Analysis of ACF discussions published in preeminent feminist academic journal

[Hypatia]

Posted this in the introduction thread but thought I'd bring it over here for wider dissemination.

I was motivated to join to post info on the free availability of a recently published article analyzing ACF forum posts! Rare to see free availability of articles from a prestigious feminist journal such as Signs. Thought people here might be interested. You may be quoted! Ref & link below --

Signs Journal of Women in Culture and Society
Volume 42, Number 1, Autumn 2016

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/686758

One of the author's main themes: "I argue that adult webcam models experience sexual and affectual pleasures in the course of their work and that they are able to experience these pleasures because the computer-mediated sexual exchange acts as a psychological barrier ... "

Well, from what I've read here (I'm neither model nor customer) -- there are some models posting who say it's strictly business & the creation of a fantasy (meaning no 'pleasure' involved)? But that's an empirical question.

 

[AudriTwo]

Well, from what I've read here (I'm neither model nor customer) -- there are some models posting who say it's strictly business & the creation of a fantasy (meaning no 'pleasure' involved)? But that's an empirical question.

In creating that fantasy, you have to create that pleasure if it doesn't come naturally. Some models fake while others have genuine reactions. Most customers want to see a girl into it, not be uninterested.

 

[MFCGod]

I had a go at reading it but it's a bit above my reading level

I also now need to google what an "empirical question" is lol

 

[Gen]

Interesting, and thanks for sharing! It was an interesting read. I am always curious as to why feminist scholars often frame arguments about sex work about how sexually satisfying it is. I am glad she included a bit about the social connection as well. I also thought it was interesting when she talked about our general consensus on harassment/doxxing/capping being "it happens, do what you can" as individualistic. I guess I'd never heard that term used in that context before but I do feel it's smarter to tell new girls how it currently is than to say "well, maybe if you wish really hard, the nature of the entire internet will change and everyone will suddenly stop consuming and sharing media they haven't paid for". I've seen, in my few years in this industry, a lot of girls try to form unions or challenge the various camsites to do more and so I don't think it's that we (as camgirls) don't care, just that it's a big uphill battle that most camgirls know is unlikely to change.

I am excited to read Rachel's paper (who was interviewing ACF girls recently) to see if there's much difference when girls are speaking privately vs speaking publicly. Even the difference between public posts on ACF compared to other forums where girls use anonymous names is interesting. Smart camgirls are probably mindful of how they speak on the public section of ACF where lots of their regulars or potential regulars might hang out.

 

[Gen]

I had a go at reading it but it's a bit above my reading level

I also now need to google what an "empirical question" is lol

It is very academic and jargon-y! I actually was talking about it with my roommate last night (her major requires a lot of these types of readings, whereas I'm studying psych so I'm more practised in reading psych studies), and we were saying how much learning to read stuff like this is a skill and a practice in itself. I find it often references other theories and authors that I'm not familiar with, words that have colloquial meanings are used differently in academia, etc and it can be hard to follow if you aren't used to it. My roommate does a lot of my readings and then explains them to me like I'm five.

Sorry for DP (hehehehehe) but I couldn't figure out how to add a quote to an edit.

 

[Deleted member 31926]

The article is rather jargon-y. Here's my attempt at summarizing its key points, for the time-challenged or constitutionally lazy:

Angela Jones begins by claiming "female sexuality is contingent on both danger and pleasure", and spends most of her article analyzing the work of cam modelling along these two dimensions. She theorizes models are attracted to the pleasure inherent to camming (a pleasure supposedly absent from traditional, in-person sex work) and that this pleasure increases their individual odds of success while simultaneously prompting them to minimize and rationalize the dangers involved.

According to Jones, camming is pleasurable because it provides

• Sexual pleasure: Models are able to focus on pleasing themselves sexually during performances and feel less pressure either to perform acts they do not enjoy or to feign enjoyment for their clients. As evidence this pleasure is not merely faked, Jones notes the number of models who claim to have become better at reaching orgasm either on their own or with a partner thanks to the work they do.
• Affectual pleasure (which means "good feelings"): The comfortable environment afforded by online work helps models and clients create "touching encounters" together, or moments of real intimacy. She points out models often list among the benefits of their work the relationships they build with favourite customers and their ability to spend time simply chatting with and getting to know their admirers.

