link home ╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗ ║ ║ ║ What's Wrong with OnlyFans? ║ ║ ║ ╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝ Seriously, what's actually wrong with OnlyFans? Nobody seems to know or be able to elucidate. The discussion usually happens as one party claiming OnlyFans is "really bad" and the other party asking why, then the former being unable to articulate exactly why. They usually just appeal to authority, or a religion, or conflate OnlyFans with prostitution. None of those are effective tactics for showing why OnlyFans is bad. Which is a shame because OnlyFans is absolutely, unmistakably bad. It's an evil company, man. Before I say anything more, I should establish my moral stance on nudity and erotic media... There is nothing wrong with nudity. Nudity is simply how humans are. Nothing is "wrong" with a nude person. There is also nothing "wrong" with seeing a nude person. Nudity is just how humans look naturally. It can be enlightening. It can be beautiful. It can absolutely be arousing as well. If you find yourself aroused by nudity, that means you're human. There is nothing "wrong" with showing your body to people. Your body is just how you look when you're naked. Being naked is just how you look because you're human. There's nothing "wrong" with charging people money to look at you. That makes you a performer. If you perform naked, that's just performing naked. There is nothing "wrong" with willing nudity in any form. My stance is clear to see. Save any moral panic until the end. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming... So what's actually wrong with selling naked pictures? Seriously. What's the actual big deal? I defy you to tell me because you can't. That's because there's nothing wrong with it. Appearance is a hot hot commodity. Most people only have five to ten good years of that "youthful" look. If you so choose to capitalize on your rockin' bod, that is your perogative. There's lots of people who do that clothed. It's called the modelling industry. But hey, maybe you also have rockin' genetalia. Capitalize on that too. That was always allowed. Nobody ever said "sex doesn't sell" because it definitely does. Sex sells everything, everywhere. Sell yours! Seriously, again, what's wrong with selling nudes? What is actually so offensively wrong about it? Why does OnlyFans have such a stigma when its focus is distributing attractive photos? Is there too little clothing? That can't possibly be the issue because there's plenty of creators that never show their actual genetalia and they're plenty successful selling horny content with extra dignity. Maybe OnlyFans is bad because appearing naked is fundamentally a power imbalance or it's embarassing and exploitative. Nah. That's the argument that the prostitution conflators always use. There's nothing wrong with nudity. Willing nudity is not a power imbalance. Remember, there's nothing wrong with appearing how you already look every day as a human being. So what's wrong with OnlyFans. Out of guesses? Give up? Fine. I'll spill. OnlyFans is so bad and evil because it's not a marketplace, it's a platform. I'll say it again slowly, OnlyFans is a platform, not a marketplace, but they present themselves as a marketplace. You're probably confused because that has nothing to do with nudity, women, boobs, sex, tits, or anything at all. That was probably the most mundane, boring sentence anyone's ever uttered in the same breath as OnlyFans. So I'll explain what I mean. OnlyFans is a platform in the derogatory sense. They're a platform in the same way Spotify has yearly scandals about underpaying artists. They're a platform in the same way Youtube is disingenuous about ad revenue. They're a platform in the same way Twitch bans first and asks questions later. They're a platform like politically biased news media. They're a platform like a pimp is a platform. OnlyFans is a platform where their business model is selling content to users. "But wait," you say. "That's what the models are selling." Yes I'm sure you believe that and that's exactly my point. The models, the creators themselves don't sell diddly squat. OnlyFans sells the pictures. OnlyFans sells your rockin' genetalia. OnlyFans sells your youth. And OnlyFans takes whatever cut they feel like. OnlyFans is a platform. Their business model is farming the most content they can, from the most people, for the least amount of money they can pay. Remember when I said it was always allowed to sell your rockin' body? Well, I meant that YOU should sell it, not that you should license the distribution rights to a shady company where the terms are "We'll pay you whatever we feel like." People have been creating and selling erotic photos for literal ages. Normally they use a magazine, or a publisher, or they start their own website. With those deals, you get to push your merch however you like. Or if there's a publisher involved, there's some form of clear guarantee about how they're going to promote your name and your work to the public. In both