Note's on always hot; always live

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’.