Your opinion on SWs and CAMers

[Guest]

Hi all. I am really interested in this community's view of sex workers and public masturbation and other acts camera broadcasters. Do you:

Perceive male and female sex workers differently? Do you perceive them differently based on the services they offer/their position (top/bottom/switch/blowjob t/blowjob b/safe sex only/bareback only), their masculinity/femininity/trans-ness (do you treat trans sex workers differently than cis sex workers)? 

Is your perception of camera broadcasters of various sex acts different within the group of camera sex acts broadcasters when the abovementioned categories come into play?

Do you consider sex work different than cam work (one group "better" or "worse" than the other)? Why or why not?

Thanks for your honest replies. I'm interested in your own perceptions, whatever they are.

[BootmanLA]

I think asking whether we "perceive" them differently based on X Y or Z is kind of open-ended.

If you mean "Do you judge group A more harshly than group B?" the answer is no. If you mean "Are you equally likely to engage a sex worker if he/she is X, instead of Y?" then yes, of course, I would presumably hire a sex worker that meets the desires and needs I have at that point.

As far as I'm concerned, cam work (and "fans" site work) is sex work. Whether or not physical contact comes into play, the person in front of the camera, live or not, is presumably helping the viewer pleasure themself/selves, and it's a commercial transaction. That's sex work. I don't see either as better or worse than the other; just different, like a Big Mac is a different sort of meal from a medium rare ribeye steak with all the trimmings. I might say I "like" the steak much better than the burger, but then I don't get to eat steak multiple times a week. And I don't consider the steak restaurant a morally superior place to the McDonald's, at least not as far as the food is concerned. (Employee practices may make a morals judgment more relevant).

[BootmanLA]

I would add: I have a really broad definition of sex worker. I even include guys who list themselves as "FinDoms" - you're taking money for turning someone on, you're a sex worker. 

[boy4you]

In NYC we have groups like Red Canary, SWOP & Kinkout for SWers. 
SW is work. There is No difference Between M/F SW as you both sell your bodies. 

 

Camera work is so distant with no connection to the people you work for. 

[Guest]

I myself don´t judge neither group. Sex work is work for me, though I make some difference within Cammers group in that there are cam sex workers and some cammers do it only to show themselves, since they like to be watched and hence, not every cammer is automatically sex worker imo. I was interested in how sex work positive is this community, since there is lot of sex work bashing out there. I did some SW as well and think the position of SWs should definitely improve, as should the customer relations towards SWs. Obviously, I understand there is some "discrimination" against SWs when the client is gay/looking for a male SW, or straight, looking for a female SW. I´m talking more about violence towards SWs, the treatment of male vs female SW by general public, part of the clients still not taking it as a fixed work agreement (speaking of price handling/dealing with paying before/after the work, the feeling of some of them they own you once they pay), etc.

[hntnhole]

Work is work, right?  Work is some kind of service provided for monetary gain (or, perhaps some kind of "in-kind" thing of value), right?  Whether or not the type of work is legally sanctioned does not impact the basic contract (however, if it is illegal, some extra amount may be charged because of that fact).  That said, is there some difference between m/m, m/f, f/f sex work? I don't think so - it's commerce, controlled by X service for an agreed-upon price.  Butch, fem, trans, whatever else has no bearing on it.  Purchasers of these services are unlikely to commence discussion with a sex-worker if that worker does not reflect what they're interested in.  Who am I to judge them?  Everyone needs to eat, right? Everyone needs shelter, right?  If some folks judge other folks for how they keep food in their bellies and a roof over their head, then that's a shame on the judger, not the judged.

Obviously, putting a "contract" out on some enemy would be both illegal and irredeemably corrupt.  But sex work kills no one, and is only socially/culturally sanctioned by the majority, and thus legally. Unless I'm mistaken, there are governments in the world that license sex-workers (gotta get their cut, of course), and thus officially condone these business contracts.  Maybe one of these centuries, that kind of generosity will come to this country too.  

I would suggest that exactly what the "contract" (i.e. the business arrangement, almost always vocally constructed in this instance) specifies the details of what services will be provided, what the price will be, and (hopefully) any "limits" to be respected.  What difference would it make whether either of the parties are male, female, transsexual, not transsexual, on camera, off camera (frankly, I don't even know what that means, other than relative to some contracted-for service), or any other way. The "contract" could be nothing more than: "will you suck me off for X bucks?"  I don't see how what the contract specifies has any bearing, other than perhaps culturally.  The purchaser views the product, and decides whether to buy it or not. As to whether the purchaser holds some kind of negative view of certain characteristics, said purchaser wouldn't inquire in the first place, and move on to someone more to his/her liking.  For the record, I have nothing at all against sex-workers.  They provide a necessary service to the lowest of the lowly and the highest of the mighty.  Stormy something ... she of the bovine breasts as I recall, would be an example.  While I wouldn't fuck her for any amount of money doesn't mean that she shouldn't be able to conduct commerce.  

Years ago I was in a participant in a number of home-made group action videos, which was fine with me.  Guys in the area would text the kid that had the cameras to see if they couId come over too, and often times they did.  I had no idea there could have been a pecuniary facet to it !!!