Jones notes cam models are able to enjoy these pleasures in part because of the physical separation between them and their clients, which provides an inherent emotional and psychological buffer that replaces the artificial buffers more traditional sex workers create for themselves (allowing only certain parts of their body to be touched, for example).

However, she also believes the pleasure of camming effectively blinds models to its dangers, which consist primarily of

• Capping: Members recording a model's performances and posting them online.
• Doxxing: Obsessed or malicious members discovering a model's personal identity and using it to stalk or otherwise threaten them.
• Harassment: Members sending abusive messages, either in chat or by email.

Jones is critical of the prevailing attitude among models that these dangers are simply an inherent risk of camming and ought to be accepted by anyone considering this line of work. She particularly objects to the characterization of online harassment as mere "trolling", suggesting it could be causing psychological harm to models beyond their awareness.

The remainder of the article is spent by Jones grappling with how she feels models should be handling these dangers, pointing out camming lacks even the few forms of protection expected by traditional sex workers: There are no bouncers in an online "strip club". She suggests the individualistic, self-reliant approach to risk management adopted by models reflects a larger trend towards neoliberalism within feminism, which holds (if I understand this correctly) that women can empower themselves by taking responsibility for their own financial well-being. She goes back and forth on whether this is really a good thing, hinting that perhaps the cam sites themselves have a moral obligation to protect their models while also pointing out the additional regulation and intrusion this would entail. In conclusion, she writes, "The neoliberal politics of digital sex work is a double-edged sword indeed."

 

[Sevrin]

The remainder of the article is spent by Jones grappling with how she feels models should be handling these dangers, pointing out camming lacks even the few forms of protection expected by traditional sex workers: There are no bouncers in an online "strip club". She suggests the individualistic, self-reliant approach to risk management adopted by models reflects a larger trend towards neoliberalism within feminism, which holds (if I understand this correctly) that women can empower themselves by taking responsibility for their own financial well-being. She goes back and forth on whether this is really a good thing, hinting that perhaps the cam sites themselves have a moral obligation to protect their models while also pointing out the additional regulation and intrusion this would entail. In conclusion, she writes, "The neoliberal politics of digital sex work is a double-edged sword indeed."

Her comments about neoliberalism go beyond thoughts about models attaining financial independence, but also their safety, focusing on some comments here that it's up to models to steel themselves for outing and that what models experience is "trolling" rather than what would be called "harassment" in any other context.

One thing that bugged me is that her paper only discusses comments of models here who are just getting into camming, or already making a go of it. There's no mention of the tremendous churn that exists in cam modelling, and that's simply because she focuses on our discussion board, and not those models who leave the life, the sites, and generally, the discussion boards where they might discuss their reasons for leaving. Nor does she mention that the vast majority of cam models out there are not likely to post here, simply because English is not their first language, or that the experience of those models, many of whom work in the studio system, is not necessarily that of the models who participate here.

 

[Gen]

The remainder of the article is spent by Jones grappling with how she feels models should be handling these dangers, pointing out Webcamming lacks even the few forms of protection expected by traditional sex workers: There are no bouncers in an online "strip club".

I found that really funny because we are our own bouncers, which is a lot more reliable than (in my experience) relying on bosses who are focused on profits to take care of us.

Nor does she mention that the vast majority of cam models out there are not likely to post here, simply because English is not their first language, or that the experience of those models, many of whom work in the studio system, is not necessarily that of the models who participate here.

She did mention that it was primarily white American women at some point. But definitely agree that any discussion about camming from a feminist perspective should give more mention to studios and non-American models.

 

[Hypatia]

But definitely agree that any discussion about camming from a feminist perspective should give more mention to studios and non-American models.

Yeah, I think this is sort of what she means by being subject to criticism for being a neoliberal -- focusing on the touchy/feely "feels good!" aspect of camming to the exclusion of a structural criticism of women & poverty, exploitation & all that.

 

[Tammie_]

Wow, I find this article very problematic in both her methodology and conclusions. without access to the models only section and without speaking directly to any cam models she's drawn conclusions that seem to fit comfortably within her own agenda, but really undermine the value our autonomy and the strength of the model community. For example:
"The models on this board overwhelmingly emphasized that models who get upset about capping, doxxing, and harassment are simply not cut out for this line of work. Models emphasized that had these women properly armed themselves before camming, they would not have faced these problems at all. So, the “blame the victim” approach that crops up all too often in modern politics emerges here as well."
It truly troubles me that any one who claims to have spent a significant amount of time reading this forum would surmise that models victim blame other models who get capped, doxxed, or trolled.

