Making money at home from sex chat lines
Options
Comments
-
I was serious.0
-
Okay, I wasn't going to come back here, but I'm amused how you twist what I say and how wrong you are. You post the following quote and say that since I didn't disagree with it then I must agree with it? Strange logic ... Is it not possible to take a neutral stance on anything?
I interpret what Happy is saying as meaning that ops should be prepared for guys wanting to discuss all sorts of things. That doesn't mean that we have to go along with it. Peeing on someone is one of the topics I don't talk about.
Why did you feel the need to state that it 'sounds like you do things for the pleasure of others to me'? To me, that sounds like you disapprove. Well, that is of no concern to me. I know very well what the guys are doing, but I am in control of what I talk about at all times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyPSO
For instance..an op complaining that some sick guy called her wanting her to pee her panties..she was disgusted he asked that, how dare he she said!!! Who the heck does she think she is???
Its a phone sex line..and peeing your pants is nothing compared to some things your asked to do (all legal of course)...so if any of you girls are out there are reading this and thinking too that peeing your pants is vulgar then don't bother applying...0 -
Amen Amber!0
-
I don't know, you haven't shown one in this thread yet.Amber_Sunshine wrote: »You post the following quote and say that since I didn't disagree with it then I must agree with it? Strange logic ... Is it not possible to take a neutral stance on anything?
You stated that I had to prove it.Amber_Sunshine wrote:Why did you feel the need to state that it 'sounds like you do things for the pleasure of others to me'?
Prov'd.Amber_Sunshine wrote:I know very well what the guys are doing,but I am in control of what I talk about at all times.
I don't disapprove at all. From where I am standing, you've attacked me in this thread for asking how to make money from the adult industry. You're clearly trolling this thread beacuse you believe me to be a troll. I am not. Posts like the one you made here... (http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=34100357&postcount=4704) where you sayAmber_Sunshine wrote:To me, that sounds like you disapprove. Well, that is of no concern to me.
...do not help this thread progress.Amber_Sunshine wrote:Anybody feel like playing with a troll?
Are you upset that I've labelled you a sex worker?
Or that to some extent you're an (audio) !!!!!! actress?
Or that I mentioned the thread you post in at the top of this one?
What is it that makes you rant in this thread for no apparent purpose?
There have been some really good posts by JasonWatkins, and Gazing on Sunsets, and some insightful posts by Ivrytwr3 and FlyForFun.
If you want to help, explain this for me so I can gain an understaning of what you mean and try to progress this thread somewhere that may be helpful:
Amber_Sunshine wrote:do I not think there is money to be made in the industry (yes there is, but not by the people who do the hard work).0 -
Wireframe, the comment about the good money to be made, but not by the people doing the hard work, I can comment more on the text side of the industry.
The operator that actually sits there, tapping away at the keyboard, answering the customers is the one that does the hard work, but further up the chain, the companies that own that chat line are the ones making the money, as are the phone companies that hire out the short codes.
Out of every £2 text, the operator answering it, is getting on average, 5p per text (I know some pay more, and some less, I was stating an average).
The same goes for the companies that offer pso work, the company is getting the bigger cut of the money brought in.
I would imagine that it's same for the films, the actors and camera crew/production team, are the ones doing the work, the 'guy' at the top will rake in more of the royalties and any other income.0 -
See, I would sort of have expected that, but 5p per text isn't very much. Thats a very small cut. Roughly how many texts do you send in....l dunno....a week?I would imagine that it's same for the films, the actors and camera crew/production team, are the ones doing the work, the 'guy' at the top will rake in more of the royalties and any other income.
Whats PSO work?0 -
Just because the pay is good? Damn. Is it a "difficult" job in any aspect? or is it pretty simple, just well paid? If its just simple, how comes it IS so well paid?Fluffer jobs are like food critic jobs.. there are waiting lists.
Also, are you just trolling in this thread too?jen_br wrote:
done and done.Amber_Sunshine wrote:So you go both ways, do you Jo?
Anybody feel like playing with a troll?
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=25526870 -
See, I would sort of have expected that, but 5p per text isn't very much. Thats a very small cut. Roughly how many texts do you send in....l dunno....a week?
Whats PSO work?
It depends on how long the text has to be, and what the traffic is like, my personal best was 652 in one day.
And yes it is a very small cut, out of the £2.00 (or £1.50), there are the advertising costs (which are horrendously high), the fee for the short code, the costs for the platform that the operators work on (plus the technical support as these things need to be able to run 24/7), and then somewhere near the bottom is the operator.
If the ops work directly for the chat company, they tend to get a little more per text, if they work for a fullfilment company, then they tend to get less (as there is another link in the chain)
PSO is the phone chat lines.0 -
Just because the pay is good? Damn. Is it a "difficult" job in any aspect? or is it pretty simple, just well paid?
You can look at it from two different ends of the spectrum really. On a simple, no frills shoot, a fluffer might be required to maintain the male actors 'readiness' between scenes if the director needs to get a particular camera angle or shot.
So it's likely the person will also be employed in some other capacity as well - make up, catering e.t.c...
But with the advent of Viagra, it's highly unlikely you'd really have much use for a fluffer on a basic shoot.
At the other end of the spectrum, when you have specialist shoots like world record gangbangs, the fluffers will probably be required to 'prepare' the male participants due to the fact they are given a fixed amount of time with the female performer.
This could involve "preparing" many, many different men over the course of a day.0 -
jasonwatkins wrote: »You can look at it from two different ends of the spectrum really. On a simple, no frills shoot, a fluffer might be required to maintain the male actors 'readiness' between scenes if the director needs to get a particular camera angle or shot.
So it's likely the person will also be employed in some other capacity as well - make up, catering e.t.c...
But with the advent of Viagra, it's highly unlikely you'd really have much use for a fluffer on a basic shoot.
At the other end of the spectrum, when you have specialist shoots like world record gangbangs, the fluffers will probably be required to 'prepare' the male participants due to the fact they are given a fixed amount of time with the female performer.
This could involve "preparing" many, many different men over the course of a day.
You are wrong here... Fluffers are widely used... Viagra takes time and its a myth most high end shoots don't use it. Viagra just makes it last a fluffer gets it going. and no they aren't employed as anything else on site.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards