The Paradox of Onlyfans: Freedom or Self-Exploitation?

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 14 янв 2025

Комментарии • 85

  • @kunibald128
    @kunibald128 15 часов назад

    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) :)

  • @fanstream
    @fanstream 6 дней назад +1

    Excellent video on OF and its cultural and economic rise worldwide and Kant's categorical imperative and the historical reference of hetaeras.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

  • @PanthaAhimsa
    @PanthaAhimsa 5 дней назад +3

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

    • @PanthaAhimsa
      @PanthaAhimsa 5 дней назад

      But I'm describing consumerism. The demand on women to reveal their identity speaks to the principle of non-principles. Es herrscht der Geist, der stets verneint.

    • @91722854
      @91722854 4 дня назад

      and the ones that are truly free, relies and depends not on anything, and able be, without having to effortfully take off their clothes multiple times a day, man-made fabrics has come a long way to be this durable...

  • @Lagrasa459
    @Lagrasa459 6 дней назад +2

    great video :) good to see the different perspectives

  • @alexhamilton9744
    @alexhamilton9744 6 дней назад +11

    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”?

    • @SBar77
      @SBar77 3 дня назад

      UBI or just a well functioning social welfare system (like in the Nordic countries in Europe) would certainly go a long way in removing a major external coercing factor, however as a matter of fact prostitution in all its forms also exists in countries which do already provide generous social security, so there are probably quite a few other factors at play here. Also, you describe sexuality how it should ideally be and I share the view, that this is what one should strive for, however it has different meanings for different people (and also for the same people just at different times, which doesn't really help make things less complex:)

    • @alexhamilton9744
      @alexhamilton9744 3 дня назад

      @@SBar77good points

  • @parhwy
    @parhwy 6 дней назад +1

    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.

  • @yossared901
    @yossared901 6 дней назад +9

    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.

    • @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd
      @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd 6 дней назад

      It is that receiving money for producing a certain sensation in another person's brain occurs within a cultural framework where that transaction is contextualized in terms of ownership and shame. By complying with demands to act in a manner considered shameful, a sum is charged that does not replenish or balance what it signifies socially, what is given.
      In every economic transaction, one should receive something of equal value to what is given. But in the sale of shameful sensations, one can never break even. It is the cultural framework that distances prostitution from accounting or law.
      The biological and psychological reasons for the social shame associated with public sexuality will never allow prostitution to be considered just another job.

    • @SocialScienceofSci-Fi
      @SocialScienceofSci-Fi 6 дней назад +3

      Excellent rebuttal.

    • @gian.rodrigues-98
      @gian.rodrigues-98 6 дней назад

      Since you said that it seems to you that much of the opposition to the sexual revolution is rooted in 'stubborn and irrational religious dogma that has no place in the conversation', permit me to oppose your opinion. And since the first preamble of the Christian faith is the existence of God, let me present to you the following argument for the necessity of God's existence:
      1) If each being depends on any particular thing, any particular thing must exist prior to each being.
      Any particular thing to exist prior to each being is impossible (for a particular thing is, by definition, part of the totality of beings; it cannot exist outside or prior to the totality of beings).
      Therefore, for each being to depend on any particular thing is impossible (It is, therefore, necessary for a being to exist who does not depend on any particular thing).
      2) It is impossible for each being to depend on any particular thing.
      The power by which something is produced (causative power) is a particular thing.
      Therefore, it is impossible for each being to depend on any power by which something is produced (causative power).
      From the two, we may safely conclude that it is necessary for there to exist a being who is absolutely independent of any power by which something is produced (causative power), and therefore, an uncaused and eternal Being.
      Can you refute it?

    • @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd
      @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd 6 дней назад

      @@gian.rodrigues-98 No. It is not rational. You assume that the existence of X results from something prior to it. But throughout human history, no one has witnessed the creation ex-nihilo of anything. What humans see is the transformation of something already existing. A branch of a tree transforms into a chair. The sex cells of a human couple transform into a new person.
      Since no one has experienced the actual creation of something, it is gratuitous to consider that possibility.
      To depend on transformation is not to depend on existence.
      There is no good reason to assume that the constitutive elements of the universe had a beginning. And no, there is no impossibility in continuously infinite transformations.
      On the other hand, what is your definition of "causality"?