She also seems to misunderstand camgirls to be a purely fictitious and manufactured self. From her understanding we are purely performing our camselves, but hey at least the orgasms are authentic. This goes against advice regularly given advice to girls just starting out to not try to be what you think viewers want, but to just be yourself.

There are many other points that I find problematic, not least of all that camgirls embrace neoliberal feminism, but I don't see the point of going into them unless the author were to return to this forum to receive critique from her subjects (which is arguably what any responsible ethnographer would do).

I suppose my main grievance with work of this type is that her intentions are unclear. What is the goal for this research? Does she have camgirls' interests in mind and plan on proactively supporting and improving the work environment for the workers? If so, why has she not spoken to or interacted with any, but instead chose to silently observe? Sadly, I highly doubt that is the case and instead assume she is following a popular academic trend of enacting yet another form of exploitation on sex workers. We are trendy subjects to study that can gain academics easy wins for their publishing, funding, and career progression goals, without them ever giving anything back to the community they rely on for research material. There are academics working on sex work who absolutely do make a point of their work benefitting the community, but there is no indication within this article or its notes to make a case for that here.

 

[Sevrin]

There are many other points that I find problematic, not least of all that camgirls embrace neoliberal feminism, but I don't see the point of going into them unless the author were to return to this forum to receive critique from her subjects (which is arguably what any responsible ethnographer would do)..

Yes, it is off-putting that, while she mined the forum for selected quotes, she didn't pop in to solicit comments.

Maybe she will stop by after her book "But I’m A Model: Race, Class, Gender, and Web-Cam Modeling" comes out, and offer a signed copy to the high tipper.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

Maybe unpopular opinion about sex workers needing to love what they do:

I feel like it is different from other jobs, particularly because any rational person associates sex with consent and pleasure for both parties. I had a discussion in my room about this the other day. I think a lot of guys are very concerned about the person who is giving them sexual satisfaction is enjoying it also, especially in the sex industry. That's why girls fake orgasms in the first place. I know when I'm purchasing porn I tend to go with girls who seem like they're legitimately enjoying it and not just doing it for the money. Is it wrong to just be doing it for the money? Not at all; consent is consent regardless of why it's there. This also led to the discussion of spending money on girls who are already well off, because if a girl seems like she doesn't have to do this for the money, it legitimizes her enjoyment of it. I'm not rich or even wealthy by any means, but I do well enough that I can do what I want without worrying about losing money. Now, that's not exclusive for girls enjoying "success", but I definitely did more things I didn't enjoy when I was struggling. It's a catch-22 though; through the money I made not enjoying myself as much, I was able to stay in the industry and support myself until I reached a place where I was able to call all the shots.

I don't think it's unreasonable for men to place importance on our sexual enjoyment when seeking our services. I don't think the answer is to only support successful women, either. And it's hard to tell who's faking it, because it is our job to convey sexual enjoyment. I think the best thing men can do is to pay attention to the girl who is catching their attention and what she genuinely likes to do. And not in the bullshit "do whatever u like BB" "ok now harder BB" sort of way, but making an effort comparable to how you would approach a girl IRL that you want to have a mutually satisfying sexual encounter with, while still being generous and creating an environment where she can actually enjoy herself.

 

[AerynShade]

While users can turn geotags off, geotag is the default setting on smartphones; it would take technical savvy and industry experience to turn this feature off.

Really? Really? Or a 3 second google search, and a basic understanding of one's phone.

However, how does persistent harassment by trolls affect models psychologically? While the data here did not allow me to answer this question in any meaningful way, future lines of qualitative inquiry will need to explore the psychological effects of online harassment on webcam models.

The same way it affects everyone else who is harassed? It annoys the fuck out of some, scares the shit out of some, and bothers others not at all. Asking us might have been...I dunno...useful?

The models on this board overwhelmingly emphasized that models who get upset about capping, doxxing, and harassment are simply not cut out for this line of work. Models emphasized that had these women properly armed themselves before camming, they would not have faced these problems at all. So, the “blame the victim” approach that crops up all too often in modern politics emerges here as well.

