[Want even more content from FPM? Sig up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
Editor’s note: Due to the sexually graphic nature of this story, reader discretion is advised.
In a harrowing documentary posted on YouTube a few weeks ago, America’s most famous online prostitute Lilly Philips documented one of her highest goals in life: to sleep with 100 men in twenty-four hours. The final tally was 101 men in just over 14 hours. The entire venture was broadcast to her millions of OnlyFans subscribers.
At the end of the film, after having sex with 101 men, Lily is seen bursting into tears. It was intense, she said, not for the faint-hearted. She would not recommend that most women engage in such an epic feat; however, doing it was something she had always wanted to do since, in her words, she was a slut in college and had probably slept with more than 1,000 men over a period of time.
Lily hails from an upper-middle-class English family. She has said money was not the motive; instead, having sex with lots of men made her feel empowered and incredibly happy. Her parents have given her their moral support. She speaks with her mother every day.
And yet after what was clearly an ordeal for her, Lily wept bitterly on camera. Perhaps it was the fact that being penetrated by 101 men in 14 hours was emotionally exhausting. Perhaps it was retrospective embarrassment. It may even have been the pestilential odor — described in the documentary — that hovered in the sex room like stale smoke after the encounters that overwhelmed her. Many of the men had failed to take an STD test. Lily, who did not use any condoms during oral sex — which she performed on the men to arouse them — was totally oblivious to how HIV is contracted.
Some of the men had ejaculated in her face and her eyes, and she complained that that had caused her eyes to sting. A more likely explanation for her tears is that this broken and damaged woman understood that, after sex with 101 total strangers, she had defiled herself beyond redemption. The validation she had been seeking from the encounters was not forthcoming.
But this is all history. Now Lily has declared that in January, 2025, she intends to have sex with1,000 men in a single day for the viewing pleasure of her voyeuristic OnlyFans subscribers. To apply you must send in a headshot and hold your photo ID close to your face. She allegedly intends to practice for the marathon by sleeping with around 300 men sometime between now and the monumental event.
The internet abounds with a new cabal of such women who are taking on sex with scores of men at one time. Recently Aella, another OnlyFans self-sex trafficker and prostitute, posted her experience of being gang-banged by 42 men for her birthday party — 17 of whom had the distinct privilege of “finishing inside Aella.” Aella had narrowed her 1,600 applicants down to the 42 men selected to attend her birthday bash.
My goal in this article is not to attempt to give some psychological analysis of why such women engage in self-harming and degrading behaviors. My aim is more modest. I submit that Lily Philips should be legally prevented from sleeping with 1,000 men in her planned January/February event.
I offer four logical reasons why intrusion by the state into the private affairs of this woman’s lurid planned endeavor is not only right — it is morally obligatory:
First, I submit that Lily Phillips is mentally ill and is not of sound mind. She should, therefore, be treated in the same way as an irresponsible minor.
One cannot say that she has some macabre death wish, or that she is simply acting out a dark fantasy. She is suicidal. She essentially wants to be harpooned to death by 1,000 men. Since we do have interventionist policies to protect those who engage in self-harming behaviors which include suicide, it is incumbent upon the state to prevent her from very likely killing herself via homicidal sexual intercourse.
Second, Lily is engaged in sex trafficking — which is illegal. She is sex trafficking herself and this should make no difference as to the prohibition of the act itself. As the 19th century English Philosopher John Stuart Mill noted, we do not permit consensual murder in any civilized society. Why? Because if each person were granted the right to have him or herself murdered, the logical terminus of such behavior would lead to the dissolution of civilized society. The prohibition against consensual murder supersedes any claim to individual rights, bodily autonomy, and personal sovereignty over one’s life.
Some social values supersede the tawdry rights of obscene individuals. Lily Phillips is engaging in consensual murder by contracting 1,000 men as her executioners. In effect, her self-sex trafficking is a good case in point for the abolition of all forms of self-sex trafficking — whether it be prostitution, pornography, sex with strangers broadcast on OnlyFans websites, or sex clubs that squat in and proliferate our cities.
I make a hard case here that the phenomenal and massive evisceration of one’s dignity in such cases is either evidence of the absence of agency, or the obliteration of agency via protracted self-evisceration. If one lacks agency in endeavors that are especially self-harming, the state must assume the default duty of protecting oneself from oneself. It’s a paternalistic argument; but then again, not all forms of paternalism are a priori or prima facie impermissible. There are higher social goods than autonomy and sovereignty — which are constrained by principles of justice — especially when they are used recklessly and in the service of destroying one’s life.
Third, I submit that the degradation of moral norms in a society, that may not directly violate another’s individual’s rights, still creates a putrid and depraved culture, one in which concupiscence and lasciviousness are so rampant that the moral socialization of children and their induction into the domain of the ethical become deeply compromised — if not impossible. Young girls see Lily Philips and Aella and their so-called career choices as candidates on which to pin their aspirational identities. This is made more permissible in a culture in which thousands of people have celebrated Lilly as a moral heroine, as a symbol of feminine freedom and liberation from alleged patriarchal norms that would subordinate women to the moral edicts of men. I should go a step further and suggest that if we have sunk that low in our civilizational mores, norms, and general moral atmosphere, then more ethical patriarchy is indeed vitally needed. (I have already made that argument here.)
I offer a fourth and final argument for a legal injunction against the horrendous and ill-conceived engagement of sex with a 1,000 men in a single day by a mentally ill young person. It would be one small step towards resetting the moral compass of a culture that has either veered in the direction of moral agnosticism or, as is more likely, pivoted towards a nihilistic form of subjectivism that will brook no standards, principles, and values outside the myopic viewpoints and salacious desires of individuals when it comes to finding meaning in actions that — as in the case of Lily Phillips — are inherently meaningless.