    • @xenon1283
      @xenon1283 6 дней назад

      ​@gian.rodrigues-98 easily, you are simply rewording the kalam cosmological argument, which correctly concludes that there was a first cause but the mistake in your logic and the irrationality he is speaking of is the assumption that the uncaused causer of the universe is identical to the Abrahamic God of the Bible. See that he has the same amount of proof as the creator in hinduism, judaism, zoroastrianism or any other religon with a story of creation. The correct conclusion to the cosmological argument would be that there is a first cause but that we don't have enough information to define what exactly it or who it is. (Sorry for any mistakes in my grammar I'm tired.)

  • @danielsykes7558
    @danielsykes7558 5 дней назад

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

  • @mattsolomon3
    @mattsolomon3 6 дней назад

    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. : )

  • @anandshah6642
    @anandshah6642 День назад

    Great analysis.

  • @mapleandsteel
    @mapleandsteel 2 дня назад

    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.

  • @chhhhhris
    @chhhhhris 6 дней назад +1

    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.

    • @gian.rodrigues-98
      @gian.rodrigues-98 5 дней назад

      To say that someone is unable to avoid prostitution is a gross misrepresentation. No one is obligated to prefer, for example, money to virtue. Yes, no one is obligated to prefer their own life to virtue. Nay, we ought even always to prefer virtue over our lives. Now, some people will say that what is involved in such contents is not morally wrong. This is a simple point to refute, but it is a different one. The first point would be that, if something is truly virtuous or vicious, we should infinitely prefer to lose our life rather than fail to do what is virtuous, or to do what is vicious. This is certainly the case, if calling something virtuous or vicious has any meaning.

    • @chhhhhris
      @chhhhhris 5 дней назад

      @@gian.rodrigues-98 You write in terms of moral obligations and "oughts", not economic necessity, and the force of poverty. Grow up.

    • @chhhhhris
      @chhhhhris 5 дней назад

      @@gian.rodrigues-98 You write in terms of "morality" and "oughts", not economic necessity, force, the violence of things, on threat of poverty.

    • @LaWashj
      @LaWashj 5 дней назад

      @@gian.rodrigues-98 I tend to agree with you here for once, Mr. Rodrigues, not so much when it comes to morality of virtual (OnlyFans) or real-life prostitution itself, as that in my view is really up to the individual person, however I reject the notion, that people, at least in western, developed societies and especially in those with a functioning welfare state are "unable to avoid prostitution", the evidence being, that as a matter of fact, the vast majority of people in these societies do not sell their bodies (and their time and supposed affections) for money and still manage to do quite ok in life and many indeed prosper without such recourse.
      It is not up to me to judge the (mostly) women who choose to go into prostitution (for whatever reason) and indeed wish them well, however they should be honest to themselves, that it´s not society who "coerced" them to do so, but their own preferences and desires, be they founded in experiences they had to (suffer) through in life as part of their personal history, which may have resulted in e.g. extreme materialism (=greed for money, status symbols etc.), or fears (irrational need for financial security, fear of loss of status or reduction in lifestyle).

  • @dannyhuang8773
    @dannyhuang8773 6 дней назад

    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)?

  • @stokelycarmichael4626
    @stokelycarmichael4626 6 дней назад

    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’. ✌️ ❤

  • @gian.rodrigues-98
    @gian.rodrigues-98 5 дней назад

    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.”

    • @gian98rodrigues
      @gian98rodrigues 5 дней назад

      ”Fathers and teachers, I ponder, 'What is hell?' I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love. Once in infinite existence, immeasurable in time and space, a spiritual creature was given on his coming to earth the power of saying, 'I am and I love'. Once, only once, there was given him a moment of active lifting love, and for that was earthly life given him, and with it times and seasons. And that happy creature rejected the priceless gift, prized it and loved it not, scorned it and remained callous... For he sees clearly and says to himself... 'there is no more life for me and will be no more time! Even though I would gladly give my life for others, it can never be, for that life is passed which can be sacrificed for love, and now there is a gulf fixed between that life and this existence'.”

    • @gian.rodrigues-98
      @gian.rodrigues-98 5 дней назад

      True love exists only when we love a person's essence, the soul (which is invisible, being immaterial), and in a completely selfless way.

