(no title)
AKSucks | 4 years ago
You (generally speaking) cannot get infected with STIs, pregnant, assaulted, raped, drugged, stabbed, murdered, convicted, jailed - for being a camgirl. You (generally speaking) can use the banking system, report that income, pay taxes on it, etc. You don't need to seek "camgirl friendly" medical professionals. Etc, etc.
I knew someone who called herself a sex worker because she posed for some fetish clothing store photos and did some fetish site photo shoots (it was a fetish involving certain items. No interaction, much less sexual, with other models/actresses. Nothing went into anyone's orifices.)
You might technically kinda almost be right when you squint really hard and aren't wearing your glasses in a dark room and you've had a few shots. But you're assigning/claiming a label to grant/be viewed as oppressed/lower-privileged while not actually suffering from oppression or lower privilege.
Camgirls - and models - calling themselves "sex workers" is like calling yourself black when you had a great-grandfather who was black.
dannyw|4 years ago
Sex work is very different in Australia for example, where it is regulated, with regular testing, mandated security at venues, and no risk of criminalisation. Full access to banking. And while assaults are always a risk, there are "camgirls" who have been doxxed and raped too.
This is why I think people should stop being outraged by words especially in mass media. Context is key, and context is local.
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
GuB-42|4 years ago
Here is from Wikipedia:
> Not to be confused with prostitution. Sex work is "the exchange of sexual services, performances, or products for material compensation.[1][2] It includes activities of direct physical contact between buyers and sellers as well as indirect sexual stimulation".[3]
Here is from Merriam-Webster:
> a person whose work involves sexually explicit behavior
Here is from Oxford Reference:
> Is paid employment in the sex industry, comprising prostitution and pornography
So by these definitions, camgirls are sex workers.
caconym_|4 years ago
Also, not that it matters, but you really seem to be minimizing the issues that camgirls etc. face. Sure, a prostitute may be putting themselves in more physical danger, but the downsides to these jobs do have a lot in common. See all over this thread for examples.
dragonwriter|4 years ago
Yes, you can. Plenty of camgirls who start off doing exclusively solo work progress to other types of shows involving other people, which involve all the risks of in-person sex work (because it is that) as well as all the special risks of online sex work (because it is that, too), and presumably they do so because of the systematic incentives of the industry.
> Camgirls - and models - calling themselves "sex workers" is like calling yourself black when you had a great-grandfather who was black.
Given the continued influence of the one-drop rule on views of race by race essentialists on the White side, and that from the Black side the shared identity is mostly one of shared experience of white racism, that's perfectly normal.
emptysongglass|4 years ago
So no I don't think the label is misplaced by and large and I think making a racial analogy is offensively off the mark.
angus-prune|4 years ago
The term was developed by sex workers explicitly for two purposes
1) To move away from the stigma of the term "prostitute"
2) To specifically include sex workers beyond escorts, including porn performers, camgirls, strippers etc
xenocratus|4 years ago
Dah00n|4 years ago
tnzm|4 years ago
So let's discuss the general case instead.
Stigma and ostracism are very ancient tools for ensuring compliance within a social group by threatening members with social exclusion; however, quicker/earlier stigma prevents non-conformity earlier, but it also locks people out "on the outside" quicker/earlier. Stigma is also easy to abuse - it's the perfect excuse for hurting someone who you see as "less than human" due to their stigma, and then blaming them for it.
If you're betting on a civilization collapse scenario where in-group cohesion is the decisive factor for survival, it would be rational for you to uphold stigmatization of any behavior that diverges from the established rituals of your in-group. Our present civilization, however, has decided that social exclusion is harmful in the general case, and (quite haphazardly) is trying to remedy _that_.
As our systems become stable enough to support people safely "going further" with their diverse, even mutually incompatible lifestyle choices, the logical conclusion would be to eradicate stigma and replace it with a more humane way of nudging people away from potentially harmful actions.
tclancy|4 years ago
watwut|4 years ago
tasogare|4 years ago
sneak|4 years ago
This is not really a true statement.