Meeting Members

[Therubyrouge]

I’m curious to hear both sides of the experience of meeting a member in person, good and bad. I don’t know that I would do it, but I also don’t know that I wouldn’t! What’s been your experience?

 

[AudriTwo]

According to fosta, we can't anymore. Sites won't allow you to make arrangements to meet members through their site unless you are at a convention or something.

 

[Therubyrouge]

According to fosta, we can't anymore. Sites won't allow you to make arrangements to meet members through their site unless you are at a convention or something.

Interesting! I did not know this! Thank you for the information!

 

[Deleted member 37064]

According to fosta, we can't anymore. Sites won't allow you to make arrangements to meet members through their site unless you are at a convention or something.

I thought that was only in reference to exchange of money/tokens? No raffles, etc.?


I've never knowingly met a cam model in person. But, there's a couple of them I think would be interesting to do so. Not from a potential hook up situation. Rather, just having talked to them for so long, more like meeting up with an old friend and having a discussion over a cup of coffee or something. I have met a few somewhat smaller profile internet celebrities offline, and it was pretty much the same way. One of whom is now a very good friend of mine, and have met their whole family due to events.

 

[THE MOLLIE MARIE]

It doesn't matter what the expressed intentions of the meetup are. You can't exchange money for a meetup on a site where you are also selling digital sex acts. These sites aren't willing to take the fall if the expressed intentions differ from what actually happens, and legal action takes place -- which is where FOSTA/SESTA came into play. So that is why many of them have explicitly banned discussion of meetups.

Rafflepocalypse 2018 was an entirely different scandal that only got as much attention as it did because of some loud twitter folks threatening performers. This had little to do with FOSTA/SESTA, and centered around a different act that cracked down on internet gambling that went into place in the early 2000s.

 

[AudriTwo]

I thought that was only in reference to exchange of money/tokens? No raffles, etc.?

I'm going by the law now and my site who now has this prompt reminding everyone no meetups after FOSTA/SESTA came into effect. We must verify before we can stream everytime. I don't know if other sites does anything similar or suffices with one time.

 

[Therubyrouge]

I feel ignorant, I didn’t know any of this was happening at all! I wasn’t referring to a “working/paid” meeting, more just was wondering how it would be to simply meet someone in person because we seem to connect on some level ( not necessarily sexual) and could have a great adventure. But it’s definitely a risky thing to do and I would hate to be in a bad situation AND to be unprotected by the law. It does add another element of risk ‍

 

[Deleted member 37064]

It doesn't matter what the expressed intentions of the meetup are. You can't exchange money for a meetup on a site where you are also selling digital sex acts. These sites aren't willing to take the fall if the expressed intentions differ from what actually happens, and legal action takes place -- which is where FOSTA/SESTA came into play. So that is why many of them have explicitly banned discussion of meetups.

Rafflepocalypse 2018 was an entirely different scandal that only got as much attention as it did because of some loud twitter folks threatening performers. This had little to do with FOSTA/SESTA, and centered around a different act that cracked down on internet gambling that went into place in the early 2000s.

That's my point, if one exchanges money/tokens for a meetup, that's in violation of FOSTA/SESTA and I'm not disputing that. What I was referring to was that if there was no exchange of money, and it was a willing meetup of model/member as friends with no sexual intent/actions, then it isn't a violation because it's not a transactional sex act or escort service, etc. The sites are prohibiting any kind of meetup because they want to ensure they do not get involved in case something does happen, and it's easier to say a blanket "NOT ALLOWED" than it is to pick specifics.

The screenshot Audri posted seems pretty generic, and not citing any laws. IIRC, I've heard the SM has always disallowed model/member communication outside of SM so it isn't new. Again, I think this is more to limit specific actions to SM, keep money/transactions on SM. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, as I think that if you do a transaction on a streaming site, it should stay on that streaming site (such as Pvt/exclusive on SM/MFC/CB instead of going to Skype).

I'm not claiming to be anywhere near an expert on this, only going off of what I've read and understood from hearing various models (including here) and some of the rules from various sites. Thus why I inquired on thinking it was only a transactional basis. Models have to understand and abide by the laws and rules of the sites they operate on, as well as set their own personal limitations.

 

[AudriTwo]

I feel ignorant, I didn’t know any of this was happening at all! I wasn’t referring to a “working/paid” meeting, more just was wondering how it would be to simply meet someone in person because we seem to connect on some level ( not necessarily sexual) and could have a great adventure. But it’s definitely a risky thing to do and I would hate to be in a bad situation AND to be unprotected by the law. It does add another element of risk ‍

This has been a thing for less than a year, so don't feel bad about being ill informed, bb. That's why I mention conventions if it was casual. Since it is safe place and expected. They don't want us arrange meeting on the site at all because the line can be cross and the site can be held liable.

The screenshot Audri posted seems pretty generic, and not citing any laws. IIRC, I've heard the SM has always disallowed model/member communication outside of SM so it isn't new. Again, I think this is more to limit specific actions to SM, keep money/transactions on SM. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, as I think that if you do a transaction on a streaming site, it should stay on that streaming site (such as Pvt/exclusive on SM/MFC/CB instead of going to Skype).

