My Sex is For-Profit, Just Not Yours

Our whole lives, women are taught to fear sex, sex work, and sexuality. Whether the message is given directly by our parents or indirectly by the society surrounding us, we learn it. Often, we don’t unlearn it. 

Cautionary anecdotes tell us that a woman who enjoys sex as a form of liberation is nasty or somehow lesser. While folktales remind us that a woman who relegates sex and family life to mere duties is virtuous and reverent. These stories are told to indoctrinate us into a world that would rather use female sexuality for profit without compensation. The problem is whether we are getting paid or not; women are constantly partaking in sex work. Not because we voluntarily entered into that field or even consciously chose to be sex workers, but because businesses and individual men alike continue to profit from the female form. It is a part of the unmonitored “market for sex and affection.” 

Our society doesn’t value female work; this goes beyond equal pay and touches on every aspect of women’s rights. The labor that goes into being beautiful, or even just presentable, goes uncompensated but not unutilized. This is the same with the work that goes into housekeeping and motherhood and speaks to why our society isn’t eager to pay for those tasks. They are a woman’s place - it is a duty, not a job. 

In a capitalist society, women are like nature; we hold no value unless we are broken down for profit. This manifests in the unconscious competition that plagues the female psyche. On top of that, the lingering knowledge that men are free to consume and discard women at will pours fuel onto the fire of female insecurity. 

Whether it is using women in advertising, free to enter clubs, or inviting us out to a party - the idea that women are products or currency is everywhere. This keeps us vying for attention and value at the expense of not just ourselves but for all women. In the eyes of the capitalist world that surrounds us, we are no better than a tree in essence. The only difference is that we can partake in the market, in so far as we can change ourselves to be more appealing - ripe for the taking. 

Ashley Mears, a prominent sociologist, and former model, thought of bodily capital when writing her first book and developed it even further in her second book, Very Important People. It is the sum of all the potential value we have to offer to this market. In an interview with Tyler from the Mercatus Center, Mears makes it clear that we can only access that value with the help (manipulation) of a third party - usually a man. She writes about how this plays out in the context of the high-end party scene where promoters recruit young, broke models from the streets of New York to be pretty near rich men. But this concept of needing a third party to manage or reap the (minor) benefits available to pretty women spills over into every other part of life. 

“Women can be gorgeous, but our society reinforces and maintains that beauty is worthless when she controls it. ”

We all need a “promoter,” someone who manages our beauty for us in some way, someone that unlocks its monetary value. If a woman is beautiful, she must pretend to be ugly or not comprehend her beauty. That way, a third party (a man, generally speaking) can explain to her the depth of her attractiveness. Not only does this put the man in control of her capital, but it distances her from understanding the underlying labor and value therein contained. 

When we are merely submissive participants, lame objects in this market, we forget how much value there is in that bodily capital, which we do have. 

That doesn’t mean we can’t reject this structure, but it does reframe how we can view sex and sexual relationships. Even if we can recognize all the micro and macro impacts of this invasion of capitalist logic on interpersonal, sexual, and friendly relationships, can our partners? 

Understanding the subtleties of a market system should make us question what it means to have respectful and healthy sexual relationships. 

Ornela, who works with the feminist organization FENA in Argentina, argues that we can’t be having good sexual relationships. Saying, when I spoke with her: “La relaciones sexo afectivas se han convertido en transacciones, sean capitalizado. Sean vuelto capitalistas” 

“Sexual and emotional relationships have become transactions; they have been taken advantage of. They have become capitalist currency.” 

Both in the sense that sex with powerful men gains women clout and in the sense that being seen with hot women gives men access, leverage, and power. The problem is that this power is not evenly distributed. Women don’t gain enough from these interactions for them to be fair, but oppression is built into the capitalist superstructure.

This extends beyond consensual sex. Part of the alluring nature of the superstructure is that it imbues the undeserving with power. When men hold all the tools to unlock the intrinsic value that is trapped within the female form, they are inclined to feel that they own it. That female sex, sexuality, and to an extent, labor is theirs for the taking. This leaves a gap in the system that turns sexual violence in all its forms into another malignant transaction. Yet another way that men can exert their unearned superiority. 

In a way, capitalism has come to pervert the act of sex on a whole. Making it a perpetual form of structural violence that forces women into a subservient role. The unpaid laborers upon which this market is built. Much like the arbitrary use of a fair trade label, “consensual” sex is a rubber stamp that negates the oppression that is embedded in this market. 