cases, you are the primary owner of the content you create. OnlyFans is different. It's a platform, not a publisher. You might decide to capitalize on lookin' good, but it's up to OnlyFans who sees you. They don't owe you a promotion deal. There's no media, press, or fanfare when you sign up. It's just like Youtube, DistroKid, Soundcloud or any other content platform. This is why everyone's reaction to a self-titled career OnlyFans "model" is the same reaction that self-titled career "Soundcloud rappers" garner. I'll put this another way. Why are most OnlyFans models making so gosh darn little? The company is about to be sold for Eight BILLION. That's EIGHT BEEEELIIIIIOOOONNNNN DOLLARS. At least some of that money should be flowing back to the creators who made all this content. Right? OnlyFans only takes a 20% cut of sales. Where's the 80%? The answer is a classic, textbook even, manipulation that platforms pull on content creators. Youtube is famous for this actually. You see, platforms need an excuse to cheapen the price of the content they sell. With all the hours of work that go into producing any kind of content, it's normally priced at a premium. If I went to a youtuber and paid them hourly to produce a long-form content video for me, I'd pay hundreds of dollars. But youtube only has to pay them for views. The views that Youtube decides they get. Youtube only has to pay literal cents for the same content and labor that would be a super premium good anywhere else. Youtube hides the fact that they're essentially robbing people by picking a few "chosen creators" who will "make it" on the platform. Those chosen few submitted content, blew up, and made millions off their internet virality. This is manufactured by Youtube, who controls those viral views in the first place. It's an incentive for all the other creators to continue pumping out content for free in the hopes that they'll someday go viral. They won't. Going viral is a sleight-of-hand by the Youtube algorithm to keep all that free content coming in. Let's apply this to OnlyFans. OnlyFans is advertized as a marketplace. "Sell your content and gain financial stability and independence. Users can subscribe directly to you and give you money!" The culture they've created is that horny passers by are going to stare, so why not let them for $5.99 a month. They get to leer all they want far away where you can't see them, and you'll sit back and rake in the cash. And so far, it's worked. You see content creators who make absolutely ridiculous amounts of money selling arousing content. You see that they don't need to have good ideas, be witty, or even engaging. Nothing is more engaging to a predominantly middle-aged, heterosexual, lonely, male demographic than a pretty lady in some midly personalized parasocial content. All you have to do is take only some of your clothes off in front of a camera, and you too can make an easy fifteen grand a week! ...anyone who's been around the internet understands that this is a line of baloney manufactured by OnlyFans to encourage more creators to submit more content for free. This is why OnlyFans is evil. Youthful attractiveness is probably the most valuable commodity for anyone who choses to sell it. It is a painfully finite resource. Having a glowing, tight young body is a hotter good than oil. It's more expensive than printer ink. The ability to be conventionally attractive in photos is THE hottest good. And OnlyFans has young ladies just giving it up for pennies when they turn 18 because "look at how much Amouranth made last month! You can make those numbers too!" OnlyFans isn't evil because of nudity. Content creators on OnlyFans aren't bad for appearing naked or appealing to horny dads. OnlyFans is evil because they're strip-mining your youth for no money at all. There's story after story of people who try OnlyFans only to have no success. The worst part isn't that they tried. It's that their attractiveness resource is spent. OnlyFans has it now. The internet has it now. Their cuteness IPO has came and went and they'll never get it back. It's worse than Youtube or Soundcloud because you can make a dumb video at any age. That's not a finite resource. That value never changes. But being young happens once, and it's over quickly. Any other economist would tell you to maximize your profit. Pump the value when it's abundant. Squeeze when it's scarce. Make all the money you can but for the love of all that is horny, don't just give it away for free on the internet. (You might argue that OnlyFans is paywalled, but that really hasn't stopped anyone before, ever, in the history of the internet.) It's honestly disgusting how OnlyFans has fostered a culture that accepts such exploitation as success. So what's the solution? Promote your OWN website. Fuck OnlyFans, commission a webpage for a few bucks and put THAT in your LinkTree. Put your OWN links in your bio. Make your own paywall. And charge $50.99 per month, not $5.99. Pump and dump that shit just like OnlyFans would but now you get 100% of the nut! (pun intended)