Lead

Dec 7 06 12:09 PM

Tags : :


Faced with the recent closing of 4 Studios by the police and the prosecution of Studio Admins by the legal authorities in the Ukraine, the question of what Video Chat  hostesses really do while working online is no longer just an academic question - for me at least.

The Admins in Kiev are charged with the "propagation of pornography production" and running an "Internet Bordello" where they recruited top students from prestige universities to be cam-models and service the sexual needs of foreign clients. The American owner of the Kyiv Studio is being apparently pursued in the US on a charge of "Human Trafficking."

So we might well ask: "Do these charges make any sense? And if not, Why not?"

After all, what is a sexual crime in cyber-space? Is a virtual act done on line the same thing as a sex act in real life? Is a video chat hostess or model really involved in "virtual prostitution?" Or isn't this rather a kind of "adult entertainment?" that's more about "making illusions," that is, a form of performance that's "almost sex work" but not really the same thing? Is doing "fantasy role play" the same thing as producing porn" or more a kind "psychological social work?"

Actions in Cyber-space pose these meta-physical questions of all sorts, but the Authorities in the United States and the Ukraine are prosecuting people using the anti-pornography and anti-prostitution laws that are already on the books. As a result, the definition of "camming" no longer is just a matter for idle speculation.

So do these laws apply to "cam work?" Does the "crime" actually fit the proposed punishment? Or do they miss the point?
And if they do apply, how can we argue that should they be changed and why?

These issues need to be discussed in terms of cam-models actual experience of the forms of "emotional and sexual labor" they perform daily online, if a case is to be made that this industry ought to be both legalized and brought under some sort of state labor regulation.

I hope that you will agree with me that this discussion is both necessary and timely.

UL

"I would no more be a Master than a slave. It does not conform to my idea of Democracy." Abraham Lincoln 1856.

Quote    Reply   

#1 [url]

Dec 7 06 6:55 PM


How can a Cyber-sex acts become a meta-physical sort of legal puzzle that is hard to pin down, let alone prosecute?

Here's an American example of what I am talking about - the recent case of Congressman Mark Foley's "alleged molestation" of underage Congressional Page i.e. a young man of 17...that was done by sending an "inappropriate text message?"

Creepy perhaps..but come on, a criminal act.? Are we kidding? Not in the US!

And here's an article from Slate thinking this one through - that maybe helpful for also thinking about the "reality" of "sexual relations" through cam sites, and why prosecuting "cyber-sexual," virtual acts can be very dangerous for the freedom of speech - and freedom of imagination.

The perils of Policing Cybersex.

By William Saletan

Posted Saturday, Oct. 14, 2006, at 7:12 AM ET


Eight years ago, when Bill Clinton was caught lying about his affair with a White House intern, Mark Foley voted to impeach him. "It's vile," said the congressman. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

As we say on the Internet: LOL. We now know that Clinton and Foley were on different teams, but not in the way Foley pretended. And the irony only begins there. The two men have played similar roles, not only in their reckless personal lives but in the cultural revolutions of their respective decades. Clinton introduced us to the ambiguities of sex. Foley is introducing us to the wilder ambiguities of cybersex.

In his 1998 deposition, Clinton was asked whether he had ever "had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1." The definition referred to "contact" with the other person's private parts. Clinton said he hadn't. Seven months later, when he admitted that Lewinsky had given him more than pizza, Clinton argued that this didn't meet the definition, because "if the deponent is the person who has oral sex performed on him," the contact was only "with the lips of another person."

That wasn't even Clinton's best line. During the deposition, his lawyer said "there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form" between Clinton and Lewinsky. When Clinton was asked later whether that statement had been false, he opined, "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is."

Two months after offering those rationalizations, Clinton signed the Protection of Children From Sexual Predators Act of 1998. The measure, co-sponsored by Foley, extended the prohibition on enticing minors to cover "sexual activity," not just a "sexual act." It also added special penalties for using a computer. "There has been an explosion in the use of the Internet in the United States, further placing our Nation's children at risk of harm and exploitation at the hands of predators," the legislation warned.