  • @PanthaAhimsa
    @PanthaAhimsa 5 дней назад

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

  • @vapourmile
    @vapourmile 6 дней назад

    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.

    • @dannyhuang8773
      @dannyhuang8773 6 дней назад +1

      I think I agree with the points you made. This is my first time coming across her channel, but personally I felt this video deals with an interesting topic but failed to bring up any interesting considerations.
      She seemed to be bringing up reasons whether Onlyfans is freedom or exploitation for some individual, but I don't think there's much point in talking about individuals because it naturally depends on the person. 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 and be another philosopical consideration. If someone choosed to do drugs, it's a free decision, but they themselves probably don't understand the nature of addiction and withdrawal once they get hooked. If so, should drugs be banned for everyone? Or maybe you have to take a test on the effects and studies of the drug, so you demonstrate you're taking a calculated risk.
      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)?
      If society allowed for onlyfans, then there would naturally be more pressure towards that path, even for those who don't want to get involved. As an analogy, we can consider a world where selling your organ is okay. Then, even though it's consensual, such a world allows for the market to push people to do things they don't want to. Is it better that people at least have the option? Because if so, then it's also more okay for others to pressure them about doing it, because they aren't convincing them to do anything illegal. In such a world, some people will feel free since they can earn more money and some people will feel coerced and restricted or simply regret a decision made by their younger selves. If there are both gains and losses, one must weigh whether such a world is better than a world where nobody has the option at all.

    • @alexhamilton9744
      @alexhamilton9744 6 дней назад

      There’s a difference between marketing a product, a narrative or a story, and marketing a human being in parts or in whole. The difference is whether the labor or the laborer is being marketed. The former is fair game in capitalism, the latter is slavery.

    • @vapourmile
      @vapourmile 6 дней назад

      ​@@alexhamilton9744 Okayyyyy.... that's the "people should be ends and not means" dichotomy she references from Kant. The difference between the marketing of a product and a person. I definitely think that distinction is worth making. Even then though I'd say to you what I said to her which is "You could say the same about people in any job".
      It's a fact I have never seen examined in the media that Most people work in the service industry. That means most people have commodified themselves to some extent.
      I'd go further than that and say to you that Anybody who works within capitalism commodifies themselves and the rich and powerful are included in that group. What freedom do you think Elon Musk really has? Elon Musk is no less of a slave than you are and, if anything, his success is explained by making himself much more the slave than you do.
      It's drifting off the subject, but it's relevant, to point out Most people are slaves.
      One of the problems with treating the commodification of objects versus people as two different things and of wanting to assert that the commodification of objects is OK and the commodification of people is not (as you do here and in your main post) is you ignore the fact you can't have the commodification of objects without first commodifying the people who construct or find those objects. You can't have industry to produce commodities unless you have people enslaved by the process of producing those commodities so they can't really be prized apart in the way that you do.
      So, you seem to imply the commodification of objects is OK but the commodification of people isn't, well, I say to you that you cannot have the commodification of objects unless you have the commodification of people who produce them.
      You can't have a utilitarian view of enterprise without also having people as utilities to operate within it.
      You can't have one without the other.
      To finish by dragging you back to my other point.... why care about OnlyFans girls? What are the dangers they face compared to people in other jobs? If danger to the person is what we care about then why aren't we talking about this instead:
      www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/12/21/heres-your-gender-pay-gap-fatal-occupational-injuries/

    • @LaWashj
      @LaWashj 5 дней назад

      @@alexhamilton9744 So you would consider a fashion model who is specifically hired for her (or his) specific looks, as her face is the "right" one for the message the respective fashion company wants to project to be a "slave", as she is "selling" her looks, i.e. her face and body? If not, would she then become a "slave" in your view, if the pictures were nude and sexualised? At what stage of sexualisation would she become a "slave"? Upper body only= half slave, fully body=full slave? :DD
      I don´t really get the hang-ups some of my fellow Americans have with sexuality (just judging from your name, Mr. First Secretary of the Treasury :))

    • @alexhamilton9744
      @alexhamilton9744 4 дня назад

      @ If I borrow Das Kapital from Marx: "As exchange-values, all commodities are merely definite quantities of congealed labour-time". So, under capitalism, labor is commoditized through production (be it computers, films or simple presentation of a narrative). In the core, It is labor that’s valued. Labor can be considered laborer’s skills, creativity, persuasion or simply strength, but not the laborer as the human being.
      Hayek distinguished between labor (a market commodity) and the laborer (a human being with agency). While labor might be subject to market forces, the dignity and freedom of the laborer must be preserved. “The value of labor is determined by the market, but the dignity of the laborer lies in their freedom to choose.”
      I’d go one step further to say that if people are coerced to believe that marketing all or parts of themselves is marketing their labor, this is slavery.

