Видео

Great insight, as always. If I might offer an opinion: I'd love it if we could hear a little jingle during the transition screens between segments of your video, just something small to prevent total silence happening for a couple of seconds.

I did NOT expect good theory from these aesthetics! Good stuff! I definitely agree with others that showing quotes on screen (ideally even with a page reference!) helps a lot! Your work is already quite theoretical so the audience that likes your stuff probably would also like to be able to dig further

Those theories by Marcuse and Horkheimer that you have mentioned sound very interesting and also relevant to many other sectors of our society. It would be nice to hear more about those works in some future episode(s) :)

Please do Engels and Luxembourg next. Lenin if you wan to make the comment section spicy. Overall though i love this setup you got.

Marvelous, you nailed the distinction between services and other commodities while explaining while they're still commodities.

Hello ❤, thank you very much. Of course, considering that I work specifically on German idealism and Western philosophy, Kant distinguished between theoretical understanding and practical reason in the First and Second Critiques, and that in the Critique of the Power of Judgment through the power of reflective judgment, he sought a connection between practical reason and theoretical understanding. On the basis that understanding and practical reason are two distinct powers and their scope of application is also distinct, and as a result, we must think about these two powers, the categories of understanding, and the laws of practical reason in a single and unique subject without encountering any distinction, in such a way that the possibility of realizing the goal of practical reason in the world of objective reality, which is governed by coercive causality, is teleologically compatible with this world. Kant attributes this teleology as an a priori concept to reflective judgment, and at the same time, the mediation of reflective judgment between understanding and practical reason is envisioned. From a post-Kantian perspective, this dualism is interpreted as a kind of defect, and the solution is In order to save freedom, which was his mission in the Enlightenment tradition, Kant first developed the dialectic of practical reason in the first postulate, namely freedom, which was a conception of man as he is in himself. In the final part of the Critique of Judgment, he developed the natural finality of the idea of ​​God in such a way that the existence of a superhuman understanding is conceived, which is created in such a way that the realization of the finality of practical reason is teleologically compatible with it. These two solutions were not convincing from the post-Kantian perspective. As a result, first Reinhold and then Fichte in the Comprehensive Foundations of the Doctrine of Knowledge consider the beginning of philosophy as a starting point that can prove the unconditional principle, namely the act of self-expansion of the absolute I, which the transcendental philosopher wants to research. After that, in the Doctrine of Knowledge in a New Way, he describes the action of pure self-consciousness as rational intuition, and this is what Kant's critical philosophy strives for. In order to realize this Kantian ideal, namely the compatibility of these two theoretical and practical realms, the beginning point is with the action of the The self-expansion of the absolute self begins to explain the representations with a sense of necessity, which is a kind of activism and knowledge, and not a mere act of representation, and consequently makes possible the Kantian ideal that I mentioned above, namely the reconciliation of the realms of the coercive causality of nature and freedom, morality and nature, because this beginning is both theoretical and practical.

thought this would be an attempt at a debunk of capital but this is a very good video.

Great video! It is clear, concise and very informative. Looking forward to watching all of your other videos!

I admire your deep dive into this work

Great analysis.

I like to view this somewhat dialectically. If you ask many men who engage in this sort of consumption, they will tell you that its purely transactional, that it's ultimately just transitory, and that ultimately they desire to shack-up with that elusive 'right-gal'. In a christian sense, sin acts as a mediation to eventual emancipation - and the eventual holy matrimony. There are also other men, of course, who've embraced the nihilism, and further this nihilism - increasing the contradictions and the resentimment that comes with it - essentially the Negative Dialectic. Sin mediates towards the Nietzschean Abyss. I reserve my comments on the side of the sex-worker, simply because I do not know any sex-workers and can't honestly opine on their behalf.

That thumbnail is ferocious! Rawr!

