The Morality of OnlyFans and Sexually Explicit Content
An Analysis via Kantian Ethics
Sex work has transitioned over time from physical to primarily digital. While the medium has changed, the stigma of recent centuries remains. OnlyFans, a content hosting subscription service used primarily by sex workers to share pornographic content, told their users “sexually explicit” content would no longer be allowed on the platform in August 2021. This stimulates the question: should sexually explicit content be hosted behind paywall platforms like OnlyFans?
In this article, I seek to defend this new age of sex work supporting the idea that sexually explicit content should be allowed on the OnlyFans platform. My argument is founded on the failure of Kantian deontological principles to show that everything from casual sex to paywalled pornographic content is immoral. I begin by rebutting Kant’s theory that casual sex is morally impermissible because it uses a person as a mere means without a subsequent end. From there, I defend the idea that OnlyFans is no different to casual sex, despite requiring monetary exchange (like prostitution) and being digital (like pornography). Finally, I conclude by summarising my argument to support sexually explicit content on OnlyFans.
Background: Sex Work and OnlyFans Controversy
Sex work has existed for millennia. Dating back to the Sumerians of 2400 B.C., the word for “prostitute” was included as an available profession (Procon.org, 2013). Only in recent centuries has it come under scrutiny as a profession, particularly after the prevalent associated between prostitution and contagion (Bullough, 1986).
In the modern era, via the founding of the internet, the domain of sex work has expanded beyond the physical touch of prostitution to digital content. Pornography, chat rooms, naked pictures, and other forms of explicit content have become available and in demand for millions if not billions of people. This market is now highly commoditised, and there are frequent innovations to tease sexual desires.
OnlyFans, a digital content subscription service that allows creators to earn money from subscribing “fans”, is a recently popular platform. It has been named the “paywall of porn” (Bernstein, 2019). Initially, OnlyFans was for everyone; however, the entertainers of the internet have deemed OnlyFans, instead of Patreon or any other service, the place for porn. This is where the difficulty lies: OnlyFans didn’t want this claim to fame. It’s bad for business: they are blocked on Apple’s App Store for containing too much explicit content, and banks are penalising them for processing sex worker payments. Despite attempts, they haven’t been able to shake off this reputation. That is why, on August 19th, 2021, OnlyFans announced it would ban “sexually explicit” content (Harder, 2021). The implications were huge: many explicit content creators on the platform (the majority of creators) were now reliant on the income generated from their OnlyFans accounts. Simply switching to another platform would have high costs of content loss, subscriber turnover, and security complications. While OnlyFans halted their decision to ban sexually explicit content just a week later, it raises the question: was OnlyFans right to ban sex work in the first place?
One reason, as mentioned above, is that sex work has a particular social stigma for being unlawful, discredited, or even disgraceful (Refinery29, 2019). This social degradation of the profession comes from cultural views that have been reinforced by varying political views towards sex work globally. In some countries like the United States (bar Nevada), sex work is completely criminalised, branding sex workers as outlaws. In others it is decriminalised, but support is not offered, leading to secretive and dangerous activity for workers. These political views are founded on what people believe to be morally acceptable. One framework that is commonly associated with the condemning of sex work is Kantian deontology.
OnlyFans and Kantian Ethics
Kantian ethics is not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of OnlyFans. However, sexual activity without the purpose of reproduction or bonding between man and women is a relevant point of objectification in Kantian deontology. This, at its core, is what the sexually explicit content on OnlyFans is for a Kantian: the creator of the content is objectified and used as a mere means. It is different to casual sexual intercourse in the sense that it is digital (like pornography) and there is a paywall (like prostitution); however, in basic terms, a viewer is being pleasured by objectifying the body of a creator. Before considering the implications of the sexual activity being paid for and viewed online, we must think about the activity itself — the moral permissibility of sexual intercourse or other sexual acts.
In Kant’s Lecture On Ethics (Heath & Schneewind, 1997, pg. 155–157), he argues that casual sex, and by extension stimulating oneself sexually by using another person is treating them as a mere means. They are degraded as an “instrument of service”, sacrificing body and mind to satisfy sexual appetite as an object of pleasure. There is no end — the person is not treated as an autonomous, rational agent who can pursue aspirations. In deontological terms, this is morally unacceptable. On the other hand, if sexual activity is pursued with the means to respect each other as a pact of long-term relationship (such as marriage), then Kant would argue the interaction is not “transitory”, but rather gives partners mutual power over one another (McDaniel, n.d., pg. 8). This idea will be mentioned later in support of OnlyFans.
The argument Kant proposes against casual sexual interaction can be undermined in three ways. Firstly, Kant reduces sex to an unrealistic form of untamed desire, almost like an insatiable hunger. If you were starving, you wouldn’t only eat your favourite meal — you would eat anything as a means to satisfy your ends of hunger. Sexual activity is not like this. The desire for someone or a group of people is explicit and is not specific to a single part of the body, such as the genitalia. For example, you might be attracted to your high school crush or athletes but not attracted to the same sex. Likewise, one might desire male genitalia but not desire his or her father’s genitals. This idea contradicts Kant’s argument that casual sex, and by abstraction stimulating oneself sexually by use of another person, is merely instrumental. There is a logic to sexual satisfaction that is much more selective than hunger or other raw human desires, suggesting there may be more to sex than just the objectification of another body as if it were a bag of flesh.
Kantian ethics is not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of OnlyFans.
