OnlyFans has become one of the most controversial platforms in the digital economy, widely known for hosting pornography and allowing creators to monetize it through direct subscriptions. While often framed as a tool for empowerment or entrepreneurship, many commentators now describe OnlyFans as a form of online prostitution.
Millions Earning Pennies
A viral claim recently circulated that “over 2 million women showed their naked bodies on OnlyFans for less than $50/month.” While the exact figure is difficult to confirm, it reflects a broader, well-documented reality: most creators on the platform earn very little.
OnlyFans has more than 2 million registered creators. The vast majority of the platform’s most active and visible users are women. Furthermore, the platform is overwhelmingly associated with pornography. Independent reports and public platform behavior confirm that explicit material drives the bulk of its traffic and revenue.
OnlyFans itself does not release detailed earnings breakdowns, but available data from third-party analysts and leaked financials indicate a steep drop-off in income beyond the top 1 to 5 percent of earners. Many creators in the bottom 80 to 90 percent earn well under $100/month after the platform takes its 20 percent commission. In this context, the claim that a large portion of women expose themselves online for minimal financial return is supported by broad trends.
China’s Rejection
While Western debates focus on exploitation versus empowerment, China has taken a firm stance against OnlyFans on moral and ideological grounds. In 2024, the Chinese government formalized a complete ban on the platform, labeling it a “corrupt Western disease” and reinforcing its long-standing policy against pornography and sexual commerce.
Though OnlyFans was already functionally blocked by the Great Firewall, Chinese authorities have moved to close remaining loopholes, targeting VPN access and overseas payment systems used by Chinese nationals to engage with the platform.
The government’s framing is explicit. OnlyFans is not merely a digital service, but a vehicle for Western values they view as corrosive to the socialist moral fabric. In banning it, they aim to protect cultural integrity, suppress perceived decadence, and maintain ideological discipline.
Cultural Mirror
These two developments, one rooted in economic criticism, the other in concern over social cohesion, underscore the polarized narratives surrounding OnlyFans.
In the West, it represents both opportunity and precarity. Millions seek quick income by producing pornography, yet most earn next to nothing and risk long-term reputational consequences. In China, the platform is not tolerated at all, dismissed wholesale as a symbol of cultural decline and foreign subversion.
OnlyFans stands at the intersection of capitalism, pornography, and ideology. Whether viewed as freedom, exploitation, or moral threat, it reflects the values of those examining it and the systems they inhabit.
A clash of ideologies erupts as Andrew Tate, Matt Walsh, and Charlie Kirk spar over the role of monogamy, masculinity, and civilizational values in modern society.
A Debate That Taps into Deeper Tensions
A heated online exchange has brought long-standing cultural fault lines into sharp focus. Andrew Tate, a polarizing figure in discussions on masculinity and gender roles, ignited the latest controversy by forcefully rejecting monogamy as unnatural for men. In response, conservative commentators Matt Walsh and Charlie Kirk defended monogamy as morally grounded and civilizationally essential.
The debate quickly went viral, not simply because of who was involved, but because it touches on deeper questions: What defines a man’s role in society? Is monogamy a choice, a value, or a form of societal control? And how should tradition adapt or resist changing social norms?
Tate’s Opening Position: Monogamy as Control
Andrew Tate launched his argument by framing monogamy as an artificial constraint on high-value men. He referenced evolutionary data to suggest that historically, far fewer men than women reproduced—a disparity he attributes to female mate selection favoring dominant males with multiple partners.
Tate characterizes monogamy as a satanic control mechanism engineered to pacify lower-status men and suppress the reproductive dominance of stronger ones. He asserts that in both ancient and modern contexts, women naturally prefer to share high-status men rather than commit to one average man. According to him, “kingdoms” are built by men who reproduce widely, with multiple compliant partners contributing to the legacy of a single patriarch.
He also argues that monogamy, coupled with modern legal frameworks and cultural messaging, emasculates men by forcing them into domesticity, trading traditional masculine duties for suburban routines and consumer comforts.