I came across this video, and I found the comments section interesting. While the video features a lovely young woman presenting an issue of young women. There seem to be only male voices in the comments. As a woman, I’m aware of OnlyFans. I think to do what the content creators do, it takes a lot of social conditioning to overcome the stigma associated. To expose yourself in front of hundreds pairs of eyes behind a camera, is nerve wrecking to say the least. It’s like having sex with total strangers while blindfolded. I think maybe it’s the society keeping conditioning young women to think it’s ok to do this as long as the price is right. At the end of the day, men get the pressure released at the expense of women being conditioned to think it’s ok to do sex acts at men’s demands, and then women get paid. I feel women become a tool for men, in this case. The bottom line is that because of the difference in sexual demands from the two opposite sexes, there will always be pressure in the society on female to supply more satisfaction to male than the other way around. Men can work harder at courtship, or they can condition part of the female population to think selling intimacy is ok. OnlyFans may prove that conditioning is a preferred choice for men.

God's law is described in the Holy Scriptures as “the perfect law of liberty” (James 1.25). Thus, only in obedience to it is there true freedom. So let's consider what the Scriptures say: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God... Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body” (1 Corinthians 6.9-10,13). “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain” (1 Corinthians 3.18-20).

13:18 I'm glad we still got our literature Café from this topic

Isn’t the notion of “self-exploitation” fundamentally contradictory according to Marx’s definition of exploitation?

Some very profound and relevant quotes from Dostoevsky's works: “On our earth we can only love sincerely with suffering and through suffering. We do not know how to love any other way and know no other love.” “Above all, do not lie to yourself. A man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point where he does not discern any truth either in himself or anywhere around him, and thus falls into disrespect towards himself and others. Not respecting anyone, he ceases to love, and having no love, he gives himself up to the passions and coarse pleasures, in order to occupy and amuse himself, and in his vices reaches complete bestiality, and it all comes from lying continually to others and to himself.” “Strive to love your neighbour actively and indefatigably. In as far as you advance in love you will grow surer of the reality of God and of the immortality of your soul. If you attain to perfect self-forgetfulness in the love of your neighbour, then you will believe without doubt, and no doubt can possibly enter your soul. This has been tried. This is certain.”

On a different note: Whilst I share the view that the threat of self-exploitation is very real, nay, a fact in this market, you haven´t touched on the exploitation of the customers by the - potentially - exploited content creators/prostitutes. Though this is not the core subject of this video, since it concentrates on the creators themselves, wouldn´t you agree, that customers are or at least can potentially also get exploited in this setup? This is not just because they are paying for something that is normally "achieved" based on personal attraction an chemistry between human beings, not through a mere monetary transaction, but also because they get egged on by the content creators or - even worse - just by the agencies operating in the background to develop an emotional connection with those content creators, which may sometimes be genuine for the customer, especially if they are lonely introverts and struggle with "normal" dating, but is usually fake when it comes to the content creator and the former thus end up emotionally exploited. I suppose this is even worse, than a real-life prostitute or haetera building an emotional connection with her most well-paying client(s) in order to hold on to them and take as much advantage of them, as she/he can, since with OnlyFans it all only takes place virtually, with not even a physical connection being provided...

Sure, the digital intimacy market, as well as the real-life intimacy market, or any other market for that matter, functions subject to certain dynamics, however the chance of falling prey to them really depends on your own values and the strength of your character. If a person´s self-perceived material needs (=greed) to become "rich", as they were not born to wealth etc. etc. is their main driving force and exceeds other considerations such as reputation, chances for other/future employment or general self-respect, then the risk is obviously higher than if this weren´t the case. Such creators are indeed rather young and did maybe not have time for much character development, >90% of their peers are just as young and have had just as little time for character development, don´t have millionaire parents. don´t live the lifestyle of the rich and famous, but do not decide to become "content creators", or sleep with 100 men or whatever, just to make money. The question then becomes, whether society should permit prostitution (digital or otherwise) at all, in order to protect these young people. As demand creates supply and demand will always exist, this being the oldest profession in the world, I believe that regulation, rather than trying (and failing) to ban this is the only practicable way, like with any market (e.g. finance, pharmaceutics etc.) is the only feasible way, e.g. only allowing people over 21 to to this, enforcing the use of filters and stage names, so creators don´t get stigmatized etc.