But the Internet revolution turned out to be kinkier than the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution only changed how people touched each other. The Internet revolution took sex beyond touch. A degenerate like Foley can reach out and mess up your kid without even setting foot in your state. Is that abuse? It depends on what the meaning of abuse is.

Computers didn't invent noncontact sex. That's been around since the telephone. Ken Starr's "Table of Contacts between Monica Lewinsky and the President," for instance, lists 17 incidents of phone sex but only nine incidents of "in-person" sex. Most of the intern's lip contact was with a receiver, and not the kind you can depose. But phone sex is risky. Someone might hear you. If you're calling a minor, her parents might pick up the phone or eavesdrop.


That's where computers come in. Clinton's romp with Lewinsky during a phone call with lawmakers was "just sad," Foley told reporters at the time. "It's unbelievable that he could behave so carelessly in that setting." Foley took more care. While voting, he never had sex in person, or even over the phone. He did it over the Internet. Boys chatting with Foley were interrupted by their mothers, but the chats were inaudible, so the moms never knew what was up. "Hope she didn't see anything," Foley told one boy. "No," said the kid. "She is computer dumb." "Good. Haha," replied the congressman.

The ethereality of cybersex makes it hard to prosecute. Every state outlaws Internet solicitation of sex with kids. But if you postpone physical sex till your quarry is 18, as Foley tried to do, you can skirt these laws. That's why he kept asking boys about their birthdays. Until that day, the sex had to stay online. Like Clinton, Foley carved out a kind of sex that in his mind wasn't officially sex. For Clinton, it was oral; for Foley, it was digital. He'd pick you out as a page. He'd befriend you by e-mail. He'd groom you with instant messages. He'd find out your birthday. When you turned 18, he'd pounce.

What do you do with snakes like Foley? Some states pursue them into cyberspace and outlaw dirty messages. Georgia, for instance, forbids any "Internet contact" with minors involving "explicit verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexually explicit nudity" or even of "sexual excitement." Actually, the recipient doesn't have to be a minor. He can be anyone "believed … to be a child residing in this state." You can charge Foley under this law even if he never goes to Georgia or writes to anyone there. All you have to do is meet him in a chat room, pose as an Atlanta teenager, and wait for him to say something gross.

If a pervert won't act on his words, you can criminalize the words. If he won't utter them, you can prosecute him for writing them. If he won't come to your state, you can go get him. If he has no victim, you can invent one. This is no joke. In almost every state, laws specify that you can be convicted of an Internet sex offense against a child even if you contact no child and commit no physical crime. In fact, the most recently analyzed data, published by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, suggest that more people are arrested for using the Internet to solicit cops posing as kids than for using it to initiate relationships with real kids. The unnatural has been surpassed by the artificial.


Cybersex is only getting weirder. Most Canadian college students surveyed by a dating Web site say they've already had sex through instant messages. By year's end, more than 100 million people will be playing online games. Fifteen million Webcams are in use; hundreds can be viewed for a fee, and many are pornographic. You can even interact with a "virtual girlfriend" on your cell phone. It's a creepy world of imaginary meetings and deeds. The only thing creepier, perhaps, is to prosecute them like the real thing.
A version of this article also appears in the Outlook section of the Sunday Washington Post.

William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2151428/
Copyright 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

"I would no more be a Master than a slave. It does not conform to my idea of Democracy." Abraham Lincoln 1856.

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Jan 23 07 9:19 PM

Here I have to disagree with nearly everybody.

If camming is sooo different from prostitution, why be sooo ashamed (within Tim's meaning of the word) to disclose it to family and friends ?

The basic fact is that a cam-girl sells her body for money. Through the Internet ? Ok. Without direct contact ? Ok. And so what ? If the client wants clit-rubbing, it will be clit-rubbing. If the client wants anal, it will be anal. And so on. Sounds familiar ? And may I remind you that many "real life" prostitutes spend a lot of time talking with their clients too, not just fucking.

