Not that I find the latest controversial course offering at Harvard ennobling or likely to prompt me remove my diploma from its place of shame—front to the wall, on the floor— in the hallway to my office, but it is defensible, which is not the same as calling it “good.”
Harvard University hosted OnlyFans drool-object Ari Kytsya….
….(she’s another “influencer”) at a business class discussion on the adult entertainment industry. Kytsya spoke at Harvard about her career on the adult live porn site and the business of being an online peep show entrepreneur. During the lecture, Kytsya discussed the nuances of profiting from making “adult content” and shared anecdotes from her work. For example, once she was paid to “shit in a box for 10K.” Nice. She also emphasized how important it is to enjoy one’s work.
Harvard is being criticized for hosting the lecture, the complaint being that the school is debasing elite education by elevating sexually explicit content and adult entertainers to the status of legitimate topics for academic study.
The criticism is, I think, unfair. OnlyFans was a creative use of new technology when it was conceived; it is also a model that allows individuals to build a brand and a business. I can certainly see how there are valuable business lessons to be learned from the OnlyFans phenomenon that can be applied to other, more traditional businesses.
Nor are dubious courses anything new at Harvard. When I was at the college, there was an infamous “gut”—Harvardese for a shamelessly easy course—nicknamed “Ships.” The semester course, taught by an amiable and ancient professor, covered the history of sea vessels, and if you couldn’t get an A in that course, you were probably dead. There was nothing useful in “Ships” unless one was considering landing on Plymouth Rock. The OnlyFans discussion, in contrast, could have practical applications.
Ethics Alarms recently relayed the news that has-been B list actress Shannon Elizabeth, well past her wet T-shirt pull date, was displaying her wares on the site. It was reported last month that the 52-year-old earned $1 million in her first week. Now, business courses are not the only academic settings where the porn site is worthy of study; sociology, American culture and psychology students, as well as technology scholars, should heed the phenomenon. Back in 2021, law professor Catherine McKinnon called out OnlyFans as a toxic influence on the culture, contributing to societal approval of pornography and sex work, and described the platform as a cyber-pimp.
She may be right. But that would make the case that OnlyFans is a valid topic for academic inquiry stronger.
Ethics Alarms 
I agree. There are several ways in which this could be part of a legitimate course. Sadly, it would not surprise me if there would be a course just about Only Fans. (I am thinking about the college course devoted to the poetry of Taylor Swift.)
-Jut
Yes, all very good points. The popularity of OF should be studied. I see the appeal for people like Shannoh and her fans. It gives the aging actress access to income while her fans who previously didn’t have access to her, now do. I also see the appeal of young woman using their bodies in a way that allows them do make money in a traditionally damaging field, but with 100% control.
With that said, whatever perceived good we could gain for it is going to be far outweighed by bad. As it is, the average person makes like $100. Most aren’t going to be Ari or Shannoh who can use their gains to make it through whatever trouble that might come with using the site. I suspect we are going to see some very damaging results in the next 5-10 years.
and this is why our culture is going down the “shitter.”
Do Ari Kytsya and Shannon Elizabeth pay a fee to OnlyFans to have a presence, or does OF only collect fees from subscribers? I ask because I’m trying to see how far the pimp/prostitute comparison can be taken.
I can certainly see how there are valuable business lessons to be learned from the OnlyFans phenomenon that can be applied to other, more traditional businesses.
That made me chuckle. Is there a more basic advertising tenet other than “Sex sells”? I’m not sure Ari is talking about much of anything other than selling sex.
I’d heard of Only Fans and understood it more or less. The full description:
_____________
OnlyFans is a subscription-based social media platform where creators post content and fans pay to access it. How it works Model: Creators set a monthly subscription price, usually $4.99–$49.99. Fans pay to see their posts: photos, videos, livestreams, DMs. Pay-per-view: Beyond the subscription, creators can charge extra for specific posts or private messages. Tips are also common.
Revenue split: OnlyFans takes 20%, creator keeps 80%. That’s higher than YouTube or Twitch. Launched: 2016, London, by Tim Stokely. Bought in 2018 by Leonid Radvinsky.
What it’s known for:
It allows any kind of content, but became famous for adult/NSFW content. Many sex workers, porn performers, and amateurs use it to sell directly to fans without studios. But it’s not only adult: Musicians: Cardi B, DJ Khaled used it to drop exclusive tracks. Fitness: Trainers sell workout programs. Chefs, comedians, cosplayers: Any creator with a fanbase can monetize. Celebrities: Bella Thorne made $1M in 24 hours in 2020, causing a backlash when OnlyFans temporarily changed payment rules.
Scale: 2023 stats: 3M+ creators, 240M+ registered users, paid out over $10B to creators since launch.
Controversies: In 2021 OnlyFans announced a ban on sexually explicit content due to payment processor pressure, then reversed it 6 days later after creator backlash.
Cultural impact: It changed sex work by cutting out middlemen — creators control pricing and content. Also sparked debates about privacy, parasocial relationships, and teen access. Creators must be 18+, but leaks and underage use are ongoing issues.
So: subscription platform, famous for adult content, but technically open to any creator monetizing directly from fans. Want the business side or the social debate around it?