Myron Gaines (of the Fresh & Fit podcast) echoed Tate’s arguments, stating that most men are monogamous out of necessity, not desire. Pearl Davis added that female monogamy is also unnatural and downplayed its traditional portrayal as a default behavior for women.
Walsh Responds: Civilization Requires Restraint
Matt Walsh responded with a starkly different perspective. A conservative commentator and long-time advocate of traditional family values, Walsh rejected polygamy outright, calling it savage and primitive. He argued that stable monogamous marriage has been a hallmark of advanced societies and deviations from it threaten civilizational cohesion.
Walsh challenged Tate’s framing of experience as authority. He stated that his nearly 15-year marriage and fatherhood of six children offered a valid, grounded perspective. He likened Tate’s logic to saying one cannot oppose human sacrifice without having tried it. Walsh emphasized that his marriage has grown stronger over time, and he pointed to data showing that couples married for 15 years are statistically likely to remain together.
Walsh further contended that lifelong monogamous relationships are not mythical ideals, but lived realities that require commitment and offer enduring rewards.
Tate’s Rebuttal: Different Worlds, Different Realities
Tate responded by framing Walsh as someone whose views stem from limited personal experience. He claimed Walsh lacks knowledge of modern dating dynamics and of how women behave toward high-status men. Tate argued that polygamy is driven not just by male desire but by female selection preferences, insisting that many women willingly share men they perceive as superior.
He maintained that the beta male strategy of service and loyalty to one woman reflects a biologically subordinate position. In his view, Walsh misunderstands the current landscape, where dominant men are rewarded with abundance while average men are left coping with constraints.
Charlie Kirk Adds a Theological Frame
Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, added a religious dimension to the debate. He affirmed his own monogamous marriage and attributed its success not to pragmatism but to divine intention. Kirk argued that monogamy is not just socially beneficial but morally mandated by Christian doctrine.
He cited biblical teachings that encourage husbands to be devoted to one wife and called polygamy incompatible with spiritual maturity. Kirk acknowledged critiques of modern divorce laws and cultural decay but warned against abandoning God's blueprint for marriage in response to societal flaws.
His argument extended beyond personal testimony to a civilizational thesis: societies flourish when they follow divine design, not just human appetite.
What’s Really Being Debated?
At its core, the debate is not just about sexual ethics. It is about divergent worldviews.
Tate and his allies ground their claims in evolutionary psychology, reproductive strategy, and a critique of what they see as the decline of Western masculinity.
Walsh and Kirk, in contrast, defend monogamy through moral, civilizational, and religious arguments, asserting that marriage is about sacrifice, stability, and the long-term good.
While both sides claim to speak for reality, they draw on very different definitions of success, value, and purpose.
Public Reaction and Cultural Implications
Online audiences have been sharply divided. Supporters of Tate praised his candor and claim that he articulates what many men feel but cannot say. Critics accused him of promoting a regressive and cynical view of relationships. Defenders of Walsh and Kirk applauded their commitment to family and tradition, while others dismissed their stances as naive or idealistic.
This debate reflects a growing split even within ideological communities between traditionalists and those influenced by the manosphere and Red Pill philosophy. The argument isn’t just about relationships. It is about power, legacy, and what kind of future men should build.
Conclusion: Between Legacy and Loyalty
The clash between Andrew Tate, Matt Walsh, and Charlie Kirk highlights a deep rift in contemporary thinking about masculinity, sexuality, and society. Is monogamy a moral good to be protected, or a social constraint to be overcome? Are modern men failing to adapt, or refusing to evolve?
As the conversation continues, one thing is clear: the debate isn’t going away. In fact, it may be one of the defining ideological battles of a generation.
How to Own Your Work, Distribute on Your Terms, and Build a Lasting Legacy
We’re living through a creative renaissance. The tools, platforms, and distribution channels that were once reserved for studios, corporations, or credentialed professionals are now in the hands of everyday creators.
You don’t need permission. You don’t need a publisher. You don’t need a production team.
