3 ms·
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 w
by 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.
- lmm 13y agoWell, clearly some girls are actually videochatting rather than just using it as cover for prostitution. Clearly some girls are being employed in jobs that didn't exist prior to these businesses. And the article shows that at least some of these businesses really are exactly what they claim to be (and really why wouldn't they be? It's profitable enough). "It can be used for money laundering" could be given as an argument against basically any possible business.
- weland 13y agoI'm sorry, the difference in cultural context is far too high for me to be able to properly explain this. You have a very optimistic view about how sexual exploitation actually works.