Wherein Gainer Patreons Fall Under My Weathered Gaze

If pressed to identify a single point of contention in the gaining community to typify the year 2019, I would point without hesitation to the subject of today’s post: Gainer Patreons, their proliferation, the backlash to that proliferation, and the backlash to that backlash. As an intersection of politics, sexuality, and internet culture, this is my kind of topic. Let’s go, baby.

Disclosure: As a not particularly affluent or horny person, I don’t subscribe to any gainer Patreons. I do, however, support a podcast, a YouTuber, and a Twitch streamer. That is to say, I’m not adverse to spending on independent creators. Indeed, should my bank account become as glutted as you are on average, dear reader, expect that trend of support to compound.

I contend the most common complaints against Gainer Patreons fall under two basic questions: 1) what is the morality of monetizing gaining, and 2) does said monetization ruin the community? I’m going to lay out each objection, examine the assumptions implied by each objection, and respond directly to the object with my own analysis. To make this less obnoxious to read, I’m going to refer to all crowd funding for gaining under the heading of Gainer Patreon or “GP.”

I. Morality

Moral Objection A: It isn’t right to monetize shoddy content.

This assumes 1) some GPs are of poor quality, and 2) monetary success does not justify immoral business practices.

Assumption 1: Some GPs are of poor quality.

I see this point slipped into a number of longer rants: the creator is asking too much for the quality they provide. Many ironic shitposts indicate likewise a general mistrust in the quality of GPs and their content.

To save time, I’m going to grant this assumption is true. Some GPs are of poor quality, and some are of very good quality.

Assumption 2: Monetary success doesn’t justify immoral business practices. 

This basically means that you can’t silence this debate by saying, “People pay for it therefore it’s worth paying for.” If only one gainer had a GP and he charged $50 a month for a single belly video, that isn’t worth it even if some people have so much disposable income that they don’t care about the price. The market is not god.

The deepening unease with the implications of our economic system are reflected in some sense in the assumptions made by this argument. There is an implicit expectation that in such a small gay community that human decency should guide our interactions with each other, especially when monetary gain is concerned. And I am willing to grant this assumption is true. What makes the most money is subservient to community morals.

Response to Moral Objection A: It isn’t right to monetize shoddy content.

Though I admit this objection is based in fair assumptions, it is not a sufficient reason to be against the rise of GPs. A far more reasonable response (by reasonable I mean ‘being in accordance with reason’ not ‘moderate’), is to criticize bad GPs for the lack of value they provide.

Moral Objection B: Monetizing gaining is greedy.

This assumes: 1) monetizing gaining can constitute monetary greed, and 2) monetary greed is bad and should be avoided.

Assumption 1: Monetizing gaining is greedy.

This assumption is unfair. There is a wide variety of tiers at which gainers ask for a share of your sweet, sweet cash. A few dollars a month is not, in and of itself, an unreasonable fee for something you want. Allow me to scrawl the screed, “Sex work is work.” And work deserves compensation. The rate of that compensation is up for debate, but if the funds that go into the GP are used according to the creator’s stated intentions, then he is indeed being payed for a form of sex work. And we stan workers on this blog.

Allow me to toss off a hot take: Even if a GP’s funds merely give the creator the comfort to vacation more frequently and his weight updates are few, that GP is more moral than the practice of stealing ballooning straight men’s Facebook pictures to repost on gainer Tumblrs (a conversation for another time, a guilty viewer of that practice writes).

In short, my response to Assumption 1 is that monetizing your gaining is not inherently greedy, though I freely admit that for some, greed gastronomical matches greed pecuniary.

Assumption 2: Monetary greed is bad and should be avoided.

I agree with this one. Greed is bad. Fight me.

Response to Moral Objection B: Monetizing gaining is greedy.

Monetizing gaining is not by nature greedy. You might be greedy and running a GP. Or it might be an economic boon that is the only thing that enables you to gain 50 pounds this year rather than 20 pounds. Use your thinking brain and look at the behavior of the GP creator. Is he here to express, entertain, titillate, and in general justify the cost of his work? Or is he cashing in on a fad, manipulating patrons with emotional abuse, or continually demanding more and more without corresponding results?

II. Community

Community Objection A: GPs clutter gainer social media.

This assumes 1) there are enough GPs to constitute clutter and 2) such clutter is bad and should be avoided.

Assumption 1: There are enough GPs to constitute clutter.

I agree. There are more GPs than the size of our community can reasonably drown out with other posts—not to mention the many posts about the Gainer Patreon phenomenon.

Assumption 2: Clutter is bad and should be avoided.

I basically agree that this assumption is fair. Spam sucks. Clutter sucks.

Response to Community Objection A: GPs clutter gainer social media.

If GPs can become unpleasant clutter, we must ask what this condemns: GPs themselves, the structure of gainer social media, the behavior of men under patriarchy, economic structures, or some other cause.

