Note's on always hot; always live

back to user:lola

Notes on ‘Always hot, always live’: Computer-mediated sex work in the era of ‘camming’. Abstract: ‘Sex work’ and sex workers have been constituted in con icting and contradictory ways, within both academia and wider society. Many theorists argue that sex work is inherently exploitative, although much of this research is predicated on the idea that sex work involves being physically co-present with those who buy it or otherwise facilitate the process. The development of computer-mediated communication and digital technology has led to various new forms of sex work, including ‘camming’. In this context, ‘webcam models’ perform sex acts, often while alone in their own homes or in other private indoor domains, for online audiences who pay them. As a relatively new practice, camming is currently under-researched and under-theorised. This paper will explore some of the ways in which sex work has been discursively constructed and theorised about, as well as the legal context in which it operates, before discussing the practice of camming in relation to these and to recent research. Overall, we argue that camming challenges some of the conventional understandings and critiques of sex work, and that sex work-oriented research should consider more critical perspectives that take into account the hybridity and complexity of contemporary sex work.

Notes: The text is trying to argue to look at webcamming in a different way that how we traditionally look at sex-work, deriving from a form of prostitution. One of the problems with talking about sex-work is that there are longstanding double standards when it comes to the discussions around it; the (typically) men who buy sex are absent from this discussion, while the (typically) woman who sell sex are problematised and stigmatised. Sex work continues to be negatively perceived, even in decriminalised country’s.

It talks on different views on sex-work from different feminist approaches; where assumptions around ‘rights’ ‘equality’ ‘agency’ and ‘power’ can differ vastly between different feminist paradigms. Liberal feminist -> As a response to radical feminism argue against the all-encompassing idea that sex work is intrinsically harmful, claiming that the practice can be source of fun, emancipation and empowerment. Radical feminists -> society is patriarchal and any ‘free’ choice within that is a oppressed choice. Marxist feminsts -> who say sex work is inherently exploitative due to the oppressive nature of capitalism (but this would also mean any kind of work..) arguing that sex work can not be empowering if it’s taking place within a capitalist society. (marxist theorist tend to argue tho that it shouldn’t be abolished since sex work should be a safe and viable option, since we already live in a capitalist world). Critical feminist (term phrased by writer of this article as a term used for a range of academic works that seek balance on micro-level subjectivities and macro-level structures, ‘intersectional feminist’ that critically examine the experiences of woman through the consideration of multiple axes of oppression (e.g. race and class), are also grouped under critical feminist) -> ) argue for a dialectical approach, considering all the different aspects; the individual subjectivity’s of the sex-workers, as well as the social and economic conditions that shape the industry, and their experiences within it.

The text goes on about how framing sex work through these different feminist approaches can be seen as problematic; e.g. some liberal and marxist feminist claim that empowering sex-work can be done through the individual choice of characterising sex work as pleasurable and fun; a way of framing ‘the personal is political’ in relation to patriarchal exploitation; but it’s very much in line with neoliberal rhetoric (beloso 2012).

Critical feminist aim to take a more nuanced stance in the debate. Seeking for a approach that takes individual wellbeing and participatory approach towards sex-workers as well as taking a critical stance towards the social, cultural and economic structures that create the inequality within and outside the industry.

Another problem that is addressed in this text is the social cultural construction of framing sex work. For example telephone sex, where there are no sexual organs to be seen, is considered sex work. But ‘promo’ girls, who show their bodies in a sexual manner for profit, are not seen sex workers. Some scholars have suggested to make a difference between ‘direct’ and ‘in-direct’ sex work. Direct sex-work being framed as sex-work with genital contact, indirect sex work where there is no genital contact. This division makes it easier to group together the sort of sex work that is linked to certain dangers. 
Another way we could frame sex-work is making devision between ‘body-work’ and ‘emotional-work’. It can be argued that all forms of work in the sex-industry requires both body and emotional work in varying degrees (sanders 2005)

There is also the fact that we frame sex-work relating to values and moralities in a social and cultural context. For example stripping is considered sex-work but burlesque dancing is not, glamour-models are seen as sex-workers but posing nude for art is not considered sex-work. Those who participate in the latter are most likely from a white and middle- to upperclass; it has been argued that they have the privilege of dissascioting their identities from the (stigmatized) sex worker category (evans & riley, 2013; Siebler, 2013). // I have to say; this might be also the case in how we view sex-workers within being ‘free’ (e.g. white American stuends working from home and the eastern european ‘stigmatized’ webcam model) //

Some argue that a division should be made based on the intention of the work; sexual arousal or not. But also this is hard to define if you look at models and/or actors.

An in-depth exploration of this ‘work’ can highlight contradictory social norms, specific power dynamics and various inequalities.

What is very interesting is that ‘sex-work’ mirrors a traditional heterosexual relationship or marriage; in a ‘traditional’ marriage the men provide financial security and the women provide sexual, emotional and/or domestic upkeep. But as soon as the emotional and/or sexual part is formalised as a direct economic transaction outside of a committed relationship this is seen as highly immoral and problematic. In this way sex work both extends and challenges conventional heteronormativity, but is rarely understood as such.

Camming was originally seen as a cottage-industry but this is changing, with models working in formats closely resembling traditional organised sex work venues (matthews 2017). It is a misunderstanding however that these workers are per definition physically coerced and/or abused in these contexts. A very important note as it is commonly assumed that cam girls in collective formats (especially located in Eurasia) are trafficked. (matthews 2017) Mattehws did research and over the past 6 years he interviewed hundreds of cam girls and they overwhelmingly did not consider themselves to be trafficked or otherwise coerced in performing the work; however that is on an interpersonal level, as poverty can limit their choices..

Although there are less physical and psychological dangers it is not sure how much individuals are forced to cam, particularly by traffickers. More investigation is needed to determinate t o which extent aspiring pimps using this new media technologies to promote (and control) sex workers in a similar fashion to what can occur in physically proximate work.

Offcourse it is also possible that mental health issues occur due to camming, either from working long hours alone, or from being in a profession based largely around sexualisation of the body, objectification and or subjugation and mental abuse.. (sanders 2005) however also this needs to be examined better.

Also new dangers occur from being online (also see text dangers relating to camming by jones).

There have been approaches to the practice of camping from the perspective of panoptic surveillance and scopophilia (sobson, 2007; Russo 2010; Knight, 200; White, 2003)

The writer argues that it is a good idea to think about defining sex work in new ways; by using the terms body-work and emotional-work. In this way we can step away from the problematised definition of ‘sex’-work since sex is a contestable definition grounded in a problematic heteronormative ideal.