I don't feel this is what's happening in our threads at all. When we tell models they need to protect themselves better we're doing so in order to help them. To keep them from future harm. We're saying, "whoa, lady, you're using the same photo in your profile on MFC and personal Facebook. That's a dangerous situation and we want you to be as safe as possible."
And who is saying we shouldn't be upset if all our personal info gets released? When did that discussion take place?!

 

[AudriTwo]

I want to touch on the dangers of online harassment. Camming isn't for the weak and easily offended. That is for sure. I have had experience some harassment but I don't consider trolling harassment. When you have enough self confidence and self awareness, you can't be trolled. The block button is your friend, but developing a quick wit and sense of humor is your best friend. If it causing psychological issues, get out of camming.

 

[paige_orion]

Yeah, I definitely thought the article was interesting - until it came to the part where telling girls to ignore trolls and protect their information to prevent doxxing was the equivalent of blaming the victim, such as we see in rape cases. "Here, the victims of this violence overwhelmingly said that if women only better protected themselves, they’d be better off. In the end, this logic does not help to alleviate the problem of harassment for webcam models as a group. Instead, remedying online harassment becomes an individual’s problem."

Yes, we would love to say, use all of your personal information and no one would dare hurt you with it. We would love for the world to take online harassment seriously - but they don't. You see it all of the time - in schools, on Twitter, etc. No one takes that harassment seriously. Have you tried going to the police about harassment? They can't really do much about it except make a report. So what can we do? We can warn girls to protect themselves and tell them the best methods to do so.

We aren't saying that if you get doxxed, you deserve it for not protecting yourself better. The blame lies on the harassers. We tell girls how to protect themselves. We tell them to be diligent because the world isn't going to protect us from online harassers - we just have to take care of it ourselves in our own ways. We warn them not to be naive and expect that everyone is good and that there aren't crazy people out there who get off on being psychologically damaging. We warn them that this job can be very emotionally taxing, and it isn't for everyone. That isn't blaming. It's called being cautious. It's called making sure new girls are safe - and warning them to prepare themselves for all of the terrible things that COULD happen, so they can decide for themselves whether this job is worth it. I have seen women lose their families, their friends, their lovers, their kids - all because of this job. It would be irresponsible to tell women that everything is sunshine and rainbows and no one will ever treat you badly, and that crazy people won't try to take your information and ruin your life.

I do feel defensive about this article. Women would be better off if they protected themselves. In this world, you cannot rely on other people to protect you. Yes, it would be amazing if harassment wasn't prevalent. But we live in a society where women aren't protected from sexual violence. Rapists are caught in the act and barely chastized. Women are blamed at every turn. People dismiss violence against sex workers as something we deserve, as if we are less than human. Sex worker women become nameless. Add in being a sex worker with online harassment where law enforcement and even social media barely does anything about... And I think it would be incredibly irresponsible to tell a girl to not protect themselves. It isn't blaming the victim - it's telling her that you can't count on people to be decent human beings and you can't count on law enforcement to protect you and you can't count on society to care. The only person you can truly count on is yourself. I wish that wasn't the case. I wish sex work was a career where the naive and the innocent could flourish in safely - but it is not. And I would rather teach a girl how to protect herself than to do nothing and watch her world fall apart because she didn't know how necessary it was.

Having sex-workers trying to look after our own associated with victim-blaming rape victims (especially when so many ladies I know have experienced assault and/or rape)... It just reinforces the feeling that we are a closed community for a reason. It feels like another civilian trying to take a tour in our world in an attempt to make a name for themselves, trying to assign judgment shrouded in a clinical study. They don't care about trying to make things better or trying to change the world in which we live in, where harassment of online sex workers is a daily thing - it is a judgment for the fact that we are taking care of our own and protecting ourselves.

It sucks to have someone approach us and make it seem like they are genuinely curious and genuinely want to know what is going on... And then turn around and make such a callous and horrific statement.... Yeah. I'm not going to be opening up to any other researcher. If they aren't actively interested in making things better, they don't deserve to hear our experiences.

I dunno. I was really disappointed with that last half (as you can tell).

 

[Gen]

I wonder if the author is/was a camgirl. In my experience a lot of camgirls who are also academics write about camming.

It is weird to rely solely on observation and then make definitive statements about it when you could easily ask for more information. And it does discount the limited resources we have to say it's victim blaming when it's really using the tools we have at our disposal to manage risk as best we can.