Only Fans Brit Who Banged 100 Men in One Day is Kind of Our Fault

By Ed Dutton

On 19th of October 2024, 23-year-old OnlyFans sensation Lillian Daisy Phillips rented out an Airbnb in Chelsea in order to have sex with 100 of her subscribers (of which she has 36,000) in a single day. Over a period of twelve hours, including occasional sustenance breaks, Phillips congressed with each of these enthusiastic fellows – one of them had flown all the way from Switzerland – for approximately 5 minutes each.

With every one of them having a documented STD test, she fellated them until they were fully erect, had penetrative sex with them for 5 minutes, and then manually stimulated them until they ejaculated over her face. In many cases, some of their semen made it into her eyes, meaning that, at the conclusion of her copulatory marathon, her eyes were stinging. The stench of gentleman relish was so potent by the end that the cameraman, who was filming a YouTube documentary on this extravaganza entitled “I Slept With 100 Men in One Day,” couldn’t help but retch upon entering the condom-strewn bedroom.

The anthropologist J.D. Unwin (1895-1936) argued in his 1934 book “Sex and Culture” that as a society becomes more developed, it tends to become more sexually repressed; turning sex into something highly taboo and semi-sacred: the means via which life, in the image of God, is perpetuated. This repression forces people to focus their sexual energies into objectives that are beneficial to the group – inspiring art, science or religion – and the more the sexual taboo is loosened, the less creative the society will be and the more the society can be said to be in decline. How far has Western culture descended that a young, reasonably intelligent woman is willing to do this and is, effectively, encouraged to do this, by a culture so sexualised that ordinary people are prepared to appear fully nude on television in such programs as Naked Attraction?

It has always been taboo to be a prostitute or to use prostitutes – possibly because it makes the resources-sex exchange of male-female relations so blatant and maybe because it de-sacralises sex, turning it into a mere financial exchange - hence all the men filmed in the documentary wanted their faces blurred and their voices disguised. So why is this young woman, a millionaire as a consequence of the ersatz pimping website that is OnlyFans, prepared to so flagrantly break this taboo?

Despite all her bluster, the intuitive wrongness of what she’d done hit even Phillips when she’d finished her orgy. She started crying, she claimed not to have “processed” what she’d done yet, and she plaintively noted “It’s kind of like being a prostitute.”

The reaction to this upper-middle class girl – she is from a wealthy Derbyshire family, her father Lindsay owns a cleaning business, and she attended the reasonably selective Sheffield University, where she studied nutrition – tells us a great deal about the tensions inherent in “feminism” and in “the cult of youth” and the cognitive dissonance these tensions lead to.

On the one hand, we are supposed to accept that men and women are psychologically equal, that we all have free will, and that this adult, a successful businesswoman, has made a conscious choice to do this, with the males paying for her service. On the other hand, we know this is nonsense, really, but can’t quite say so because it’s “sexist” or “right-wing.” Thus, Julie Bindel, in The Spectator, declared “Shame on the men exploiting Lily Phillips,” pointing out that prostitutes usually suffer from mental health problems. Even she couldn’t bring herself to fully expose the issues with the worldview that accepts what Phillips has done as “feminist” and “liberating,” so it’s time for us to do so.

Being born in 2001, Phillips was essentially raised in a proto-Woke society by Millennials who were rebelling against the time-tested traditions of the War generation. She was placed on a maladaptive roadmap of life. Phillips, if she is representative of Generation Z, was, to a significant degree, not directed to marry, have children and fear and respect something eternal, but, rather, to believe that males and females are equal, that (within proto-Woke boundaries) you can do whatever you want, sexual promiscuity is normal and an expression of freedom, and traditional morality is to be mocked; there being nothing beyond the material world. One chilling piece of evidence for this kind of upbringing is that her mother, Emma, is her “financial manager;” her pimp. However, on some level, Lillian will have absorbed elements of remnant traditional morality, including the idea that prostitution is wrong; it is objectifying yourself, it is blood money.