This was implemented by their lawyers right when FOSTA/SESTA became active. Like 5 days. There was also a newsletter explaining the changes because of FOSTA/SESTA and giving us a TL;DR on it. It is so the site won't be held liable. So no. It's not just to keep money on streamate. That was already heavily policed before all this. They didn't need this prompt the five years I have been streaming there. Their hammer worked just fine and everyone knew better who didn't get banned.

 

[AudriTwo]

I also recently had legal advice on camming business with trademarking and other sexy business shit, and my lawyer advised me on FOSTA/SESTA so I have an understanding of my rights and the line I cannot cross. They advised me not to arrange any meetups on sites I make transactions on. That could be argued the payments on the camsite can be used for payment of sextrafficing since it is a grey area. If I do want to meetup with fans, conventions and other public events. I have no interest in meeting anybody, but I appreciate them explaining what I can and can't do.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

This has been a thing for less than a year, so don't feel bad about being ill informed, bb. That's why I mention conventions if it was casual. Since it is safe place and expected. They don't want us arrange meeting on the site at all because the line can be cross and the site can be held liable.



This was implemented by their lawyers right when FOSTA/SESTA became active. Like 5 days. There was also a newsletter explaining the changes because of FOSTA/SESTA and giving us a TL;DR on it. It is so the site won't be held liable. So no. It's not just to keep money on streamate. That was already heavily policed before all this. They didn't need this prompt the five years I have been streaming there. Their hammer worked just fine and everyone knew better who didn't get banned.

Yep, which I previously stated it's because the sites don't want to be held liable and it's easier to do a blanket deny to avoid confusion. I'm not hating on them, as it can/will be a real bitch to get involved in a legal issue if something did happen.

That's my point, if one exchanges money/tokens for a meetup, that's in violation of FOSTA/SESTA and I'm not disputing that. What I was referring to was that if there was no exchange of money, and it was a willing meetup of model/member as friends with no sexual intent/actions, then it isn't a violation because it's not a transactional sex act or escort service, etc. The sites are prohibiting any kind of meetup because they want to ensure they do not get involved in case something does happen, and it's easier to say a blanket "NOT ALLOWED" than it is to pick specifics.

The screenshot Audri posted seems pretty generic, and not citing any laws. IIRC, I've heard the SM has always disallowed model/member communication outside of SM so it isn't new. Again, I think this is more to limit specific actions to SM, keep money/transactions on SM. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, as I think that if you do a transaction on a streaming site, it should stay on that streaming site (such as Pvt/exclusive on SM/MFC/CB instead of going to Skype).

I'm not claiming to be anywhere near an expert on this, only going off of what I've read and understood from hearing various models (including here) and some of the rules from various sites. Thus why I inquired on thinking it was only a transactional basis. Models have to understand and abide by the laws and rules of the sites they operate on, as well as set their own personal limitations.

I also recently had legal advice on camming business with trademarking and other sexy business shit, and my lawyer advised me on FOSTA/SESTA so I have an understanding of my rights and the line I cannot cross. They advised me not to arrange any meetups on sites I make transactions on. That could be argued the payments on the camsite can be used for payment of sextrafficing since it is a grey area. If I do want to meetup with fans, conventions and other public events. I have no interest in meeting anybody, but I appreciate them explaining what I can and can't do.

No disagreement here.

 

[SaffronBurke]

That's my point, if one exchanges money/tokens for a meetup, that's in violation of FOSTA/SESTA and I'm not disputing that. What I was referring to was that if there was no exchange of money, and it was a willing meetup of model/member as friends with no sexual intent/actions, then it isn't a violation because it's not a transactional sex act or escort service, etc. The sites are prohibiting any kind of meetup because they want to ensure they do not get involved in case something does happen, and it's easier to say a blanket "NOT ALLOWED" than it is to pick specifics.

The screenshot Audri posted seems pretty generic, and not citing any laws. IIRC, I've heard the SM has always disallowed model/member communication outside of SM so it isn't new. Again, I think this is more to limit specific actions to SM, keep money/transactions on SM. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, as I think that if you do a transaction on a streaming site, it should stay on that streaming site (such as Pvt/exclusive on SM/MFC/CB instead of going to Skype).

I'm not claiming to be anywhere near an expert on this, only going off of what I've read and understood from hearing various models (including here) and some of the rules from various sites. Thus why I inquired on thinking it was only a transactional basis. Models have to understand and abide by the laws and rules of the sites they operate on, as well as set their own personal limitations.

If someone wanted to be a stick in the mud, even if you didn't tip for the meeting, if you've tipped the model at all, it could potentially be seen as payment toward the meeting. Just to be safe, I'd suggest keeping discussions of meetups to email/twitter.

 

[AudriTwo]

Yep, which I previously stated it's because the sites don't want to be held liable and it's easier to do a blanket deny to avoid confusion. I'm not hating on them, as it can/will be a real bitch to get involved in a legal issue if something did happen.