So the frontiers are blurred, to say the least. The only real difference between camming and classic prostitution is that there is no physical contact between the model and client in camming. But in the case of paedophiles, such difference is not accepted by the courts. And if a spouse has a "virtual affair" with a third person on the Internet, it is now commonly accepted as a valid ground for divorce in most legal systems. So why should camming be regarded as a wonderful exception to the general rule that what happens in real on the internet is not virtual but real ???

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Jan 24 07 12:16 AM

Vaio, I think for porno production there is a necessity at least two people having sex and being in one place at the same time, isnt it?
Vodka, i didnt mean girls must bid farewell to their life, just simply try to protect their right for work and private life from what already happended. I know that the situation in Ukraine isnt so easy and doesnt predispose to any improvement. Indeed the feeling of fear and exposure in the future, a factor "better stay as it s or it could get ever worse" works very well.
It s ok as far as everybody is OK.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Tom78

Very Talkative

Posts: 64

#4 [url]

Jan 24 07 1:37 AM

Let models talk:

QUOTE (delfina @ January 23, 2007 08:03 pm)
Because noone of girls i know here doesnt want anyone of her relatives of friends to know about this work. ...I can remember my own shock when i have seen my mother reading an article about similar raid in Crimea studio.


and

QUOTE (anonymous cam-model from Kyiv in UncleLewis @ January 23, 2007 05:58 pm)
It is a job like other jobs, I don'tsee nothing wrong with it


I'm confused!

Can anybody explain this seeming contradiction? Or are all relatives bourgeois??

And don't argue with police! It has nothing to do with them! But maybe with repression?

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Jan 24 07 7:36 AM

QUOTE
its not always question of shame...But we have to deal with that fact that most of people cant accept that work...Simple scare to lose or hurt close people
(Delfina)

Precisely. This is a fact and we all have to deal honestly with it.


QUOTE
And viao it is not always what the customer wants. I know some models who refuse anal
(Vodka)

And I know some real-life prostitutes who refuse anal too, Vodka

QUOTE
Vaio, I think for porno production there is a necessity at least two people having sex and being in one place at the same time, isnt it?
(Froglover)

I disagree. Call it solo porn if you want, but it is definitely porn. Btw, one of the cam-sites studied in this forum is called "Pornication", there must be a reason, no ?


QUOTE
Please show me where I said or implied where someone should feel ashamed?
(Tim)

My apologies Tim, typing mistake. I was of course referring to Tom(78).

Vaio

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Jan 24 07 9:11 AM

QUOTE (Vaio @ January 24, 2007 08:36 am)
QUOTE
Vaio, I think for porno production there is a necessity at least two people having sex and being in one place at the same time, isnt it?
(Froglover)

I disagree. Call it solo porn if you want, but it is definitely porn. Btw, one of the cam-sites studied in this forum is called "Pornication", there must be a reason, no ?



I agree with it, you can call this kind of sites soft-porn, i know that i don't make myself populair with this, as i knew some girls, who really believed in it, that they were only working for an erotic sexual orientated chat site. Of course it's also part of it, but it is more then only that... especially having PF in mind...

Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Jan 24 07 5:15 PM

Am I hallucinating, UL, or are you really convinced by such cheap, hypocritical and sophistic justifications given by web-pimps to make their business more "presentable", either to would-be models or to prospective customers ??? camgirlnotes/icon8.gif

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Jan 24 07 5:57 PM


Not entirely convinced... but intrigued to see how they go about arguing a "set of bad facts" - since we essentially are giving ourselves the same kind of legal brief here, Vaio.

But actually, I find Michael Saleton's points more compelling in the Salon piece that I posted here last month which explains why Cyber-sex acts become a meta-physical sort of legal puzzle that are hard to pin down, let alone prosecute.

See http://camgirlnotes.15.forumer.com/index.p...t=174&p=842&st=

And his conclusion appeals to an old civil libertarian like me...
Cyber sex "is a creepy world of imaginary meetings and deeds. The only thing creepier, perhaps, is to prosecute them like the real thing."

