3 ms·

> 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

by 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?
- weland 13y ago
  The phrase about assumptions being the mother of all fuck-ups comes to mind :-). > 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.
  - lmm 13y ago
    > Have you actually been there, or are you just talking about it from Wikipedia? 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.
    - weland 13y ago
      > If these videochat businesses are employing girls who would otherwise go into prostitution, surely that makes them a good thing? 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.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> 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. 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.

by weland 13y ago

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?

weland 13y ago
The phrase about assumptions being the mother of all fuck-ups comes to mind :-). > 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.
- lmm 13y ago
  > Have you actually been there, or are you just talking about it from Wikipedia? 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.
  - weland 13y ago
    > If these videochat businesses are employing girls who would otherwise go into prostitution, surely that makes them a good thing? 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.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> 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. 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.