Why are they (probably all men or maybe very ugly women) angry? It's not because of vague abstractions like not having control over you, nor because they're libs. It's just because they're envious. And how could they not be? You describe it perfectly well in the first half of the article. That guy who has a bigger profile than you but makes half as much, the fact you can easily get free things with no effort if you choose to include a link in your bio, etc. They wish they could gain such privileges, but they know they never can, so they lash out in anger, telling you to suffer in a 'real job' like them, in an attempt to cope. This same energy can lead to trooning out.
Why are people angry? Because it is one in the eye for neoliberalism, for the decolonizing, multi-gender-inclusive values which your model's existence implies are not working, even though you are educated enough to know about them.
There are countless descriptions of how women made a living dependent on what they could offer to men--in the case of soldiers in the WWI for example, often on a short-term basis (the girls in "All Quiet on the Western Front" who lost interest in a man who was no longer fighting). Although many East European women, a subset of whom will ask a man his income on a first date, never really lost it, it happened especially after the collapse of the USSR (ref. "Nothing is True and Everything is Possible"). In the context of Vienna at the Zeitwende, a section of Stefan Zweig, "The World of Yesterday" discusses the kind of relationship with an "actress" depicted in Musil's novel "The Man without Qualities".
In the age of Trump, that old world is, for better or worse, returning. Many women will find themselves with the choice of marriage, or on- or offline courtesanship, and to the disgust of some feminists, may embrace or even enjoy their choice.
Your model is in part the thinking man's "Only Fans" (which I believe is a kind of paid pornography site), though to be fair your writing is good enough also to interest men who do not need your undoubted allure. Your very existence indicates, to members of what brilliant Substacker Aurelien calls "The Outer Party", that their world of Guardian-reader values is no longer viable. That is explosive.
Rose, this is less an essay and more a liturgy for the untamable.
You’ve put language to the economy of attention, desire, and disruption that many pretend not to see while secretly paying for front-row seats. What you call patronage, others call scandal, but only because they haven’t made peace with the feminine as both muse and menace.
This isn’t prostitution. It is a return to the wild market of Venusian energy, where presence has value and performance becomes spiritual, even when messy. You are not gaming the system. You are reminding us that the system was never neutral and you’re building an altar from the debris.
Your life is a live-wire critique of respectability. A strange beauty that doesn't audition for HR. A living middle finger to the institutional chokehold on art, voice, and power.
And maybe, just maybe, the next Renaissance will be funded by simps and Substack instead of bishops and bureaucrats.
It's interesting to reframe audience capture as potentially a spur to greatness. I relate also to the feeling of 'I would be doing this anyway' (so why not channel it?)
You're still the best writer on the internet.
Why are they (probably all men or maybe very ugly women) angry? It's not because of vague abstractions like not having control over you, nor because they're libs. It's just because they're envious. And how could they not be? You describe it perfectly well in the first half of the article. That guy who has a bigger profile than you but makes half as much, the fact you can easily get free things with no effort if you choose to include a link in your bio, etc. They wish they could gain such privileges, but they know they never can, so they lash out in anger, telling you to suffer in a 'real job' like them, in an attempt to cope. This same energy can lead to trooning out.
"Simps want me, job-havers fear me." Thank you for the kind words about Gabrielle!
sooo true x
Why are people angry? Because it is one in the eye for neoliberalism, for the decolonizing, multi-gender-inclusive values which your model's existence implies are not working, even though you are educated enough to know about them.
There are countless descriptions of how women made a living dependent on what they could offer to men--in the case of soldiers in the WWI for example, often on a short-term basis (the girls in "All Quiet on the Western Front" who lost interest in a man who was no longer fighting). Although many East European women, a subset of whom will ask a man his income on a first date, never really lost it, it happened especially after the collapse of the USSR (ref. "Nothing is True and Everything is Possible"). In the context of Vienna at the Zeitwende, a section of Stefan Zweig, "The World of Yesterday" discusses the kind of relationship with an "actress" depicted in Musil's novel "The Man without Qualities".
In the age of Trump, that old world is, for better or worse, returning. Many women will find themselves with the choice of marriage, or on- or offline courtesanship, and to the disgust of some feminists, may embrace or even enjoy their choice.
Your model is in part the thinking man's "Only Fans" (which I believe is a kind of paid pornography site), though to be fair your writing is good enough also to interest men who do not need your undoubted allure. Your very existence indicates, to members of what brilliant Substacker Aurelien calls "The Outer Party", that their world of Guardian-reader values is no longer viable. That is explosive.
“Besides, I’m physically incapable of working one of those jobs, even on amphetamines.” So funny. 🩷
Rose, this is less an essay and more a liturgy for the untamable.
You’ve put language to the economy of attention, desire, and disruption that many pretend not to see while secretly paying for front-row seats. What you call patronage, others call scandal, but only because they haven’t made peace with the feminine as both muse and menace.
This isn’t prostitution. It is a return to the wild market of Venusian energy, where presence has value and performance becomes spiritual, even when messy. You are not gaming the system. You are reminding us that the system was never neutral and you’re building an altar from the debris.
Your life is a live-wire critique of respectability. A strange beauty that doesn't audition for HR. A living middle finger to the institutional chokehold on art, voice, and power.
And maybe, just maybe, the next Renaissance will be funded by simps and Substack instead of bishops and bureaucrats.
Hard relate
If Jean Rhys is the exemplar, it's not exactly a pleasant way to make a living. I think I'd prefer accounting if I had to chose.
It's interesting to reframe audience capture as potentially a spur to greatness. I relate also to the feeling of 'I would be doing this anyway' (so why not channel it?)
Wow.