Haven’t you heard? Prostitution is empowering. Liberated super-vixen and self-described feminist Lily Phillips, 23, has declared she is to embark on the sticky Sisyphean task of bedding 1,000 men in one day. Other OnlyFans “models” — a tellingly bashful euphemism — have tried to drive engagement in an arms race of headline-grabbing stunts. One woman claimed to have slept with, and destroyed the marriage of, Tommy Fury; another, camgirl Bonnie Blue, boasted of taking the virginities of scores of freshers in a matter of hours. “Parents should be thanking me,” she told the Daily Mail.
The latter story sent ripples through my friendship group; we were horrified by Blue’s ragebait provocations that all men should cheat unless their girlfriends are “treating them every day”. Blue, a former escort, has made millions filming encounters with married men for her OnlyFans, and her star rose when she turned on the disgruntled girlfriends of her punters, whom she called, flatly, “lazy”. It is for these statements, calculated not to arouse men but to annoy women, that she is famous.
Elsewhere in the dystopian sex-positivity scene we read a viral account of Twitter-famous “whorelord” Aella’s birthday party — a factory-style line-up of 42 strangers rewarded for their participation in an orgy with a physical badge of honour (it reads “I went to Aella’s birthday gangbang and all I got was this crappy sticker”). In order to keep these scores of presumably deeply weird men entertained, a group of “fluffers… were strewn about, lying on fuckbenches”; after seeing to the birthday girl, the blokes could “continue banging” the fluffers.
Great. What’s wrong with that? Don’t you know it’s illiberal to object to the fact that many women, from privileged artists (Lily Allen, Kate Nash) to normal if naive teenaged girls, have so deeply drunk the kool-aid of neoliberal feminism that it is somehow empowering, rather than the most degrading thing imaginable, to be sold in any capacity to men? Or to recoil from the bleak spectacle of a methodical orgy in which anonymous pervs can waddle over to a woman sat on a bench whose only function is to fuck them?
It takes little consideration to see that these latest additions to the ancient and undying canon of prostitute-lore — from Mary Magdalene to Fantine to Pretty Woman — are yet more slanted apparitions, this time not icons of feminist victory but promotional material for feet pics. Internet virality and atrophying feminism have collided — and the result is more of the same.
Because of just how hot being a sex worker is right now, we’re obsessed with reading about it. The pseudonymous Eve Smith’s How Was It For You?, released this summer, is a bracingly matter-of-fact account of a prostitute’s progress; in it, we are told that the only “type of man” who does not visit brothels are those who “buy you half a shandy on a date at the pub and expect to get into your knickers”. We are laughing at this man not because he sees sex as transactional, but because he is not willing to pay enough for it. How desolate. Elsewhere, Smith brushes away critics’ horror by saying her colleagues are merely “grinding to buy food, to pay rent, to support our kids”; “we can’t rely on men,” she writes, though by definition she has chosen by her own account to do precisely that. The great target of her ire is not the clients who endanger her so much that she must hide weapons “around my dungeon”, or the difficult childhood which sets the scene for her entry into brothel-work, but the “liberal, middle-class white woman with a moralistic agenda”, the radical feminists who pity her. This is understandable; their concern undermines her entire way of life, and so must be infuriating.
‘ “buy you half a shandy on a date at the pub and expect to get into your knickers”. We are laughing at this man not because he sees sex as transactional, but because he is not willing to pay enough for it.’
Doesn’t this demonstrate that it’s the wpman that sees sex as transactional? The shandy-buying man clearly doesn’t realise it is a transaction, otherwise he’d make a more realistic offer, and the female clearly defines the potential of the male by what he is prepared to pay.
Reminds me of the Oscar Wilde story.
Wilde was seated next to an elegant lady at a dinner party. The conversation became animated and contesting, and Wilde asked the women if she would go to bed with him for one million pounds.
The woman was flustered, but upon consideration said Yes, she probably would.
Wilde then asked if she would go to bed with him for five shillings.