Gainer social media platforms implement rules about GP advertising, implying perhaps those rules are poorly enforced or too softly worded. Likewise, there are tools to limit one’s exposure to GPs, such as using curated newsfeeds or blocking spammy creators. In a world of monetized convenience, however, blocking isn’t a reasonable solution. And I’m not comfortable with the answer, “Just deal with it.” That’s lazy at best.

Patriarchy makes us men shittier than we otherwise would be (more on that in a future post). Hard to do much about that in the near future.

We’ll get back to economics presently.

My current response is that we should strive to limit GP clutter on gainer social media, but not expunge it. Many of these creators deserve their income and deserve a platform that lets people seek out those creators’ GPs.

Community Objection B: GPs commercialize gainer communities.

This assumes 1) GPs are a form of commercialization, 2) their presence does indeed commercialize gainer spaces, and 3) commercialization is bad.

Assumption 1: GPs are a form of commercialization.

I agree with this. You can argue until you’re as blue in the face as particular variants of gainer porn, but the fact that people feel some degree of commercialization from GPs is evidence enough for me. Indeed, even if our senses become dulled to GPs, I’d still argue that the influx of monetary concerns into gainer social media makes it feel more like a YouTube where the viewers exist to facilitate the creators rather such platforms being a place of true community where are all welcome as equals. (A noble goal toward which we should still strive despite our manifest failures.)

Assumption 2: The presence of GPs does commercialize spaces in which they are present.

I’ve hinted I agree with this, but let me say it forthright: people cannot simply ignore a subset of Grommr social media without it affecting their perceptions. Feelings of commercialization are inevitable with the introduction of GPs into our communities.

Assumption 3: Commercialization of gainer spaces is bad.

This is a massive subject that begs me to do far more research than I’m willing to do. So let me talk out of my ass instead. I kinda of agree that commercialization is undesirable. If I described a functional world in which advertisements didn’t exist, that would sound nice, no?

“Functional,” you repeat to me. Yes, yes, I know. As things stand, there is no functional world without commercialization. And perhaps there never will be. But how much of this unpleasant necessity should we tolerate in gainer spaces? Well, that brings me to:

Response to Community Objection B: GPs commercialize gainer communities.

You shouldn’t sit back and do absolutely nothing. And I applaud gainer platforms that have rules in place to curtail the commercialization of said platforms. But remember that behind these GPs are an assortment of people who want comfort and success just like you. Some of them are pursuing this ethically, while others do not.

The commercialization of gaining platforms can be moderated, but it can’t be stopped any more than you can stop people from using social media. I’d say that GPs are contributing to a change in gaining communities, but I believe it isn’t as severe as some claim, and we should tolerate a degree of it if it means supporting worthwhile gainer sex work.

Wherein I Reveal it was about Capitalism All Along

I am partly jesting, of course, but perhaps a little factoid has been rattling around in that squishy brain of yours: many of us lack money. And gaining is fucking expensive. The success of self-funding platforms has come about partly because of insufficiencies in our economic system.

In the US, for example, real wages for most have been stagnant for decades. You can’t expect all of us to be lucky enough to get an affluent job that gives us enough money and permission to gain to our hearts’ content. Seeking a comfortable life is not a crime. But that’s easier said than done, and for a minority of creative and dedicated gainers, it makes sense to start a GP. If it takes off, more power to them.

Therefore, if the abundance of gaining monetization frustrates you, you’re not mad at gainers or gainer culture, you’re mad at late capitalism.

Allow me to remind you that We Live in a Society, and gaining culture’s failures don’t trace back to our unique weakness or corruption. We fall as all of society falls because the systems that creature our frameworks of thought and behavior have by their nature pushed us toward this unpleasant status quo.

Then what the fuck is the solution? Ending capitalism? Fat chance of that. I have three things to say that we can do something about today:

1. Support gainers with content you believe in.

I’ve said some negative things about GPs, but I genuinely believe that, as long as we have our current systems, they provide an ad hoc solution to the problem of gaining’s expense. I can think of multiple creators who are putting genuine effort into their work and deserve support from people who enjoy that work. Go forth and identify those people. If you have an extra dollar, grant them a modicum of relief from the financial stress of getting fat in current year.

2. Your feelings are valid.

Even if I make fun of people who glorify old gainer communities as superior, I can’t deny that not every change has been good, and there are often very legitimate reasons people find current trends upsetting. Don’t let people shame you into silence. Rather, find out why you feel that way and, more importantly:

3. Hold gainer community platforms to account.

Platforms can’t change society, but we can put pressure on them not to conform to society too horribly. Understand their rules, ask for appropriate amendments, and see those rules are followed without being a goddamn cop about it.

Wherein I Conclude This Mess

I wish I had a rousing conclusion. I wish I could tell you that the Gainer Patreon Controversy of 2019 will be confined to said year, but we both know that’s not going to be the case. Yes, the market has or will saturate and that may have some effect, but Gainer Patreons are here to stay. It’s healthy to recognize that many of them provide value to which financial recompense is more than acceptable.

Try to forge a community of empathy and mutual support. And grab a second helping tonight. You look hungry.