More than Sex: Finding Friendships in Cybersexual Webcamming Communities

Rachael McGlaston California State University, San Marcos Thesis Proposal Defense

Thesis Committee:

Dr. Mary Robertson, Chair Dr. Sharon Elise, Second Member Dr. Garry Rolison, Third Member

Table of Contents More than Sex: Finding Friendships in Cybersexual Webcamming Communities 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 3 INTRODUCTION 4 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 5 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 8 An Overview of the Sociology of Sexualities 9 Sex Work 11 Sex and the Internet 14 Emotional Labor and Bounded Authenticity 18 THEORY 21 Symbolic Interaction 21 Bounded Authenticity 23 METHODS 25 Setting 26 Data Collection 28 Analysis 30 Limitations 30 RESULTS 31 Community Building: Bromances and Beyond 34 Shared Intimacy with the Model 39 Gameification 45 Let’s Eat! 4948 Bounded Authenticity 5251 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5756 REFERENCES 6564

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Committee:

Dr. Robertson, there are not enough ways to thank you for the work that you have put into this thesis and with me these past few months. You have taught me so much over the course of this project and there is no way it would be what it is without you. I’m glad you took a chance on being my chair; no one else could have filled the seat like you did. Thank you, captain!

Dr. Elise, thank you for teaching me what it means to be a proud, Black scholar and for always shining a light on things left unconsidered. My work is always so much stronger after a conversation with you.

Dr. Rolison, thank you for being the wizard that you are and for always making me look at things differently. I’m so grateful to have worked with you over the last two years and for everything you’ve taught me.

Family:

Mom, I would have none of this if it weren’t for you. Thank you for teaching me to go get what I want and not stop until I do. I love you with all my heart!

Omi, thank you for always being my conversation buddy on my long drives to and from CSU San Marcos. Thank you even more for being a reason for me to keep pushing forward to get this done and make you proud. I love you!

Jason, thank you for being the most supportive, helpful, and patient partner throughout this process. I love you lil baby.

3 INTRODUCTION

She felt the eyes of more than a thousand people watching her, but couldn’t see a single face. As she closed her eyes, she ran her hands gently along the curves of her waist, and she could picture her boyfriend’s face staring back at her. Listening to the slow, sensual sounds of Marvin Gaye in the background, her hand traced her thigh as she began to slowly move her head in a circular motion, allowing her long, dark hair to cover her face. Flipping her head back, her hair whipped her shoulders and her big brown eyes snapped open. She stared straight ahead into the webcam and lined her lips with the tip of her tongue before biting her lower lip. She softly sang along with the music, and let out a chime-like giggle as she ran her fingertips underneath the right shoulder strap of her bra. She bit her lip again and then shook her head with a coy, closed-lip smile before saying “Only 5330 to go.” Suddenly, a sound similar to a slot machine cashing out goes off. She lets out a squeal of delight and clasps her hands in front of her mouth. It was him again. “Geez, why does he keep doing this? How much money does this guy have?” she thought before exclaiming, “DOOK! I can’t believe you! Whyyyy?”

The chat room explodes with applause emotes and nuclear bomb emojis.

Bright red font appears on her computer screen:

Dookstah:“You know how much I love you Jess. Consider it my apology for not being here last night. Feel like going c2c before I have to go to bed?”

She laughs and says, “You know my rules, mister. But thanks to you, everyone gets to enjoy a sexy little show before bedtime. What song do you want to hear?”

During my first year as a graduate student, I was struggling to decide what I wanted to do my thesis research on. Initially, I had begun researching biracial identity development and the hypersexualization of multiracial women, which led me to find research that had been done about the Internet’s impact on identity development. My curiosity was piqued and I decided to look more into the Internet and its effect on sexual socialization. Over the course of a few weeks, I found the online world of webcamming and immediately knew I had stumbled into something really interesting and exciting.

Upon further exploration, I found that there was a major lack in academic research on these cam sites, even though the sites were some of the most frequented in the entire

4 Internet. This revelation both confused me and excited me: I wondered, how was it that there was an entire social realm occurring online that had yet to be analyzed by some researcher or another? I knew after a few weeks of lurking on the site that it would become the location of my research and I would find the answer to my newfound questions about the online world.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The Internet has created a new platform for people to establish connections with one another. Over the past 15 years, the number of people who use the Internet has more than quadrupled – in the year 2000, 738 million people had used the Internet, and by

2015 over 3 billion users accessed cyberspace (Davidson 2015).

People use the Internet for a number of reasons, but the desire and demand for increased interpersonal connections is a strong contributing factor to the Internet’s popularity. The tremendous successes of social networking sites such as Facebook and

Twitter are proof that people use the web to establish and maintain relationships outside of face-to-face contact. In addition to interpersonal relationships, the Internet has been wildly successful in creating a space for sexual exploration and commerce. Kibby and

Costello (2001) noted that the consumption of sexual representations is a significant leisure activity that supports a multi-billion dollar industry. The Internet creates an additional space outside of print and recorded media (e.g. books, magazines, DVDs, etc.) for sexual entertainment consumption, and also allows for largely increased accessibility and anonymity that in-person purchasing does not.

5 As a new space to experience sexuality, the Internet is transforming sexual culture, including through language (e.g. surfing, lurking, cybersex) (Ross 2004). In a space that could allow for traditional cultural and sexual scripts to be abandoned, it is surprising that much research indicates that pre-existing, self-replicating scripts often shape online identities. Furthermore, people often adhere closely to the facts of their actual lives and personalities when creating online identities and personas instead of utilizing the anonymity of the Internet to try out new roles (Lynch 2010; Kendall

2000;Turkle 1995; Valkrie 2010). While some research has been done on those who use the Internet as a sexual exploratory space, none has been done that combines that idea with online sexual commerce.

There has been some research conducted on sexual commerce and consumer preferences, but most of that research on commercial sex focuses on the experiences of the sex worker or the platform being utilized (i.e. prostitutes and in-person sex commerce vs. online pornography). The research that explores online and interactive sex entertainment is sparse. There are studies that focus on interactive gaming platforms that are also being utilized for sex entertainment, such as Lynch’s research on sex work in

Second Life (2010), but studies such as this explore how people use avatars in place of physical bodies to interact sexually. Other studies have explored the use of video- conferencing software as a means of cybersex (Kibby & Costello 2001), but these studies neglect to examine how the exchange of money impacts interactive cybersex.

MyFreeCams is an Internet relay chat (IRC) website that allows users of the site, also called “members”, to interact via textual dialogue with a live, on camera model, sometimes referred to as a camgirl. MyFreeCams is one of many cybersexual

6 webcamming sites that have live webcam models doing interactive sex shows for online audiences in exchange for money. Cybersexual webcamming sites are some of the most popular sites on the Internet. According to Compete.com, a web traffic analysis service, some of these cam sites are regularly in the top 100 most frequently visited sites on the

Internet; one of which has 28 million unique visitors per month.

According to MFC’s “About Us” page, many models, all of which are independent contractors on the site, earn over $10,000 per month by camming

(wiki.myfreecams.com, 2016). MyFreeCams’ Wiki page claims that models who are in the Top 10 most popular (which is based on the site’s ranking system called “Miss

MyFreeCams”) earn over $50,000 per month. A lot of the models on the site have large followings of ‘regulars’, and while they are camming live their rooms often have between

500 and 4,000 live viewers made up of premium and basic members and guests.

Members typically find and stick with one or two models and become very loyal to them, which is how a model builds her clientele.

MFC has won a number of awards, including Best Live Chat Website four years in a row, from adult sex industry giants such as AVN (Adult Video News), and XBIZ (an

American publisher of business news and business information for the sex industry)

(wiki.myfreecams.com, 2016). While MFC is primarily accessed for it’s wide variety of live sexual content from a variety of women, there is a niche on the website for users that prefer non-explicit content and interaction. Though there is only a small amount of non- nude and/or non-explicit models on MFC, there is almost always at least one in the Top

10 category. This means that, based on the site’s Wiki page which claims that top models earn at least $50,000 per month, there is at least one model that earns this much or more

7 per month without getting fully naked or performing sex acts on this live, interactive, pornographic website.

Sex work has extensively been researched from the perspective of the worker and as such is lacking the perspective of the consumer. There has been some research done that examines the desire for ‘authentic’ human connection in the midst of commerce (i.e.

Hochschild 1983, Bernstein 2007, and Monto, 2000 & 2001), but none of this research has examined the additional layer of complexity that is introduced by the Internet. This research seeks to understand how individuals’ decisions are shaped while using adult- content interactive online communities. More specifically, I asked, how do anonymous users of commercial, cybersexual webcam communities negotiate power and establish relationships in virtual spaces?

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Scholarly literature that seeks to understand the relationship between sex, sexuality, online cybersexual communities, sex work, and the Internet, is inundated with findings from psychologically framed research. These studies are replete with findings that pathologize Internet users and create a culture of blame for those who use the

Internet as a means of relationship building, social training, and for sexual pleasure. The majority of the sociological literature that is available discusses sex, sexuality, online cybersexual communities, sex work, and the Internet as separate entities. Sex and sexuality are typically discussed using the same frameworks across multiple studies.

Research that studies sex and sexuality often focuses on social constructions and historical links to deviance. Research that examines online cybersexual communities

8 primarily focuses on the gender differences within them and is often viewed through the lens of pornographic content. Sex work is overwhelmingly studied via prostitution, and almost exclusively through the viewpoint of the sex worker. And, finally, the Internet, sociologically, has been researched in terms of technological communities and the ways in which humans have navigated cyberspace to establish connections with others. My research contributes to the current body of knowledge by answering how the intersection of all of these concepts determine how users negotiate power and establish relationships in these virtual cybersexual spaces.

An Overview of the Sociology of Sexualities

According to Gamson and Moon (2004), the sociology of sexualities was traditionally the field of scholars who were interested in “deviance” of one sort or another. It wasn’t until the 1970s and 1980s that the sociology of sexualities became more interested in sexuality as a basis of community and political life (Gamson & Moon

2004). Once researchers began to examine sexuality as a foundation of communities, instead of strictly a mode of deviance, varying theories began to arise in order to further explain how an individual’s sexuality comes to be. Much of the current literature regarding sexuality uses queer theory and feminist theory as a framework, while the research that examines sex work uses deviance theory, the oppression paradigm, and empowerment paradigm frameworks (Bernstein 2001; Rubin 1984; Sanders 2006; Stein

& Plummer 1994; Weitzer 2009).

