going nude on OnlyFans. But the photoset was advertised as showing her in 'a state of undress' and it's not surprising that many people took that to mean nude.
Yep. If I saw someone saying they were in a state of undress, my first thought would be that they were naked in the photos
Yes but your second thought should be 'why aren't they saying naked?'. If they are naked they be better off advertising as "naked". It's only when the content is a fudge or not there that the advertising has to reach for a euphemism or anything that can be read two ways. Think like a creator for a moment before you click. Every. Single. Time.
Plus anyone that has had to deny being a scammer to a wide group of ppl has done something that's at very best misleading in the past. Another red flag.
Third if someone of this high profile went nude for the first time on OF the news would be all around the net. What's wrong with waiting for confirmation on such events?
Seriously this stuff is not hard to parse. FOMO is a tool used on suckers. Don't be one.
(This is all general comment not aimed at Rammy specifically. He just affirmed the common conception of this phrase I know.)
RE: OnlyFans - Spike1876 - 17-02-2022 11:05
(17-02-2022 10:30 )ShandyHand Wrote: Third if someone of this high profile went nude for the first time on OF the news would be all around the net. What's wrong with waiting for confirmation on such events?
Or to put this point another way... The pictures / videos would be out there soon enough for free, so don't spend your hard earned...
RE: OnlyFans - ShandyHand - 17-02-2022 11:21
^ Lol I didn't say or condone that mate. I said news of them will tip you off on whether they are worth buying. Just like this news about Bella should confirm wether she is worth bothering with or subbing to if you're wanting nudity from her.
RE: OnlyFans - William H Bonney - 27-02-2022 21:49
(15-02-2022 01:32 )get in the van Wrote: I see that Bella Thorne's OnlyFans is free to join now, rather than the $20 a month she used to charge.
No Bella still charges $20 a month, but she has a free account on OnlyFans too, which must be what you saw.
RE: OnlyFans - barracuda - 04-03-2022 22:51
(15-02-2022 01:32 )get in the van Wrote: I don't know if she's still doing PPV messages, but probably people wouldn't fall for that again, bearing in mind she scammed her subscribers with the $200 PPV which was supposed to be a nude photoset.
Well this is what Bella Thorne's account description says these days:
"More free and original content, fewer sales, more livestreams, more 1 on 1 access, and more surprises to come. This account will sell content you can’t buy anywhere else when I do have sales."