because erotic laborers (mainly speaking on sex workers here) are often excluded from processes of knowledge production about our labor and the sex industry, there are a lot of misconceptions about what constitutes privilege that are based in binaries drawn by scholars.

one of these misconceptions is the digital dualistic framework that creates a false binary between sex work that occurs "online" and sex work that occurs "offline." the discourse has remained in an analog-esque age; a "how are you homeless with a cell phone?" fallacy.

people generally seem to have a hard time reconciling the fact that a majority of modern-day processes are conducted online. mired in the analog age of whoredom, the response has been to engage additive analyses of oppression, erasing marginalized people who utilize the internet.

we fill out most important paperwork online. no longer do we travel from store to store to search for employment. employers eschew phone calls about open positions, preferring that you fill out the application online. this doesn't mean that issues of access are null.

a majority of sex work is partially or fully conducted via the internet. this is not due to privilege, but to the simple fact that a majority of *people* use the internet on a daily basis. no longer are we limited to the brick and mortar business. we are digital, and that's real.

however, because sex worker research and theory is dominated by academics, and because academia has remained variably incognizant to the contemporary sex industry due to administrative, hegemonic processes, cyber sex work is approached as its own entity, rather than an extension.

most academic/mainstream research typically focuses on street-based sex work. this means that they are missing out on a large proportion of the contemporary sex industry. and this is happening because we (sex workers) do not control the knowledge produced about us.

by centering the smallest section of the industry, academics have effectively reinforced the same digital dualism we see in discussions of homeless people and technology. by reinforcing the dichotomy between analog/digital, real/cyber, we erase the diversity of the industry.

a lot of academic research on the sex industry depends on a savior ethics, focusing on who *they* see as most marginalized, and this method is repeated in studies of poor (Black) people and our acquisition of leisure/entertainment as well as anything perceived as an amenity.

thus amenities like beautiful neighborhoods, cars, cell phones, internet access, housing (whether or not it's actually affordable), entertainment, "free" time, self care, working from home, decent clothing/shoes, and food delivery services become "privilege" in its basest sense.

rendering digital services as privileges or luxuries is how capitalists justify charging more money for faster internet services, even though we are required to have internet access for a variety of necessary processes that have to do with employment and basic necessities.