In part 1 I discussed the problem of OnlyFans in Australia, but now I want to focus on a more general critique, and primarily with the failure of feminism, in general, with only a few exceptions, to deal with the problem. I will elaborate upon arguments I only made in brief in part 1.

Feminists have spent decades railing against "toxic masculinity," the supposed male tendency toward dominance, objectification, and emotional detachment that, they claim, harms women and society. Yet many of the same voices celebrate platforms like OnlyFans as empowering economic choices for women. "Sex work is work," they insist. "It's just another gig in the creator economy." "My body, my choice, and my profits."

This isn't liberation. It's a profound internal contradiction that reveals how modern feminism has abandoned women's genuine interests in favour of ideological consistency and capitalist expediency. From a pro-woman conservative perspective, true female flourishing comes from dignity, healthy relationships, family, and contributions that don't require trading intimacy for cash. The OnlyFans model doesn't empower women; it commodifies them to serve male appetites while feminists cheer it on.

The Standard Critiques Still Matter

The usual arguments against pornography and its digitized successor remain devastatingly relevant. Women on OnlyFans aren't "owning their sexuality" in a vacuum, they're responding to market incentives created overwhelmingly by male demand. Studies consistently show that consumers of pornography are disproportionately men. Platforms like OnlyFans thrive because they offer convenient, escalating access to visual sexual content, often escalating from softcore to more extreme acts to retain subscribers. What begins as "empowering selfies" frequently pressures creators toward increasingly explicit, degrading, or fetish-driven content to stay competitive.

Long-term harms abound. Many former creators speak of regret, trauma, relationship damage, and mental health struggles once the initial cash flow dries up. The internet is forever: images and videos follow women into future jobs, marriages, and motherhood. The "economic choice" narrative ignores the opportunity costs: time not spent building skills, education, or real careers, and the psychological toll of performing for strangers. Conservative thought has long recognized that human beings, especially women, are not mere economic units. Intimacy, vulnerability, and sexuality have profound relational and spiritual dimensions. Turning them into pay-per-view content cheapens everyone involved, but it disproportionately burdens the women performing.

Society pays the price too. Widespread porn consumption correlates with distorted expectations of sex, reduced relationship satisfaction, and objectification that spills into real life. Young men raised on this diet often struggle with commitment and emotional intimacy. Young women face impossible beauty and performance standards. This isn't "progress"; it's a cultural downgrade.

The Toxic Masculinity Contradiction

Here is where the feminist position collapses under its own logic. For years, we've heard that "toxic masculinity" fuels everything from catcalling to domestic violence to workplace harassment. Men, feminists argue, must be re-educated to stop viewing women as objects, to reject entitlement, and to embrace emotional openness.

Yet when those same men pay for customised sexual content on OnlyFans, demanding specific acts, role-plays, or degradations, suddenly it's "agency" and "empowerment" for the women fulfilling those demands. If male sexual appetites are so toxic and in need of reform, why subsidise and celebrate the industry that profits from indulging them? This isn't dismantling patriarchy; it's monetising it.

Feminists who defend OnlyFans implicitly accept a transactional view of male-female relations that mirrors the very power imbalances they claim to oppose. The male subscriber holds the wallet and the remote control. He can cancel anytime, demand more, or move on to the next creator. The woman, chasing algorithmic success and subscriber retention, often finds herself performing in ways that reinforce stereotypes of female sexuality as endlessly available and performative. This is exploitation dressed in empowerment language.

It is internally incoherent. You cannot simultaneously condemn "the male gaze" as oppressive and then build an entire economic niche around catering to it professionally. If masculinity is toxic for objectifying women in everyday life, it doesn't become benign when the objectification is contractual and tax-deductible. True consistency would demand feminists oppose the porn industry root and branch, not selectively celebrate its most visible, female-driven iterations while ignoring who the customers are.

A Pro-Woman Conservative Alternative

Conservatives have a better vision for women: one rooted in realism about sex differences, the value of family formation, and the protection of female dignity. Women thrive when society values their roles as mothers, wives, professionals, and community builders, not when it reduces them to digital courtesans. Economic independence is crucial, but it shouldn't require selling access to one's body. Policies and cultural norms that support marriage, stable two-parent homes, and educational/vocational paths that play to women's strengths serve women far better than gig-economy sexual entrepreneurship.

Critics will call this "shaming" or anti-choice. It's nothing of the sort. Adults can make choices, but societies can, and should, judge those choices and shape incentives accordingly. We rightly discourage other self-harming "economic choices," like certain high-risk drugs or exploitative labour. The same standard applies here. Women deserve better than a feminism that tells them hyper-sexualised content creation is peak liberation, while quietly relying on male "toxicity" to keep the payments coming.

The data on declining marriage rates, rising loneliness, falling birth rates, and porn-saturated youth culture should alarm anyone who claims to care about women. OnlyFans feminism offers a shiny, short-term transaction. It doesn't build lasting fulfillment, strong families, or a healthy society.

Women are not empowered by becoming the product. They are empowered when their worth is recognized beyond sexual market value: in their character, intellect, nurturing capacity, and contributions to civilisation. Conservatives have defended that fuller vision for generations. It's time more women recognized that the loudest cheers for OnlyFans come from an ideology that, at bottom, doesn't actually like what most women naturally want or need.

The contradiction exposes the hollowness. If feminists truly opposed toxic masculinity, they'd tell men to log off and build real lives, become real men, and tell women there's more to empowerment than subscriber counts.