The woman exclaimed indignantly, “Of course not! What kind of woman do you think I am?”
Wilde replied: “We’ve already established that, madam. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”
That’s a good joke but it has nothing to do with Oscar Wilde.
Reminds me of the Oscar Wilde story.
Wilde was seated next to an elegant lady at a dinner party. The conversation became animated and contesting, and Wilde asked the women if she would go to bed with him for one million pounds.
The woman was flustered, but upon consideration said Yes, she probably would.
Wilde then asked if she would go to bed with him for five shillings.
The woman exclaimed indignantly, “Of course not! What kind of woman do you think I am?”
Wilde replied: “We’ve already established that, madam. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”
Mary Perry. A lot of shandies,a lot of kids. Not real name. Honestly.
One particular woman, an online prostitute. Don’t relate her attitude to women in general
It’s not the attitude I’m questioning – i would hope that most women are aware that there are plenty of ‘types’ of men that don’t go to brothels other than ones that are too tight.
What I’m questioning is the assumption, by the writer, that the man is being laughed at because he doesn’t offer enough, when in all likelihood he doesn’t even realise it’s a transaction.
The term “feminism” seems to be morphing online. It is now used, both for and against, in a way that older generations simply don’t recognise. What it now seems to mean is “I (as a woman) can do whatever I like, and F you”. Where “you” is ostensibly “the patriarchy” but in reality means any social control or moral opinion whatever.
So being a feminist means having a high body count, doing OF, getting plastic surgery, objectifying yourself on instagram, chasing money by any means etc. If your aim is to liberate, then I guess you can’t complain about how the liberated then behave – but some of the original feminists must be turning in their graves.
Social media has supercharged Ancient Rome…. there’s nothing new under the sun.
I was thinking the same thing – this really is last-days-of-Rome stuff.
Not quite. Messalina (20-48 AD) pre-dated the Sack of Rome (410AD) by quite a while…
I’m not quite sure what this means. Surely the central fact of prostitution is that consent can be bought (and sold). That might be uncomfortable, but that doesn’t make it a lie. The author states this and then doesn’t seem to go anywhere with it.
Perhaps that is because a far more difficult and unsettling question is upstream of this one.
Whether ‘consent’ in and of itself is a sufficient, or even consistent, mechanism to determine right and wrong in the first place.
In law, the maxim is, I believe, ‘volenti non fit injuria’, “the willing person is not wronged”. But this is an answer to a legal question, not a moral one.
The distinction between what we may do and what we ought to do is, essentially, a spiritual one and thus our age cannot see it.
Until we acknowledge that ‘consent’ is altogether too diaphanous a concept to bear the weight of sexual ethics, we will continue to see men and women both engage in these gross and self-destructive behaviors.
It is also interesting how articles like this always assume it is only the woman’s mental and emotional health that is at risk. Granted women are more at risk, but let’s not kid ourselves – the men participating in these behaviors are rotting their own souls, too. Would it really be so strange or hard for our society to acknowledge that what we do with and to our bodies has an effect on the rest of us?
Consent is “bought” in any transaction in a free market, and the author’s failure to see this means that she is doing anything she can to avoid the simple truth that sex is not like buying a haircut, that it is meant for marriage. Trivializing it doesn’t work; making excuses for casual sex seems moralistic (how dreadful), but the fact that sex in marriage is so unremarkable (dull for the restless) points to its naturalness — hence so many words.
It means she’s confused, hasn’t though it through and can’t see the contradictions in her own article. Not a surprise having read some of her other articles.
I would suggest there may more growth in the prostitution sector as real world relationships get further out of reach for most.
Though the murder rate in the U.K. is extremely low in any case, and especially low for women, so this really isn’t the shock, horror it appears to be. And what other profession would you expect to be higher?
I too struggle with the idea that Prostitution is the most dangerous ‘profession’, even in its own terms. Your post made me look into it.
