The trend of viewing domestic animals, specifically cats, or newly birthed giraffes, elephants, or any pick of zoo animal on a live streaming platform continues to dominate the realm of the internet. In 2017, an online article by Time contributor Cady Lang discussed a “reality show” format-based live stream revolving around a group of cats who performed functions expected from felines, including playing, sleeping, and rough housing; in other words, the cats were simply existing. “‘Keeping Up With the Kattarshians’ Is the Cat Reality TV Show You Never Knew You Needed” mentions the live stream is a product of Iceland’s online broadcaster Nutiminn, who partnered with the Icelandic Cat Protection Society, with the purpose of raising awareness for cat adoption. Although developed with seemingly charitable intentions, this case of surveillance extends beyond the “Kattarshians,” due to shows like Big Brother (CBS 2000- Present), Flavor of Love (VH1 2006- 2008), and Bad Girls Club (Oxygen 2006- 2017), audiences have access to the subjects and their intimate spaces, which was unattainable in the past. Now, with the expansion of social media, technological devices, and streaming platforms, the convenience of connecting with and surveying live subjects online is an effortless task. In this line of thinking, various questions permeate from this case of live streaming animals: Why are individuals so fascinated with the concept of watching subjects live their lives, in live time? What do spectators receive in return for their viewership? Does this extend beyond entertainment and delve into a form of “digital spying”? This may not be the case with the zoo animals, yet the exchange of an animal for a human subject carries significant implications, including the issues of governing the subject’s movements, scrutinizing their interactions and policing their bodies; this can be seen especially in live streaming sex shows, where the subject is at the mercy of the spectator. Similar to watching the newest animal in the zoo, the viewer is able to sit behind any screen and observe the sexual performer, constantly keeping vigilant of the performer’s actions and reactions. This paper will explore how the spectator’s “gaze” serves as a form of surveillance and how it particularly impacts sexual performers and their bodies through live streaming sex shows.
Live streaming sex shows are a growing trend due to the development of interactive webcam websites /online platforms, such as, adam4adam.com, jasmin.com, and even Instagram Live! For the lack of scholarly work done on the topic of live streaming sex shows, or as writer Rachel Stuart refers to as “webcamming,” the article she has written called “Webcamming: The Sex Work Revolution That No One is Willing to Talk About” will provide a very general definition, or at the very least a vague understanding, of live streaming sex shows. Although Stuart specifically discusses about the use of public and private chat rooms, the purpose of using this particular article is to establish how live streaming serves to provide provocative content to its users in an online setting. In Stuart’s work, she explains how online performers are given a source of monetary profit in exchange for “performing sexual and non-sexual acts”; plus, the spectator is able to “make requests for specific sexual acts to be performed.” Stuart goes on to say “webcamming” is an easy venture to participate in as well as a safe environment to work in, especially for women and transgendered individuals. Stuart believe live streaming is an inclusive space where all bodies, sexualities, genders, and races are able to perform a sexual function for the masses who will watch them. Comparable to pornography, where artificality is key to its success, in particular the bodies who perform the sex acts and the body bending sex positions, I assert live stream sex shows’ prosperity relies on its realism and the phenomenon of its liveliness. In her book, Why Internet Porn Matters, Margret Grebowicz claims pornography is situated in a state of “hyperreality, [and is] pure simulation….” (40); she also states pornography is an unattainable form of sex for the consumer and is “better than the real thing” (40). However, unlike pornography, live streaming sex shows feeds the spectator’s expectations and allows their “imagination [to be] cultivat[ed], the [spectator] that fears fantasy must turn somewhere for that cultivation, somewhere it imagines to be safely ‘real’ and free of fantasy” (41). Live streaming sex shows is a space where the spectator indulges with aspects of “real” sex and holds power over the subject/performer, therein the element to consider is the idea of the spectator’s surveillance of the subject’s body. Within in this space of realism and live sex acts, the spectator monitors the performer’s body and inserts their watchful eye.
Eventually, surveillance and the “gaze” become interchangeable as both offer a sense of watchfulness and cast a shadow of vigilant spying. In Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison, Michel Foucault re-appropriates Jeremy Bentham’s “panopticon” by placing an individual in a tower structure, surrounded by cell rooms, which reinforces the idea in the inhabitant, they are regularly being observed. This method is “a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” amongst the supervisor in the tower. Similar to the panopticon, the spectator’s “gaze” is an all-knowing, all-watching sentient which flows out of the computer and engages with the performer’s body and actions. The spectator’s “gaze” embodies the panopticon’s purpose of controlling the performer’s activities, even without their knowledge the performer and their body can still be watched by the person “in the tower.” Unfortunately, the performer has now become “the object of information, never a subject in communication.” The performer and their body is on display, they are the main source of data and material, yet they cannot interact with the users or spectators who use their bodies as well as any other misuse of their live stream shows, such as screen grabs, re-uploaded links, and/or recorded performances. As Foucault says “the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action”; the repercussions of reblogs, reuploaded videos, and non-consensual use is apparent and continues to perpetuates the spectator’s panopticon viewing. The spectator’s “gaze is… everywhere” and never truly absent from live streaming sex shows, even when the event is no longer in a live format.