Ich habe gerade den Vergleich von einem Mann gehört "wir sollten uns an der Kasse stellen, und uns wie minderjährigen vorstellen." Moralisch nachvollziehbarer Vergleich?

You're doing it right. People will appreciate this one day.

I miss philosophers like Nietzsche who would try and fail, but at least try to say that even something like buying a house and supporting your family is unreasonable. It's interesting that you have two comment pools which are unsatisfied with your separation of prostitution and regular jobs. Work is either similar because of market forces the intimacy be damned, or wage slavery as a blanket state which demands acceptance. The difference between the two groups lies in the final evaluation of prostitution as good or bad, while both conclude that we're all prostitutes in some way. Given that you reject the comparison, I wonder where you stand on sexual empowerment in general. I guess positive, because you begin by honoring the sexual power of women in general. If that's the case, do you think that female sexuality has to adopt ideals that are categorical in order to return to an influence of historical, or pre-historical fame? Are market forces to be overcome by ideals? Or is there something about intimacy that women have to teach men, and on the basis of this we would advance as a society?

Nice.

Non-principles as principles, non-thought as liberation.

Excellent video on OF and its cultural and economic rise worldwide and Kant's categorical imperative and the historical reference of hetaeras. It seems where there's demand for any service or product, supply will follow with 20% of the creators capturing 80% of the revenues and maybe 20% of the subscribers providing 80% of the spend? Thank you again, Professor Anne-Katherine 👏👏 Magic Mountain for the next episode/video? maybe my favorite German novel -- looking forward

Thank you for tackling this topic without invoking an apocalysm that I have seen esp in relation to that 100-in-a-day lady, Lily. I am not philosopically sophisticated (but I am here to beef up) so I cannot attest to your hypothesis however I would have liked to have had data to back your contentions especially at those times where you say "frequently" or "mostly"; or, instead of those words such phrases as, "85% of OnlyFans accounts are female, hetero, under 22," etc, or "35% of OF accounts," and so on. There was one point where you seemed to be employing 'slippery slope' mechanics. Overall, thank you. An aside: RUclips Shorts algorithm promotes to me, a single male, a good amount of vids that prove to be of/from OF creators. And enough RUclips ASMR accounts have paved the same path. X-platform sophistication hey.

Plural of women is more pronounced like “wemen” not as “woman” again as in singular. That distracted me. I do not think you defined freedom, nor capitalistic, nor market. It feels like you use a lot of complicated terms to sound smart. I think freedom is just a synonym for power. Also that it makes it harder to get employment in more judgemental industries is a problem of those industries not because of onlyfans itself. I once read a concentration camp story. Where a sadistic guardsman asked a son to whip his father. The son refused. The father begged him to do it. The son refused. The guardsman shot them both. I feel like the categorical imperative fails when it comes to extremes. So then sometimes when we need guidance the most, it fails us. I do not think ethics is constant, I think it evolves with us the more we reflect. So the categorical imperative, seems more like an easy thought experiment for people who do not have to deal with reality. Except you would argue that in this situations sons should hit their fathers generally in this context. Then maybe. I do not have deep knowledge of Kant’s texts. Also that illusion of choice (freedom) case can be made pretty much for all work. I’m not sure also if people who sell erotic content see their work as intimate. It can quickly come off as condascending telling people doing sexual work that they are being exploited and often people are to focussed on sex and because of a lot of religions demonize any kind of sexual act and do not argue rationally. Sex work should be treated more like any or even better than occupation like being a greedy banker launderin money or a greedy health insurance CEO. Because the value created is more obvious and generally I would argue more ethical by far. How I can explain this focus on sex work is religious indoctrination.