Yes. Even my lawyer advised me not to either. This isn't a line we should cross because implications that can be made. I don't get why this being argued.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Yes. Even my lawyer advised me not to either. This isn't a line we should cross because implications that can be made. I don't get why this being argued.

If you reread what I wrote, it's not being argued. It was a question asked for clarity and understanding.

 

[AudriTwo]

If you reread what I wrote, it's not being argued. It was a question asked for clarity and understanding.

you have a strange way of asking questions that come across argumentative. lol tone in text is hard.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

you have a strange way of asking questions that come across argumentative. lol tone in text is hard.

Agreed, so much is lost in flat text in terms of tone but also it's open to interpretation based upon a single sided discussion at the time of reading. However, I thought I was being fairly clear in how I was stating things both from an inquisitive side for clarification of the laws and rules of sites as well as being understanding and relatively supportive of sites and models with rules on a potential meetup.

 

[AudriTwo]

Agreed, so much is lost in flat text. However, I thought I was being fairly clear in how I was stating things both from an inquisitive side of clarification of the laws and rules of sites as well as being understanding and relatively supportive of sites and models on a potential meetup.

it's just this law allows a lot of implications that can be held against us, you dudes, and sites. even non pornsites can be held liable, ie skype changed their tos to eliminate all nudity. all these changes were made because of the law. not because it is law. i think that's where our weird argument on agreeing came from.

i think it's best for everyone if we keep meetups to public organized events. you wouldn't want to be caught up in a sex trafficking investigation. that would be invasive af.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

it's just this law allows a lot of implications that can be held against us, you dudes, and sites. even non pornsites can be held liable, ie skype changed their tos to eliminate all nudity. all these changes were made because of the law. not because it is law. i think that's where our weird argument on agreeing came from.

i think it's best for everyone if we keep meetups to public organized events. you wouldn't want to be caught up in a sex trafficking investigation. that would be invasive af.

Agreed, there's a lot of things that are at issue with the law, the changes because of it, and it's one of those where it's best to steer clear of any chance of something happening that drags someone (and possibly their family) into an investigation. I tend to find myself having to pull info, or make changes to areas at work due to laws and what's required because of them. The latest one being GDPR. What a pain in the ass all these laws are.

 

[Therubyrouge]

Yeah, I’m conflicted for sure.
On the one hand, I feel like if I wanna be a full service sex worker, I should be able to so without these fucks telling me what to do with my body!
But on the OTHER hand, I don’t actually want that and I want to stay safe. So is this law keeping me safe or is it covering their own asses?? I’d have to do some actual research and seek out the statistics to really know, and I’m not sure if I’m that invested in it or if I’m just rebelling against authority and the “no”... lol

 

[Smores]

Yeah, I’m conflicted for sure.
On the one hand, I feel like if I wanna be a full service sex worker, I should be able to so without these fucks telling me what to do with my body!
But on the OTHER hand, I don’t actually want that and I want to stay safe. So is this law keeping me safe or is it covering their own asses?? I’d have to do some actual research and seek out the statistics to really know, and I’m not sure if I’m that invested in it or if I’m just rebelling against authority and the “no”... lol

To be really cynical about it, the new laws have nothing to do with keeping sex workers safe. The new laws are about government using the threat of actions against corporations as a way to get the corporations to engage in censorship of pornography. Since any sexually-oriented service has some angle in which it can be framed as a potential violation of some part of the new laws, and since the corporations are now being held criminally liable for the actions of users of their websites, it is easier for the corporations to just ban pornography widely. The Tumblr ban of pornographic material was a good example of how corporations are now viewing adult material, in light of the new laws. What they should really call these new laws is the "How we can get around the constitution and free speech by using corporations to do our dirty work for us" act. The truth is no one in this mix cares about sex workers or their safety.

 

[Derek_Zoolander]

Fosta/Sesta is how vanilla world can continue to treat sex workers as second class citizens.

 

[JohnWaynesman]

Why would you want to accept tokens or anything other then cash/direct payment for a meetup anyway?
Just discuss it over email/messenger and thats it, no sites or anything involved.

 

[SofiaTheHermit]

To be really cynical about it, the new laws have nothing to do with keeping sex workers safe. The new laws are about government using the threat of actions against corporations as a way to get the corporations to engage in censorship of pornography. Since any sexually-oriented service has some angle in which it can be framed as a potential violation of some part of the new laws, and since the corporations are now being held criminally liable for the actions of users of their websites, it is easier for the corporations to just ban pornography widely. The Tumblr ban of pornographic material was a good example of how corporations are now viewing adult material, in light of the new laws. What they should really call these new laws is the "How we can get around the constitution and free speech by using corporations to do our dirty work for us" act. The truth is no one in this mix cares about sex workers or their safety.

And there is the percieved loss in taxable income, that private transactions between member and camgirl would imply. Can't have that.

 

[Mysterious Lady]

.................... Models have to understand and abide by the laws and rules of the sites they operate on, as well as set their own personal limitations.

Well said!
Watch this movie Pretty Obsession (2012)
A teen girl puts herself and her family in danger when she leads a double life as a webcam model.
Winner of 3 awards at the 2011 Melbourne Independent Filmmakers Festival.