When attention becomes currency: navigating the ethics of ‘sex sells’ in philanthropy.
Sex sells; from soda to automobiles and everything in between. But should sex sell charitable giving? Only Philanthropy is a new fundraising initiative created by Milana Vayntrub, best known as an actress, comedian, and the “AT&T girl.” Its name a play on OnlyFans, Vayntrub’s site trades exclusive photo content for “real-world impact.” Her tag line, “Using the male gaze to fight the blaze,” is an indication of her intended audience. Each level of giving offers supporters tastefully risqué photos, with each donation level getting flirtier. In an interview with Variety, Vayntrub shares her idea of taking male attention and turning it into resources for women, “redefining who controls the financial power of online attention.” Her experiment has proven to be successful. With two campaigns under her belt (no pun intended), she has raised over $500,000 for individuals in crisis. Using one’s body for good is not a new concept, but where does innovation cross the line into exploitation?
There’s a spectrum of ways people use themselves for fundraising. These tactics work because they tap into fundamental human psychology—curiosity, social currency, and the human fascination with bodies and attraction. There are low-risk opportunities like No Shave November or the No Makeup Selfie campaigns; both raise awareness and encourage participants to donate to cancer causes. We see the physical buy-in ramp up in events like the Ice Bucket Challenge, which initially went viral for the ALS Association and most recently by the University of South Carolina. Challenges like these are simple and harmless uses of ourselves for good.
The concept starts to get murkier when we see a more direct commodification for charity. Events like charity date auctions, where people volunteer to be auctioned off for a date to the highest bidder, or sexy calendar fundraisers offer a more transactional approach of selling yourself for charity. Sexuality clearly takes center stage in drag show events, like this one in New Haven, CT. But here we start to see some open discomfort with using this type of fundraising. The philosophy of Only Philanthropy represents a logical progression of this trajectory, but it raises some interesting questions on the ethics of “sex sells” in fundraising.
There's a concern about treating human beings—or access to them—as commodities with price tags. Should human dignity remain outside market transactions, even for good causes? How far is too far? The line between leveraging personal appeal and commodifying a person for charity is fuzzy, and only seems to be getting fuzzier. There’s a risk that the constant escalation of attention-seeking tactics can harm philanthropy. If our culture starts to normalize these methods, many nonprofits may feel pressure to follow. It also pushes the boundary of how far someone is willing to go to raise money for good. While Vayntrub was able to raise $500,000 with risqué photos, how much could she raise if she took it all off? Is it worth it for a willing participant and a charitable cause?
In discussing this topic with friends and family, there was a fascinating range of reactions. Ultimately, the general sentiment seemed to be that “the goal of philanthropy is getting the most money to those who need it with the fewest barriers. If this raises boatloads of money, then go for it.” Then why did it also make many uncomfortable?
I think it has to do with the “without charity” test—would this activity be considered ethical or acceptable in a non-charitable context, or are we using the charitable purpose to justify something that might otherwise be problematic? When viewed through this lens, skipping a shave or a coat of mascara are a natural part of a lazy day. However, auctioning off a person? That can mimic some historically exploitative practices. Only Philanthropy hovers somewhere in the gray territory.
"Sex sells" isn't inherently unethical. These tactics clearly work and have for decades. We have to take a closer look at the appropriateness based on the organization type, cause, and community values, and apply the “without charity” question. Those of us in fundraising know that innovation requires intentionality. Vayntrub’s experiment has proved successful, but is that a success we want in the culture of philanthropy?