Onlyfans is just the gig economy site for making porn, like how uber made gig work of taxiing and food delivery. And gig apps have all of the terrible incentives capitalism creates without any of the worker protections

I admire your profound logic and the careful articulation thereof in your videos. I start to think you are one of the rare extraordinary intellectuals who have ever graced the earth. Keep up the good work, your voice will bring positive changes to the world. To the specific topic: I think any objectification or commodification of a person (all or part of the person, mentally or physically) is treating that person nonhuman, regardless if the person benefits in anyways. That’s actually the worst form of exploitation. Same thing can be said about slavery. Sexuality is private and intimate between 2 emotionally connected human beings seeking to enhance their bond. What needs to be resolved is how we can lift the survival pressure in this capitalistic society, in this specific case off of women. I remember we discussed UBI in the past, maybe it can be of help here? Given the pressure, and women making choices to just survive, isn’t that actually “structural exploitation” rather than “self exploitation”?

There are a lot of discussions and opinions regarding the issues, problems and effects of indecent sexual behaviour from the minimal such as flirting and how to pick up/seduce women to the extreme such as pornography and pedophilia. I believe this is disease that has infected and destroyed individuals and since societies consist of many individuals it has done the same to society. I do believe there is a cure for every disease and what I've noticed is that there is less of a discussion regarding the cure. Would you have a platform where we could discuss this in further detail?

I think there's not much point in arguing about whether Onlyfans is free or exploitation for the individual. Obviously, it depends on the individual themselves. If they feel constrained or regret their choices, obviously Onlyfans did not bring them freedom. If they feel liberated and never have regrets, then they can be said to be free (or brainwashed into a certain delusion, can also be argued). I think the bigger question is whether a society allowing the existence of Onlyfans, legally or socially, promotes freedom or self-exploitation for the population as a whole. Is it a freedom for people to have the option of Onlyfans, in consideration of the fact that not everyone will make the right decision (ie., some people being young and regretting their decision later)?

I would not expect the structures of the world to be the same after 200 years if there is a break in technology. As such, I would be more inclined to see what more recent Marxist moral philosophers have researched than deep mining a foundational text written over 150 years ago. OTOH, foundational texts, by their nature, come up in modern conversations with surprising regularity. IE: ideas that are xonverted to approximations in the foundational texts of an economic school are much easier to communicate to normal people AND specialists than the cutting edge research from different branches of the SAME school of thought.

Next level OF covert marketing 😅 Nah good stuff 👍 Also, i think ur cute 😊

...do you have an OnlyFans?