Another reason for rejecting the idea of casual sex being immoral, as proposed by Kant, is the lack of distinction Kant makes between sexual activity and other physical interactions between humans. A masseuse, for example, might be seen as being used as a means to the end of your muscles being relaxed, yet Kant makes no qualm against massages. If an adequate distinction between sexual interaction and other physical activity were made, his argument would be sounder. Provided these counterarguments, a more suitable moral understanding of sexual activity can be found in Irving Singer’s The Morality of Sex: Contra Kant (McDaniel, n.d., pg. 11; Singer, 2015). As long as sexual activity considers the autonomy of the other people involved, to the extent that they are not objectified and the interaction is “mutually beneficial”, then it should be morally permissible.
OnlyFans Versus Casual Sex: Monetary Transactions and Digital Content
Even if a Kantian was persuaded by the defence of causal sexual activity above, it would still be argued that the further you go down the sex work rabbit hole, the more transactional things become. Prostitution, for example, is less about an explicit desire for a person and more about the release of sexual lust in return for payment. Digital sexual content, like pornography, is primarily (and often exclusively) about stimulating sexual excitement from the comfort of a screen. Neither of these activities is personal in any shape or form, or so it seems, and thus may be argued to be more objectifying and lacking the respect of a person’s autonomy.
Regarding prostitution, it is easy to think of many morally acceptable actions that become immoral once they are exchanged for monetary value; and one might argue the same for casual sex. For example, it is moral to be friends with someone, but it is immoral to be friends with them because you are being paid to do it — this would be using a person as a mere means. However, the clear distinction between this example and casual sex is the idea that the prostitute has willingly signed up for this agreement. There is a clear understanding of the service the prostitute provides and the payment they receive. As such, I would argue that the autonomy of the prostitute is maintained — they can continue to pursue aspirations and has accomplished an end of money, just as the customer has accomplished an end of sexual gratification.
There are two reasons to support the idea that OnlyFans being digital does not change the arguments in favour of sexual activity not objectifying a person. Firstly, we can think of other platforms where something permissible in-person is permissible online. For example, a fitness instructor at the gym versus a video online. Allowing someone to manipulate your body to lift weight correctly is morally permissible, and so is benefitting from their online personal training program. This is analogous to the difference between physical, sexual stimulation and pornography — the means used to achieve an end are the same. Secondly, in the case of OnlyFans, there is more to watching sexually explicit content than stimulation. Anyone can watch pornography for free; rather, users on OnlyFans are looking for something more emotional and personal. Quoted from Ms. Harwood, one of the top OnlyFans creators: “want the opportunity to get to know somebody” as if on social media, “I’m like their online girlfriend” (Bernstein, 2019; Shane, 2021). This is supported by the Kantian logic about marriage mentioned above. In summary, this use-case pushes OnlyFans beyond the realms of pure sexual content: emotions and personal relationships are built into the platform as well, blending the distinction between a girlfriend and a live-cam pornstar.
In this section, I have argued that the morals involved in casual sexual stimulation physically versus digitally and or behind a paywall do not change. As such, the sexually explicit content on OnlyFans should be just as acceptable as casual sex, weakening the Kantian arguments against such habits, and supporting sex workers in their struggles to be respected as a profession and supported politically.
So What?
By undermining the application of Kantian deontological principles towards sex work, I have constructed this argument to support the existence of sexually explicit content. By defending casual sex as not being an objectifying activity and then extending this logic through examples and logic surrounding sex worker transactions, I have extended this defence to sexually explicit content on OnlyFans. This defence thereby critiques OnlyFans’ decision to nearly ban such content on the platform. If anything, one might argue under the premises used in this paper that OnlyFans accomplishes more moral good in the eyes of Kantian philosophy than prostitution or porn. Specifically, the paywall allows for more compensation directly into content creators’ hands, creates a barrier to entry for users that might abuse these workers or shouldn’t be watching such content, and further supports the autonomy of sex work as a profession. This is particularly important given the struggles sex workers can go through, as aforementioned.
References
Bernstein, J. (2019). How OnlyFans Changed Sex Work Forever — The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/style/onlyfans-porn-stars.html
Bullough, V. L. (1986). leah lydia otis. Prostitution in Medieval Society: The History of an Urban Institution in Languedoc. (Women in Culture and Society.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1985. Pp. xvii, 240. $22.50. The American Historical Review, 91(2), 374–375. https://doi.org/10.1086/AHR/91.2.374
Harder, M. (2021). OnlyFans sex workers still haunted by porn-ban debacle | Fortune. https://fortune.com/2021/10/09/onlyfans-sex-workers-porn-ban-subscribers/
Heath, P., & Schneewind, J. B. (1997). Immanuel Kant: Lectures on ethics.
McDaniel, J. (n.d.). Prostitution and Casual Sex: An Examination of Kantian Ethics and the Moral Acceptability of Prostitution.
Procon.org. (2013). Historical Timeline — Prostitution — ProCon.org. https://prostitution.procon.org/historical-timeline/
Refinery29. (2019). How I Make $500k A Year As A Sex Worker | Truth Told | Refinery29 — YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAAHWq-MzfA
Shane, C. (2021). OnlyFans Isn’t Just Porn ;) — The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/18/magazine/onlyfans-porn.html
Singer, I. (2015). The Morality of Sex: Contra Kant. Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1163/156851600750133333, 1(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1163/156851600750133333
As you might realize, I normally write about data science. However, after taking a course on the application of ethics, I decided to write this article on a controversial and contemporary topic such as OnlyFans. So here I am.
If you like the way I write, feel free to check out my blog or follow me on Twitter!
Thanks for reading.