She goes on to say: “No estamos en relaciones sexo afectivas responsables y libres sino que las mujeres somos objetos de un mercado de consumo. Hablamos de un mercado sexo-afectivo donde los hombres son los que compran, los hombres son los que tienen poder, los que tienen la plata, son los que tienen mejores trabajos, [etc].”

“We are not in affectionate/sexual relations, responsible and free; instead, women are objects of a consumer market. We are talking about the market for sex and affection where the men are the ones who buy, the men are the ones that have the power, that have the money, that have better jobs, [etc.].” 

There is an undeniable truth to what she says. Men have access to better salaries, better jobs, more money, all of these things from which women are deliberately excluded. Everything about our various cultural understandings of the role of bodily capital in society predicates on a system in which men are the profiteers in this market. They hold all the power. 

When you apply this logic to relationships, as we have come to do, we can never have equal partnerships. Moreover, women are continually partaking in this unspoken sexual commerce - unwitting participants in this nuanced form of sex work. 

Ultimately, your sex is always for profit because someone is gaining something from your implicit oppression. 

---

Hayley is an emerging writer and journalist who works hard to create work that is fiercely feminist, anti racist and anti oppression on a whole. You can check out more of her work and content on her instagram @hayley.headley

The Colonization of Porn

As millions of people flock to OnlyFans to enjoy local sex work, there is a sense of nostalgia for those 90s kids who can remember a time before free porn. OnlyFans represented a reprisal of that golden era of video sex work where women and their producers were getting wealthy from their content creation. For a long time, there was a sense that the golden era of pornography was long gone. 

In the 90s, porn was something you bought. Different producers had websites and hard copy videotapes that people bought and paid for with real money. It was nearly impossible to come across sexual content like that without paying. But even then, life was finding a way. In chatrooms on obscure websites, men and teen boys alike were exchanging passwords and subscriptions so that they could access a world of online content for free. 

This idea of subverting and circumventing the traditions of buying and selling pornographic content was novel in the 90s, that was all about to change. One unique kid in these chatrooms was concocting a business model that would radicalize porn, sex work, and the world at large. This man’s name is Fabian. 

Where casual consumers saw the porn industry of the 90s as a treasure trove of content locked behind a series of paywalls, Fabian saw an opportunity. He was looking at the bigger picture, and that led him to create a site that is so ubiquitous with theft and abuse that producers and actors alike fear it. 

The German “entrepreneur’,’ entered the industry by buying up existing sites and bringing them in as subsidiaries. This was the first in a long line of changes that would soon rapidly transform how we produce and consume porn.

He bought a company called Mansef and another called InterHub, the latter of which created what Fabian described as “the youtube of porn.” It was with this naivety that he began the colonization of the porn industry.

Mansef soon became Manwin, which later came to be known as MindGeek. The adult film conglomerate that consumers know and love. When Fabian bought them out, Interhub had just developed Pornhub and Redtube, and they had no idea how huge (and profitable) it would soon become. But much like most other capitalist inventions, it will come to oppress more than it benefits. 

Manwin and their subsidiary Pornhub was forging a new path. The idea wasn’t unique, and neither was the infrastructure, but having the finances and confidence to make the site what it is today was something wholly unique to Fabian. 

At a time when many sex workers were unable to access banking, the supreme irony of Fabian’s ability to obtain a loan that would soon erode their incomes cannot be lost on us. All the same, he got the loan and began to expand his platform. Soon he was the prince of free to access porn, and everyone else was just the benefactors. At least, that’s what he thought. 

That was a half-truth; the problem is that saying Pornhub, Redtube, Youporn and all the other MindGeek properties are “ the youtube of porn” is that their business models are different. Youtube encourages users to create independent content, and there are heavy regulations on copyright infringement. Pornhub, however, actively incentivizes theft. The business is built on screen recording, downloading, and reposting content that someone paid to create and view elsewhere. 

Moreover, the company has only expanded on that model since its inception. Jon Ronson spent a year following the effects of the flood of free porn on the internet, and what he found was unsurprising yet thoroughly unnerving. From custom porn to virginal sex offenders, the take away was obvious- free porn isn’t good for us. 

Fabian was the first colonizer of the porn industry. He entered, wielded his privilege, money, and power to overhaul every step of the porn production and consumption process. He built on a long history of white men changing industries for the worst. Much like Bezos has co-opted the delivery market, Fabian robbed pornstars and producers of their power and gave it to consumers and the Montreal tech bros. 