Hi, that was great. I don't know what it says about me but you are the only RUclipsr whose channel I subscribe to and listen to when I am alerted of new content. As with your other... what do you call them? Video blogs? Podcasts? I very much enjoyed listening to it. Something you didn't do, which I was thinking as I was listening, is make a cross comparison with other commodities or products, especially in the context of some of the contexts you spoke of which included freedom, personal autonomy and business management. What I mean, for the sake of an example which comes easily to me, don't you think, say, Apple founder Steve Jobs also experienced the pressure of market forces? What about film-makers, directors, musicians, bands, authors, cake makers, fashion designers. I think, to hurl at you what I hope is not too painful a criticism, you revolved largely around market forces as something impinging on personal freedom. In a sense it seems to me the video could be condensed into "Are these women who claim to be emancipated really free? Oh, come on, who are they trying to kid? They are commodifying their own bodies and their personal autonomy is restricted by what it is for which people are offering to pay. It s reasonable to suppose, even if they aren't fully aware of it, coercion plays a part". Again though, I would say you overlook the fact that exactly the same can be said of anybody trying to emancipate themselves through any kind of work. Did you notice how your own choice of subject matter is shaped by cultural values you have inherited and didn't participate in shaping? I want to encourage you to continue producing content because I like listening to it so don't take this as a deterrent but it isn't by chance or entirely by personal choice you speak of people like Kant and Spinoza and Foucault, is it? There is a cultural economy which you leverage in your own content and there is too in OnlyFans content. From there, I also wonder if you had thought, and if it helped you think about it, that the reason OnlyFans exists therefore is because although it is kept under wraps and still treated as taboo it is also true that men are willing to pay for the services of those content creators because for them there is high value in it? Something which is very different about OnlyFans content (none of which I have actually seen but only heard about) is you might suppose because nudity is still treated as taboo that in some ways many of the girls may indeed be expressing themselves with a new freedom that they want. Consider it at the individual level. There are girls who would never consider it, or, at least, consider it but be very averse to participating. There are others who may actively want to do it. So, just how much that coercion is experienced must depend on individual sensibilities. I don't know if it helps but I listened to an interview with an actress from pornography who said she wanted to participate in the sort of scene she has been filmed in before she got into the industry and joined the industry expressly to do it. Finally, who is right on the moral outlook? Perhaps it can only be seen as exploitation if one begins with the stance that there is something innately bad or wrong with public nudity, or whatever it is? When I think of cultural attitudes to sex I usually think back to the Christian era we emerged from and the Christian or puritanical attitudes towards sex, especially when it comes to forming opinions about a woman's character. So, perhaps then they really are pushing against a somewhat arbitrary and undesirable restriction on their activities. In fact, something which could just as well be said is, if they are enjoying what they do, or, at least, they are doing it satisfying mutual consent, and indeed they may be bringing some pleasure or happiness to others then really what harm is there in it? Why do we look down on people who may for I hope the most part exploring what excites them and what they enjoy? You said too that it helps them escape "the 9 - 5" suggesting that work-a-day jobs are Worse than OnlyFans. You get Less freedom in a regular job and the work in a re3gular job is mostly far more tedious too. Great video again, I hope you are more enthusiastic about producing more. My only point is I think you may have been able to bring more into that 20 minute duration by introducing a cross-comparison with other professions, and entrepreneurship generally outside of OnlyFans, and you might have put it in the context of varying attitudes to women's sexual liberation in order to ask the question "Well, should we even care? What business is it of ours? There are far worse jobs you could be doing". Still, I'd far rather listen to your content than visit the OnlyFans site.

I disagree that this is uniquely different from other market professions. All of the arguments you made are valid to everyone who is on the dating market and looking for a partner. All of them apply to someone working at a roadside trailer food stand. All of them apply to all entrepreneurial work of all kinds. You have to adapt your work, your goals, your choices, and ultimately who you are and what you do, around the market of other people's expectations, desires, and demands. You have to do what you have to do, to get the bills paid. OF is just one of many choices that some people have regarding the inherent exploitation that comes along with being alive in a capitalistic world. Don't let the wording on that final part fool you. It would be even worse in a communistic or socialistic world.

If you see this Lily Philips, thank you for doing what you did. I know you got a lot of bad publicity because you weren't demonstrating wife material there. But what you were doing was taking your nymphomaniacal tendencies and using them to benefit society. Yes those men did want to get laid, no I was not one of them. It's young men that are in need of getting laid, many of them are not yet ready for relationships because their hormones are taking away their free will. You were giving them a clear mind, a moment of clarity and you were filling a demand that can sometimes get sidetracked to create much larger atrocities. You were doing the good work that really does reduce the number of victims of sex crimes, you were filling in for innocent victims of human trafficking, you were filling the same demand that drives kidnapping and the underground markets of human slaves. You were making the world a better place. And you did it while being slandered for doing it. You are a real hero and I hope that you are having a good day, no matter what the public narratives have to say about you.

