In one of the more depressing publicity stunts of recent years, a woman called Lily Phillips (presumably not her birth name) claimed to have had sex with 101 men in an afternoon on Saturday October 19th.
Ms Phillips, who makes a living by selling pornographic films of herself on the Onlyfans website, undertook this enterprise to compete with a fellow “performer” by the (again, presumably stage) name of Bonnie Blue who had once managed 158 men in a two-week period. Ms. Phillips and Ms Blue have developed a niche in the sex industry by claiming to sleep only with “barely legal” men – teenagers in their first week of college. For her herculean stunt on October 19th, she set herself up in an Airbnb, replete with security guards, camera crews, and social media staff, and set to work. The oldest of her partners was a grandfather in his 60s, the youngest a young man who had just turned 18. Over 500 men applied, of which 101 were chosen to do the honours. Afterwards, Ms Phillips told the UK’s “Metro” newspaper that “my actual body, like my limbs, were aching. I felt like I’d been hit by a bus”. Yesterday afternoon in London, Ms Phillips decided to go one better, inviting several hundred men from off the street for an attempt to break a particularly obscene world record which did not involve penetrative sex.
I confess I deliberated whether to write about this incident. It is not “news”, after all, in the traditional sense, and it is not likely to affect any of the major issues of our time, whether you believe those to be climate change, immigration, your personal tax rates, or anything else. That said, there is little point shying away from the world in which we live – video of the momentous occasion has apparently been viewed millions of times. Meanwhile, a trailer for Ms. Blue’s latest onlyfans video, featuring her and five “fans” who applied to take part in it and leaving nothing whatsoever to the imagination, has been viewed 1.7million times on twitter, where it is freely available regardless of your age. These are Taylor Swift numbers in terms of engagement with content, so let nobody claim that it is not popular or culturally relevant. Ms Blue claims to have made £3millionSTG in a calendar year from her work. Ms Phillips, whatever else she may be short of (dignity, for example) is certainly not wanting for cash.
If modern society has one over-riding principle, it might be said to be that when it comes to the bedroom, just about anything goes, so long as it is consensual. This is a principle so broadly appealing that even a good number of us who consider ourselves traditional conservatives are inclined to concede it. Ms Phillips and her 101 partners did not commit any crimes, nor – at least on the obvious and immediate level – did they physically or financially harm anyone by their activities. Judging by the reported online views of the occasion, their exertions also appear to have provided entertainment to a considerable audience.
And yet.
It is an incontrovertible fact of life that a woman in the midst of sexual relations with 101 different men ceases to be, in a certain sense, a woman at all. She is an object. She is a tool. She is an implement. She is a toy. The men who applied to partake in these activities with her could not have been expecting conversation, or any kind of emotional connection, since there could hardly have been time. They had, we are told, four minutes each. They had basically the same experience as one might expect to have with a mechanical sex doll – all action, minus any boring human connection.
There are many questions here, and it is tempting in a piece like this simply to ask them and provide no answers: How much agency does Ms Phillips really have? Is she using these men, or are they using her? Is anyone really harmed by their collective activities?
The answer to the last one, I think, is an unambiguous “yes”. All of those involved are harmed, and debased, by this kind of thing, whether they know it or not. Ms Phillips, the star of the show, may well believe herself to be empowered and in charge of her own sexuality but it’s a safe bet that very few of the millions of men watching her being degraded are either concerned for her welfare or eager to respect her as a human being. If it is her desire – perhaps an as yet un-experienced desire – to have a relationship and children, then I’d wager safely that she’s made finding a long term partner more difficult for herself. This is to say nothing of any regret she might experience later in life. She will not always be 24 years old and reasonably attractive. There’s a whole life to come, which will forever be linked with these public performances.
As for the men? You might argue, I suppose, that they have committed no crimes and are engaged in consensual adult activities. But I’d suggest that what they’re actually doing is taking advantage of a troubled young woman in order to indulge their most base and repulsive desire. Broadly speaking, men in a society are supposed to protect and respect women in the same way they’d like other men to protect and respect their own female family members and friends. You can argue this one with me all you like, but to me what they are doing to and with Ms Phillips is so absurdly obviously against her own best interests that it’s not a million miles removed from taking advantage of somebody out of their mind on drugs or alcohol. A decent man would run away from this situation, not towards it.
And what about the viewers? If you want an example of how porn can warp and bend relationships and human sexuality, you won’t do much better than this. Millions of viewers – mainly men – are watching a woman be used and degraded for their own entertainment. And let’s be clear: The degradation and the using is the point. When there are 101 men and one woman, is most assuredly is not about her pleasure, or her enjoyment. It is about watching a young woman be reduced to a sex toy, and a thing. If you find yourself getting off on stuff like that, there are real questions to be asked about your attitudes to the women around you, I think.
Let’s go back to the first question: How much agency does Ms Phillips have? To be sure, she appears to be reaping a financial award for her activities, but in contract law there’s a vexxed issue about how consent must be “informed”. That is to say, a person entering a contract must be reasonably aware of the consequences of said contract. It’s why financial services ads end with a line about how you might lose money.
Does Ms Phillips know how she might feel about these events in five, ten, fifteen or fifty years? I’m not sure she does. So is she using these men, or are they using her, for a cheap thrill?
The feminist (well, some feminists) answer is the former: That she’s using them. I think that’s complete garbage. The whole point of the show – the reason people watch – is not to see Ms Phillips using men but to watch her be used by men.
Of the millions of people watching her content – snippets of which are freely available to people of all ages on twitter, thanks to its new policy about porn, how many are underage? How many are being introduced to sexuality as simply men using women for their pleasure? How many teenage girls will find that their first boyfriends expect them to be carbon copies of Ms Phillips?
All of this is deeply morally corrosive. It’s why we used to have laws against obscenity.
We should bring those laws back.