FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Hollyoaks or Only Fans???

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Browsing the news and came across this story. Now I've never watched Hollyoaks nor was I aware of this actress so I'm therefore very intrigued to what other Fabbers' stance on this is? Is Hollyoaks's stance correct? Or should the actress be free to do as she wishes?

.

The story is: Hollyoaks actress Sarah Jayne Dunn, who plays Mandy in the Channel 4 soap, has been dropped after refusing to remove photos from an adult subscription site.

Dunn, who first appeared on the show in 1996, recently said she was putting her "sexier, racier" photos on OnlyFans. She said the move was "about empowerment and confidence and having full power over my choices".

But Hollyoaks said it was not in line with its target audience and it did not allow cast members to sell such photos. "Hollyoaks is a youth-facing drama with many young viewers, who follow our cast very closely, both in the soap and outside of it," a spokesperson told the BBC. "We take our responsibility to our young audience very seriously and therefore the show does not allow any Hollyoaks cast members to be active on certain 18+ websites.

.

So who - in your opinion - is in the right?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

She’s entitled to do what she wants within the law with her photos.

C4 are entitled to uphold their policies for employee or otherwise contracted terms.

Choices. Consequences. Grownups.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Hollyoaks. I’m an old prude though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heVonMatterhornsCouple
over a year ago

Lincoln

Unless the contract she signed for the job explicitly banned her from that sort of thing then I'd say Hollyoaks haven't got a leg to stand on. They claim to be a young-facing show but they aren't going to take the opportunity to make a sex-positive move which, following their thinking, would let young people know that it's not okay or accepted to do this sort of thing.

Besides, the viewers are probably more likely to find that stuff now. They're going to wonder why one of their favourite characters mysteriously disappeared, and do some Googleing

LvM

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ex HolesMan
over a year ago

Up North

What is Hollyoaks and only fans?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"What is Hollyoaks and only fans? "

Haha! But... This is the reason I posted this. I've genuinely never seen one episode of Hollyoaks and I've never watched Only Fans either.

But its already got mixed opinions by commenters as I thought it would!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

HollyFans

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What channel is Only Fans on?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham

They have every right to do so, as does she to have an onlyfans

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. And by looks of it the lure of quick, easy money on onlyfans has drawn in another victim.

Hopefully others see this and think before mindlessly jumping on the bandwagon. I’m all for that kinda work, but at the moment it’s just seen as a get rich quick scheme, and it’s drawing in lots of younger girls with dreams of posting a bikini pic and suddenly being a millionaire.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *.D.I.D.A.SMan
over a year ago

London/Essex... ish... Romford to be exact

May years ago they had a late night edition of the show which had more sexualised storylines and slightly racier imagery. They were happy to have the likes of Gemma Atkinson appear in Nuts and Zoo magazine as it was synergistic in promoting their shows. They were happy to attach it to their show then; why not now? Is there a line between what was permitted then and what OF offers?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I did wonder that. Didn’t they also do saucy calendars?

It could be different for the actress in question. She’s older now (still gorgeous!) and plays a mum on the show, so it’s not really conducive to her role.

She’s also been in Hollyoaks - on and off - since her teens, so it’s a bit of a rubbish outcome all round.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They have every right to do so, as does she to have an onlyfans

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. And by looks of it the lure of quick, easy money on onlyfans has drawn in another victim.

Hopefully others see this and think before mindlessly jumping on the bandwagon. I’m all for that kinda work, but at the moment it’s just seen as a get rich quick scheme, and it’s drawing in lots of younger girls with dreams of posting a bikini pic and suddenly being a millionaire."

I agree! Like especially if someone is in that sort of actor/actress work

I mean some people who work on YouTube or social media might lose certain sponsorships if they had an onlyfans

So I guess this would be kinda similar

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"May years ago they had a late night edition of the show which had more sexualised storylines and slightly racier imagery. They were happy to have the likes of Gemma Atkinson appear in Nuts and Zoo magazine as it was synergistic in promoting their shows. They were happy to attach it to their show then; why not now? Is there a line between what was permitted then and what OF offers? "

.

Did they now??? That does put a different slant on things. Very interesting!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Clearly OF was paying more

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Depends what her contract said. Only they know who was right and wrong

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hil_SW19Man
over a year ago

Raynes Park

Having subscribed to her page; I do not think she has thought long term.

Sarah is stunning and takes a lot of time to exercise however her approach to her fan base on OF is very 'cash cow'.

With a day of joining; I received half a dozen Pay to View posts. This on top of a $15 subscription.

Her photos are currently tease which might appeal to some but might mean after a month or two people unsubscribe.

And then she uses her posts to complain at fans saying 'too much PPV'.

OF is a tough place to survive longer than a few months and whilst the allure of 'mandy' from hollyoaks might last a while; after a few months she will need to consider a long term strategy to retain her subscribers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Hollyoaks owns her body. They can do scantily clad calendars of the actors and late night sexy shows if they want to. Also she is too old to be sexy and should cover up and do as she's told.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ungislanderMan
over a year ago

D

The tv show has been making money off the female actors in that show for years. Doing Calendars and promoting the show in underwear. Good on her. The show is only upset about her marketing herself and not the show.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They would have a vaild point if they hadn't allowed Hollyoaks actors to do photoshoots for years. They use sex appeal to attract viewers thats why most of the cast are attractive people. Something else has gone on behind closed doors Im guessing, smoke and mirrors.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *scobar67Man
over a year ago

glasgow


"Browsing the news and came across this story. Now I've never watched Hollyoaks nor was I aware of this actress so I'm therefore very intrigued to what other Fabbers' stance on this is? Is Hollyoaks's stance correct? Or should the actress be free to do as she wishes?

.

The story is: Hollyoaks actress Sarah Jayne Dunn, who plays Mandy in the Channel 4 soap, has been dropped after refusing to remove photos from an adult subscription site.

Dunn, who first appeared on the show in 1996, recently said she was putting her "sexier, racier" photos on OnlyFans. She said the move was "about empowerment and confidence and having full power over my choices".

But Hollyoaks said it was not in line with its target audience and it did not allow cast members to sell such photos. "Hollyoaks is a youth-facing drama with many young viewers, who follow our cast very closely, both in the soap and outside of it," a spokesperson told the BBC. "We take our responsibility to our young audience very seriously and therefore the show does not allow any Hollyoaks cast members to be active on certain 18+ websites.

.

So who - in your opinion - is in the right? "

Guess it depends if its in her contract.. Of its not then it's her choice to do what she wants with her own pix... She is nice

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andyfloss2000Woman
over a year ago

ashford

She is right but if it was in the rules when she signed up ?? X

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They would have a vaild point if they hadn't allowed Hollyoaks actors to do photoshoots for years. They use sex appeal to attract viewers thats why most of the cast are attractive people. Something else has gone on behind closed doors Im guessing, smoke and mirrors."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ad NannaWoman
over a year ago

East London

Hollyoaks have had people die in all kinds of nefarious or gory circumstances and I'm sure have had sexual overtones in stories too.

Which demographic are they supposed to be aimed at?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

They each have choices and can do what's right for them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hollyoaks owns her body. They can do scantily clad calendars of the actors and late night sexy shows if they want to. Also she is too old to be sexy and should cover up and do as she's told."

You can be sexy at any age.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hollyoaks owns her body. They can do scantily clad calendars of the actors and late night sexy shows if they want to. Also she is too old to be sexy and should cover up and do as she's told.

You can be sexy at any age. "

It was sarcasm. X

They shouldn't be telling her what she can do outside work when they have 'sold' the actors in a similar way.

Hope she makes £millions on OF and gets a job on another soap and earns loads there too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hollyoaks owns her body. They can do scantily clad calendars of the actors and late night sexy shows if they want to. Also she is too old to be sexy and should cover up and do as she's told.

You can be sexy at any age.

It was sarcasm. X

They shouldn't be telling her what she can do outside work when they have 'sold' the actors in a similar way.

Hope she makes £millions on OF and gets a job on another soap and earns loads there too. "

Oops, I can see it was now.

I hope she makes loads too, if it's not in her contact that she can't do both. Good for her

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top