So in the struggle between mere "doxa" and absolute truth, I will side with the sophists anyday..
cool.gif
Ul

"I would no more be a Master than a slave. It does not conform to my idea of Democracy." Abraham Lincoln 1856.

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Jan 24 07 7:06 PM

QUOTE
Cyber sex "is a creepy world of imaginary meetings and deeds.
(UL)

Applying this quote to camming is not just sophism, but pure nonsense to me, Uncle.

QUOTE
In the live video chat world, the deeds in pvt are anything but imaginery.


You remind me of those models who go about saying that this not real, that they are selling a mere "dream", an "illusion" to the customer, bla-bla...

To which I systematically reply that their pvt shows may be an illusion, but that the body used to perform such shows is not an illusion, it is real, it is theirs. The same applies, of couse, to their toys and whatever use they make of them

As for me, I firmly stick to the general rule, already mentioned, that what happens in real on the internet is not virtual but real. Rule not like "doxa", but rule like "paradigm". Even old civil libertarians should not be allowed to set aside the principle of reality.

Vaio

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Jan 24 07 7:29 PM

By the way, have a closer look at my avatar, Uncle. It is a painting by René Magritte, "La condition humaine". You will find easily a better reproduction on the internet.

There may be a danger in calling one's illusions the reality, but there is an equal danger in calling the reality an illusion.

I think that this maxim applies nicely to the internet in general, and to camming in particular.

V.

Quote    Reply   

#11 [url]

Jan 24 07 8:51 PM


QUOTE
In the live video chat world, the deeds in pvt are anything but imaginery.

Well Vaio.. Let's talk about the real facts here then..
The exchange of text messages in real time.. expressing desires that are sometimes understood as absolute commands and sometimes not - but negotiable instead... But if your definition of prostitution is "performing a sex act on command for pay," then maybe this online situation fits your definition.

But what I see at most are coordinated acts of solitary masturbation in different time zones, which doesn't sound at all like what I consider commercial sexual intercourse to be. I consider that more honoring a request to: "Let me rent your body cavities for a specified time for a fixed fee and allow me to physically use them to act out my masturbation fantasy in real life." This involves "just acting" of course, but also the play of physical senses like scent, taste, and touch. In other words the real physical friction that generates some body heat and leads perhaps to the physical exchange of "intimate bodily fluids" - however great the emotional distance and coldness felt by the contracting parties...This is the essence of what I mean by the "sexual labor" that real sex workers do - that carries with it the risk of catching a sexually transmitted disease like AIDS. Anything else is mere "performance art" in my book.

Your "command performance" definition of "prostitution" fails my reality test for real sex work.. which consists of "that foreign man who is physically present in your room.. and physically inside your body.." Paying the Canadians for permission to masturbate doesn't sound like real "sexual intercourse" to me. What can I say? The only person we touch in cyber-space is ourselves, Vaio, and this what is meant by "imaginary meetings and acts" between two people. Not sins of the body surely.... but at most sins of the imagination....

So maybe I should join Bill Clinton and reason like a Baptist casuist and then brazenly declare: "But I never had "sexual relations with that woman!!" Perhaps - Perhaps not...?

I don't mean to lapse into crude materialism here..
Maybe there's something about the metaphysic reality of cyber sexxing that just escapes me?

Au fond I remain very Anglo-Saxon in these matters .. sigh.

UL

"I would no more be a Master than a slave. It does not conform to my idea of Democracy." Abraham Lincoln 1856.

Quote    Reply   

#12 [url]

Jan 24 07 9:07 PM

No UL, it is not a question of metaphysics. All I mean is that, when a model has a dildo deep and hard into one of her "body cavities", as you call them , you cannot call it an "[imaginary (... act()]".