One way that social norms regarding sexual behavior are maintained and expressed is through sexual scripts (Simon & Gagnon, 1984, 1987). Sexual scripts are the

“stereotyped interactional patterns that are expected in social situations” (Hynie et al,

9 1998). Simon and Gagnon (1984, 1986, 1987) distinguish three levels of sexual scripts:

Cultural scenarios, which are the general guides to sexual behavior that exist at the level of the society, culture or subculture; interpersonal scripts which are individuals' interpretations of these cultural scenarios; and intrapsychic scripts, which are the internalization of the socially shared scripts and scenarios.

Sexuality has largely been conceptualized as a socially constructed terrain of power and a nexus of relationships between genders (Rubin 1984; Nagel 2003; Stein &

Plummer 1994). Within their Queer Theory analysis, Stein and Plummer (1994) argued that, “Through symbolic interactionism, the notions of meanings, process, [and] invented identities,” becomes central to the formation of ones sexuality (p. 184). Nagel (2003) strengthened this idea when she concluded that the assumed connection between sexual identity and behavior is not, nor has ever been, a cultural universal. Individuals form their sexual identity via symbolic interaction, navigating culturally accepted sexual scripts.

Lynch (2010) explained sexual scripts operate at the cultural level to inform society of the “norms and values attached to notions such as ‘intimacy,’ ‘romance,’ and ‘sex,’ as well as how such ideas become socially defined and are performed” (p. 401).

Furthermore, Sanders (2006) argued that at the individual level, scripts are a “set of shared conventions based on mutual dependency [that] set out the boundaries and roles that determine control, power, initiation, pleasure and so forth” (p. 41).

Within society, certain sexualities and sexual performances are considered more respectable than others. Rubin (1984) argued that sexuality is political and is “organized into systems of power, which reward and encourage some individuals and activities, while punishing and suppressing others” (p. 126). Typically, when this occurs, the

10 dominant group within the culture creates sexual stereotypes that commonly depict “us” as sexually vigorous (men from the hegemonic group) and pure (women from the hegemonic group), while “them” as sexually depraved (men from the subordinate group) and promiscuous (women from the subordinate group) (Nagel 2003). This allows for the organization of power and system of rewarding or punishing to thrive.

Sex Work

Sociologists have examined sex work as a form of deviant behavior, a type of gender relations, and as a distinct occupational sector (Weitzer 2009). As previously mentioned, research on sex work has mostly been theoretically framed around deviance theory, the oppression paradigm, and/or the empowerment paradigm. Weitzer (2009) explained that the deviance framework is based on the traditional stigmatization of sex work and highlights the ways in which actors are subjected to social control and discriminatory treatment. The oppression paradigm argues that sex work is a quintessential expression of patriarchal gender relations because male managers and consumers dominate female workers. The empowerment paradigm, in contrast to the oppression paradigm, focuses on the ways in which sexual commerce “qualifies as work, involves human agency, and may be potentially empowering for workers” (Weitzer

2009).

Most of the research related to sex work, regardless of the theoretical framework, focuses on the provider instead of the consumer of commercial sex (Bernstein 2001;

Sanders 2006; Weitzer 2009). Usually this means that the studies emphasize the experiences of the workers, which is typically a female prostitute. There is a significant

11 amount of psychological research on the effects of consuming pornography, but there is less sociological research on consumers of pornography. In-depth sociological work on the adult film actors and telephone sex operators is lacking, but work related to strippers is more widely available and has been thoroughly studied (Weitzer 2009). Bernstein

(2007) noted that many feminist scholars question what, beyond sex, is being purchased in a commercialized sex transaction, which allows sex work to be researched much more deeply than has historically been done. This emphasis and movement towards a different focus adheres to the fact that sociological work, until now, has been geared towards the provider. While psychological research has tried to understand the effect of commercial sex consumption on the mind of the purchaser, sociologists must seek to understand why the consumer purchases sex, how much value they attach to the purchase, and what— other than sex—they expect in return. There is an imperative need to better understand the motivations of consumers from a sociological standpoint.

The increase in the depth of sociological research on sex work correlates with the increase of its consumption. In her ethnographic research on prostitutes, Bernstein (2001) noted that the scope of sexual commerce has grown to include: “live sex shows, pornographic text, videos, and images (in print and online), fetish clubs, sex emporiums, telephone and cyber sex, drive thru venues, and organized sex tours” (p. 395). Because of the increase in what is available as commercialized sexual content, she further argued that efforts to problematize and regulate heterosexual male desire have occurred in the face of this increasingly unrestrained ethic of sexual consumption (Bernstein 2001). This idea contrasts that of sex workers being routinely studied under deviance theories, and shifts the focus onto the male consumer. While it is important to research sexual commerce and

12 consumption from the standpoint of the consumer, it is problematic to use deviance theories. Research that forces the pathological ideologies onto consumers inherits the same risk that has been problematic for traditional sex work researchers. Literature that is unable to look beyond social deviance theories will only further stigmatize consumers instead of answering the questions that Bernstein and other researchers have proposed

(Bernstein 2001, Weitzer 2009).

One entity largely under debate is whether or not burlesque is a form of sex work.

Because burlesque is considered by many to be a historically situated instance of cultural production, and specifically theatrical culture, its status as a performance art versus sex work has been debated in academia. In their conversation about feminism, queer politics, and the meanings of sexual performance, Gilmore and Wheeler (2012) spoke with one academic who was also a burlesque performer who argued:

“I do not consider burlesque and drag to be sex work, and I resent that it is seen as such. There is a huge difference in what we do in burlesque and what is done in the commercial stripping establishments. Commercial stripping and all forms of prostitution are part of the service industry. Burlesque is art. Art is not in the service industry. It is easy to lump any sort of visual form that includes nudity or sexual content into the same category as pornography, and in my opinion this has led to the marginalization of genres of performance as well an entire “class” of human beings. The way that burlesque and performances that involve sexual content are treated in Europe compared to the United States is completely different.”

To others, burlesque shows have been and still are performed sex acts. Early 20th century authors of scholarly publications debated the makeup of burlesque performers, but agreed that the dancers were all lower class, one step above prostitutes (Spies, 2004). With this divide in academia on the status of burlesque shows, live online tease-based performances are in a unique burlesque-esque realm of their own.

Academic research on sex work has been a regularly evolving field, with new genres being added, removed, and debated as society changes. Just as the scope of sexual

13 research has grown, so has sexual commerce. This field has exploded over the past few decades, and technological advances have had a major affect on this growth, it can be argued that the Internet has had the greatest impact on the increase of sexual commerce.

Sex and the Internet

Adler and Adler (2008) described the Internet as, “A cyber world that occurs in a new form of space both ‘out there’ and ‘in here’; it is simultaneously public and social, while remaining private and solitary” (p. 33). Furthermore, the Internet is a postmodern type of space that has been created by technology and populated by disembodied people in a virtual universe, completely detached from the physical locations known as place

(Adler & Adler 2008). It is within these spaces that virtual communities form. Virtual communities have been defined as social aggregations that emerge from the Internet when enough people maintain public discussions long enough, with sufficient feelings, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace (Adler & Adler 2008; Rheingold

1993). In such e-communities, users can typically distinguish site members from site visitors. Members are usually represented to others by screen names and/or avatars. They are often assigned greater site privileges such as access to special site features, ability to customize profiles in greater detail, and, in some cases, the ability to private message other site members. Members also tend to have greater responsibilities (such as being responsible for site governance). Most sites require members to agree to follow a set of discussion rules or guidelines and monitor others to ensure that they adhere to the same guidelines. In effect, the technologies that filter information, connect potential collaborators, and establish and enforce standards of community conduct, represent a de facto system of community governance (Johnson & Scott, 2005; Shirky, 2003).

14 Because the Internet allows for complete anonymity, people with concealable stigma identify more strongly with these Internet communities and consider them more important to their identities. As these communities have been created, researchers have referenced these deviant cyber subcultures as Goffmanian (1963) “‘back places,’ where people of similar preferences [feel] no need to conceal their pathology and openly [seek] out one another for support and advice” (p. 40) (Adler & Adler 2008; Deshotels &

Forsyth 2007; McKenna and Bargh 1998; Quinn & Forsyth 2005). The Internet has provided users with an alternative platform for human connection in more ways than communication and support (Lynch 2010). Web users are granted access to areas of sexual exploration that are unreachable in face-to-face interactions. Users of online sexual content are able to simultaneously participate as the producer and consumer of said content, an unimaginable option in the “real” world (Kibby & Costello 2001).

Additionally, virtual sex allows individuals to circumvent unwanted labels and meanings associated with real-world behavior (Lynch 2010). In other words, because of the anonymity that the Internet provides, people are able to try on different sexualities and scripts that are inaccessible to them in face-to-face interactions.

Most scholarly research related to sex and the Internet focuses on pornography

(Weitzer 2009). Because research on pornography is framed similarly to sex work, the main theoretical focus of such research is the oppression of the female adult film actress and the pathologization of the adult film consumer. Kibby and Costello (2001) argued that there are two sides to the debate in terms of whether pornography should be labeled as solely an act, or as purely an image. They described the anti-pornography movement as seeing pornography as an act “inseparable from the brutality of male history”

15 (Dworkin 1979; Kibby & Costello). This position argues that pornography is an act of objectification, which perpetuates the victimization of women and falls in line with oppressive theoretical frameworks pertaining to sex work. The other side of the debate argues that the real problem of pornography is women’s exclusion from the production and consumption of sexual images. This position advocates that women reclaim their right to a sexual image, particularly through the creation of alternative erotic representations (Kibby & Costello 2001). It is important to note that most scholarly literature focuses on either pornographic consumption by heterosexual men, or the oppression and victimization of female actors, regardless of the fact that the Internet can be and is used for a multitude of interactions with sexual content far beyond either of those that are primarily studied. People use the Internet as a space to explore sexualities that may vary from the ones they embody in face-to-face interactions or those that society may consider deviant (i.e. exploring different fetishes, “trying out” different genders, etc.).

The Internet has been established as a communication technology, and as such has facilitated the cooperative production of sex entertainment (Kibby and Costello 2001).

Kibby and Costello argued that online sex entertainment “both reflects and influences social attitudes and personal practices, and therefore, redefine[s] the parameters of sex entertainment and potentially reshape[s] other aspects of lived experience” (p. 354). The

Internet and online sexual content has the potential to contribute to a revision of cultural definitions of sexuality and the ways in which sexuality is experienced, but this is dependent upon a number of factors. One of the main factors is that online erotic experience is contingent on a belief in the ‘real person’ beyond the image; without the

16 possibility of a connection there is no actuality of sexual arousal (Kibby & Costello 2001;

Lynch 2009).

