[dijit]

> A streamer / OF [may not have to be in person]

From what I understand about OF, it's not just people posting lewds, sometimes there are other actors in the media.

Having access to established actors and uh... "collaborating" with them would require being there in person I would guess.

[michaelt]

As I understand it [1], usually if you try to cross the border declaring you intend to engage in sex work, they turn you away. Some combination of prudishness and concern about trafficking.

For there to be a special sex worker visa is a surprise, to me.

[1] https://www.pace-society.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/3194...

[MadnessASAP]

It's strange, but is it really surprising? It's not like hypocrisy and moat building are new things in American politics.

These days I wouldn't even be surprised to discover it was intentional. Some person or group wanted to ensure they could engage in sex trafficking with a superficially legal cover, but didn't want it to actually be legal.

[altairprime]

The distinction is that this is meant to bring in women in service to a man such that they’re sponsor is also their new boss in sex work, rather than women who service men while maintaining independent free will to control their career in sex work. The phrase “sex worker” could refer to either scenario and it’s important to distinguish the former from the latter in order to understand just how that particular criteria came to be. (And, yeah, it can be quite uncomfortable to discover that the U.S. has a special immigration pathway for wealthy and/or politically-connected men to import women as sex servants. Isn’t history swell, congress protects its privileges quite effectively, etc.)