We don’t like the term “teen camwhore” here at Sexerati.  Because we almost were one.  No, we are not scarred.  We simply passed over that highwater mark of smut marketing (”teen”) by not installing our very first 3Com HomeConnect webcam until we arrived at the age of 21.

But we digress.

“Through His Webcam, a Boy Joins a Sordid Online World” (bugmenot), a huge and hugely complicated New York Times feature on teenage webcam site operators.  Why is this news now?  Salon tread here first (“Candy from strangers”), long ago, back in 2001.  What’s new now is that a former teen webcam site operator and owner, the subject of the lengthy and multiply sidebar-ed feature, after being approached by the Times journalist — who was, at the time, posing as a customer and fan — was urged by the journalist to end his involvement with his and related sites, and to pursue criminal charges against those he still knew in the online circles in which he profited, with legal assistance supported by the journalist.

All of which begs the question — how can one even report thoroughly on this issue without becoming a part of it, and how does that fundamentally compromise that reporting — which Slate’s Jack Shafer (”The New York Times Legal Aid Society: The newspaper helps a very young pornographer find a lawyer“) candidly asks.  Because we know the Times is having hard enough time lately with such issues.  Adding teenagers and porn to the pot hardly clarifies things.

Well, for a novel start, the reporter, Kurt Eichenwald, does respond to Shafer in a published email exchange:

Of course, we could have reported these crimes to the government ourselves–but I thought that crossed a line from reporter to witness. Plus, there were source confidentiality issues in play at that point–how do I reveal this, without revealing the source?

We hope this is not the last we hear from both Shafer and Eichenweld.  Kudos for having this conversation (relatively) out in the open, blog-style.

Now — however — unfortunately evocative ethics aside, conservative pundits — with respectfully restrained headlines like “SEX, WEBCAMS, TEENS & LOTS OF MONEY” (sure to rake in the Google hits there, guys) — are likely to have a field day here, leaving well-meaning porn-positive types (myself included) not really knowing what to say next.

Here we’ve been for the past few years talking about how effective the industry has been at keeping child porn off the Net.  Now, along with the so-called “parental rights,” protectionist wave of anti-MySpace hysteria (not to mention that Tribe.net is today rendering invisible anything even vaguely “adult”), will anti-child-webcam-porn fears only have more sway in efforts to further outlaw consensual, legally-grown-up, commercial web-based media?

What happens when underage porn producers and performers are producing and performing their own work, setting up their own websites?  How could we have taken that into consideration?  But how could those of us in the webcam world not have?

Postscript: Before you say it — yes, I know we (”we!”  hah!  like we are now Sex-ist!) often post on sexual politics as they relate also to those not yet of legal age in the USA to do much about their sexuality.  Even if they can’t technically even visit this blog.  Why is this?  See the Preamble to this post.  See also: ever read the sex news coming off the digital arm of the mainstream press?  On a daily basis?  More of it relates to teens, and more specifically, teenage girls doing “bad” things, than one would imagine.  Who is exploiting who here, exactly?  By some standards, I am supposed to call a hotline on the Times now.  By others, I’m to laud the sexual agency of people I just can’t call “children.”  By my own standards, I’m just reporting this, and putting myself in the story, too.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 20th, 2005 at 3:52 am and is filed under Smut, Smut, Smut, Tight Fitted News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.