Another primary factor of online sexuality is authenticity. A study of interactive sex entertainment on Internet Relay Chats (which are online applications that facilitate textual chat, also known as “chat rooms” or IRCs) found that ‘authenticity’ was a fundamental criterion in managing the online interaction (Kibby & Costello 2001; Slater

1998). Researchers have argued that a desire for personal involvement leads participants in online sex to develop and pursue strategies for revealing a managed yet ‘authentic’ identity, and for authenticating the identity performances of others (Kibby & Costello

2001). With online sexual content and interactions, the perception of intimacy particularizes said online sex entertainment as an act, but the inability to fix the identity of the other in a touchable body marks the experience as an image (Kibby & Costello

2001).

While authenticity is an imperative characteristic for managing online interactions, the Internet provides a space for individuals to “try on” different personas and sexual scripts. Kibby and Costello (2001) observed that through the breakdown of the distinction between producer and consumer, “Interactive sex entertainment has the potential to enable individuals to write their own sexual identities, accommodating diverse desires and a range of cultural meanings” (p. 360). The inclusion of non- hegemonic groups as producers and consumers of sex entertainment products is an aspect of online sex entertainment that “could have an unparalleled appeal for [them] as they could finally be able to customize their own erotica” (Wagner, 1994, p 3.). This breakdown of such distinctions and sexual scripts allows individuals to write their own

17 sexual identities and gives access to sexual commerce to a new group of people.

The Internet is a distribution mechanism, and as such is used to circulate traditional forms of pornography based on capitalist relations of production and consumption (Lynch 2010). Commercialized online sex entertainment has transformed into many things, largely due to its accessibility to the vast majority of people. It is now a product made and sold worldwide in a multimillion-dollar industry; a set of culturally coded representations of sex, sexuality and gender roles; and a particular form of sexual and cultural practice. “Sex entertainment has become another consumer item to be purchased, rather than created by the individual; a representation acquired, rather than an activity undertaken” (Kibby & Costello 2001, p. #358). Because the commercialization of sexual entertainment is highly dependent upon authenticity from those producing and using it, it is imperative to discuss and understand this and how this authenticity impacts other realms of society and sexuality.

Emotional Labor and Bounded Authenticity

Emotions and commerce have long been intertwined. In his 2010 study on sexual scripts in virtual environments, Lynch argued that there is a link between emotions, culture, and economy if we accept the idea that emotions are situated at "the threshold where the non-cultural is encoded in culture, where body, cognition, and culture converge and merge" (p. 40). He framed intimacy as a cultural practice, one that is simultaneously informed by the cultural practice of capitalism. He also examined intimacy’s coexistence with monetary transactions and discussed how economic activities have long been embedded in creating and sustaining intimate connections with others (Lynch 2010;

18 Zelizer 2005). It is necessary to examine what occurs when the idea of intimacy combines with sexual commerce.

In her ethnography of flight attendants and bill collectors, Hochschild studied the inclusion of human emotion and feelings within commercialized interactions. Her book,

The Managed Heart, breaks down the management of human emotions into two parts.

The first is the emotional system that is part of a person’s private life, which she defines as emotion work or emotion management. The second is what she calls emotional labor, which is the commodification of private emotions sold for a profit in a capitalistic economy. In order to perform the proper emotions within a situation, Hochschild found that individuals engage in conscious acts of evoking, shaping, or suppressing feelings within themselves by changing their thoughts, physical conditions, and gestures through

“surface acting” and “deep acting.” This conscious shaping of feelings is not exclusive to flight attendants and bill collectors; other researchers have used Hochschild’s theory of emotional labor to highlight the idea in other commercialized sectors, including sex work.

One such example of emotional labor comes from Bernstein’s (2007) seven-year- long ethnographic study of sex workers. She found that within this particular realm of sexual commerce, sex workers embody a sense of authenticity to their customers in order to make the experience more pleasurable for their johns, as well as to create a more lucrative outcome for themselves. This effort at authenticity is known as the girlfriend experience by commercial sex consumers and has been used by researchers as well. In her research, Bernstein utilized this term regarding the bounded authenticity and emotional labor that she witnessed by the sex workers. Lynch (2010) summarized the concept of bounded authenticity by explaining it as “the involvement of monetary fees

19 that make up the crucial element of negotiation of boundaries between prostitutes and their clients in order to create the highly sought-after sexual commodity that is characterized by an authentic, yet bounded, form of interpersonal connection called the girlfriend experience” (p. 42).

In her ethnographic field research on three different sectors of the contemporary sex industry in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, Hoang (2010) utilized a combination of

Hochschild’s theory on emotional labor, and Bernstein’s theory on bounded authenticity, to examine how women in the low-end commercial sex sector engaged different forms of emotional labor compared to women in the mid-tier and high-end sectors. She found that this was primarily because the wants and needs of the client differed in each tier. The consumers from the mid and high-end sectors of Hoang’s study fell in line with the men from Bernstein’s study on sex work; clients of higher-end sex workers seek more than a quick sexual fix. In fact, they desire real and reciprocal erotic connections, but limited ones (Bernstein 2001).

It is at the intersection of the aforementioned theories, concepts, and studies that I find my own research question. While there is a wealth of sociological knowledge regarding sexuality, sex work from the workers perspective, and a number of studies that utilize the theories on emotional labor and bounded authenticity to understand commercial sex, there is a lack of research on interactive online communities that are centered on commercial sexual content. These online communities are unique because while they embody similar face-to-face interactions that other commercial sex does, they are mediated and maintained via technology like pornography. This allows the consumer and provider to interact with one another in real-time and with present emotions, but

20 perpetually from a distance. How does the intersection of all of these concepts shape individuals’ decisions while on interactive online communities centered on sexual content? More specifically, how do the anonymous users of commercial, cybersexual webcam communities establish relationships and negotiate power in virtual spaces?

THEORY The commercialization of sex and emotions within the context of virtual spaces requires a critical theoretical approach for study and analysis. I used the sociological theory of symbolic interaction and Bernstein’s (2007) theory of bounded authenticity.

Both are critical to my proposed research because they allowed me to conceptualize and explore the meanings that users of adult-content web cam sites make.

Symbolic Interaction

Symbolic interaction considers social interactions as the place where “society” exists. The theory consists of three core principles: meaning, language and thought.

These core principles lead to conclusions about the creation of a person’s self and socialization into a larger community (Griffin, 1997). Symbolic interactionists believe that humans give subjective meanings to their behaviors, and that this is how they interpret other behaviors, events, or significant occurrences (Andersen, Taylor, and Logio

2015). Cooley’s (1902) concept of the ‘looking-glass self’ explains our individual sense of self is really our perception of society’s evaluation of us. Robinson (2007) explained the ways in which the Cooley’s concept of the looking-glass self is based on a threefold process. First, the self imagines how it appears to others. Second, the self then imagines the other’s judgment. Third, and finally, the self develops an emotional response to that judgment. Goffman (1959) expanded on the theory of symbolic interaction with his

21 concept of dramaturgy. In his studies on dramaturgical interactions, Goffman found that the self conducts its interactions strategically and performs in a calculated manner in order to project an image that others will find credible. Interactions are framed through these performances as the self attempts to express an identity that is consistent with the expectations of the audience and the situation (Robinson 2007).

The construction of the virtual self has been studied since the Internet began changing the ways in which people form identities online. Based on interviews with the players of virtual, multi-user dimensions (MUD), Turkle (1995) finds that ‘cyberselfing’ offers a ‘fresh slate’ for MUD users to create new online identities. Moreover, Robinson

(2007) argues, cyberspace may provide the space to work through unacknowledged or troubled parts of offline physical selves. Research studies such as these beg the questions:

What are users getting online that they can’t get in face-to-face interactions? If interaction, as Cooley states, is how we make sense of ourselves as individuals, how does virtual interaction differ from face-to-face? Furthermore, what impact does this have on society on a larger scale? My research answers some of these questions that have been left out of academic analysis so far.

Robinson (2007) asserts that while the norms of online interaction may be different from their offline counterparts due to the interactive limitations of computer mediated interactions, the ‘self-ing’ process remains the same. Because the cyberself is the product of social interaction in which the self masters the ability to be both the subject and object of interaction (Robinson 2007), it is important to understand how people create these subjective and objective meanings online. As symbolic interactionists believe, people react and respond based on what they believe to be true, not what is

22 objectively true. Because of this, it can be argued that society, both virtual and face-to- face, is completely constructed through human interpretations and meanings, which are constantly modified depending on the situation. Online, a person can be whoever they say they are and change their race, social class, gender, or any other social categorization as they please. This would then have an impact on how they act as well how others perceive and treat them.

Working from the perspective of symbolic interaction allows me to examine what meanings users make of their interactions and relationships with other members and with the webcam models. Additionally, I am able to establish how the use of the Internet as the medium influenced these interactions. Finally, symbolic interaction enables me to better understand what meaning members attach to the exchange of currency in certain parts of their interactions. This is especially important in combination with the theory of bounded authenticity because it allows me to explore how members interpret the authenticity of their online relationships with other users and the models in combination with negotiating power with the use of money

Bounded Authenticity

Bernstein’s theory of bounded authenticity examines sexual encounters as a financial transaction (2007). Bounded authenticity may best be defined as monetary payments as the primary factor of the negotiation of boundaries between sex workers and their clients. Furthermore, bounded authenticity is dependent upon the assumption of intimacy being commoditized between the sex worker and the client. According to

Bernstein, one of the newest types of highly desired sexual commodity is an authentic,

23 yet bounded, form of interpersonal connection called “the girlfriend experience.” The girlfriend experience is one in which the client and the sex worker attempt to create a sense of personal, emotional intimacy in addition to sexual arousal. Bernstein highlighted that in this way, the role of the sex worker is not just sex as work, but she may also be a listener, therapist, or an intimate fantasy creator.

Bernstein's theory of bounded authenticity and concept of the girlfriend experience can be applied to the sex industry of the virtual world, where virtual escorts, strippers, and those who sell virtual role-playing services also engage in sexual commerce that is often characterized by varying degrees of anonymity (Lynch 2010).

Lynch (2010) argued that, in this way, intimacy becomes a “fluid interconnection that is no longer founded upon the conventional face-to-face, local interaction” (p. 42). As

Bernstein observes, technological advancements have created a sense of "global intimacy" (p.42) in which boundaries have expanded beyond what has typically been acceptable in "real life." Because of this, Lynch (2010) argued that we should consider the Internet as a mediating technology that facilitates and maintains increasing numbers of opportunities for intimate social and sexual relationships.

