The Political Economy of Desire: Sexual Liberalization and the New Frontier of Commodity Fetishism
I believe that the foundation of the world of thought lies in the material world. Although the world of ideas exhibits a certain degree of autonomy, this autonomy is limited to the extent that the material world permits it. At this point, I would say that what has made feminism possible is the advancement in kitchen appliance technology, particularly the refrigerator and the induction stove.
However, in this article I will discuss a shift in mindset whose impact and medium-term consequences we are only now beginning to see: the liberation of sexuality.
In 1960, the FDA approved the first oral contraceptive, Enovid, which was a combination of progesterone and estrogen. The immediate and direct result of this was the '68 generation and the sexual revolution. Although birth control methods such as condoms and withdrawal date back to ancient times, they were either cumbersome, had a high failure rate, required surgery, or posed a life-threatening risk.
With Enovid, humanity had succeeded for the first time in history in effortlessly and almost completely bringing the most dangerous sexually transmitted disease under control: children
Unlike other sexually transmitted problems, it persists even after the death and also places a great burden on the carrier. Once this was brought under control, free sexuality could finally take root as an idea, and this process began with the ’68 generation. The sexual revolution had promised, in theory, a utopia where everyone could freely access sexuality. However, as Eva Illouz has noted, when put into practice, this gave rise to the concept of “sexual capital.” Once the "restrictive" rules imposed by traditional morality were lifted, sexual attractiveness and social status became primary sources of influence.
Just as capital accumulates in the hands of a few in a capitalist free-market economy, a structure has emerged in the sexual marketplace where desire is concentrated among a specific minority, while the rest remain below the threshold of “sexual impoverishment''. I prefer to interpret incel and femcel culture, from this perspective, as a proletarian rage against “distributive injustice.”
Of course, capitalism is a political economy system of solutions. It is believed that if there is a problem, it can be solved by an ingenious entrepreneur turning it into a commodity. The solutions available today are OnlyFans, digital dating platforms, AI companions, or the normalization of sex work.
All of these are, in fact, attempts to alleviate this tension by turning sexuality into a “public service” or a “commodity that can be purchased” . Because what is a problem for some people can be a source of profit for others. If something is scarce and distributed unequally, capitalism standardizes it and assigns it a price. The danger here, however, is that a transaction replaces a human connection. I am not sure how the beneficiaries of the distribution of sexual resources can accept, without discomfort, the fact that the asset they have has a price tag in the market.
The greatest problem this transition will create is the reification of human beings. When sexuality is viewed as a commodity, the “mechanization of desire” and the “deepening of the class divide” become apparent. What I mean by the mechanization of desire is the degradation of the human body and emotion to a mere “service provider.” This represents the extreme manifestation of Marx’s theory of “alienation”; the individual becomes alienated from their own desire and from their part. What I mean by the deepening of the class divide is the emergence of a future scenario in which “quality” and “organic” sexuality becomes a luxury accessible only to the upper classes, while “synthetic” or “purchased” sexuality becomes the opium of the masses.
Since I view taking a normative stance in this situation as disrespectful to people’s preferences, I do not have any particular positive or negative perspective on this change. I am focusing on defining the situation and identifying potential issues. However, I must also say that I see no difference between people who do not view the unequal distribution of sexual opportunities as a problem and capital owners who do not view income inequality as a problem.
From a Foucauldian perspective, I think it is also necessary to address how the system governs the “sexually dispossessed” (the incel/femcel demographic). Incel culture is no longer viewed merely as a sociological phenomenon, but as a “security threat” (a hotbed of radicalization). We must recognize that the state is attempting to rehabilitate and keep this “surplus population” under control. To this end, certain control mechanisms -such as ministries of loneliness and social integration programs -have begun to be implemented in various countries. However, rather than solving the problem, these measures aim to monitor and contain it. This situation reminds me of Yorgos Lanthimos’s film The Lobster, in which people who fail to find a partner are transformed into animals after a certain period of time
In addition to everything I have said, there is one final point that could be another issue. The complete commodification of sexuality and the breakdown of relationships are leading to a decline in birth rates and, consequently, jeopardizing the supply of the “new workforce” and “consumers” that capitalism requires. Capitalism is undermining its own future (its demographics) through the very process of sexual liberation and commodification it has created. However, when we consider the rapid progress we have made in AI and automation technology, this could represent an effort to find a solution to this problem.
The most sophisticated example of these "solutions" offered by the system is the new generation of interaction we see today on platforms like OnlyFans. Historically, the phrase "Love for Sale" -which sex workers used to display on their signs -actually promised more than just a physical transaction; it held the promise of a kind of intimacy, listening, and the healing of emotional voids. Today, OnlyFans has transformed this old tradition into a digital factory by removing pornography from being merely an “object of viewing” and instead marketing an illusion of intimacy where the user can “talk” to the creator.
However, the real turning point here is that this intimacy itself has been reduced to an industrial production line. Behind those digital exchanges where the user believes they are forming a “personal” connection, there is often neither the content creator nor any genuine emotion; the person on the other end is either a professional messaging specialist (chatter) or an advanced AI bot. This signifies not only the commodification of intimacy but also its complete simulation. Humanity experiences the need to connect with another person as such an acute “scarcity” that it has become willing to pay a price even for a completely fake/algorithmic replica of that need.
As a result, the journey of sexual liberation that began with Enovid in 1960 has, paradoxically, led us to a marketplace where our deepest human need -intimacy- has become entirely mechanized. In this dystopia, where the upper classes preserve their “organic” bonds as status symbols while the rest are consoled by the fake compassion of AI bots, the human spirit has become an inventory item priced in every respect. That old sign on the counter continues to whisper history’s most honest yet coldest truth on today’s high-resolution digital screens:
Love for Sale.
21 April 2026 / Montreal
