0161 - Do it for Zoa. - 2020.11.02



Anyone who's spent time in the 18+ sections of social media can tell you - online sex work is weird.

There's a lot of college students dressed like midbosses in a mature-rated videogame ordering paypigs to fork over their 401(k)s so she can insult their penises. There's a lot of re-re-re-reposted video clips with competing watermarks, advertising paysites of stolen content and hoping you want to see the full version of the five minute clip you definitely didn't just finish jerking it to. There's a lot of cornfed Iowa dipshits breathlessly asking professional pornstars if they'd ever considered the novel idea of running a "fuck-a-fan" contest. There's a lot of garbled English praising a woman's perfect feet and promising her a good time (and seven whole inches of real penis!) the next time she happens to visit Bratislava. Dear Sweet Jesus God in Heaven, there's a lot of objectification of black men's apparently superhuman physical strength and Brobdingnagian ding-dongs (it's not racist if it's a compliment, right?).

And yes, there are an awful lot of people who appear to only be sexually stimulated by the exchange of currency.

But is that necessarily inauthentic, do you think? Even if we assume that it starts as a wholly cynical attempt to exploit horny morons online, surely the Pavlovian conditioning of busting a nut every time someone shoots you a Paypal transaction will, in time, develop into a legitimate fetish for getting paid. Speaking as someone who regularly makes sex-adjacent content online in exchange for money, the fact that I can only justify the effort if I'm thereby making rent doesn't mean that I don't honestly enjoy what I do.

If one views sexual attention as, fundamentally, being seen and assessed and found worthy, what could be more honest and authentic than someone being willing to part with their hard-earned cash as proof of the intensity of their desire? One might view it like a sacrifice to a god - any idiot can yell prayers, true believers are willing to give something up.

If you have a regular partner, ask yourself - would you be willing to pay money in exchange for their attentions, if they needed it? Are you, in fact, already doing so, but just haven't made it explicitly transactional yet? If someone performs the human symptoms of pleasure for your benefit, is that necessarily "fake"?


0161 - 2167/07/06/16:09 - Lee Caldavera's apartment, living room.
Doc: Alright, C knows I hate doing this.... but I have an idea.
LC: Is it some other cognitive exercise, or some list of chores, or something?
Doc: Not exactly.
Doc [data connection]: Go with me on this, Zoa.
Zoa [data connection]: As you wish.
Doc: Lee, you want Zoa to remain functional, yes? Intact and aesthetically pleasing and fun for you to be around?
LC: I mean... yeah.
Doc: Good. Zoa's functionality is presently dependent upon you. If you don't care about yourself and your wellbeing... well, that's not great. But how about we do the things that improve your situation for Zoa's sake, hm?
Zoa: Yes, if we get that thousand creds back from Rosenthal, then you can try to buy a handshake from me again! And if we work on you succeeding in school, I might be able to keep getting ESA money indefinitely!
Doc [data connection]: Not exactly what I meant, but I'll take it.
LC: And that would make you happy?
Zoa: It would help me upgrade my chassis, which would help me perpetuate my existence, which fulfills my objectives, which is analogous to happiness for my programming, yes!
Zoa: And of course, if it sweetens the deal, I'd simulate the correlating human symptoms of pleasure as we do so, up to and including orgasm!
LC: I know you have to qualify what "happiness" is, because you aren't human and you don't even legally resemble a human, but it would be kinda weird if I gave you money and you just immediately started faking an orgasm for me.
Doc: I can assure you, that behaviour is more human-like than you may think.