Applying the theoretical framework of bounded authenticity to the virtual environment of MyFreeCams is useful in multiple ways. First, it allows me to explore how the exchange of currency influenced online sexual encounters. Second, it allows me to ascertain how culturally scripted notions of authenticity translated onto the Internet and in the interactions between webcam models and their clients, as well as member-to- member. Finally, it allows me to examine the ways in which clients of non-nude and non-

24 explicit webcam models navigated the virtual version of the girlfriend experience, since the models are not typically providing explicit sexual content.

Individuals construct subjective meanings about their interactions with others, including commercial sex interactions. This concept becomes particularly interesting with the overlay of bounded authenticity, a theory that deems authentic friendships/relationships as a key component of the commercial negotiation of boundaries between sex workers and their clients. Using the theoretical frames of symbolic interaction—how we make meaning of ourselves through our interactions with others, and bounded authenticity—the negotiation of authentic relationships within commercial sex transactions, I explore the world of cybersexual webcamming communities.

METHODS

In order to explore the occurrences within non-nude and non-explicit chat rooms and to find out how users of online cybersexual websites negotiate power and establish relationships, I employ the qualitative methodology of complete observation. The complete observer role entirely removes the researcher from any form of participation so that the purposes of the research are not revealed (Junker, 1960). Qualitative methods allowed me to observe, engage with, and analyze findings based on my target population in the most natural and comfortable environment possible to them. Because users were already in an online space, the setting and procedures of my methodology fit in with their everyday lifestyles and habits without much interference.

25 Setting

MyFreeCams.com is a free, public, IRC website that is accessible to anyone over the age of 18. Upon entering the site, individuals must agree that they are of age and submit a brief consent agreement. Once an individual is on the site, they have access to any model that is online and engaged in a live, public chat. The website provides live streaming webcam videos of sexual performances by female-only models and allows users to communicate primarily via text chat. MFC is an interactive community where there are consumers, who are defined as either “members” or “guests,” and providers of entertainment, who are referred to as “models.” Members are either premium, which means that they have purchased virtual tokens at some point of their membership, or basic, which means they have created a username and password but have never purchased virtual tokens. This setting will allow me to examine the online relationships and interactions between users and models and simultaneously collect data.

MyFreeCams (MFC) combines the two entities of live, interactive sex entertainment and commerce. The site provides live streaming webcam videos of sexual and non-sexual performances by female-only models and allows users to communicate with the models and other users primarily via text chat. The website is an interactive community where there are consumers, “members” or “guests,” and providers, models, of sexual entertainment. Models are paid by members through virtual tokens purchased through a membership service. Members are either “premium”, which means that they have purchased tokens at some point of their membership, or “basic”, which means they have created a username and password but have never purchased tokens. Anyone who logs onto the site is given a guest username that is automatically generated by the

26 website, and these users have no site privileges. The site claims to have over 100,000 active models, and upon a typical access there are usually around 5,000 models actively online. In 2014, MFC was the 344th most visited website in the world (Conti, 2014), attesting to how popular the site is.

A person can buy different amounts of tokens on the site, and typically the more a person purchases, the less each token costs. Currently, the token package options are 200

Tokens for $19.99, 550 Tokens for $49.99, and 900 Tokens for $74.99

(myfreecams.com). Members who have had “premium” status for several months are able to purchase larger quantities of tokens at one time. MFC pays models about .05 cents per token, or approximately 50-60% per token of what the consumer spends on their token package. Members use tokens for private shows, group shows, and spy shows with the models, and also use tokens to “tip” models for various reasons. Usually, models receive tips for performing sexual acts that range from strip-teasing and dirty talking, to various types of masturbation with sex toys. Models also often have items and services for sale, ranging from custom calendars or coffee mugs, the ability to contact the model offline via mobile apps like Snapchat and Skype, custom sex videos, and their used underwear.

These items are usually paid for using the token system on MFC, but occasionally a member will send money to a model in the form of a Visa gift card or purchase an item from of her online wishlist to be sent to her directly.

The types of sexual entertainment on the site vary greatly. The majority of the models on the site perform sexually explicit acts such as countdowns to different types of masturbatory shows. Some use sex toys as part of their performances while others perform shows in various locations such as in the shower or in a library. Models that are

27 non-nude or non-explicit focus on performing more burlesque-like shows that focus on the art of teasing and seduction. For example, a non-nude model might do a countdown to a “topless tease show” where she slowly takes off her clothes and then uses a feather boa and manipulates camera angles to keep her nipples from being completely exposed. Most non-nude and non-explicit models utilize camera angles and props to avoid showing certain parts of their bodies but some occasionally allow “accidental” slips to occur.

Many non-nude/non-explicit models also perform shows that are performance art based, such as singing or playing an instrument, dancing, or erotic story telling. Often, during these more performative acts, the models will wear something like a bra and skirt or a matching lingerie set.

Data Collection

I utilize complete observation as my methodology in order to watch and record field notes of the exchanges between members and models on MyFreeCams

My goal was to do observe the rooms of two different non-nude models over the course of 2 months, or until data saturation. I am specifically interested in the clients that frequent the rooms of non-nude/non-explicit models because they are visiting an adult website, but not viewing adult content while in these particular chat rooms. Though there is a filter on the website that allows users to search for particular “tags” that a model gives herself (i.e. big breasts, shaved, funny, etc.), many self-proclaimed non-nude and/or non-explicit models choose not to tag themselves as a non-nude or non-explicit. Instead, through frequent, brief conversations and mentions, these models and their regular guests let the others know that they do not get fully nude or do not do sexually explicit acts. I singled out a few non-explicit, non-nude models based on exploratory research that I had

28 conducted on the site, but upon embarking on my data collection, I found that I was unable to get online at the same time as the two non-nude/non-explicit models. After this discovery, I identified four additional models to observe who are non-explicit, but not non-nude. I primarily observed the two non-nude/non-explicit models, but went to the rooms of the other four models if one of my primary ones was not logged on.

Upon selecting and entering a room that is available, you are able to see the textual dialogue between all of the users and the model. It is within this space that I conducted my observations. During these observations I took detailed field notes that recorded the conversations between users and the model as well as users and other users, notes on what the model was doing and how users were reacting, and I recorded the number of users in the room as members come and go. I observed and recorded the use of emojis and GIFs. Emojis are small digital images or icons that are used to express an idea, emotion, etc., in electronic communication whereas GIFs (Graphics Interchange

Format) are small images that are clips of a video, and typically aren’t longer than 5 seconds. Emojis and GIFs are extremely popular in electronic communication, and on

MFC members and models often use them in place of text. In addition to observing and taking notes, I took screen shots when relevant of text conversations for additional analysis. I then coded the data looking for patterns and significant sociological phenomena based on these observations, field notes, and screen shots.

The privacy and confidentiality of the users I observed are protected to the degree that their user names are aliases and not personally identifiable information. I have used aliases for all of the users in any written or published version of the research. There are no photos of users in the chat rooms; the only person that is physically visible is the

29 model. The model’s identity is also semi-anonymous because models create aliases upon creating a profile and are discouraged by the company and the culture of the website from sharing their personal information such as age, location, name, and any other information that could allow their true identities to be known by users.

Analysis

Upon completing my observations, I analyzed the data collected based on the themes that surfaced during my coding process. Some of the important themes I discovered include mention of family, work, hobbies, food, community building, gameification, instances of apparent bounded authenticity, and shared intimacy. Since many users frequented the same rooms day after day and public tips are visible to all, I was be able to get a general idea of how much time regular members spend in a particular room as well as an estimate of amounts they tip.

Limitations

Though my research enables me to reach a broad base of consumers and cam models, the individuals that I observed are from just one of many cam sites. The results that I obtained may be different on another cam site, particularly sites that allow for both male and female cam models on cam. Furthermore, because I observed a particular niche on the site, my data is limited to a small number of models and members. Finally, because I had a limited time to compile and then analyze data I was unable to administer surveys or interviews, which would have given deeper insight to the users of the site.

30 RESULTS

During my observations on MFC, I spent over 40 hours in the rooms of 6 models, two of which are completely non-nude/non-explicit (whom I will refer to as Punch and

Cookie); the four other models are non-explicit but not non-nude (whom I will refer to as

Kelly, K8, Joey, and Taylor). While I had originally planned on observing just the two non-nude/non-explicit models, I found that I wasn’t able to get enough observational hours to coincide with the times that they were online. I didn’t want to stray too far from non-nude/non-explicit because I was trying to understand why people frequent the rooms of non-nude/non-explicit models on adult-content site so I identified the other non- explicit models for my observations. I observed a number of similarities amongst the rooms aside from the narratives that I describe and analyze later.

There is never an observable average number of users in a models room, at any given time a room could have anywhere from 50 to 3,000 people in it. Though there was never an average number of viewers, each model’s room count (number of people in her room at any given point) increased while she was doing a performance and/or when she was posing in an explicit manner for the camera. For example, the model might put the camera on the floor and angle it upward where users could see up her skirt or pull the camera up close to her cleavage or the underside of her breasts. All of the models that I observed are White women except for Joey, who is Black. The number of basic members

(those who have screen names, but have never purchased tokens) and guests (users who do not have a screen name and are simply logged onto the site) always heavily outnumber the premium members (those who have screen names and have purchased tokens at some

31 point of their membership). Finally, each room has its own set of regulars who are online every time the model is on and usually maintain the conversation flow.

I decided who to observe based on a few different factors: whether or not the model was a known non-nude/non-explicit model, how many members were in the room

(this sometimes enabled me to estimate how long the model had been online), and what the model was doing in her room when I saw the room preview on the home page (at times I wanted to observe the build up to a model’s show, other times I would skip the build up and just observe the performances). I found that regardless of whose room I was in, members usually participated in group activities such as conversations, games, jokes, and acts or showings of solidarity.

The two non-nude/non-explicit models are both well known on the site, a factor I based on their ranking on the site’s monthly competition, Miss MFC; Punch and Cookie are both in the top 100 on the site. According to her profile, Punch has been a webcam model/performance artist (her term) for five years. She has dark, wavy, shoulder length hair, big brown eyes lined with winged eyeliner, and pale skin. Her specialty performance is a monthly body-art show, during which she paints her entire body in a different theme.

Punch is extremely personable, and her room is well known for her dedicated regulars, her eclectic music selection, and constant “fun” vibe; she is rarely caught in a bad mood and has a smile on her face almost the entire time she is online. Punch is also well known on the site because she regularly places in the top 5 and has almost won the top prize on

Miss MFC numerous times, all without getting naked. During one of my observations,

Punch received a 450,000 token (~$22,500) tip, which was reportedly the second highest tip ever given on MFC.

