moses moon, better known on twitter as thotscholar (and formerly known as femi babylon) is a sex intellectual, guerilla eroticist, hoodoo-American conjurer, and low end theorist. she is a cofounder of the Disabled Sex Workers Coalition, and a board member at SWOP-USA.
Introduction
It is often intimated that tragedy naturally follows whoredom. In actuality, violence in the sex trade and related industries is usually indicative of power differentials—mainly structural sexism and racism—and legislation that seeks to impede sexual and pleasure-seeking behavior and monetary compensation for, or material consumption of, said intimate labor. On March 16, 2021, eight East Asian massage-parlor workers and bystanders were murdered by a twenty-one-year-old white supremacist gunman named Robert Aaron Long. Long targeted three different Atlanta-based spas—two of which were allegedly listed on an erotic review site as “illicit massage businesses.”
Massage spas are stigmatized and criminalized throughout the United States based on the assumptions that they are places where one can receive sexual services from Asian women or where exploited immigrant women are held against their will. It was within this context that Long allegedly claimed that the killings were not racially motivated, but were instead a result of his desire to purge himself of a “sex addiction.” In Discriminating Sex: White Leisure and the Making of the American Oriental, Amy Sueyoshi wrote that in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, “Public-health officials constructed the Chinese syphilitic prostitute as particularly dangerous only after they discovered that white men also visited Chinese women for sex—so much so, officials legislated the 1875 Page Law that barred the entry of ‘immoral women’ specifically for the Chinese.” Although one must be wary of labeling massage spa laborers as “sex workers,” the triadic connection between race, sex, and perceived occupation was almost certainly a factor in the violence at the Atlanta spas. Yves Nguyen of Red Canary Song, a New York City organization that supports Asian sex workers and allies, drew this connection in their statement on the violence. She stated that the violence at the Atlanta spas was “part of a history of race and gender-based violence against Asian women, immigrants and sex workers” and that “whether the women victims provided sex services is beside the point.” Racialized misogyny insists that East Asian women are demure, tempestuous, fetishistic objects of desire. Roslyn Talusan, a cultural critic, highlighted the insidious nature of racialized misogyny, saying “it’s both impossible and dishonest to ignore how Orientalist misogyny factors into the mass shooting in Atlanta. Asian women have historically been exoticized in America, portrayed as delicate, submissive ‘Lotus Flowers’ or hypersexual and manipulative ‘Dragon Ladies.’” Anti-Asian bigotry has spiked since the inception of the coronavirus pandemic, affecting both Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders nationwide. Last year, former President Trump provoked sinophobia by repeatedly calling the coronavirus the “Chinese virus.” Furthermore, racialized, gendered violence against sex workers is both historic and ongoing, heightened by the stigma caused by modern laws.
Reports show that prostitution stings had previously targeted at least one of the spas the gunman attacked. Over the past several years, multiple new federal policies have targeted sex workers and erotic laborers while purporting to be related to eradicating (child) sex trafficking. These changes have included an increase in “trafficking” stings at workplaces such as massage parlors, carried out to arrest and charge women with prostitution, while ultimately levying no trafficking charges. They have also included legislation such as FOSTA/SESTA, which supposedly rests on the rationale that shutting down offensive websites will prevent traffickers from exploiting victims, including (white) children and youth. Such measures are often met with rightful skepticism because, historically, laws have criminalized, rather than protected, trafficking victims. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) defines any and all commercial sex trading by minors as trafficking: “there is no requirement to prove that force, fraud, or coercion was used to secure the victim’s actions if the victim is a minor.” Despite this, “[o]nly four states—California, Connecticut, or Florida and Minnesota—have enacted non-criminalization laws that are designed to prevent the arrest and detention, as well as prosecution, of minors for prostitution offenses in addition to connecting child sex trafficking victims with holistic, specialized care and services.” This means that many youth in the sex trade—including minors—are not fully protected by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) or Safe Harbor laws.