Now. without in any way making light of the proposed statistic, murder being a crime without equal, there are around 28 prostitutes murdered a year in the UK.
By comparison there are around 50 deaths a year in the construction industry as well as over 60,000 non-fatal injuries
However, if we are to go further and borrow the spirit and tendency of the original polemical point then, equally, the Drug Trade could be included in the mortality statistics as an allied ‘profession’.
Current mortality in the Drug Dealing Profession, on both sides of the exchange, currently stands at around 4500 souls a year in the UK. Excluding accidental overdoses HMG estimates over 700 ‘homicides’ a year are linked to that particular ‘profession’.
Almost 30 times more Drug Dealers are murdered every year than Prostitutes.
But how many drug dealers are women? And what proportion of drug dealers murdered are women?
One imagines its a low percentage (though I confess I don’t know). Women being more vulnerable to physical violence from their desperate male clients.
I’m all for statistics, given that those stats are grounded in some form of relative reality…. but surely we’d recognize the difference between murder and accidental death?
Far more people die annually from careless falls than are killed in prostitution or construction. But so what?
Equally we might argue that killing one’s self with an accidental overdose is different than someone else killing us.
But yes, killings related to the Drug Trade (different from the Baseball Card Trade, and far more deadly) far outnumber killings related to prostitution. Even there, though, we might argue that engaging in a ‘profession’ which is essentially a well-funded street war (complete with weapons, tactics, and plans of attack in which lots of people are shooting at you) is far different from sex-for-pay which ends in murder in some dismal dark corner.
Indeed, I agree, and I believe we are making the same point.
The author asserts that “In the UK, you are more likely to be murdered as a prostitute than in any other profession.” Can that really be called “a statistic grounded in relative reality?” eiher?
I had thought I had taken the trouble to make the impermeable distinction betwen murder and accidental death clear in my second paragraph. Indeed the distinction merely serves to better highlight the absurdity of calling Prostitution a ‘Profession’ in the first place.
As you so laconically underline, people simply do not routinely get murdered in the professions.
So it is, in fact, the polemical use of the term ‘Profession’ for Prostitution by the author that invites the dissonant comparison. Comparing the Rough Trade to any and all other professions merely reveals the empty rhetoric in that verbal gesture.
Prostitution is a highly dangerous and rightly criminal activity. It, just as much as the Drug Trade or People Trafficking, is based in murderous violence and criminal rackteering and is a blight on our communities.
Drugs and prostitution are, frankly, two outlets of the same criminal enterprise.
Over the road from that ‘dismal dark corner’, which you call to mind, where someone might pay for sex, is an armed thug backed by a criminal organisation. Prostitutes are seldom, if ever, permitted to be sole traders.
We are essentially in agreement…albeit with quibbles.
You did make that 2nd paragraph distinction, but then, I’m afraid, obscured it in the 3rd paragraph, with the ‘by comparison’ lead. Regardless, you are right, ‘profession to profession’ prostitution is far from the most deadly if we simply measure deaths. But measuring murders puts it in the top tier (although still far behind soldiering, legally or illegally) as a job that can get you deliberately killed.
As for prostitution being a ‘profession’, given that ‘profession’ is defined as a ‘principal employment’, it probably qualifies….and rhetorically, it’s been described as the ‘world’s oldest profession’ since pretty much forever. So its use here is really not too onerous.
RE: two outlets of the same criminal enterprise… An interesting point, and one which raises far too many questions to address here. Some quick thoughts (he says, optimistically!):
Clearly there’s a difference between a criminal act, inflicted by one upon another, against the other’s will, be that murder, rape, assault, fraud, theft, etc. And….making an illegal product (let’s say cocaine) or service (sex) passively available for purchase. We cannot control whether we are victimized by a criminal act committed against us….but we can control whether we voluntarily/actively pursue a criminal object (cocaine) or service (prostitution). In the former case, we are helpless/passive victims; in the latter, we are active participants.
