6 ms·

> "The threat of starving tomorrow" is not a condition invented by ruthless capitalist patriarchs No, but when ruthless capitlist patriarchs or whatever interv

by weland 13y ago

> "The threat of starving tomorrow" is not a condition invented by ruthless capitalist patriarchs 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.

mseebach 13y ago
You're changing the subject. You were comparing the coercion by direct deadly force to coercion by needing a job to eat. 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.
- weland 13y ago
  I'm not saying the people who run such a studio are doing the coercion directly, obviously. They're simply taking advantage of it. The fact that the advantage they are taking is primarily economic in nature does little to change the ethical matters. They act as intermediaries to people who gain advantages that are not only economic.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    Richelieu famously said that given five lines by the most honest of men, he could find something to hang him by. Today that role falls to the tired and unimaginative application of critical theory to, well, everything.
lmm 13y ago
> No, but when ruthless capitlist patriarchs or whatever intervene with their money in order to maintain its status quo, the difference begins to fade. 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)
- weland 13y ago
  > Bribing regulators to keep the girls poor? That would certainly be an issue if was happening, but I don't think it is. 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.
  - lmm 13y ago
    > In Romania? Wanna bet? 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?

by weland 13y ago

mseebach 13y ago

You're changing the subject. You were comparing the coercion by direct deadly force to coercion by needing a job to eat. 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.

weland 13y ago
I'm not saying the people who run such a studio are doing the coercion directly, obviously. They're simply taking advantage of it. The fact that the advantage they are taking is primarily economic in nature does little to change the ethical matters. They act as intermediaries to people who gain advantages that are not only economic.
- mseebach 13y ago
  Richelieu famously said that given five lines by the most honest of men, he could find something to hang him by. Today that role falls to the tired and unimaginative application of critical theory to, well, everything.

lmm 13y ago

> No, but when ruthless capitlist patriarchs or whatever intervene with their money in order to maintain its status quo, the difference begins to fade. 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)

weland 13y ago
> Bribing regulators to keep the girls poor? That would certainly be an issue if was happening, but I don't think it is. 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.
- lmm 13y ago
  > In Romania? Wanna bet? 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?