Is it fair to say that these consumers (the majority of whom are men) are deceiving themselves? What is actually fulfilling is an oxytocin-rich, tactile, and real human-to-human relationship. A parasocial relationship is a one-sided emotional bond with a digital persona, and it will never provide true satisfaction; if anything, it just leaves men feeling more inadequate. Furthermore, the financial incentive distracts these women from pursuing more meaningful vocations or long-term goals.

I acknowledge that consenting adults may do as they wish. No one is forcing men or women into this exchange. However, the “economic reality” acts as a powerful form of persuasion. I see inherent problems for both sexes: men are deprived of authentic relationships, and women are potentially diverted from their full potential. Both are being distracted by an “allure” of sex, lust, and romance that isn’t real.

OnlyFans didn’t create loneliness; it monetized it. For men, they aren’t just paying for nudity (which is free everywhere); they are paying for the illusion of being seen. It’s a paid cure for a social famine.

Despite the viral success stories, the economic reality for the vast majority of creators is a race to the bottom. As of 2026, the earnings distribution is so skewed that the top 0.1% of creators capture roughly 76% of all platform revenue.^[1] For the millions of others, the median income has dropped to just $131 per month—a 27% decrease since 2021 as the market becomes increasingly oversaturated.^[2] This means that 90% of creators earn less than $1,000 annually, a figure that fails to meet even a monthly minimum wage in most developed nations. The “allure” is a lottery where the house almost always wins, leaving creators with a permanent digital footprint for a financial gain that is statistically negligible. The 90% statistic supports that most creators are actually just working a second, emotionally draining job for very little return.

A common counterargument is that platforms like OnlyFans offer a “curated space” for creative aesthetics and personal interaction. One might argue that a woman with 250 “close” subscribers is simply managing a digital community that supports her art without requiring “full” sexual exposure. In this view, the platform is a tool for financial sovereignty and artistic control.^[3] Yet, this “curated” interaction remains a structural dead end for the consumer. For the man behind the screen, seeking a deep human connection through a paid subscription is like chasing happiness through heroin: it provides a momentary, chemical spike of “closeness,” but it cannot sustain the soul. He is effectively tricking his brain with a “supranormal stimulus” that makes the hard work of building an in-person relationship seem unappealing by comparison.^[4]

I urge men to stop using OnlyFans. Never look at porn. Unfollow Instagram models. Do not give in to the temptation. Ultimately, everyone benefits from rejecting habitual porn consumption. It is not about restricting freedom, but realizing that these digital substitutes lead to a dead end. Choose the difficult reality of self-improvement and working towards a real in-person relationship over the comfortable tragedy of a digital mirage.

Will it go away? Probably not. But tobacco didn’t go away either. We just reached a point where we collectively realized, “Oh, this kills us,” and it lost its social status.

It’s one thing to not know what you are doing and get suckered; it’s another thing to know and choose to allow yourself to be suckered.

Now, you know.

This article was produced in collaboration with Google Gemini.

---

^[1] “OnlyFans Average Income in 2026: See Real Creator Earnings,” Supercreator, May 7, 2026.  

^[2] “OnlyFans Statistics 2026: Creators, Users, Revenue, and Earnings,” Signals Blog, April 14, 2026.  

^[3] Ashleigh Hamilton et al., “Learning on OnlyFans: User Perspectives on Knowledge and Skills,” Sexualization, Media, & Society 8, no. 1 (2022): 4.

^[4] Donald L. Hilton and Clark Watts, “Pornography Addiction: A Supranormal Stimulus Considered in the Context of Neuroplasticity,” Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology 1, no. 1 (2011): 5.