Granted, not all sex work is involuntary, but don't delude yourself thinking it's a voluntary choice in poor countries.
"The threat of starving tomorrow" is not a condition invented by ruthless capitalist patriarchs or whatever the claptrap of the day is, it's the basis of the human condition for all but the last ~20 minutes of the species' time on this planet.
The fact that in most rich countries we generally, mostly can expect to eat tomorrow no matter what happens is still a state of unimaginable luxury for a large portion of the planet's population (although quickly shrinking).
The idea that everybody should be free to do (and especially not do) whatever they please without ever suffering adverse consequences is still a fantasy for most, even in the rich part of the world. Using it as some sort of objective universal yardstick next to having a gun to your head is lacking proportions on an epic scale.
No, but when ruthless capitlist patriarchs or whatever intervene with their money in order to maintain its status quo, the difference begins to fade.
Or did you think the girls came up with the money for the studios by themselves? That unless they come up with a steady cashflow for the studio, they're not back wherever they came from?
Yes, there's a legitimate business need for what they do, but I find it difficult to shake off the feeling that the investors behind the studios would be so quick to invest in, say, education.
I'm sure the people who run such a studio are not God's best children, but if they're not threatening physical violence, it's not comparable to threatening physical violence, not matter how much you'd like them to invest in schools instead.
Today that role falls to the tired and unimaginative application of critical theory to, well, everything.
What are you talking about here? Bribing regulators to keep the girls poor? That would certainly be an issue if was happening, but I don't think it is.
> Or did you think the girls came up with the money for the studios by themselves? That unless they come up with a steady cashflow for the studio, they're not back wherever they came from?
What are you talking about? This whole line seems very incoherent.
> Yes, there's a legitimate business need for what they do, but I find it difficult to shake off the feeling that the investors behind the studios would be so quick to invest in, say, education.
I don't think so; I think they're just chasing whichever investment gives the best return on their money, and if that were education they'd be in there like a shot. (There are certainly plenty of scumbags in the education industry if that's where you were going with this)
In Romania? Wanna bet?
> What are you talking about? This whole line seems very incoherent.
This whole lines seems pretty coherent to me. Videochat studios in Eastern Europe (or at least in Romania, the one I'm more familiar with) are not owned by the men and women who star in the shows (obviously). Opening one is a pretty big investment, too. Typically, the "employees" aren't legally employed there, either, so there are no social benefits, no medical insurance and so on.
The way we see it from outside, this is a legit business ran because there's a demand for it and that's it. The way it actually happens is this is a shady business which, were it not to draw on a pool of poor people who cannot afford any other option, would fail.
Most of the girls who do this aren't doing it on Western terms, where they figured out going to college certainly doesn't pay off as well as this. They're doing it on Eastern terms, where they figured out it's either this or starving.
Edit: unless it wasn't bloody obvious already, the vast majority of videochat studios are actually brothels, or act as covers for brothels, as prostitution is outlawed in most of Eastern Europe.
Oh, I'm sure many would if they could. I mean, that's basically how the people-trafficking approach to running one of these businesses works; you bribe people so that the girls are in the country illegally and therefore can't insist on being paid properly etc. But the example in this article doesn't seem to be doing that, and in any case there's no reason to assume this is any more or less an issue with camshows than with fruit picking or mining or accountancy.
> Videochat studios in Eastern Europe (or at least in Romania, the one I'm more familiar with) are not owned by the men and women who star in the shows (obviously). Opening one is a pretty big investment, too.
Well, sure. Like a farm or a mine or anything else. I don't see how this is relevant to the rest of your argument.
> Typically, the "employees" aren't legally employed there, either, so there are no social benefits, no medical insurance and so on.
That's definitely an issue. But again, it's an issue in any industry; nothing specific to camgirls here.
> were it not to draw on a pool of poor people who cannot afford any other option, would fail.
Any business in a poor country is like that. But a simplistic response like refusing to buy products made in poor countries hurts those same people more than ignoring their plight. (Which is not to say that there aren't better options than ignoring them - but those options are not obvious or easy. Did you have a concrete suggestion for how to make these people's lives better? Because I don't think making camsites illegal would do that).
> Most of the girls who do this aren't doing it on Western terms, where they figured out going to college certainly doesn't pay off as well as this. They're doing it on Eastern terms, where they figured out it's either this or starving.
I doubt that - two years ago this option didn't exist, but very few people were starving, even in Eastern Europe. I'm not saying the alternative is good - we might be talking 14-hour days in the fields or similar - but it will exist and won't be starvation. I think many of these girls aren't being coerced because there's no need to coerce them - this career is genuinely a better option than the available alternatives. (And again, yes that sucks, but what's the solution? Not banning what's currently the best option they have)
> Edit: unless it wasn't bloody obvious already, the vast majority of videochat studios are actually brothels, or act as covers for brothels, as prostitution is outlawed in most of Eastern Europe.
It's pretty clear the one in the article isn't. And if a videochat studio can make the kind of money the article claims, while remaining just a videochat studio and operating within the law, why wouldn't they do that?
> I doubt that - two years ago this option didn't exist, but very few people were starving, even in Eastern Europe.
Have you actually been there, or are you just talking about it from Wikipedia? Two years ago this option didn't exist, so yes, many of the girls who are now doing videochat would have simply gone into prostitution. And, yes, two years ago, a lot of people were on the brink of starvation, just like today. It doesn't go to the levels you see in Africa because the communities tend to be more heterogenous in terms of wealth distribution, but you do see villages where up to 20-30% of the population is literally living without any income and without any residence.
Before you move to "well yeah but they can work", do remember that (at least in Romania and, if I remember correctly, Bulgaria and Serbia), you need a valid ID in order to be employed, and you need a residence in order to get a valid ID. No residence, no work.
Also, I think it was obvious that I wasn't referring to this article specifically, just like the other posters in this thread were not referring to this article specifically, but to videochat studios in general.
Been there, have friends who emigrated from there.
> Two years ago this option didn't exist, so yes, many of the girls who are now doing videochat would have simply gone into prostitution. And, yes, two years ago, a lot of people were on the brink of starvation, just like today.
Even if you're right, that makes my argument stronger, not weaker. If these videochat businesses are employing girls who would otherwise go into prostitution, surely that makes them a good thing? Surely that means making them illegal would be a really bad idea. Surely these businesses are if anything empowering the girls (a little bit), because they now have (a few) more and (slightly) better choices than they would have two years ago.
Are you being intentionally thick? These businesses aren't employing girls who would otherwise go into prostitution. In the absence of proper regulations, they simply act as legit proxies and money laundering networks for prostitution, and this status quo is maintained using bribe money from pimps, many of whom are either officials or financers of officials.
Pretty much all industries dependent on low-wage labor (and, arguably, the entire system of wage labor) would fail were they not to draw on a pool of poor (before considering wage labor) people who cannot afford any better option.
A little hint: Forced Prostitution does not necessarily mean that the girls run around with bruises all the time. Flirting behavior or turning on a customer isn't proof there is no coercion involved. Pimps do believe in employee education, you know...
There is a massive ethical (and I believe legal) difference between having sex with someone who you believe is consenting (even if just for money), and having sex with someone who you believe is not consenting.