I'm personally glad we are stepping back to a place of rational discussion. And to preface, i don't mean for any criticism directed at you to be a personal attack but rather challenging the opinion you are holding.

To start off, yes I'll agree that our society is designed and in service of the patriarchy. I wouldn't agree to a blanket destruction of said system simply because you cannot guarantee any system that comes after it will be "better". It's easier (not that it is easy) and more pragmatic to change the parts we don't like incrementally.

To that end, one of the ways to make OF modelling less destructive is to reprogram society to not shame women's sexuality and to make it so the choice of OF modeling is not so consequential. This would be preferably than to remove a woman's agency. Funny enough this would upend the patriarchy more than discourging women from expressing their sexuality. And please please note I am not suggesting you mean to literally take away women's choice, nor am I suggesting teens be allowed to do this.

As for the choice itself, I think there are 2 other points.

1. it seems the study may be conflating teens saying they feel content creation is a viable future career to them saying they want to be OF models. In general content creators has been a top teen choice for a while now.

2. You should give the girls more credit as they seem to understand what OF modeling means. The entire article talks about how surprising it is that the teens understood in detail the aspects of OF. Here is an exerpt

Girls in particular recognized the tension between agency and coercion. Some said it was a personal choice, while others pointed out that financial need often makes the decision feel less than voluntary. A few even likened it to prostitution, questioning whether anyone truly chooses to sell intimate content if they are struggling economically. This tension echoed broader concerns in the literature about how the language of empowerment can mask deeper power imbalances.

Teens acknowledging that OF modeling is a viable career option does not necessarily mean they want to do it themselves.

Let me address one now point

Do you believe there would be more or less OF models if everyone's basic needs were met?

This question suggests that OF models are being coerced or that it's paying enough to cover basic needs.

Well i don't believe you have the data on number of OF models being coerced into doing it and we do know and agree that 99% plus of OF models do not make much money, so it can't be covering basic needs.

So from that, if we lived in a utopia with UBI and everyone could choose what they want to do, I don't know for sure there would be a decrease in OF modeling. It would be the same as asking if I feel there would be a decrease in YouTube or twitch creators. There are a lot of content creators out there because there is a low barrier of entry. I imagine there will always be people wanting to try and eventually growing out of it. It's not about basic needs. It's a lottery ticket to economic mobility.