What you need is intention, consistency, and the willingness to put your voice into the world.
You Don’t Need Permission. You Need Intention.
You can create whatever you want. That’s not a metaphor. It’s the reality of today’s digital infrastructure.
If you want to write, you can publish on:
Substack for serialized newsletters and optional subscriptions
Medium or WordPress for blog-style essays and thought pieces
X for long-form content and subscriber support
Nostr for decentralized publishing with Bitcoin-based tipping
Whether you use your real name or a pseudonym, your work is yours. You own it the moment you create it.
Multi-Platform Presence Unlocks Multi-Audience Reach
Each platform offers different communities, cultures, and rhythms. By distributing across several, you expand your reach, tap into different conversations, and create resilience across algorithms and ecosystems.
Platforms for Creators
Social Channels
X, Nostr, Mastodon, Blue Sky, Threads, Gab, Minds, VK, Telegram, Truth Social, Gettr
Video Platforms
YouTube, Rumble, BitChute, Odysee
Podcast Platforms
Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Buzzsprout, Podbean
Publishing and Digital Products
Amazon KDP, Gumroad, Etsy, Payhip
Course Platforms
Udemy, Teachable, Thinkific
Music Distribution
DistroKid allows independent musicians to distribute across Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube Music, and collect royalties directly
You don’t have to pick one platform. Your work can live in many places at once.
Why Monetization Matters
If you're putting real time into something — writing, recording, teaching, researching — you're making a trade. You're choosing this over something else you could be doing to pay your bills.
That’s why monetization matters.
Even if you love what you're creating, you still need time and space to do it well. Time often comes at the expense of money. But if your work begins to pay, it allows you to:
Devote more energy to your craft
Create with less stress and urgency
Sustain what you love without burning out
Monetizing is also a signal. It says: I value what I made. And when someone pays you for it, they’re saying: I do too.
This isn’t about greed. It’s about sustainability. If you want your voice to stay in the world, you have to build a structure that supports it.
Paths to Monetization
You can earn money doing what you love without compromising your values. Options include:
Paid newsletters (Substack, Patreon)
Tips or microtransactions (Nostr, Ko-fi, Buy Me a Coffee)
Selling books, guides, zines, templates
Offering workshops, courses, or mentorship
Collecting royalties from books, music, video, or podcast distribution
Licensing content or selling rights later
You’re not just expressing yourself. You’re creating assets that can support your work long-term.
Intellectual Property Builds Legacy
Every piece of content you create — a podcast, book, article, video, or course — is your intellectual property.
You own it:
For life plus 70 years (under your real name)
For up to 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation (under a pseudonym or anonymously)
This means your content can:
Generate income for decades
Be passed to your family or heirs
Be sold as part of a media catalog or creative business
Be licensed or repackaged into new formats
You're not just building an audience. You're building a portfolio. And that portfolio is a legacy.
The Tools Are Already in Your Hands
AI and digital tools now give you power that once required full creative teams.
You can:
Record and edit your podcast with tools like Descript or Podcastle
Narrate your writing using your own voice or high-quality AI synthesis
Create art, covers, posters, and promo visuals with AI
Compose music and distribute it via DistroKid
Format, edit, and publish books on your own
Technology has removed nearly every technical barrier. The only remaining barrier is whether or not you’ll use it.
You’re Not Just Creating. You’re Contributing.
When you publish consistently, you’re doing more than expressing yourself. You’re building an archive — a searchable, usable, teachable body of work that others can engage with long after you're gone.
Your work becomes:
A time capsule of your thought
A reference for future readers, students, or creators
A signal to the culture about what matters
You’re not just creating content. You’re leaving something behind.
Final Thought: Creative Sovereignty Means Creative Legacy
The platforms are open. The audiences are available. The tools are ready. The ownership is already yours.
Whether you do it in your own name or under a pen name, this is your moment.
Create what matters to you.
Put it where others can find it.
Charge for it when it adds value.
Keep building.
What you create today can pay your bills tomorrow — and shape your legacy for years to come.
