The body is of course objectified in webcam porn (as in any other form of that medium), but it is also fragmented, and can be mirrored in a bio-sexual feedback loop upon the viewer’s own corporeality. Following my experiences in online sex work throughout 2020, I have begun to reflect upon how I have been perceived - 'read' - by viewers over that time.
Emphasis on the ass is frequent which, when shown, ideally in a rear view, bent over, tends to solicit very positive responses, usually quite generic, of how deep, rough or otherwise the viewer would like to penetrate it. (This is the one area I usually had to fake, having medical conditions in that specific location, and therefore any real anal activity is anathema to me). As discussed previously in the post on taxonomies and naming, a protean morphing/splicing of the anus and vagina tended to be revealed in perceptions of that specific site: á la ‘Deep Throat’ (wherein the clitoris is relocated to throat*), we find the vagina/pussy relocated to (and assimilated within) the anus – the more familiar, less troubling/complicated orifice that is, again, familiar to the male viewer, and can be discussed and fantasised upon without fear or confusion, allowing the ‘phallic female’ performer to present the fantasy of femininity without possessing the biological femaleness:
The tits are occasionally commented upon; rarely as secondary feminine signifiers, but more in terms of the erogenous potential beneath the bra (the nipples), which viewers often request to see being played with, exposed, etc. When I inform viewers that the “tits ain't real”, most don't care whether pectorals or mammaries lie beneath. The plasticity of the body is enhanced as the user’s desires seek to be made manifest in a willing performer. I've had even a few viewers who actually encouraged me to play with the ‘breasts’ (weighted bags inside a pocket bra, giving a very realistic ‘bounce’) in the way cisfemale performers often do, though this was not common: the erogenous zone of the nipples being of much more interest, though I rarely showed these (for two reasons: I almost never shave around them, expecting them always to be covered by the bra – and also because removal of the bra, I feel, renders me more vulnerable, less feminine, and therefore closer to gendered masculinity rather than the ambiguous, but feminized, figure I prefer to project). It was not surprising to learn that not even the presence of the chest hair could diminish the enthusiasm of those who asked, suggesting that either certain aspects of masculinity can be easily ‘tuned out’ with sufficient accompanying stimulus, or else many viewers who claim ‘straight’ status are somewhat more bisexual than they may admit. If the former, then the fragmentation/reduction of the body into a number of component zones of interest becomes self-evident: while in online adult dating, shaved/smooth pubic areas are often flagged as essential (often for all genders), it seems that the presence of pubic hair in the merely visual medium is less problematic, having no tangible/physical concern for the viewer. Though my own is never shaved, I received very little negative feedback in this regard online, despite the clear preferences of many for the hairless equivalent.
More generally the body is reduced to the one part which is shared by both performer (in my case) and male viewer - namely the phallus, whether mine, or theirs (what they're doing with it, how I make theirs feel, inviting me to watch them showing off theirs, and what they would like to do with theirs in terms of my body, if they had the chance). Or requesting that I do this or that specific action with mine – whether simply showing it (up close to the camera was a common desire) and often displaying great interest in its size (or perhaps how it compared to their own). In this way the phallus becomes the shared axis by which performer and viewer relate directly to each other's experience and sensation.
Yet I also found this somewhat alienating, given that I rarely started a video chat session in any state approaching sexual excitement – a fact which often led to disappointment when I explained I wasn’t able to trigger an instant response upon demand. Conversation and the building of a scene/relationship/interest, two-way sharing of mutual interests, are what tended to get me more readily aroused, when I could sense that there would be some form of ‘audience feedback’ for what I was doing, a discussion which, I hoped, would signal approval and encouragement to continue. Simply being on show in front of any number, of mute voyeurs is of no interest to me whatsoever. Consider the cliché of the bored stripper wandering around her pole, glaring sulkily out at the bunch of equally bored men in the club or bar around her: in a live, unscripted arena, audience participation and feedback is essential. Of course, dollar bills (in the live version) or tokens (in the online environment) is the greatest form of feedback, though with it usually comes the understanding of some reciprocation – to take the current performativity to the next level, lose some clothing, or otherwise show appreciation to the tipper. My hard limit was always “No tip, no strip”, an attitude which wasn’t always appreciated – but certainly helped to kick out the timewasters.
*As an aside, feminist writer and artist Laura Kipnis discusses corporeal fantasy in an entertaining review of 'Inside Deep Throat' here.
Her discussion of straight porn being a medium which "creates a
fantastical world composed of two sexes but one gender...a world in
which men and women were sexually alike" (L. Kipnis, 'Bound &
Gagged: Pornography and the Politics of Fantasy in America', Durham NC.,
Duke UP, 1999, p. 200) is a cornerstone of my own investigations and
experience to date, and will be revisited in future.
No comments:
Post a Comment