New York City is one of those urban centers of the liberal world which have been sold to the masses of the world through sheer propaganda – advertised as some sort of paradise on earth.
Yet it seems that those who actually live there might in fact be living and experiencing quite a hellish existence.
The New York Post recently reported:
Would you sell your body online to stay living in the Big Apple?
A new survey by Cinch Home Services has found almost 1 in 5 people would start a raunchy OnlyFans account in order to make enough money to live in New York City.
The survey also found that people would “live off cheap food,” “only go out once per week” and “sleep on an air mattress” just to live where they want.
In other words, very few residents can afford to live their dream in their dream city.
But turning to the naughty site to supplement their incomes may be the most extreme measure included on the survey — and one that’s already become a reality for some.
This paints quite the grim picture. The liberal civilization, which prides itself in “liberating” humankind from all sorts of “authority” (of course they mainly target religion), has basically made its own citizens not only slaves but sexual slaves to the capitalistic system… Is this modernity’s own form of symbolic jizyah?
For those who haven’t heard of OnlyFans, it’s a platform founded in 2016 which is described by the company as catering to:
“artists and content creators from all genres and allows them to monetize their content while developing authentic relationships with their fanbase.“
Of course that’s not the whole truth. It’s more of a platform where women prostitute themselves for money and effectively become sex workers.
It now has millions of “artists and content creators” with 170 million paying subscribers.
It’s crazy how the idea of making easy money by selling your body is considered natural and attracts such an audience despite the sordid stories such as the recurrent trope of fathers finding out their daughter has an account on OnlyFans.
OnlyFans “artists” are overwhelmingly women for obvious reasons besides capitalism. So, since in theory it aims to “liberate” and “empower” women, let’s examine feminism’s take on it.
RELATED: Confessions of a Muslim Ex-Feminist
Capitalism and the Sexualization of the Female Body
In a capitalist society everything is at risk of commodification. This is because an object’s utility is considered to be predicated solely on its economic value. As such, when industrialization transformed man into a soulless work machine and wage slave, it couldn’t just leave his partner – the woman – behind as a “useless” or “valueless” wife and mother.
It had to somehow mutate her into something “productive” too, and this was done at the beginning of the last century through the advertising industry and marketing.
Stuart Ewen breaks it down in his 1976-book Captains of Consciousness – a work on the modern consumer society.
He wrote on pp. 179-180:
The real insecurity women felt about “what a woman should be” is clearly manipulated in these ads of the twenties. As woman’s social role became increasingly defined in terms of consumption—a job which required no more than an obedience to the dictates of the marketplace—the core of the modern housewife’s success lay in her ability to charm and bewitch. Naturally here too, industry played an indispensable role.
In the middle of her mechanically engineered kitchen, the modern housewife was expected to be overcome with the issue of whether her “self,” her body, her personality were viable in the socio-sexual market that defined her job. Ads of the 1920s were quite explicit about this narcissistic imperative. They unabashedly used pictures of veiled nudes and women in auto-erotic stances to encourage self-comparison and to remind women of the primacy of their sexuality. A booklet advertising feminine beauty aids had on its cover a picture of a highly scrubbed, powdered and decorated nude. The message of the title was explicit: “Your Masterpiece—Yourself.” Women were being educated to look at themselves as things to be created competitively against other women: painted and sculpted with the aids of the modern market.
What’s particularly telling is that this was decades prior to the second-wave feminism of the ’60s; during an era where the woman still held her traditional role of “housewife.”
Yet capitalism made sure that even in such a society the woman’s brain (and soul) was corrupted and manipulated for the objectives of the market and the consumer society.
There are lessons to be learned from this for both the conservatives and the “Muslim feminists.”
For the conservatives it’s related to their selective (and some would say hypocritical) critique of modernity. They lambast the more recent waves of feminism but ironically they spare early feminism (which contained them) and the other features of liberal civilization (such as capitalism). In fact they use these features to argue their supposed superiority over Muslims.
For “Muslim feminists” it shows that importing modernization can corrupt a society even if it is still outwardly “traditional.” Yet these “Muslim feminists” push for women to be “highly ambitious,” to seek high-paying “jobs” and so on. This is despite the fact that under capitalism even the traditional role of American women as “housewives” was being eroded and erased. So what about these “Muslim feminists” who look down upon being housewives and drool over the concept of having a “career” and being “independent? Do they genuinely believe that they aren’t opening up the doors for more radical forms of feminism?
So… what is the feminist critique of OnlyFans?
Feminism on OnlyFans
Just like there have been feminist critiques of pornography (like the well-known criticisms of Andrea Dworkin), there have also been feminist critiques of OnlyFans. Yet what ultimately triumphed was “sex-positive feminism” – the view that sex (including pornography) was actually liberating for women.
In fact, a feminist author says that OnlyFans is even better than “regular” pornography in terms of “female empowerment.” She wrote for Varsity (the oldest student newspaper of the University of Cambridge):
OnlyFans has the potential to increasingly liberate sex work and pornography, out of the grips of misogynistic businessmen and exploitative contracts, as the creators themselves gain control over the photography of their bodies. The horror stories of non-consensual, abusive and manipulative behaviour continue to haunt the sex industry; however OnlyFans takes the step to strip away the middle man figure of a director, agent or ‘pimp’ as women create their own footage from their bedrooms. (…)
Not only do creators have power over their content, but the platform is intrinsically safer and more flexible than traditional forms of sex work. Women looking to capitalise on their sexuality (whether out of necessity or desire) do not need to walk the streets or physically engage with men to do so thus lessening chances of physical violence, rape, and STDs and escaping the eyes of a justice system that wrongly criminalises rather than protects sex work.
Feminism could only lead to such perspectives. In fact, even the minority of feminists who are against pornography (such as Dworkin) have the majority of their arguments rendered invalid. This is because OnlyFans corrects many of the ills that are usually associated with the pornography industry such as the examples raised by the author above (perverted directors and so on).
Another feminist who defends OnlyFans is Amia Srinivasan. She writes in her book, The Right To Sex (released a few months ago), on pp. 60-62:
Attempts to legislate against porn – like attempts to legislate against sex work generally – invariably harm the women who financially depend on it the most. (…)
The cost of the shift of money and power away from porn production towards techno-piracy has been borne largely by women performers. (…)
In 2020, mass unemployment caused by the Covid-19 pandemic brought tens of thousands of new performers into the porn industry via cam sites, where ‘models’, of all sexes, offer live-streamed sex performances (and a lot of talking therapy) for individual paying clients. In March 2020, CamSoda reported a 37 per cent increase in new model sign-ups; ManyVids reported a 69 per cent increase. OnlyFans reported that 60,000 new models had signed up in the first two weeks of March alone. Typically, camgirls and boys keep only about half of the revenue they generate. The LA-based cam site IsMyGirl offered McDonald’s employees, who were set to be fired without sick pay, a special deal: ‘an exclusive offer to earn 90 per cent of their proceeds (after credit card processing)’. Evan Seinfeld, the founder of IsMyGirl, said: ‘Of course, it’s up to them to make good content and to know how to engage with their fans. We have great stories from women who were living out of their cars who are making $10,000 a month.’ (…)
Whatever the law says, porn is going to be made, bought and sold. What should matter most to feminists is not what the law says about porn, but what the law does for and to the women who work in it.
Note how she defends OnlyFans (and pornography as a whole) for the same reason: it’s all about a woman’s financial condition. Not about her inner state – neither spiritual nor psychological. And not about her ethics and morals. Only her money.
When you combine the capitalistic urge to view everything in terms of financial gain with the feminist urge to “liberate” women’s bodies, that road was always going to lead to the monstrosity that is OnlyFans.
Ultimately, isn’t OnlyFans the “female liberation” and “female empowerment” that the West had been promising the world for nearly two centuries? Isn’t this precisely what they’ve been waging wars against Muslim countries over?