The only way to protect yourself as a creator on OF is to convert every narrative into a fake. All messaging is then done based on pre-recorded content and made-up stories, distributed by a workforce of intimacy labourers who sell the original creator's fake story and content. That, in turn, is basically indistinguishable from fraud and impersonation. I would agree with your analysis and argue that market forces on OF compel you, as a creator, to commit a uniquely digital form of intimacy fraud. You're right, I think, in arguing that it doesn't sound like freedom when the market compels you to exploit yourself (as a body, as a person) and others (as desperate consumers of intimacy). But then, the fact that intimacy can be commodified is just indicative of the fact that intimacy has become such a scarce 'resource'. That last part, to me, seems to be the underlying dynamic which has opened this tremendous new market. Personally, I find it unethical to exploit anyone's feelings of loneliness by fraudulent means and for financial gain. But then, I haven't grown up in a hovel in the countryside in a family of alcoholics or something. Perhaps it's just too early to tell, since we don't have data on average and median outcomes for OF creators over time. It would be interesting how much churn there is on the platform, and what percentage of total women creators over the platform's lifetime dropped out without having made significant financial gain (such as a house in their home country). Lastly, OF creators suffer from the same phenomenon as all influencers: in catering towards the desires of lonely men, they become lonely themselves, since the job takes up all their time and often kinda requires them to spend all day at home alone in front of the computer screen, that is, until the OF persona is big enough to be handled by a reputable agency. It's very sad that we've arrived at this point.

Thank you for addressing this. I think it’s so crucial for female voices to speak questioningly to what the masses accept. The problem is surely competition. An outdated form of social engagement that we falsely declare as the catalyst for all evolution. Sects work is the final exasperation of this. It’s interesting that simultaneously more and more information is being spread on the true potential of sexual energy transmuted to greater creative potential. But Capitalism dictates that all resources you can acquire for you and yours is celebrated above all and yet those best at achieving this seldom have the wherewithal to discern quality that leads to actual value to the community in their wake. If we don’t start thinking about the future we want to create for humanity rather than being stuck responding to what the market dictates than the drudges of human imagination becomes normalized. Highly recommend anything from Silvia Federici if you haven’t stumbled on her yet. Particularly ‘Re-enchanting the world’. ✌️ ❤

This "freedom" in the bubble of bourgeois-society granted from prostitution, is negative-freedom, since being unable to avoid prostitution in the first place is unfreedom. The promotion of prostitution's profitability in bourgeois society, is just an indictment in-itself. Internet prostitution is not labour, it's an exchange of unproductive abstract-values without _material_ contents, draining the productive-forces of an economy.

women who seek validation or feel desired in many ways the worst of them is pornography. and they get it from the worst type of men, lose lose situation

Very few, if any, women are going to get rich on OnlyFans without doing corn. Also, I think the guys are being exploited too. At it's core, OnlyFans is about objectification and exploitation. Women's bodies are being objectified and men's loneliness is being exploited. I encourage everyone to stay off that site.

I'm not convinced you sufficiently countered the argument that sex work is not significantly different from other types of work. One's sexuality is precious, that is true. But so is one's time, and one's bodily autonomy. Both of these things are sacrificed when we do any job. Indeed, we sacrifice these things in our personal relationships too, as well as other areas of life, for the good of society as a whole. Prostitutes of all kinds do a huge service to society by satisfying the need for sexual gratification that we cannot always have provided by a partner. There are even a growing number of open relationships where a difference in sexual desire can be offset by allowing the one with greater needs to have those needs fulfilled outside the relationship. A lot of pushback against this sexual revolution (the same revolution that began over 50 years ago after WWII) seems to me to be rooted in stubborn and irrational religious dogma that has no place in the conversation. That said, I will give credit to this channel for taking a less preachy, more intellectual approach to criticizing sex work. I will make one more point. With the greatest respect, it is obvious that you put a great deal of effort into your hair and make-up for these videos. You look stunningly beautiful and I'm sure you're aware of that fact. And I'm sure you are aware of how much that helps you reach people with the things you talk about. I think that's absolutely fine. In fact it's a great thing. Your beauty and the intellectual topics discussed here combine to create a wonderfully unique channel. But I would pose the question, where is the line in the sand? There are some countries where your openly displaying your neck for us to see would put you much closer to those OnlyFans models then you might perceive yourself. Just my thoughts. Love the content.