And I should add that you seem to me to be very un-Anglo-Saxon, huh

Except maybe one of the Baptist kind, indeed Or just American, let us say? I am pretty sure that your ideas would be anathema to any empirical, pragmatic Brit

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Jan 24 07 9:28 PM

Well, the fact is that Charles and Camilla, or Diana and Dodi, never stirred the same controversy in the UK as Bill and Monica in the US

Et en français aussi nous aimons appeler un chat un chat, sans mauvais jeu de mots

Quote    Reply   

#14 [url]

Jan 25 07 3:59 AM

cool.gif
Okay.. more facts.. then
Most websurfers who visit video chat sites never go private.. that's about 85% of all traffick according to the Web-pimps who run F4F - one of the oldest sites still up and running...

So then what do the "girls" do when they are not doing private sessions ? That is to say, what do they do with the bulk of the time they spend working their shift?
Mainly they talk and read line after line of abusive text messages from "beggars." This is what "Girl" meant when she said:"It's Not Porn, it's Psychology." In other words what we're talking about here is as much an on line clinic as a sex show.

Have you ever considered the idea that the real action in Video chat are the chats that go on for hours between Models and their "visitors." Some of that is about consoling lonely men and making them feel a little less alone.
But most of it is playing along with verbal abuse... and managing it.
So my hypothesis is this.. Sex chat is only rarely about getting a virtual "piece of ass..." Much of the time it's about members seeking the joys that only come from having a licence to harass and hassle a model by text message...
As for for your typical model's "toy set," I don't think that she doesn't get to play with it all that often. And that as a consequence, most of her "emotional labors" go unpaid.
UL

"I would no more be a Master than a slave. It does not conform to my idea of Democracy." Abraham Lincoln 1856.

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Jan 25 07 8:30 AM

doxa... sophists...

I kept waiting for one of you to hurl an overripe analogy to Plato's cave in this mauvais jeu des mots... lolol


In the other part of this thread, I've espoused likening camming to strip-tease, which, it is generally agreed, is not prostitution, though it is a commercial erotic activity.

Yet camming is both more and less than stripping.

More because I've never seen (or heard of) a stripper even waving about a toy as part of her act, much less actually usng one. And then there are the other abuses, both physical and verbal, that cam girls endure on every shift.

Still, camming is less because, to elaborate on UL's description, it is nothing more than bought-and-paid-for mutually coordinated solitary acts of masturbation, separated by distance yet connected by text, (mostly one-way, for now) video, and sometimes one-way sound.

Though I'm no lawyer, I think that strip-tease, the original live-girl peep shows, and phone sex have sufficiently established the precedent that if there is no physical contact, there is no prostitution.

I also think that the peculiarly American hysteria over "Sexual Predators on the Internet" and the general spinelessness of politicians have led to the passage of some spectacularly flawed laws that will no doubt be declared unconstitutional once the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to rule on them.

Yes, cam girls do it for money, and they do accept real penetration, the generally accepted threshold for "hard-core" -- but only by their own fingers and toys.

So, in an attempt to resolve this dialectic, I propose that camming be termed "hard-core erotic performance art."
What say ye?

Wanker

Three pieces of advice for a happy life:
* Never eat at a place named Mom's.
* Never play cards with a man named Doc.
* Never get in a relationship with someone whose problems are worse than your own.
--Anon.

"Ganja is the true Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - be wasted to be saved!"

If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you.
This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
--Mark Twain

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Jan 25 07 11:50 AM

cool.gif

QUOTE
Though I'm no lawyer, I think that strip-tease, the original live-girl peep shows, and phone sex have sufficiently established the precedent that if there is no physical contact, there is no prostitution.

Yes, cam girls do it for money, and they do accept real penetration, the generally accepted threshold for "hard-core" -- but only by their own fingers and toys.

So, in an attempt to resolve this dialectic, I propose that camming be termed "hard-core erotic performance art."


Yes, I believe that Wanker hits it pretty much on the head.. Cam-Girls (sometimes) do perform hard core sex acts on themselves.. but prostitution involves both physical contact with a client and performing that sex act on another person.