  • @gianrodrigues98
    @gianrodrigues98 4 дня назад

    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).

    • @gian.rodrigues-98
      @gian.rodrigues-98 4 дня назад

      “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting” (Galatians 6.7-8).
      “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ” (2 Corinthians 2.17).
      “Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost. In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Corinthians 4.1-4).

  • @d0lvl0
    @d0lvl0 5 дней назад

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

    • @literature.café
      @literature.café  5 дней назад

      Yes, you are right. The term exploitation is used and describes different meanings according to Marx and in our everyday usage today.

  • @statisticalresearchmethods
    @statisticalresearchmethods 5 дней назад

    Nice.

  • @Abednego-v2r
    @Abednego-v2r 6 дней назад +1

    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!?

    • @parneetsingh3499
      @parneetsingh3499 6 дней назад +1

      Stigma bro not sigma, excuse me but really had to point this out😂

    • @Abednego-v2r
      @Abednego-v2r 6 дней назад +1

      @parneetsingh3499 oops that's funny, your right...but girls can be sigmas too (Bateman face)

  • @OndrejSc
    @OndrejSc 6 дней назад

    Link in bio.

  • @PanthaAhimsa
    @PanthaAhimsa 5 дней назад

    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?

    • @gian.rodrigues-98
      @gian.rodrigues-98 5 дней назад

      To think of prostitution as work is a gross error. To properly define work, we must include that it is essential for it to be something virtuous. We cannot call something work simply because it is done for money and involves the use of 'one's time, and one's bodily autonomy' (as someone wrote in a comment), regardless of whether it is contrary to duty and virtue. Otherwise, a hired assassin should not be called a murderer, but a worker. It is an essential part of the concept of work that it be something virtuous, an effort towards a noble and honorable end, for which one is entitled to payment. The most excellent action that a human being, as a rational being, can perform is to act virtuously; that is, to esteem things according to the truth of their goodness. This means that we should desire and seek the greatest general good, for existence is a common and universal good, the most essential and fundamental good of any being. Therefore, we should not seek our own pleasure and self-satisfaction, but have a good will, wanting and seeking selflessly the true good of all. For not wanting this, but seeking our own pleasure and satisfaction, is to consider that our existence depends on our mere pleasure and satisfaction in order to be good and worthy, which is a clear contradiction. If we did not exist, it would be impossible for us to possess any good, and it is existence that makes it possible for us to have any good. Therefore, existence is our greatest natural good. Seeking our happiness through mere pleasure and self-satisfaction conditions it upon this, and considers our mere pleasure and satisfaction as if it were something worthy of dedicating and subordinating our existence to. Now, it is evident that this is irrational, for it would be to suppose that our mere pleasure and self-satisfaction were (at least for us) an infinite good, the supreme good, worthy in itself. In other words, it would be to make it a god. It would be to consider as if it were in itself permissible for us to desire this, as if we were autonomous, and did not have an absolute and universal duty in common with other rational beings. It is to make all morality subjective, a mere question of opinion and personal taste. But then we could not say that even the worst crimes are objectively morally wrong, nor that they deserve any punishment, nor that they are even minimally worthy of repulsion and abhorrence in themselves. No one could consider it an injustice if their own life were taken by the mere arbitrary will of another. Unselfish love, then, would not be a virtue but a weakness, even among family members. Thus, it would finally be undeniable that work necessarily and essentially includes being virtuous. Morality and virtue precede the discussion of what should properly be considered work. For in everything, one can act in a morally right or wrong manner. Therefore, work refers to a morally right way of acting, and even if something is done for money, if it is morally wrong, it is not work, but vice.

