MLM in the Adult Industry – Taboo or Necessity?

Introduction

Multi-level marketing (MLM) systems have a bad reputation in public. We often associate them with manipulation, empty promises, and the exploitation of personal relationships. In the adult industry, this resistance is even more pronounced: any form of structured reward is quickly labeled as a new form of pimping.

But the question is not whether MLM is good or bad. The real question is: who has control over the structure and who benefits from the value created.

Why is MLM even present in this industry?

The adult industry has been operating with multi-level structures for decades – it just rarely calls them that. Agents, intermediaries, platforms, and 'referrers' collect commissions from the work of others, often without transparent rules and without responsibility to those who create the value.

The difference is that these structures are invisible and one-sided. Money flows upwards, risk downwards. When this is called MLM, it becomes a problem. When it is called an 'industry standard', it becomes invisible.

The taboo stems from abuse, not the model

MLM became a taboo because it was often used in a way that exploited people's social vulnerability. Promises of quick earnings, pressure to recruit others, and non-transparent income distribution created justified resistance.

But this does not mean that every multi-level system is necessarily harmful. It means that a form without ethical constraints is dangerous. As with any other economic structure, the key is not the model, but the way it is used.

When does MLM become a necessity?

In an industry where workers are systematically excluded from classic financial and advertising channels, organic recommendation becomes one of the few ways to grow. Visibility, trust, and access are not bought with advertising, but with personal connections.

In such an environment, the question is: will this value remain informal and exploited – or will it be structured, transparent, and fairly rewarded.

MLM becomes a necessity when:

there is no access to classic marketing channels,

platforms collect disproportionate commissions,

and the community itself creates most of the trust and traffic.

Ethics as the dividing line

The key difference between an exploitative and a sustainable MLM model is ethics. In an ethical model:

there are no promises of passive enrichment,

commissions are clear and limited,

participation is voluntary,

and there are no penalties for leaving or inactivity.

Such a model does not replace work – it rewards contribution to the community. Recommending is not an obligation, but an option. Value is not created by recruiting people, but by actual work and trust.

Community instead of a pyramid

The biggest danger of MLM models is the concentration of power at the top. When the system closes in on itself, it becomes a pyramid. The alternative is a community model, where the rules are determined collectively, and profits are distributed.

Initiatives like Dobra Družba are trying to turn the multi-level logic around: not as a tool of control, but as a mechanism of cooperation. Commissions are not a reward for position, but for actual contribution.

Transparency or nothing

In the adult industry, transparency is a condition for legitimacy. Any model that hides the rules creates a breeding ground for abuse. Therefore, MLM without complete transparency has no place in this industry.

If the conditions are clear, if the money flows are traceable, and if every participant has the opportunity to understand the system, the multi-level structure is no longer a taboo. It becomes a tool of self-organization in an environment where other tools are often absent.

Between idealism and reality

Ideally, the adult industry would not need any multi-level models. But reality is different. As long as classic systems are closed, alternative models will exist. The question is not whether we can ban them, but whether we can design them in a way that they do not reproduce old forms of exploitation.

MLM in the adult industry is not automatically evil. It is a symptom of exclusion. And at the same time, an opportunity for the value that is already present in the community to finally be distributed more fairly.

If the community does not do this itself, others will – without questions, without ethics, and without responsibility.