32 According to her profile, Cookie has been a webcam model for 3 years. She has a

British accent and a very soft voice that many members find endearing and her shows are usually focused on her playing original songs on her keyboard, singing, and/or dancing.

Cookie has waist length, light strawberry blonde hair and bangs that frame her very pale skin. Her room always has a mellow tone to it and everyone in her room is always polite.

She regularly giggles and the tone is very bell-like; she reminds me of a Disney princess.

The four non-explicit models that I observed are all lively. Kelly has a wild nature about her; she has multiple tattoos, including one that has the name “Dad” inside of a large red heart on her chest. She curses a lot and is often very loud. Her long brown hair is always styled differently and she tends to only wear mascara, which makes her large blue eyes really stand out. Kelly has the largest physical frame out of all the models I observed, but she isn’t fat. All of the other models that I observed were small framed, with lean legs and small chests, but Kelly has large breasts and a fuller midsection and thighs. K8 is the smallest framed out of all the women and there were a number of times that members commented on her girlish figure during my observations. She has ocean blue and teal hair and regularly has on a lot of makeup; a number of times she mentioned that she enjoys doing freelance makeup in her spare time. K8 is very no-nonsense and will quickly call someone out if she thinks they are being “a dick”, which is one of her favorite terms to use. She is also the most quick to ban members from her room if she feels that they are messing up the vibe. Joey is the only model of color that I observed.

Many times members commented on “how white” she sounds, and often she uses somewhat of a baby voice or a “valley girl” type of speech when conversing with members. She has milk chocolate colored skin, long black hair, and a small frame with

33 noticeably fake breasts. Taylor is the last of the four non-explicit models that I observed.

She has a pinup girl look and regularly has her long red hair in a 50s style. She normally wears some sort of lingerie or latex outfit and plays a lot of burlesque and 50s jazz music.

Her shows are primarily about the “art of tease and seduction” and she regularly uses feather boas and leather whips as props.

There were many similarities among the rooms, but the following emerging narratives were the same regardless of the model’s status. Two primary narratives emerged from this data: “Community Building” and “Bounded Authenticity”. Within the Community

Building narrative, sub-narratives include “Bromances and Beyond”, “Shared Intimacy”,

“Gameification”, and “Food”. Within the Bounded Authenticity narrative, the sub- narrative “Commodification of Personalized Intimacy” emerged.

Community Building: Bromances and Beyond

Baumeister and Leary (1995) concluded that humans have a need to belong, stating that humans have “a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and impactful interpersonal relationships” (p. 497). Sigmund

Freud (1921) discussed group psychology and behavior as a process that is extremely different from that of the individual. When in a group, he argued, people behave differently than they would when alone because a being in a group provides anonymity and power. Sociologically, the concept of sociality further examines and explains how people decide which groups they prefer to socialize with. Sociality is a term that describes nonsexual interpersonal attractions, and homosociality refers specifically to the nonsexual attractions held by men or women for members of their own sex. The popular portmanteau to describe these types of relationships that occur between men is the word

34 “bromance.” The term bromance has been increasingly used in our culture to describe a loving, non-sexual relationship between two or more men. Around the time that this term was becoming popularized, Bird (1996) found that there are three typically shared meanings that are perpetuated in male homosociality: emotional detachment, competition, and the sexual objectification of women. The concept of a bromance minimizes the importance of the first of these ideas, because bromance relationships highlight the idea that men, “Are getting more secure in showing off their sexuality, and the idea of nonsexual attraction between guys has even become fashionable” (Scola,

2009). I use the concept of bromance to frame my discussion of the relationships that I observed in the chatrooms because the members all represented themselves as men and if there was ever a woman or non-heterosexual person present in the room other than the model on camera, I was not aware of them.

One commonly found example of bromantic interaction would occur when a well- known group member would enter or leave the room for the day, or if a potentially new group member joined. During these occurrences, the other members would always greet or bid them farewell with representational GIFs and emojis such as the following:

35 Members would also input a flood (also referred to in the chatrooms as a “wall”) of the same or similar emojis or GIFs in celebration of something happening, whether it was a large tip, a countdown or game ending, good news from the model or a member, or as a joke or tease. After a basic member decided to become a premium member and give his first tip ever to a particular model, the room reacted as follows:

In order to express excitement over something the model did, members would frequently use a GIF that was of a crowd celebrating:

36 Aside from using the same virtual characters, it was common at least once during every observation session I completed, for members to speak with one another separately from the model. These conversations were often ordinary, like users following up on previous conversations or discussing the occurrences of their days. In one conversation, a member (who was also a member of the corresponding model’s clubs, which was called the “krew”) was stating that he didn’t feel like he belonged in their “krew” because he wasn’t able to tip regularly, and felt like he was always the odd man out even in “real life”. Other frequent members of the room objected to his statement and ensured him that

“this room [was] where he belonged.” The original user acquiesced, which prompted one of the other commenters to say:

CountCastor: aqua, i get it how you feel some times, life's easier on the net

Given this particular scenario, it’s easy to see why many of the regular members spend so much time online. In these chatrooms, members are finding friends and establishing relationships or “bromances” with other members whom they begin to trust and depend on for a feeling of belonging within these homosocial spaces. Online, the members are able to say how they feel – as the user in the above example did – without the pressure of being judged by physical appearances or, perhaps, some of the stereotypes that come along with particular genders, ages, or races. In many cases, members discussed not having any family or friends in “real life” that they could talk to or get together with, even on holidays. In these situations, the members depend on the model and one another to provide a space to come to for a sense of community.

37 One example of this came during a conversation about Easter plans. The model asked the room if she should get online on Easter Sunday and said she wouldn’t if everyone already had plans with their families. Many members commented on not having family to spend it with, or the desire to still “hang out” with everyone online before or after their own familial commitments.

Users very obviously consider the model and other members to be their close friends, either temporarily substituting or altogether replacing their time with their in- person friends and families to be with their online community. While many people view the Internet, and particularly these types of online chatrooms, to be isolating, it’s evident that thousands of people are actually using it to gain a sense of solidarity and friendship.

It also appears that members are actually using these sites to supplement their daily lives and interpersonal relationships. Users of the site regularly discussed their wives or partners, some admitting the site was something of a “guilty pleasure,” whereas others disclosed that their significant others knew of their frequent visits to the site. In

38 one conversation, a member that I regularly saw online in multiple rooms talked about how he and his wife had come to the agreement that he was allowed to go on the site but only spend a predetermined amount of money (tip) every month. He went on to explain that while he loved his wife and they had a great sex life, there was just something different and exciting about being online in a “community of pervs.” At that time, the model asked him why he was always in non-explicit rooms if he liked being “such a perv,” and he responded that it was more exciting and more of a turn-on to see the occasional “slip” from a non-nude model than the regular “sexcapades” of an explicit one. Several members agreed with him either by inserting his name followed by applause emojis or agreed with words.

The above stated examples of acts of unity, regular greetings and valedictions, emojis, and group conversations that don’t include the model, make it apparent that many of the users of this site feel that the rooms they frequent are far more than virtual realms.

In the chatrooms on MFC, many users act the same way as people who frequent the same bar for daily happy hour. Instead of this online adult site being strictly for lonely men to get on and get off, they are using it to establish long-term relationships that are founded upon a similar taste in a particular woman. One primary difference between this virtual space and a face-to-face one is the fact that during these routine, friendly, bromantic situations, there are overlaps of intimate moments with the model whom the users are all focused on and share.

Shared Intimacy with the Model

The members of the chatrooms regularly participated in what appeared to be moments and acts of shared intimacy. Often, acts of solidarity would also occur within

39 the rooms that were representative of this shared closeness. For example, in all of the rooms that I observed, there were a number of members whose usernames incorporated the model’s name or a representation of her name. By doing this, members were simultaneously showing the model their gratitude and faithfulness to her and her chatroom, but also allowing themselves to be identified with other members of the

“team”.

Another way in which members showed their solidarity and familiarity with one another was by creating and/or using custom GIFs (small thumbnail images that play a short clip of an action) and emojis of the model during conversations. For example, in multiple instances when music was playing in the model’s room, instead of using a stock image or GIF of, say, a dancing cartoon monkey, a number members would simultaneously use different moving images or emojis of the model herself to represent themselves dancing to the music; the scene altogether would look like a virtual dance party with all of the different images and the model on screen dancing.

Many conversations within the rooms are habitual; an example of a typical start to an observation is as follows:

40 I enter Kelly’s room. She is sitting on her bed laughing, wearing a white t-

shirt and has a fluffy white down comforter covering her lower half. She

doesn’t seem to be wearing a bra. The members in the room are discussing

something sports-related that I can’t yet follow while she seems to be

responding to a private message (typing and laughing, but none of her text

appears in the main room’s dialogue). I figure out that the members, all of

whom I’ve seen in her room before, are discussing a Golden State

basketball game that had just ended. Ks_Attica asks Kelly a question

about the game and she responds, “Attica, how many times do I have to

tell you…I hate basketball?! If we ain’t talking football, I’m not part of the

convo bud.” Attica inserts an emoji that rolls its eyes and flips its hand in a

dismissive manner and says “didn’t wanna talk to you anyway”. Kelly

laughs.

The flow of this conversation was typical, and frequently when I entered a room I would come in during the middle of a conversation taking place between the members.

Sometimes the model was included as part of the discussion, and sometimes only the members were engaged amongst themselves while the model and whatever activity she was hosting served as somewhat of a background occurrence. I refer to these interactions as shared intimacy or communal bounded authenticity because, by itself, bounded authenticity refers to the involvement of monetary fees that make up the critical element of negotiation of boundaries between sex workers and individual clients in order to create the authentic, yet bounded, form of interpersonal connection; these communal interactions were never between less than 4 people.

41 Woven through the everyday, mundane conversations that unfolded in the chatrooms, were moments that reflected the premise of the site: the model would begin to perform her chosen method of tease and the vibe of the room would shift. In these moments the camaraderie would not subside, rather it would change from ordinary group banter to synchronized ogling. Often, the rooms would go textually silent for a few moments, and the previously rapid upward scrolling text would cease until someone either commented or tipped. The following screenshot depicts such a situation. The model had begun an oil tease show and about two minutes had gone by without anyone saying anything. Her room count steadily rose, starting at about 200 when she started the show, to 450 at the end of this screen shot1. After bMan commented on the model’s appearance, Buddha (a regular in this model’s room) seemed to tip in agreement. Once

Buddah tipped, a few members applauded him, some inserted emojis that showed their shared infatuation, and others gave tips as well:

1 – an increase in room count during a show is typical for any model, due to the fact that upon logging onto the homepage any user can hover their cursor over a model’s image and get a live preview of her room. While a show is in progress, the model is usually doing something sensual or sexual, thus making her room preview more exciting, which attracts more viewers.