    • @PanthaAhimsa
      @PanthaAhimsa 5 дней назад

      @gian.rodrigues-98 a general answer to morality would certainly bring pain, as nature is dynamic, fluid, and inherently just in her balancing act. There will always be a better and more ecological way to cut a tree, but we do not necessarily need a principled approach to do so since then either we will start cutting trees because of a pure justification, or we will avoid cutting trees to avoid the morality itself, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I believe that principles are most important in theory-laden and morally zealous ages such as today, so that we can find a way to decentralized our morality without falling into the trap you mention of moral relativism. @literature_cafe I think the great lesson that women could teach men is non possession of that which brings us joy. How will we ever feel safe, if our safety depends on rules which guarantees us our pleasure? Indeed, burying our partners in piles of our own compensatory guilt is a worthy critique of patriarchal masculinity. That being said, I would love to see your positive take on it. Do you also see compelling arguments for separating sexes in schools?

  • @elinope4745
    @elinope4745 6 дней назад +1

    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.

    • @dannyhuang8773
      @dannyhuang8773 6 дней назад

      I think there is a point that could be made but she did not seem to articulate it well or at all. Indeed, there should be some justifying argument that the nature of Onlyfans is in some way different from other professions.
      There are probably a number of ways to argue against it. For example, one could argue that a market for Onlyfans allows the demand side to freely pressure the supply side. In a world where you free pressured, but technically still have the final decision, are you more free? People sometimes think they can make their own decisions, but it's a fact that many people are influenced societal expectations and one does not know if their future self will have regrets because they future has not happened yet. As such, I find it disingenuous to firmly to take position that Onlyfans = freedom.
      Some might argue that there is incentive for brainwashing and that women are influenced to subconsciously feel more like sexual objects than human beings, which means their freedom is only an illusion created by the demand in an attempt to exploit them. Personally, I'm not sure how smoothly brainwashing arguments can go. You can be brain-washed into sexual acts, but everyone is already brain-washed by advertisements anyways, so you'd also have to argue that sexual acts in particular is somehow going too far.

    • @elinope4745
      @elinope4745 6 дней назад

      @@dannyhuang8773 Everyone was coerced to begin with and their freedom is only an illusion. You are free to choose your chains, you are free to choose where you will be chained, but unless you are lucky and were born to a wealthy family, you were not born free. You must work, you must sell something, you must do something in order to gain the resources needed to eat and survive. Your parents did this to you.
      Having options is having freedom. Having no options is not having freedom. Nobody has absolute freedom, we are all stuck in the vicinity of this blue planet whether we like it or not. Freedom is a sliding scale. Having the freedom to choose to do something like OF is more free than not having the option to choose to do OF. Now not doing OF, that might be a good idea for a lot of people. But there are going to be people who had less good options, and OF is going to be a good option for them. It all depends on what their other realistic options were. If those options were to starve to death or do this, then I feel bad and I wouldn't like that. But these girls are choosing not to work at a grocery store or a gas station or a coffee stand and the like, for them if they are attractive and make enough money to buy a house when all their options could never come close, for those ones its a good gig. It also depends on how comfortable you are with that. Some people are exhibitionists and this is something that they would be interested in doing even for free just because they like to do it, it gives them a thrill.

    • @alexhamilton9744
      @alexhamilton9744 6 дней назад

      The fact that there’s a “dating market” shows something deeply wrong.
      "In a culture in which the marketing orientation prevails, and in which material success is the outstanding value, there is little reason to be surprised that human love relations follow the same pattern of exchange which governs the commodity and the labor market.” - Erich Fromm
      Labor is marketable, but not the laborer.

    • @elinope4745
      @elinope4745 6 дней назад

      @@alexhamilton9744 ? I didn't name it that. It's just a way of looking at things, people are looking for value in other people and offering value to other people and those looking for a romantic partner are said to be on the dating market. Dr. Orion Tarraban called it that in his book "The Value of Others". We can try to romanticize it to be something it is not, but whenever there is an exchange of goods and services, it is a market. Human relationships are in part, transactional. It's not nice to think about, but it's the truth of the situation. I live in the imperfect world that I was born in, not the world that should be.

  • @ambitiouspurr
    @ambitiouspurr 6 дней назад

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