A chef licks syrup off a spoon in a viral reel; a cam performer does the same on OnlyFans. One gets a cookbook deal. The other gets banned. The difference isn’t morality—it’s about who holds the power to define what counts as "respectable."
In Intimate City, Manjima Bhattacharjya explores the intersection of phygital (physical + digital) sex work, urban spaces, and the unasked questions in research about Mumbai’s sex workers. On page 39, she quotes Professor Teela Sanders, who observes: “Female business entrepreneurs are recognising that their sexuality can be packaged in a way that can earn a living from men’s desire that go beyond basic sex acts.” The book made me question “the respectable content creators” on Instagram.
Today, cooking videos are increasingly morphing into seductive performances. Creators adopt roles borrowed from the pleasure and porn industries—think "Mommy" or "Daddy" meals—where food becomes a prop in a larger sexual spectacle. These videos thrive on Instagram and OnlyFans alike, yet the platforms treat them starkly differently.
OnlyFans is legally and socially demonized as a hub for "virtual sex work," with users in many countries facing obscenity-related risks. Instagram, meanwhile, is seen as a reputable space for monetizing "sanitized" content—a platform for the middle and upper classes. But both rely on user-generated material, allow creators to profit from their audiences, and benefit from the high engagement that sexual content inevitably draws.
The hypocrisy lies in how Meta polices sexuality. Instagram hosts two categories of sexual content creators: both commodify their appeal for engagement. One group is celebrated—brand deals, verification badges, influencer status. The other is shadow-banned, demonetized, or erased. Meta profits from lingerie ads and algorithmically boosted thirst traps, yet punishes those whose sexuality falls outside its narrow definition of respectability.
As Meena Seshu, founder of Mumbai based non-profit SANGRAM, argues, “Respectability is a weapon. They say we corrupt culture, but the culture profits from us.” Platforms like Meta extract value from sexual content while enforcing hierarchies: white, upper-caste, and class-privileged bodies are deemed "acceptable"; all others are deemed vulgar, relegated to the margins of both physical and digital worlds.
This raises another uncomfortable question: Do the "respectable" influencers acknowledge that they, too, leverage sex for clicks and sponsorships? Or do they frame their success as mere accident, talent, or charm?
Who gets to cross the line between "chef" and "cam performer" without consequences.