42

43

During their shows, the models didn’t typically interact or converse with members; instead she would be in a performative trance while the room watched her.

Because of this, it was typical for members who felt like talking to talk to the other members in the room. Members would comment to each other about the model’s looks or performance, often agreeing on how sexy or hypnotizing she was, while continuing to praise one another if a tip was given. They would also frequently insert GIFs and emojis that showed their infatuation or anticipation for the show:

Members would also sometimes engage in “tipping wars” during shows, in which two or more members would either try to out-tip each other or fill up the text box with a “yellow wall” and discourage other members from breaking it:

44

These instances of shared intimacy were particularly interesting because of the fact that the camaraderie and group conversation didn’t stop while the model was performing intimate acts. Instead of feeling the need to be silent and individually partake in watching the on-screen show, members were compelled to continue the group dynamic; a phenomena that occurs in “real” face-to-face interactions as well. Similar to the acts of solidarity that I discussed in the previous section, these moments of shared intimacy suggest that the members of this site feel that they are part of a bigger community. Like fans of a sports team rallying together for a play, the members in the chatrooms unite over the model and her actions. Being “part of the team” gives members another reason to return to the same room everyday. It’s a space that allows them to interact with friends, hangout with a woman of their liking, and gives them the option to partake in or simply observe play time.

Gameification

Bernstein (2007) defined bounded authenticity as the sale and purchase of authentic and physical connection with predefined limitations from both the consumer and the provider. The commodification of authentic intimacy is what makes it bounded.

The virtual space of MFC provides a metaphysical connection between the members and

45 the model, with the model’s on-camera actions having very real physical effects on the people watching her. Often during a performance, which can be considered a model’s version of a predefined limitation, members would comment on the physical reactions they were having because of her show. Once, while a model was doing squats (which a member had “won” off of a prize-wheel spin) she placed the cameral on the floor, giving the viewers a clear shot up her skirt, and a member commented:

This interaction wouldn’t have been possible if the model hadn’t added predefined actions like squats to her prize wheel, which, in turn, someone had to tip to receive. Interestingly, the bounded authenticity that occurs in these chatrooms is interdependent; one member’s paid interaction commodifies a bounded authentic event for hundreds of other people. In other words, one person, or a small group of people, pays while hundreds of people enjoy the model performing her bounded authentic and predefined action.

In a typical room on the site, models require members to tip in exchange for sexual acts or for removing their clothes. Because non-nude and non-explicit models don’t perform sexually explicit acts or get fully nude, they have had to create alternative ways to encourage tipping from their users. All of the models that I observed had a number of games in addition to the typical countdowns they used to get to their performative shows. Some of the games they would play with their members included card games like blackjack and hi-low, games on technological devices such as tablets including spin wheels with various prizes, and clear-the-board games where members have to tip the numbers that are on a board in order to try to win a prize.

46 These games were usually not the primary focus of the room; typically they were supplementary to the conversations that were taking place and members would tip at random to play a game, which would also contribute to any countdown that was happening simultaneously. While most games were not the center of the room’s attention, certain games would often provoke more interest and involvement from the members.

Most of the games that involved some sort of betting were the ones that members became the most involved with. Often it seemed as though members would become addicted to the thrill of guessing a number correctly or landing on a good prize on the spin wheel, and would often make comments such as “ok, just one more time” or “I should have stopped while I was ahead!” Similar to how they would react when another user would give the model a large tip, members would also regularly celebrate if someone won one of the games. In these addictive and celebratory moments, members were much like friends at a casino; sometimes trying to “out gamble” each other or “win bigger” than the other, while other times congratulating a friend on a big win. The model rarely had to encourage members to play once on person got started, which maintained her incoming flow of money and her performance countdowns moving in the right direction. This is significant because it is yet another example of bounded interactions that allow the group to maintain their relationship with the model while also making them feel like they are part of a team. The two screenshots below provide examples of this idea: once one member tipped to play one of the games, at least three others followed suit.

47

Gamification situations were not the only ones that created camaraderie between the members and models. Often the groups discussed their meals and it quickly became

48 apparent that conversations revolving around food were common and purposeful occurrences.

Let’s Eat!

Throughout my observations I encountered frequent, simple references to food and drinks. Models and members regularly discussed eating and drinking and the chatroom transcript regularly contained food and beverage emojis and GIFs. Fairly often the model would broadcast from her kitchen or have a countdown or room topic that included having a glass of wine or another drink. While these are also examples of the commodification of the relationship between the model and the members, the constant non-performance related references to food is a prime example of the humanization that occurs within the chatrooms. At least once during every observation, the models would either drink or eat something on camera, and members frequently referenced currently eating or having just eaten a meal. These occurrences are not part of a performative act; rather they are incidental and common happenings that highlight the ordinariness of the rooms.

49

For example, one of Taylor’s regulars got online and greeted everyone, only to then say he would be back momentarily after going to get something to eat. When someone asked him why he came on just to leave again, he responded that he saw Taylor was on and didn’t want her or the guys to leave without him saying hello. Within about

10 minutes, he inserted a GIF of Jack Nicholson saying “Here’s Johnny” to let everyone know that he was back with food from a fast food place. He was greeted with the normal show of affection and a few questions about what he got. Taylor went on to say that she avoids all fast foods and then the conversation shifted to how amazing her body is.

50 Another example that occurred a number of times was when one of the models would mention she was hungry. Most of the models’ regulars know what types of food the model likes, and as such would post emojis or GIFs of that food to tease her. One day

Kelly was ranting about how hungry she was but didn’t have anything at home to make.

While she was talking about all of the different foods she would like to eat at that moment, the members started inserting GIFs of waffles with syrup being poured over them, a slice of pizza being pulled from the pie with the cheese clinging to the other pieces, a cheeseburger seemingly falling from the sky into a perfect stack, a rack of ribs being cleaned to the bone, and blocks of cheese (one of Kelly’s self proclaimed favorite foods). This went on for at least three minutes, with Kelly whining of starvation and how much she “hated them” for putting all of that food in the chatroom. She tried to clear the conversation screen with periods, but every time she would get a few rows worth, the members would load up the screen with more food GIFs. This example shows how playful members are with the models and how they often band together to tease her in a friendly way, much like friends in “real” social settings do.

Mealtimes in person are typically reserved for friends and family and it seems as though many users of the site frame their hours online around their meals. The fact that the members time their meals around when they get online is largely significant because it shows that members have different motives for getting online than may have previously been assumed. While many people may think that the users of these types of websites are only getting online to exert their masculinity, frivolously spend their time and money, and objectify women for their own sexual pleasure, these regularly occurring moments of reality prove that there is so much more that goes on within the virtual space. The

51 chatrooms are virtual versions of kitchens, dining rooms, restaurants, and bars where many users come to hang out and foster relationships.

Bounded Authenticity

Similar to how johns in Bernstein’s study paid to have an authentic “girlfriend experience” with the sex workers they frequented, the users in these chatrooms regularly pay for customized content and off-site contact with the model, establishing a between- realms version of bounded authenticity. This is significant because the members that pay for these interactions are doing it in front of the group, thus establishing and confirming their authority among the other users. While interactions on the site are primarily group oriented, there are still opportunities for members to negotiate one-on-one interactions with a model. Often, members tried to differentiate themselves from other users by establishing individual relationships with the model, including having off the site contact with her, but this contact is not free. In order to gain this access, members would do things like tip to play a game and win her phone number as a prize, tip a predetermined amount for access to her personal social media accounts, or pay to join her clubs for

“special” access to various privileges. Some members were obviously regulars in a model’s room and would make themselves known by sharing a similar screen name to hers, or acting as the model’s room moderator (with or without the site-given privileges that a model could grant a member access to). This differentiation gave the members that had a “higher” status than others a sense and appearance of authority and priority with the model. Often, the model would look to these members to ask their opinions about things ranging from what song she should play next to what her next countdown topic should be. In one instance, one of K8’s regulars, a frequent high tipper, came in after an apparent

52 brief hiatus. When he greeted everyone, K8 let out a squeal of excitement and shouted

“JOHHHNNNN!” while some of the other members inserted GIFs of a red carpet, or emojis with sunglasses on. One of the other members commented, “Oh, it’s about to be on tonight, big j is in the building! My sad little 5 token tips aren’t gonna do shit anymore. *Handclapping emoji* K, are you ready to make some money???” K8 laughed and told the member to shut up, and then told John that she had missed him.

In this interaction, it was obvious that the other members knew who John was and what his “status” in the room was. The sense that there was suddenly a dominant presence in the room was tangible and it felt like the room was metaphorically holding its breath for him to drop an outlandish amount of money from the moment he arrived. Each of the models had a regular who was clearly their primary tipper and received slightly different treatment compared to others. It seemed as though some of these regulars enjoyed the extra attention and shrieks of excitement, while others, such as one of Joey’s regulars, either tipped large amounts anonymously or in an offline tip (a tip that a member sends while the model is not broadcasting). He mentioned in one conversation that he didn’t like it when people just assumed he was always going to be the one to clear a countdown. He went on to say that he loved making Joey happy, but not if it meant that the other guys were going to neglect tipping her.

This example and John’s concern highlights an area of particular interest regarding members who have a dominant presence in the rooms. When members like

John are not online, the rooms have a different feel to them until that member signs on.

Some rooms, like Punch’s, have multiple dominant presences, which make it less noticeable when one isn’t there, but for the rooms that have only one, or one that is more

53 perceptible than the others, something happens in their absence. Because many other members depend on high-tippers and regulars to create the fun atmosphere of a performance by contributing to or ending a model’s countdown, the room’s energy is visibly decreased when that person isn’t there. The model’s energy changes, as does the attitude of the other users depending on which regulars are present. I likened this to in- person homosocial groups that have the “main” figure, or the alpha-persona, missing; often the group won’t meet if the alphamale or female can’t be there or the overall vibe is different if they do meet.