I would suggest that the nature of the crime itself changes. It’s one thing to actively & deliberately hurt an innocent Other, another thing entirely to buy an illegal product or service being voluntarily offered. (Though obviously how much of prostitution is truly voluntary is a huge question).
To your point though — if both the product and the service are being provided by a large criminal enterprise…which has committed any number of crimes against Others in order to provide that product or service, then the distinction blurs and tends to vanish.
In the UK, prostitution is not a criminal activity; it is perfectly legal. It is soliciting which is a criminal activity.
Also, is it correct that prostitutes are seldom sole traders?
You are correct in asserting that an idealised transaction of discrete, orderly, sex-for-hire is strictly legal (although hedged about with a great many qualifiers and caveats) in this Kingdom but again it all hangs on that too frail peg of ‘consent’.
I refer you to the recent Parliamentary report on the subject.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/64627/pdf
“Violence and abuse are integrally linked with prostitution”
“The Metropolitan Police estimate 70% of women involved in off-street prostitution in London are foreign nationals, many of whom are thought to have been trafficked”
In light of the drug dependency, poverty, and the trauma of historic abuse, the ‘consent’ these ‘sex workers’ can be said to give to their own exploitation is a cruel joke.
It presumes, almost, that the vendor serves at the irresistible behest of some inner calling, rather than as piece of flesh caught in an economic mechanism vastly beyond their control.
In any other context, as the law stands, one cannot consent to ones own abuse (R v Brown).
In other words, it is a rank hypocrisy hiding behind a legal fiction.
The ongoing effort to sanitise and repackage prostitution as a sort of liberating vocation for women and girls is shatteringly depressing example of the Babylonian zeitgeist as it persists.
The state of Nevada has well-regulated prostitution in certain counties. Over the centuries brothels have done well when prostitution is not illegal. Criminals get involved when prostitution is made criminal.
I had absolutely no idea so many construction workers were murdered each year. Quite shocking yet probably being covered up as “accidents.”
We both learned something today, then, perhaps.
Reality, or at least the meaning of words, has a nasty habit of taking wings these days, it seems.
I had absolutely no idea that the White-Slavery was now considered a regulated profession, to be compared with dentistry or accountancy. Rather like Murder and Accidental Death, I had thought they were clean different things.
Quite shocking, the Albanian Gangs and armed Pimps which infest Soho and Mayfair with the Rough Trade led me to believe it was, at least, a legally ambiguous undertaking.
The young woman who had 100 sexual partners in a day looked broken afterwards, an emotional mess. She talked about not wanting to let people down. When asked how she felt, she couldn’t identify the feeling and cried; I suspect she felt violated. She is now going for 1000 in 24 hours. Her team thought it was great fun and a very successful event telling men who felt they hadn’t performed well they could have another go. In another interview, she didn’t really seem to understand how AIDS transmitted. It all seemed very sad.
Further from seeing prostitution for what it really is?
Heck, we are further from seeing pretty much anything for what it really is. Reality is anathema, taboo, forbidden, out of sight & out of mind.
The Emperor’s new clothes are delightful. Men really can become women, and women, men, just by tapping their heels together. My pronouns are Zhe & Zhy and I am a GenderQueer Two Spirit FTM Cross-Dressing Squirrel, hire me!
Gender affirming care is genital mutilation but who’s counting. Reproductive Freedom is the sanctioned killing of children (please don’t look behind the self-righteous curtain). Hook-Ups are Zipless F*cks. Zipless F*cks are ‘love the one you’re with’: voulez-vous couchez avec moi, c’est soir?… in the back of my Chevy Van, no less. Open Marriage is no marriage: what’s love got to do with it?
Reality means consequence and what we’ve all learned — in the last several generations — is that consequence, in any fashion, shape, or form must absolutely be denied. Good grades aren’t worth any more than bad grades. Being qualified counts just as much as being unqualified. As a matter of fact, there should be no qualifications because qualifying standards means winning & losing & losing is a consequence that no one likes. YackyPoo!