I personally believe that this platforms are just another nail in the coffin for the dream of a society that persecutes happier and less objectified lives for women. This so called "Models" may or not be in kwnoledge of what they are answering to, but as you explain in the video, this contents are created just for the sake of a demand for s*xual content that is embeded in a mysoginistic and commodified worldview. This new ways of intimate content are amplifiers of the already-explained trends of Bauman's liquid modernity. Invoking the most primal and irrational insticts of human kind to earn your day by day might be something of an only choice situation for some women, but that does not magically destroy the idea that by answering to these demands you are literally building monuments to a less rational and evolved human existence. They are not only giving more power to what they are supposedly freeing themselves from, but they are being part of the problem as well. As Aristotle would put it, if you do this, you are searching to destroy the very "particular good" (reason, intelligence) of humans by appealing to their most animal-based desires and reducing them to an instinct-based existence. Moreover, all these things prove to be enhancers of violence and rectification of gender roles (as you also mention in your video), because with recent evidence we already know that there is a correlation between adult content consumption/addiction to s*xual violence, psychological stress, anxiety and depression (tokunaga, Wright, Kraus, 2015) (Privara, Petr 2023). And yes, this is very harmful to men too, so you could say that these people are living their lives based on the brain-rotting of their fellow humans. There is no freedom on slaving the mind to it's worst tendencies. Great Video!

Thanks for bringing this up. This is a big topic. As you say, over the centuries women in small numbers have been ability to achieve a type of autonomy by taking control of access to themselves by themselves. But as then, so now although it seems to be a larger number, it is still a minority of women within the society. I think Only Fans is but one, albeit temporarily, shining example of how the internet broadens and flattens society and culture. It broadens by providing opportunities for “content creators” or entrepreneurs to access the market themselves with very few constraints. What is the market? In this case we can say it’s mostly men interested in a surface relationship with women who would otherwise be unavailable to them. The internet flattens as well by lowering these transactions-and they are transactions-down to the most basic level: I give you something if you give me something. The value on each end is perhaps skewed. Whatever can be said about Only Fans (or any other platform) being a benefit, you are right to say there are limits to intimacy and at the same time manipulation of both the product (woman) and the buyer (man). How do we deal with this libertarian urge for “freedom”? I don’t know.

Its interesting to see how not so recent cultural theory illuminates present day phenomena like creator platforms...thanks for your tangent! further reading might include Rolan Barthes, 'Death of the Author' and the follow up by Micheal Foucault 'What is an Author' as they both examine cultural and creator discourse. : )

The basic theme is the production of neurochemicals in people's brains. Those who long for certain sensations and physiological states are willing to pay for them. The desire to experience sexual pleasure ranks among the most intense desires to satisfy. There will always be a flourishing market when it comes to this subject. Regarding freedom, Kant contradicts himself. He gets entangled in metaphysics, and when the dust settles, nothing useful remains. Freedom is what the rest of society allows you to do and for which it will defend you against the abuses of others. Freedom is not something one achieves but rather something given by society. Individualism is an illusion in the human species. In a society where political, social, and economic power is predominantly wielded by men, this type of enterprise thrives. The issue is the double and contradictory male need to control female sexuality in public while keeping it for personal use in private spaces. When women are considered property, this is easy. When society moves away from that possibility, spaces can be created away from public shame for the indicated price. The sensation, from a male perspective, is one of complete control. Women must remain in their holes and act on the desires of those who pay, producing in men the sensations they crave. But this is just a lightly considered opinion. :)

I like a woman who understands suggestion, which is the true power of the erotic. OnlyFans is not this: Therefore, I'm not a fan. I also don't like sharing.

Great video, Indeed, the monetization of the common woman's sexuality is one of the great modern tragedies... for not long ago it was a sigma for a woman to be as3x worker or ap0rn star... now it is seen as liberating. This is so sad. Who will be the future mothers of the generations to come, and who will instill values that allow women to achieve true freedom!?

great video :) good to see the different perspectives