The Internet as the medium for these interactions effects who has access to this dominant role due to the anonymity it provides. Dominant roles are no longer tied to physical traits, as they may be in-person. Rather, so long as a member has money to spend on behalf of the group, they are given access to a position of power. This unique dynamic would not be possible without the commodification of a dominant member’s relationship with the model. Because of this, the models make clear efforts to establish special relationships with those that provide the money in order to promote the importance of this person’s position. In turn, the members in this position use their intimate relationship with the model as an additional symbol of status in the room.

It is apparent that each model works to make members feel special, which has various effects on the room. Members that are regulars in a model’s room have interactions with her that are obviously different from the ones that non-regulars have.

Typically, the room’s regulars are the members that most often tip the model and also tip the largest amounts. The models often go out of their way to talk directly to these members and converse more with them than non-regulars. These users and the models

54 regularly have inside jokes or have side conversations within the site’s private messaging application. During almost every one of my observation sessions, one of the models would speak out loud to a person that wasn’t active in the group conversation. For example, Taylor once told one of her regulars that she saw his PM (private message) but couldn’t perform his request at that moment because she was in the middle of another countdown. She promised that she would do whatever it was that he asked for and then said “You’re welcome” to a “thank you” that wasn’t visible to anyone else. Punch frequently references jokes that were made in previous chats, and if one hadn’t been there to be in on the joke, no one would bring them up to speed. She has this type of relationship with several of her regulars. Punch’s popularity on the site could very well be from interactions like these; many of her regulars commented on numerous occasions how special she made them feel, which was something unique to her room.

From these interactions also came a mutual exchange of goods and/or services.

One of the models writes the name of her regular tippers on her body and other members have to tip her if they want their name to be written somewhere. Cookie had the names of her regular tippers written on red and pink paper hearts that were taped on the wall behind her – bigger hearts corresponding with regulars who had given her bigger tips. All of the models that I observed offer different “clubs” that her members can join, and each level grants access to different personal content. Models frequently receive personal gifts from regulars who have purchased items off of her Amazon wishlist, or custom emojis and GIFs that are created by a regular. Once these emojis are made, some models only allow certain regulars to access and use them.

55

Though the models offered regular opportunities to have individual intimacy, it was always at a price and members are happy to pay up. In order to obtain personalized content or gain off-site access to the model, members – regardless of how “regular” they were – have to either win the content by playing a game that they had tip for, tipping a set amount that the model has determined for the item, winning a raffle for which they have bought a raffle ticket, or paying to join a club for personal content. Users are willing to pay money for access to personal intimacy with the model because it distinguishes them from other site members. Sometimes members reference a conversation they had offline with the model, seemingly covertly bragging about having offline access to her. These instances show that there is a further sense of community being built around being an

“insider.” Those who “really know” the model bond together, establishing themselves as the model’s “true” fans or friends compared to newbies who are just getting to know her.

Similar to all of the other bonding activities that members partake in, camaraderie built around being “special” to the model is another group that members can rally around.

Individual bounded authenticity—where the girlfriend experience is not visible to others—is less valuable in this context where establishing oneself as the “alpha” comes with social capital. Any member who pays to have one-on-one interaction challenges this dynamic and isn’t “part of the team”. Most of the models did not offer private shows for

56 this reason. If a model did offer a private show, sometimes the other members would out tip the person who had requested the show in order to keep the model in the public chatroom. Other times, members would complain about users requesting privates messing up the vibe of the room, or make a comment about the room being for everyone’s enjoyment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Over the past decade there has been a significant increase in the use of the

Internet for interpersonal connections as well as sexual exploration and commerce, which has had a huge impact on society and interpersonal relationships. Anxieties about online, virtual relationship building have led to criticism and, in some cases pathologizing, of online intimacy. This tendency towards pathologizing individuals dismisses the fact that online relationships often evolve out of online communities, which are often very real to those that participate in them.

As the background literature revealed, sociological research at the intersection of sexuality, relationships, and the Internet is lacking. There is a vast amount of research around sexuality that continues to grow as individuals further navigate their sexual spaces and find new means of sexual expression. Furthermore, though there has been much research done by various academic fields on the commerce of sex – both face-to-face and online such as with pornography – there has been very little done that focuses on the sector of online commercial sex work. Within the research of sexual commerce, an overwhelming amount of attention has been given to the provider and not the consumer.

While some research has focused on the consumer and their reasons for purchasing sex

(Bernstein 2007), and other research has focused on the provider’s emotional labor

57 (Hochschild 1983), the research that explores the process of the commodification of emotions from the consumer’s standpoint is almost nonexistent.

The explosion of the Internet has resulted in a major change on our society.

People interact and establish relationships through an entirely different platform than what existed just a few decades ago. Additionally, the Internet provides a new means of sexual exploration and expression. With this major change in how people establish relationships and explore their sexuality, it is our sociological obligation to gain a better understanding on how this impacts our society.

My research sought to answer, and did, how anonymous users of commercial, cybersexual webcam communities negotiate power and establish relationships in virtual spaces. Members of MyFreeCams establish bromances with one another through various acts of community building, such as regularly and frequently greeting each other and celebrating various occurrences together. Beyond the relationships between members, users of the site establish shared intimacy with the model by sharing usernames, using customized, room-specific emojis, and acts of solidarity such as “tip walls”.

The models of the rooms that I looked at were all non-nude or non-explicit, because of this they had to come up with unique ways to keep members engaged and entertained while doing countdowns to their shows. All of the models used some type of game at some point of my observations and the members always engaged in these commoditized cyber-games, often becoming somewhat addicted to the game or ending up in a friendly competition with another member while playing. These types of interactions added subtle moments of humanization into the chatrooms, but these games were not the only instances. Throughout my observations, I found multiple references to food, drinks,

58 and mealtimes, which I found added to the development their relationships by providing a sense of realness between interactions.

In addition to some of the previously mentioned moments of realness that were brought on by various group interactions, there was also a lot of work done by the models and individual members to establish the same types of feelings. Hochschild’s research

(1983) discussed the theory of emotional labor, in which a worker’s job requires them to display emotions to customers in order to accurately do their job. According to

Hochschild, jobs that require emotional labor also require three other factors: (1) face-to- face or voice-to-voice contact, (2) production of an emotional state in the consumer by the worker, and (3) the employer is allowed to exercise a degree of control over the emotional activities of the worker. While these factors are achieved online, the dynamic changes in a variety of ways.

Instead of face-to-face interaction, the models interact face-to-text with members, thus creating a new medium to examine Hochschild’s theory. While the production of an emotional state in the consumers is achieved through the model’s actions, it is also dependent on the other members’ presence and actions. Hochschild examined flight attendants and other service providers to see how their emotions influenced those of their customers, not how the customers’ emotions impacted other customers’ emotions. On

MFC, however, this dynamic of emotional labor is actually interdependent between the model and members, and members with other members. While models may be primarily responsible for emotion management of the room (though even this may be debatable), she is not solely responsible as flight attendants and other emotional laborers are. Further research should be conducted to analyze the emotional laboring of members in the room

59 and the interdependence of feelings amongst the members. Finally, in contrast to

Hochschild’s research, there is no “employer” on the site that has control over policing the models’ behaviors; therefore the models are in complete control of their own expression of emotions. Models have the freedom to be as polite or as brash as they want to be without any repercussions, and so do the members to a certain extent (as it is up to the model to decide when someone has gone too far and she can choose to ban them). In this industry, the customer isn’t always right and it’s actually up to the worker to decide how to treat her customers. In jobs that require only positive emotional labor, workers have just one choice for how to act if they want to keep their positions. Conversely, while webcam models do have to perform emotional labor, they have complete autonomy to decide how they want to perform and can choose from a range of emotions to achieve the emotion work their jobs require. How does this impact their perception of the emotional labor that they are performing? Does this add an element of empowerment that traditional service jobs do not provide? Further research should analyze how this difference in power dynamics affects the final outcome from the worker, the consumer, and the institution’s perspective.

Though much of my observations highlighted the group camaraderie in the chatrooms, there were several instances of bounded authenticity between the model and individual members. In these instances, it was clear that the models worked hard to make certain members feel special and, in turn, these members were often her biggest providers and supporters. Bernstein found that sex workers and their customers exchange feelings of authenticity in order to make their interactions feel more “real”, as opposed to solely occurring based on the exchange of money. In my research, I found that members and

60 models interacted with one another on MFC similarly to how Bernstein’s johns and sex workers interacted. When webcam models go out of their way to make certain members feel valued, they are adding a level of authenticity that clearly isn’t given to all members equally. In exchange, the members that receive this type of interaction give larger amounts of tips and/or provide the models with gifts outside of the site. Though these interactions parallel those that occur between Bernstein’s johns and sex workers, the

Internet as the medium changes the dynamics.

The interactions between model and member are not negotiated entirely the same as in-person between johns and sex workers. One major difference is that online, multiple members are able to simultaneously contribute to the model; in-person, sex workers typically are with only one person at a time. Another difference is that in-person sex workers establish bounded authenticity with just one person, and they mutually depend on each other, not a group, for this interaction. Conversely, webcam models typically engage with hundreds of users at one time, and the instances of bounded authenticity are almost completely dependent upon the group dynamic. This is interesting because it adds an new and complex interactive component to the theory of bounded authenticity.

Finally, in Bernstein’s research, the added element of the girlfriend experience helped both parties accomplish their goals; for the johns, they were able to feel a sense of intimacy in addition to their sexual release, and the workers were able to provide an additional, often enjoyable, service to their menu for a higher price. Online this dynamic is similar, but instead of the members participating for the sake of their own individual release, they are participating in order to establish relationships with other members. This

61 idea furthers the discussion around the complexity of the interactive element that this space provides.

In person, interactions between sex worker and consumer are dependent solely on the two individuals. So long as the worker and the customer agree upon the terms of their interaction, the job will get done. On MFC, the “job” is reliant on layers of factors and literally hundreds of people. If there is no model present, the space for interaction does not exist; if the alpha presence, or presences, is not present, the room dynamic is skewed and the “job” never gets started; if the hundreds of viewers are not present, there is no audience for the model or the alphas to perform for. This represents a sharing and constant shifting of power. Ultimately, it is my belief, that the model actually holds the lion’s share of the power. If she does not perform, there is no show to fraternize around or basis of conversation. If she does not log on, the room and the members of the room do not exist. She chooses whom to bestow power unto – while this is also dependent on how much a member tips and participates in the room, ultimately it is up to the model’s discretion to decide who can do what in her room.