Beyond these elements of the maladaptive roadmap, we have Phillips being raised in a child-centred culture, which questions the idea that your elders probably know best and that youngsters must be guided by them. In the 1990s, even though 18 marked official adulthood, there was no internet (and no OnlyFans until 2016), so the consequences of a young person’s impetuous decisions, that might mortify them later, were heavily limited.

People in their early twenties are, relative to even those only 5 years older, less intelligent, less Agreeable, less Conscientious and more mentally unstable. But this didn’t used to matter so much. Magazines would reject their poorly written articles, publishers would ignore their derivative juvenilia novels and there was little question, without impressing the gatekeepers, of them getting on television. Now, via the internet, they can become world infamous overnight, something that may wreck the rest of their lives: What kind of man would want to have children with Phillips now, other than a thoroughly filthy fellow or someone so desperate that they’d overlook the realistic possibility of her adultery?

So, yes, Phillips’ followers are exploiting someone young and silly and, worse than that, we, as a society, have created a situation in which people who, let’s face it, aren’t really grown-ups yet, are treated as though they are fully intellectually mature. Worse still, due to their mollycoddled childhoods of naughty-steps and “strict no bullying policies,” they haven’t been prepared to deal with the harshness of adult life or prepared for the fact that terrible things can happen to them if they make poor decisions. Phillips has been failed by a decadent society.

But it gets worse. Not only is her youth relevant to this exploitation, but so is the fact that she clearly has psychological problems; you must have them in order to behave like this. What predicts being highly sociosexual?

One factor is having a fundamentally low sense of self-worth, such that you need people to find you sexually attractive, and you need evidence of it. In this regard, she admits “I get, like, serotonin” out of what she does, and that she really likes being recognized in the street as “that slut off the internet.” However, in the documentary she also makes the astonishing admission that she fears and feels guilty about not fully sexually pleasing her subscribers. This is a deeply Neurotic and insecure young woman. Hence, she dealt with the post-fornication fest cognitive dissonance of realising how immoral what she had done was by asserting that she now aimed to have sex with a thousand men in 24 hours.

The final reason why these men were exploitative of Lillian Phillips is, perhaps, the most taboo of all. The patriarchy developed because males wanted sex, females wanted investment, so males wanted a guarantee against being cuckolded: This was patriarchy; male control of female sexuality. If men needed to invest in their offspring for the offspring to survive ecological harshness, it would make sense for them to have sexually selected for females who were genuinely submissive to the patriarchy. Greek psychologist Menelaos Apostolou has argued in “Sexual Selection Under Parental Choice” that being adapted to patriarchy, females are adapted, to a greater extent than males, to a situation in which choices are made for them, usually by their parents, and particularly by their fathers. Left to their own devices, they are, accordingly, more likely to make maladaptive choices.

In effect, feminism and the cult of youth places most women in a very pronounced evolutionary mismatch in which we would not only expect them to be extremely unhappy but in which we would expect them to, in effect, make poor choices. They are much more strongly evolved than are males to be guided by their families and to be looked after by their families, by their husbands and by the broader society. In the absence of this, they may go for the wrong kind of men (and be exploited) or end up being highly sociosexual because the environment that would have previously controlled these impulses has collapsed.

I have heard people condemn Phillips as “vile” and her subscribers as “creeps.” But I would argue that she is a victim of a much more profound problem: Feminism and the push towards equality even between the immature and the mature. Women are in an extreme evolutionary mismatch, young people are in an extreme evolutionary mismatch . . . and the result is the making of terrible decisions, epitomized in what Lillian Daisy Phillips did on 19th October 2024.

---

For more based-science analysis of society and politics, become a subscriber at JollyHeretic.com!

---

Did you miss the last Dutton’s Digest? Click below:

If Korea’s Attempted Coup Surprises You, Then You Don’t Know Korea