We don’t pick people for medical school because they know an awful lot; we pick them because Equity, Diversity, & Inclusivity. What else is there? Wining the race is not nearly as valued as participating in the race (Did you get your trophy, honey?)…and really, why should we be racing anyway. That’s not fair to non-racers.
So of course we don’t see prostitution for what it really is. Here in Wonderland, having crashed decisively through the Looking Glass, and snarfed the Blue Pill (which has made us very small indeed): we see only what we want to see…and then we require that you see it also, exactly as we say. Just ask us.
If you’re interested in a TV series about prostitution that is neither moralistic nor naively idealistic (yes, I’m looking at you “Pretty Woman”), I strongly recommend “The Deuce” starring Maggie Gyllenhaal. She should have received an Oscar for that performance.
Oscars are for film performances, probably why she didn’t win
A little aside on “pretty woman”: the original script was about women turning to prostitution in the city because asset strippers had destroyed the industries in their home towns. A serious idea turned into fairy tale twaddle for its audience.
Shock horror! You empower a section of the community and they do what they choose regardless of what you expected or wanted.
Because a lot of people are stupid.
I’d (mercifully) never heard of this Lily Philips woman before yesterday, when suddenly my X feed was filled with clips of an exchange between her and some guy (? friend – he seemed interested in her wellbeing) at the conclusion of her “100 men in 24 hours” stunt. And I have to say, commenters have read it right, she looked like someone whose soul has just been cut into 100 pieces. Maybe she will rally and get back to a presumed sassy empowered take on this, but that raw 2 minute clip says more about the reality and human and spiritual cost of the prostitutional industry than anything Ive ever read.
Guys: Now YOU can be Solomon and bed 1,000 women!
Ladies: Now YOUR face can launch a 1,000 ships toward mortal peril!
True, 999 potential partners for life-long love will go without, but hey….
She sure knows how to dress. Everything covered and still appearing naked.
Before I go on I am firmly against prostitution. However, the link to prostitution being the mot dangerous profession is behind a pay wall. Also the blurb says that the study is specifically eliding on-work and non-work related homicides of prostitutes so I’m not sure this is the best argument for the case.
So might include drug overdoses etc
Could I just say that prostitution is an occupation, not a profession.
Today’s culture is the reflection of a utopian myth, which is that equality must be apparent at absolutely any price. Thus, prostituting becomes ‘ sex work’ because in this way it creates the illusion that is like any other work, carpentry says. Manifestation of this foolish idea can be seen in all walks of life.
Go back to Church poppy. Find a good man. Get married. Have children. Be part of a household. Make it work. Be grandparents. Keep going to church. Help your neighbours. Love your enemies (or try to). Don’t be angry (or try not to be). Trust in God. Enjoy the beauty of creation. Love your children. All this stuff is palpable bullshit and nonsense.
All men pay for sex one way or another.
Very true. And all women who have sex sell sex one way or another. It’s just biological. We can’t help ourselves.
A 1,000 men in 24 hours would work out at roughly a man every minute!! I assume you mean a for more respectable 100 men in a day which every girl needs to do once in a while to let her hair down.
These thoughts have been echoed in wider conservative and even some feminist circles. Nothing new here.
But what is the real distinction between the Cult of the Digital Sex Worker….who, believing in her own version of a consequence free life, exchanges digital nudity & video sex for real dollars (handy-dandy subscription plan available, automatic billing, complete with bonus features!)… And the Cult of the Digital Professional ‘What’s Love Got to Do With It’ New Woman….who, believing in her own version of a consequence free life, exchanges years of vitality, and an endless flurry of Nude Sexts for ‘Girls Just Wanna Have Fun’ and Get Promoted to Every More Glamorous Super Executive Positions while sharing a condo with this year’s Live-In Friend with Benefits?
Of the estimated 600 billion sexual images on the web, how many do we think are ‘Only Fans’ in origin?
