Friday, 26 October 2007

Naked Ambition - Web Cam Sex Job Storm

"A Jobcentre has provoked outrage after it was found to be advertising for women to strip for web cams on Internet sex sites for £8 an hour," according to the Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail isn't a bad newspaper, as they go, but it does have a tendency to scramble for the moral high ground, even if it has to heap up a lot of dirt to stand on first. This story continues in typical DM fashion, with much wailing and outrage, not to mention a quote from Tory MP Anne Widdecombe, AKA Doris Karloff. Now THERE'S a babe I'd happily pay £80 an hour to keep her kit on!

And, as is often the case when the Mail is frothing at the mouth, it misses the point entirely. Clearly, there is demand for folks who are willing to disrobe on cam and act out clients' fantasies - the company involved wouldn't be paying the models £8 an hour if there weren't. This means there are folks out there (probably, though not necessarily, of the male persuasion) who want to watch these clothes-shedding birds, and are willing to pay for the dubious pleasure.

Have you ever used MSN Messenger? Yahoo Messenger? AOL Instant Messenger? If you have, you will know they all have the facilities to handle video chat. Or, in other words, anyone with a webcam can, if they wish, allow any other user of the software, anywhere in the world, to see them, live on cam, with or without their clothes, for free.

In view of the obvious demand for naked folks on cam, isn't it better that those who would wish to view such things use an appropriate service, where the performers are guaranteed to be adults who have a complete understanding of what they are doing for their £8 an hour? The alternative is that the "clients" will wander around the free messenger services looking for someone to show them what they want to see.

The world being what it is, they will surely find some exhibitionists, somewhere, who are more than happy to flash their cheeky bits from the comfort of their own rooms for free, just for kicks. And, you might think, that would be fine. But, in their quest for someone of that ilk, they're bound to bother a great many other folks who would, on the whole, rather not indulge a voyeur's fantasy.

And, whether or not the voyeur deliberately seeks out minors, some of the folks they pester will inevitably be under 18. That's a huge and unacceptable risk, and it seems to me that it's much better to accept that some folks want to watch babes getting naked on cam, and that some babes are happy to get paid for obliging, and then let them get on with it without disturbing anyone else.

Of course, that's too logical for the Daily Mail and the folks who have contributed quotes to the story, which goes some way to showing just how out of touch they are. This sort of thing goes on all the time. Prevention is impossible, even if it were warranted; a degree of control, by means of a legitimate business with appropriate regulation, is not and should be encouraged.

Billy Seggars.

No comments: