Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Every now and then, it appears some girl on social media who had sex with an unbelievable quantity of men in a short period of time. The other day, it was an Australian woman; more recently, an English girl named Lily Phillips. The latter became even more talked about because, contrary to her own expectations (and, apparently, those of the general public), she felt sick and cried after having sex with 101 men in less than 24 hours. The English woman is only 23 years old. She reported feeling robotic and said she could not remember all the men she had had sex with in that short period of time. She also regretted not having given all of them the pleasure they desired.

Well, having sex with a battery of men is, throughout the history of humanity, the disastrous fate of defenseless women in lost wars. When their husbands and fathers were killed, they saw the enemy soldiers arrive, who would plunder their village and rape them. To avoid such a sad fate, many women committed suicide. If a woman does it without a serious coercion, we can say that we are facing an unnatural phenomenon that demands an explanation.

Lily Phillips is an OnlyFans “model.” In other words, her interest in such an activity was to create “content” for her subscribers to see. You don’t pay to have sex with her (as in normal prostitution), but rather to see her subjected to the most varied sexual situations: having sex with one, two, three, even a hundred, perhaps in a row. Lilly Phillips didn’t do what she did to directly provide pleasure to the row of men, but rather to receive money for it. Her goal was to break the record of a Polish woman who had sex with 919 men in 24 hours, but she stopped at 101 after 14 hours. Presumably, being the world record holder would attract new subscribers to her OnlyFans. Thus, we can say that the girl’s action took place in a capitalist context.

But let’s imagine that this was a communist or Nazi propaganda film. A beautiful Soviet, Chinese or Nazi girl is ready to have sex with as many soldiers as she can find, because some mad scientist created a chart that showed a correlation between sex and performance in battle. After having sex with a hundred men, the tearful, visibly shaken girl says she regrets not having been able to please all the soldiers and make Helmsman Mao happy. In this context, there would be a flood of theses and dissertations pointing out the brainwashing carried out by totalitarian regimes.

Not that universities today praise capitalism, of course. But when we talk about brainwashing and propaganda, our imagination likes to grab the visible face of a Great Leader, a government, a State. When it comes to the market or capitalists, everything seems more diffuse, because they are (at least in theory) an innumerable myriad of unconnected agents. So, there were plenty of people who stoned the girl, saying that she was playing the victim, but she was a free woman who was entirely responsible for her own actions. Really?

Whether in a totalitarian society or in a democratic society, people guide their conduct based on morality. If a communist boy tells on his parents, or if a neighbor turns in a Jew, they are acting in accordance with the morality of the current regime – they didn’t invent anything. In the vast majority of human societies that exist or have existed under the sun, women do not go out and have sex with strangers, except in cases of rape and sexual slavery. If more and more women are having sex like this (at raves, for example), but without being raped or enslaved, then it is because there is a change in morality. And we don’t need to be sociologists or anthropologists to see this: the Sexual Revolution, based on the invention of the contraceptive pill, imposed a change in morality. This change in morality redefined the purpose of sex and women’s life project. Women should live for their careers, and sex should be for recreation. Unsurprisingly, the birth rate has plummeted since then.

When we talk about coercion in the capitalist order, we think of economic coercion. However, Lily Phillips comes from a wealthy family – which, in theory, should make her even freer. The most important thing about this poor girl’s story, in my opinion, is that her parents and even grandparents approve of her “career” and are proud of her. What’s more, her mother takes care of the finances. (See this article from Mail Online.)

If she grew up in a family like that, what chance did she have of succeeding in life? Of course, no one is destined to follow their parents’ morality, but that’s the normal thing to do. Trying to be a good daughter, the wealthy girl ended up having her mother as her pimp – without this being a crime, nor something frowned upon by society as a whole.

Morality is a guide to action, and the morality received from parents is the first guide of any good-natured person. For this very reason, contrary to what liberalism preaches, morality is a public matter of the utmost importance and should never be confined to the private sphere.