The truth is that both Cults cheapen & demean, reducing what is the most intimate, and sacred human thing to a simple Itch & Scratch: a choreographed exercise in human plumbing designed to maximize orgasmic spasm and minimize commitment. (And it doesn’t even do the former. Recent studies indicate that “The improvements in gender equality and sexual education since the 1970s have not helped women to become more orgasmic. Neither has the major increase in masturbation habits (among women in general).” Indeed, it’s gone the other direction.
Imagine that!
So now we must ask: How is this new myth, of the emancipated
Only FansProfessional 21st Century Zipless Woman, any less of a fantasy… Do not believe the messaging; we are further from seeing prostitution (and there are all kinds of prostitution performed for all kinds of buyers, individual & institutional) for what it really is — a scourge which visits the bleakest of fates … on those way too eager to receive it.Link to the recent studies please.
Prostitution varies a lot. For 8years I was a prostitute in one of the UK’s major cities. I never stood on a street corner. I did not have a pimp. I conducted my business through “contact” magazines. My clientele was varied but consisted mainly of pleasant middle class married men. Due to one being a bank manager I was able to obtain loans to buy first a flat then a house. Another client would come and do DIY work for me. A large part of my clientele were masochists and paid me to do my housework . I was never assaulted or ripped off. I made lots more money than I would have done working in some humdrum nine to five job and possibly having to put up with some sleazy boss – as I experieced several times in holiday jobs when I was at Uni. I was my own boss and could work when I chose. The downside was slack weeks and 2 doses of clap. Many years later I have no regret for what I did. I have been happily married for 35 years to a man who I adore and who does not care that I was a prostitute. I know that I am not typical but the mantra that prostitution is always bad and damaging is just not true.
You’re not a real person. This is rubbish. This is the fantasy. Sex is fun,so lots of sex is the best job to have and I’m so highly desirable men offer me amazing sums of money for possession of my body.Its all lies.
Prostitution seems to me like a bargain between men who can do no better and women who can do no other. But on second thought, perhaps it’s the reverse of that. Whatever, why make a federal case out of it? Never mind a moral case. Of course, you can always proclaim, like various 19th century literary madmen, that God is dead and everything is permitted and there are no limits to depravity, but who would listen to you? No one listened to them.
How was OF EVER allowed to flourish?? It was immediately obvious what its purpose was….
“Neoliberal feminism” is a new one. Given “neoliberal” is a very vague term and ‘feminism’ is a label for an attitude, ‘neoliberal feminism’ is pretty well meaningless.
Isn’t feminism all about the freedom to choose, my body my choice, the elimination of shame and freeing female sexuality from patriarchal constraints?
If so, then I fail to understand any criticism of what these young women are doing to earn a living.
Perhaps some women don’t like to admit it but men have always exchanged resources in order to access sex. Sex has always been, and will always be, transactional. These young women are simply more honest about it.
Feminism has achieved a lot for women and I fully support it. One of the main objectives of feminism was the elimination of marriage – a construct that is becoming increasingly obsolete. It’s time to normalise and legalise prostitution. This would help further feminism and the liberation of women.
Talking about women as if they are children is not only absurd but increasingly tiresome, especially when people frame it as “feminism”. Argghhhhhh
If you really want to discuss prostitution, dive deeper into cultural dynamics and systemic roots.
If you kill a cat online, the police show up at your door instantly. But if you sell a child online or commit even worse acts, suddenly, they can’t seem to find you. The issue isn’t with the women or the children—it’s with the system that profits from their exploitation (funny how you point out police culpability, as if they operate like a network of pimps with no regulation or accountability).
I’d really like to know who commissioned this piece—I’d bet it’s tied to something like Victoria’s Secret or SlimKim, or a similar brand.
If you get rid of that root issue, women selling sex because they want to whether they succeed or not is not anyone’s issue but their own!
It is not women that are children but people, men and women both, that are children. “Their passions forge their fetters,” in the words of some dead white guy.