In cinema, a spectator typically becomes visually enthralled with the narrative and character’s world through certain camera angles, shots, and other cinematic techniques captured on film; eventually, the audience is invested with the character’s movements, actions, behaviors, and performance. Similarly, live sex performances grants the spectator admission into the subject’s immediate, personal domain, as well as allows the performer to enact various sexual acts on themselves or others for the viewer’s supposed pleasure, while the performance is broadcast through a live recording. Through the live stream, spectators watch the performer without any expectation of reciprocation; the scenario occurs like a two-way mirror, only the actions of the performer can be seen, yet behind that “mirror,” the spectator is protected and has the power to cast their gaze. Coincidentally, films are also susceptible to the influence of the “gaze”, specifically female figures who remain the focal point of the camera’s eye. The “gaze” is an active function meant to disempower the subject/image and provide the bearer of the look with complete agency, thus allowing the subject to endure the duty as a spectacle. Laura Mulvey established the term, “male gaze” (62) in her essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” wherein she describes how typically the role of women in films stood in for “strong visual and erotic impact” (62) as well as meant to be displayed as an “erotic spectacle” (62). The mere presence of a female subject stopped the film’s narrative, since their “visual presence” (62) would halt any action occurring on screen, so the (male) spectator could absorb the “erotic spectacle” and process what was presented before them. Although during a live stream there is not a cohesive, coherent narrative, the subject’s/performer’s occupancy of the screen is utilized as a source of “erotic spectacle” and is forced to sustain the “gaze.” However, without the presence of the subject/performer no action would unfold, it is not until the performer becomes “active” (62) that the actual spectacle materializes. No scene equates to no action, no action means no “gaze.” In this instance, the roles are reversed and the performer is able to maintain a form of authority. Yet, a live stream sex show would not have any significance without its performer(s), therefore any power which is obtained is quickly diminished when the performer is subjected to the “gaze. Online live sex shows were seemingly created to satisfy the “gaze,” or sense of surveillance, allowing the spectator to command the body occupying on screen, as well as outside of the space of the live stream.
I contend live stream sex performers still encounter the “gaze” even off screen when their images are put on display on different sites without their permission. Tumblr, Twitter, and Reddit are popular sites for screen grabs or re-uploads of any kinds of sexual acts, whether these include celebrity nude photos, sex tapes, revenge porn, or live stream sex shows, the performers/subjects no longer have control of their content and must be “gazed” at without their consent. The act of consent does not seem to be valid when placed in the hands of unwanted spectators. Their “gaze” can permeate without the knowledge of the performer/subject, who again has no agency to control who is allowed to view their content and who isn’t when cast out into the media/online atmosphere. Along with the surveilling “gaze,” no longer is the live stream authentic, but now the images have deviated from its original use and fallen victim to being a vicious cycle of reblogging, retweeting, and becoming re-appropriate for other uses. In Susanna Paasonen’s Carnal Resonance: Affect and Online Pornography, the spectator has dominance over the performer and using the “screen grab” reinforces that ideology; “this form of viewing may involve the pleasure of being in control of the images, but people make use of the images for a variety of purposes. Once images, videos, stories, and webcam streams are made available online, they are out of the producers’ control as users grab images, perhaps links or incorporate them to other sites, share them, and frame them with comments of their own” (178). The spectator uses these devices and tools to victimize the performer and manipulate how their content is supposed to be used. Their “gaze” has now become an active action and it transforms into “visual control” (179), where the spectacle (subject/performer) is continually exposed and imposed with constant surveillance.
Live stream sex shows will continue to rise in popularity as social media and online platforms expand, especially if they become conveniently accessible through the progression of advanced technology. I am unsure if it would be senseless to pose the question if some form of “protection” should be offered to the performers? Is there anything that can be done to reverse the effects of the surveying “gaze”? Is there a solution to the “visual control” of the “gaze”? Perhaps, a two way interaction (all the individuals involved are able to see each other) between subject/performer and spectator may eliminate the power of the “gaze,” considering both parties would be on equal terms. There are websites like Chatroulette, Omegle, and Tinychat which offer two way interaction, wherein both parties are randomly granted connection with another person without paying a fee; yet, the implications of non-consensual sexual activity is rampant, especially as penises are flashed on screen and men are consistently seen mastrubating. The concept of the panopticon that is the “gaze” is inescapable, whether agreed upon by the performer or inexplicably unknown to them, it is unrelentingly surveying. The “gaze” has replaced surveillance by becoming commodified and packaged as a Twitch audience, Instagram followers and YouTube subscribers to increase popularity, awareness, and existence. It seems as though the “gaze” is needed to survive in a world where social media has dominated as the main form of entertainment. The overall significance appears to be — if an individual is not broadcasting live and is not being watched by a number of spectators, then it seems that individual’s work or existence is invalid.
Works Cited
Abrego, Cris and Mark Cronin, creators. Flavor of Love. 51 Minds Entertainment, 2006.
Bunim, Mary-Ellis and Jonathan Murray, creators. Bad Girls Club. Bunim/Murray Productions, 2006.
De Mol, John, creator. Big Brother. CBS. 2000.
Foucault, Michel. “Discipline & Punish – Panopticism.” 1975. Michel Foucault, Info. May 2018.
Grebowicz, Margret. Why Internet Porn Matters. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2013.
Lang, Cady. “Keeping Up With the Kattarshians Is the Cat Reality TV Show You Never Knew You Needed.” 21 February 2017. Time. May 2018.
Mulvey, Laura. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. 1975. PDF.
Paasonen, Susanna. Carnal Resonance: Affect and Online Pornography . 2011: The MIT Press, 2011.
Stuart, Rachel. “Webcamming: The Sex Work Revolution That No One is Willing to Talk About.” 10 January 2017. The Conversation. May 2018.