This is another reason why the Youtube comparison falls through because porn is shameful.

We live in a society that is obsessed with sex but shames sexual commerce. In the 90s, when production companies hid porn behind paywalls, porn was something you could do more casually. It was a thing you could leave behind, do until you are 20 and get a “regular” job. People couldn’t recognize you, and if they did, they were too embarrassed to mention. Now, we have become more and more comfortable with sex, but only if we aren’t paying. Fabian found a way to capitalize on that and profit from the sense of shame and discomfort that comes from a society that feels female bodies should be free for the taking. 

He has made being a pornstar so much harder. Quality has been thrown out the window in favor of volume. Women (and men) in the industry have to film more and more videos to get less money. All the while, they were becoming more and more replaceable. The sex industry has always been a space for high turnover, but the introduction of pornhub also stole the art and creativity that used to dominate the industry. It’s all prepackaged cookie-cutter content that demands the women seem younger and younger and the sex to be more violent. Regardless, many porn actors have attempted to persevere in the face of adversity to no avail. At the end of the day, their hard work is stolen, reposted, and they realize they can do nothing to fix any of it. DMCA takedowns are too time-consuming and futile, only for the same person or a different one to post the same video to a site that remains apathetic to the creator’s plight. Even worse, you couldn’t leave. Or at least, it wasn’t as easy as it once could have been. 

But, that was just how things were; that was the new normal for the porn industry. For years, the women (and men) behind and in front of the camera found ways around it. Whether it was making custom porn for high-income men with particular tastes or other kinds of sex work, they were still making a living doing what they loved, and in many ways, that was all that mattered. For a long time, it felt that the power would never be given back to the women (and men) who enjoy creating this content. 

That was until OnlyFans popped up. Initially invented for social media influencers, Only Fans soon broke the sex work industry in the best way possible. Suddenly, women (and men) in the sector could make absurd amounts of money safely and consistently by posting content that ranged from not-safe for Instagram booty pics to kink and nudity. The important part was that the power was once again in the hands of the sex workers. 

Only Fans was like custom porn meets Instagram and Patreon. You subscribed (or followed) your favorite creators for a monthly fee; once you could view their page, you could request personalized videos at an extra cost. The prices were all set by the performers. This was radical. OnlyFans was branded as a safe haven for sexual commerce, a renaissance. Just like that, we were back to paid-for local porn. 

The site has yet to succumb to the colonial forces of pornhub, but there is a more immediate threat to the space. A side effect of having such a low barrier to entry was yet again, rich white celebrities (in this case) could co-opt the space. At first, it started with lightly disruptive content. People posting mildly sexier photos and get paid - sure. 

But all hell broke loose in late August this year when Bella Thorne destroyed the “economy of Only Fans.” 

After she entered the platform in mid-August, she made 2 million dollars in her first week. To make matters worse, posts began to circulate claiming that Thorne had posted a single nude which sat behind a hefty paywall of $200. As hundreds flocked to pay to see this elusive photo, they quickly realized these were all lies. As requests for refunds mounted, the team behind the site was forced to find a solution. 

OnlyFans had to push for monthly, not weekly, payouts. Moreover, they began to limit their monthly fees and tip amounts. All this, for one white woman drunk on her privilege and ability. Thorne came under fire for her actions and claims that all these changes are being made for her documentary. She essentially claims that she accidentally destroyed the site’s pro-sex work infrastructure for an experiment. 

If more and more celebrities begin to flock to OnlyFans and dip their toes in the water of sex commerce, it is uncertain what more changed the site will have to make to keep up. There is an overwhelming fear amongst sex workers that this is just the first in a long line of changes that ultimately ends in their renewed oppression. 

Porn is still stigmatized, and as comfortable as we are watching it, we still don’t seem quite as okay with paying for it. The reasons for that are wholly patriarchal, and they speak to a desire for female sexuality. Fabian came to colonize sexuality, not necessarily with patriarchal intent, but with a capitalist one. He is a perfect example of how female and sex worker oppression is rooted in capitalist ideals. OnlyFans is just one rejection of that model, and even it falls under threat. 

As a world, we need to question where our porn comes from and if we like that place. Our options are simple, go local, or contribute to yet another system of oppression.

---

Hayley is an emerging writer and journalist who works hard to create work that is fiercely feminist, anti racist and anti oppression on a whole. You can check out more of her work and content on her instagram @hayley.headley