Because the Internet provides users with almost complete anonymity, it is nearly impossible to know for certain whom the users on MFC and like-sites truly are. The new means of power that sites like this provide are opening new realms for previously less empowered people to access and use power. Because of this, there could be a large amount of counterhegemonic bodies filling these positions of power. Furthermore, people are using sites like MyFreeCams to establish relationships using similar tactics to those that they use in face-to-face situations. While some might argue that these virtual spaces are isolating, I challenge that idea by highlighting the fact that in places like casinos,

62 where people go alone to engage in gaming similar to how they do on MFC, individuals are not making regular contact with the other people around them. People online actually spend more time with other people because at any given time there may be 3000 members sharing the same chatroom and conversing. What is significant about this medium, though, is that we don’t know who these individuals are.

While observing the rooms, I found myself frequently wondering who it was behind the keystrokes in the chatrooms. How many couples, women, teenagers, members of the LGBTQ community, seniors, and anyone else was sitting behind their computer, as

I? The sheer number of people logged onto the site at any given time opens up the possibilities for all of these different types of people to be online at the same time. I wondered, how many teenagers are learning about sex and sexuality on MFC? How many teenage girls are learning how to flirt and are being socialized into sexual beings? How many couples are replacing other forms of entertainment with sites like MFC? Were there other women, like myself, watching the non-nude models simply because they are more inviting to the female gaze? Or, how many lesbian women frequent the site for their own enjoyment?

MyFreeCams and its counterparts are like virtual day clubs where people go to meet other like-minded people, play games, joke, eat, and converse, all for free unless they choose otherwise. While people may go online to escape “reality,” my observations suggest that MFC is just a new type of reality. Future research needs to focus on learning the identities of these users as well as interview them to gain a better understanding of what they feel they are getting from sites like these. What are the races, classes, genders, nationalities, ages, sexual orientations, current locations, and occupations of the members

63 that I observed? In order to gain a better understanding of my findings in relation to power negotiations and relationship building, we need to have an understanding of who these people really are. It is clear that they are not the sexually deranged, perverts that many before have assumed frequent sites like MyFreeCams, so who are they?

64 REFERENCES

Adler, Patricia A. and Peter Adler. 2008. “The Cyber Worlds of Self-Injurers: Deviant Communities, Relationships, and Selves.” Symbolic Interaction 31(1):33–56. Amichai-Hamburger, Y. and E. Ben-Artzi. 2003. “Loneliness and Internet Use.” Computers in Human Behavior 19(1):71–80. Ando, Reiko and Akira Sakamoto. 2008. “The Effect of Cyber-Friends on Loneliness and Social Anxiety: Differences between High and Low Self-Evaluated Physical Attractiveness Groups.” Computers in Human Behavior 24(3):993–1009. Belk, Russell W. 2011. Research in Consumer Behavior. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Bernstein, Elizabeth. 2001. “The Meaning of the Purchase Desire, Demand and the Commerce of Sex.” Ethnography 2(3):389–420. Bernstein, Elizabeth-editor. 2005. “Desire, Demand, and the Commerce of Sex, by Elizabeth Bernstein.” Bernstein, E. 2010. Temporarily Yours: Intimacy, Authenticity, and the Commerce of Sex. University of Chicago Press. Retrieved (https://books.google.com/books?id=8Ua3jomuHVIC). Book, Betsy. 2004. “Moving Beyond the Game: Social Virtual Worlds.” 13. Bryson, Mary. 2004. “When Jill Jacks In.” Feminist Media Studies 4(3):239–54. Chou, Chien, Linda Condron, and John C. Belland. 2005. “A Review of the Research on Internet Addiction.” Educational Psychology Review 17(4):363–88. Döring, Nicola M. 2009. “The Internet’s Impact on Sexuality: A Critical Review of 15 Years of Research.” Computers in Human Behavior 25(5):1089–1101. Edelmann, Robert and Robin-Marie Shepherd. 2005. “Reasons for Internet Use and Social Anxiety.” Personality and Individual Differences 39:949–58. Epstein, Steven. 1994. “A Queer Encounter: Sociology and the Study of Sexuality.” Sociological Theory 12(2):188–202. Fisher, William A. and Azy Barak. 2000. “Online Sex Shops: Phenomenological, Psychological, and Ideological Perspectives on Internet Sexuality.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 3(4):575–89. Fisher, William A. and Azy Barak. 2001. “Internet Pornography: A Social Psychological Perspective on Internet Sexuality.” Journal of Sex Research 38(4):312. Gagnon, John. 2004. An Interpretation of Desire: Essays in the Study of Sexuality. University of Chicago Press. Gamson, Joshua and Dawne Moon. 2004. “The Sociology of Sexualities: Queer and Beyond.” Annual Review of Sociology 30(1):47–64. Gottschalk, Simon. 2010. “The Presentation of Avatars in Second Life: Self and Interaction in Social Virtual Spaces.” Symbolic Interaction 33(4):501–25. Griffiths, Mark. 2000. “Excessive Internet Use: Implications for Sexual Behavior.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 3(4):537–52. Griffiths, Mark. 2001. “Sex on the Internet: Observations and Implications for Internet Sex Addiction.” Journal of Sex Research 38(4):333. Griffiths, Mark D. 2012. “Internet Sex Addiction: A Review of Empirical Research.” Addiction Research & Theory 20(2):111–24. Haraway, Donna. 2006. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late 20th Century.” Pp. 117–58 in The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments, edited by J. Weiss, A. P. J. Nolan, J. Hunsinger, and P. P. Trifonas. Springer Netherlands. Retrieved October 23, 2015 (http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-3803-7_4). Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. Junker, Buford H. 1960. Field Work: An Introduction to the Social Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kibby, Marjorie and Brigid Costello. 2001. “Between the Image and the Act: Interactive Sex Entertainment on the Internet.” Sexualities 4(3):353–69. Kollock, Peter. 1998. “Design Principles for Online Communities.” PC Update 15(5):58–60. Kraut, Robert et al. 1998. “Internet Paradox: A Social Technology That Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-Being?” American Psychologist 53(9):1017–31. Lamb, Michael. 1998. “Cybersex: Research Notes on the Characteristics of the Visitors to Online Chat Rooms.” Deviant Behavior 19(2):121–35.

66 Lynch, Michael J. 2010. “Sex Work In Second Life: Scripts, Presence, And Bounded Authenticity In A Virtual Environment.” Social Thought & Research 31:37–56. Mileham, Beatriz Lia Avila. 2007. “Online Infidelity in Internet Chat Rooms: An Ethnographic Exploration.” Computers in Human Behavior 23(1):11–31. Monto, M. A. 2000.Why men seek out prostitutes. In R.Weitzer (Ed.), Sex for sale: Prostitution, pornography and the sex industry (pp. 67-83). New York: Routledge. Monto, M. A. 2001a. Conceiving of sex as a commondity: A study of arrested clients of female street prostitutes. Unpublished manuscript, University of Portland. Morahan-Martin, Janet and Phyllis Schumacher. 2003a. “Loneliness and Social Uses of the Internet.” Computers in Human Behavior 19(6):659–71. Morahan-Martin, Janet and Phyllis Schumacher. 2003b. “Loneliness and Social Uses of the Internet.” Computers in Human Behavior 19(6):659–71. Nagel, Joane. 2003. Race, Ethnicity, and Sexuality: Intimate Intersections, Forbidden Frontiers. Nakamura, Lisa. 2002. Cybertypes : Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet. New York: Routledge. Pascoe, C. J. 2011. “Resource and Risk: Youth Sexuality and New Media Use.” Sexuality Research & Social Policy 8(1):5–17. Plummer, Ken. 2003. “Queers, Bodies and Postmodern Sexualities: A Note on Revisiting the ‘Sexual’ in Symbolic Interactionism.” Qualitative Sociology 26(4):515–30. Robinson, Laura. 2007. “The Cyberself: The Self-Ing Project Goes Online, Symbolic Interaction in the Digital Age.” New Media & Society 9(1):93–110. Ross, Michael W. 2005. “Typing, Doing, and Being: Sexuality and the Internet.” Journal of Sex Research 42(4):342–52. Rubin, Gayle. 1984. Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. PM Nardi and BE Schneider. Social Perspectives in Lesbian and Gay Studies, 100-133. Sanders, Teela. 2006. “Sexing Up the Subject: Methodological Nuances in Researching the Female Sex Industry.” Sexualities 9(4):449–68. Sanders, Teela. 2008. “Male Sexual Scripts Intimacy, Sexuality and Pleasure in the Purchase of Commercial Sex.” Sociology 42(3):400–417.

67 Schutz, A. (1967). The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Scott, James and Thomas Johnson. 2005. “Bowling Alone but Online Together: Social Capital in E-Communities.” Journal of the Community Development Society 36(1). Simon, William & Gagnon, John H. (1984). Sexual scripts. Society, 22, 5240. Simon, William & Gagnon, John H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior; 15, 97-120. Simon, William & Gagnon, John H. (1987). A sexual scripts approach. In J. H. Greer & W. T. O'Donohue (Eds.), Theories of human sexuality (pp. 363-383). New York: Plenum. Stack, Steven, Ira Wasserman, and Roger Kern. 2004. “Adult Social Bonds and Use of Internet Pornography.” Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 85(1):75–88. Stein, Arlene and Ken Plummer. 1994. “‘I Can’t Even Think Straight’ ‘Queer’ Theory and the Missing Sexual Revolution in Sociology.” Sociological Theory 12(2):178–87. Vance, Carole. 1985. “Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality.” Vom Lehn, D., & Dingwall, Robert. (2014). Harold Garfinkel : The Creation and Development of Ethnomethodology. Left Coast Press. Wagner, Tanya. 1994. “Lights, camera, interaction” Cybersex: Extensions of Men.” MediaTribe 4(1) Whitty, Monica T. 2002. “Liar, Liar! An Examination of How Open, Supportive and Honest People Are in Chat Rooms.” Computers in Human Behavior 18(4):343–52. Whitty, Monica T. 2008. “Liberating or Debilitating? An Examination of Romantic Relationships, Sexual Relationships and Friendships on the Net.” Computers in Human Behavior 24(5):1837–50. Wysocki, Diane Kholos and Cheryl D. Childers. 2011. “‘Let My Fingers Do the Talking’: Sexting and Infidelity in Cyberspace.” Sexuality & Culture 15(3):217–39. Young, Kimberly S. 1999. “Internet Addiction: Symptoms, Evaluation, And Treatment.” Innovations in Clinical Practice 17. Young, Kimberly S., Eric Griffin-Shelley, Al Cooper, James O’Mara, and Jennifer Buchanan. 2000. “Online Infidelity: A New Dimension in Couple Relationships with Implications for Evaluation and Treatment.” Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity 7(1/2):59–74.

68