Allow me to add that "Stripping" in the US today often requires dancers to accept giving clients "private table or lap dances." These involve allowing the client to touch the dancer's ass, breasts and sex and doing "friction dancing" (through his clothes) that aims at bringing him to a sexual climax. "Stripping" today is pretty hard core - and involves a lot more physical contact with clients than a Burlesque Queen like Gypsy Rose Lee would have ever thought possible ( or legal). So in this sense too, doing a "private session" online demands "less" of a cam-model (with fewer health risks) than what is routinely required of modern day "strippers." The line between "stripping" and "prostitution" is lot fuzzier than the difference between cam-models and ordinary sex workers - as can be demonstrated by the arrest record of many "lap dancers."
See the Article "The Naked Truth" by Hillary Frey for more on the work life of US Strippers. http://camgirlnotes.15.forumer.com/index.p...2&t=43&p=87&st=

We might also recall that the best "privets" in this business involve erotic conversation as much as "showing some skin " - see the F4F Models' Manual on what consitutes the "best private sessions." As some of our own models have reported here - with enough imagination and smarts - a model can make a lot of money without actually inserting something inside herself. In the end, what the client pays the web pimps for is the model's time and undivided attention in private session - and the rest is negotiable up to a certain point.

So to conclude, being a cam-model is a "Peformance Art."

UL

"I would no more be a Master than a slave. It does not conform to my idea of Democracy." Abraham Lincoln 1856.

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Jan 25 07 2:31 PM

I was going to reply earlier, but had to go to work. Both Wanker and UL said pretty much exactly what I was going to say. It is closest to exotic dancer peep shows that is far less than the hands on lap dances that some areas allow. My state, in the good 'ol Midwest, is prone to hillbilly conservatives, yet we have some of the most relaxed 'Gentlemen's Club' laws there are. And I have definitely witnessed at bachelor parties, legal strip shows that involved penetration with toys, fingers, and fruit.

UL is also correct in the 'friction' dancing/acts. Clients who can touch anything the dancer lets them, as long as their own clothes stay on. Apparently the conservatives are trying to make laws that stop dancers from give BJs through pants/underwear to clients. So that -is- legal currently here.

Recently, as the radio ads in my city promote, girl-on-girl shows, with toys etc. so that 'defends' the girl-on-girl cam models that do the same. The guy-girl cam duos though? What is that? I've only heard/seen 'real-life' shows where people go to a club and pay to watch men and women 'perform' together on TV shows like CSI. So I have no clue on laws about that.

To play the devil's advocate here for once, Does paying to see a guy penetrate a woman (even if not yourself) prostitution? I mean if my friends hired me a woman to have sex with me, that would be prostitution wouldn't it? So what if he pays to watch 'partners' go at it?
This is the -only- camming I could see as being even close, and I am not convinced.

But anything else I have ever heard or witnessed definitely is nothing more than what I have witnessed at a strip club.

-vodka

Quote    Reply   

#19 [url]

Mar 5 07 5:51 AM

QUOTE (vodka @ January 25, 2007 03:31 pm)
To play the devil's advocate here for once, Does paying to see a guy penetrate a woman (even if not yourself) prostitution? I mean if my friends hired me a woman to have sex with me, that would be prostitution wouldn't it? So what if he pays to watch 'partners' go at it?

I'm not sure where in the US but I know from involvment in a porn site owners/maker etc forum that it is legal to pay to see two other people go at it but producers have been jailed or fined for paying the girl in the production and starring in it himself (in otherwords, paying her for sex on film)
I don't recall which State though I am pretty sure that the midwest isnt one of the ones that allows either. They generally are refering to the red states when it comes to what you can get away with and what you can't, anyone in the blue states they automatically tell them to either 1) to move 2) to pray like hell they dont get caught or 3) to give up on the idea.
(BTW for those that are not from the US, the blue states are majority republican and the red are democrat)

Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Mar 6 07 11:45 PM

Sorry Cris, but the blue states are democrat and the red are republican. as when an election is in progress.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil...is for good men to do nothing
Edmund Burke(1729-1797)
Irish Philosopher,statesman


�With integrity, nothing else counts. Without integrity, nothing else counts.�

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. � Albert Einstein.

"To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of principle."
Confucius

STAY THE F..K OUT OF CAMLAND...YOU ARE ALL FODDER

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help