Women and girls of color, including the trafficking victims whom the criminalization of sex work purportedly “saves,” are disproportionately targeted and criminalized by law enforcement, which fails to protect them from the racist and gendered violence they commonly experience while engaging in “survival sex” or other forms of sex work. Minors, particularly Black girls, are still being arrested on charges of prostitution in certain states and criminalized when they defend themselves against sexual violence. An article by Cherice Hopkins for Campaign for Youth Justice states that “girls of color account for 22% of the youth population, but 66% of incarcerated girls . . . . In 2017, Black children accounted for 52% of juvenile prostitution arrests and girls accounted for 61% of prostitution arrests.” Many of these youths are homeless, former victims of abuse, or runaways engaging in “survival sex,” i.e., trading sex for basic resources or other material goods. For example, Chrystul Kizer was arrested at age seventeen after she confessed to killing Randy Volar, a thirty-four-year-old white man who had sexually abused her after responding to a website ad when she was sixteen. Volar had a record of past child sexual abuse, and had a record of abusing underage Black girls. Kizer was charged with first-degree intentional homicide, which carries a mandatory life sentence in Wisconsin. As of this writing, she is currently still awaiting trial. Similarly, Cyntoia Brown, a homeless runaway described as a “teen prostitute,” was convicted in 2004 of killing a man who solicited her for sex. Brown was tried as an adult under Tennessee law, and sentenced to life imprisonment. She was subsequently granted clemency after activists and celebrities rallied behind her. The cases of Kizer and Brown are just two examples of countless ways that the policing of sex work hurts victims more than it helps them.
The precarious position of sex workers has only been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic, which has caused a national and global economic struggle for many. Erotic laborers, especially sex workers, typically have a difficult time accessing government aid. Women, LGBTQ+ people, poor people, and nonwhite/Black sex workers are particularly affected, because socioeconomic inequalities are compounded in this mostly underground industry. Last year the United States government approved the $2.2 trillion dollar CARES Act to provide assistance for small businesses, independent contractors, and sole proprietors via Small Business Administration (SBA) loans and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). However, “businesses that provide services or live performances of a ‘prurient sexual nature’ are banned from receiving SBA loans under federal regulations.” This move left many erotic laborers and other related business owners and independent workers bereft of financial resources. Many sex workers had to choose between continuing to work and risk contracting the virus, or struggle. But the pandemic did not only affect in-person workers: as people moved online, so did sex work.
OnlyFans, a website made popular by erotic performers and cyber sex workers, experienced a steep rise in content creator signups following massive layoffs during the pandemic. Earlier this year, a white, middle-aged mom was exposed as an erotic OnlyFans contributor by neighbors and parents, which resulted in the expulsion of her children from Sacred Heart Parish, a Catholic school in California. Said the principal: “your adult website is in direct conflict with what we hope to impart to our students and is directly opposed to the policies laid out in our Parent/Student Handbook.” This is just one of multiple cases where people, usually cis women, have their erotic OnlyFans account exposed by coworkers, customers, or other “concerned” community members.
In relation to this trend (of exposure), attorney Andrew J. Horowitz stated “it is perfectly legal for private employers to regulate employees’ activities outside of the workplace.” Horowitz’s comments showcase a steady encroachment of capitalist-class employers on laborer’s private lives.
He cites a case involving a female employee whose male coworkers “discovered” her OnlyFans account and proceeded to blame her for the fallout and suggests that employers surveil their employees’ social media accounts and add detailed clauses to their employment contract to prohibit their employees’ activities outside of work—whether they derive income from them or not. This reveals the normalization of surveillance and employer’s increasing control over worker’s’ lives.
In addition to private employers’ pushes to regulate employees’ online activity, the federal government has made moves to censor it. In December 2020, senators from both the Democratic and Republican parties introduced the “Stop Internet Sexual Exploitation Act,” which directly targets Pornhub and similar sites that host pornography. This in the midst of a global pandemic when women—mainly those who are nonwhite and work low-wage jobs—have been forced to drop out of the labor force in droves. Such legislation shows a blatant lack of understanding of the many ways that criminalizing sex work targets people who are already economically marginalized.
Turning now more profoundly to the intricacies of a theory for our liberation, issues of age, race, class, sex, gender, and disability are complicating a movement previously dominated by white, middle class, higher-end perspectives. First, erotic laborers are a broad mélange of libertarians, neoliberals, radical leftists, socialists/communists, conservatives, and anarchists. Second, and relatedly, the juxtaposition of decriminalization and legalization and discriminatory “models” that criminalize certain aspects of sex work have yielded a wide range of imprecise terms such as “full decriminalization.” Some high end escorts would prefer to remain independent contractors, while others, myself included, have advocated for accessing labor protections by forming cooperatives or unionizing—although formal unions are not available to independent contractors due to antitrust laws. I have also discussed brothels at length, positing cooperatives as a solution to the problem of madams and cis-heterosexual male brothel owners. None of these solutions is even close to being perfect. And, of course, this is all being discussed under the guise of the continuation of capitalism. In the words of anarchist Pedro Ribiero, “only the oppressed can liberate themselves.” This means that much of our work may have to be accomplished without appealing to the State. Defunding the police and waging class struggle, along with advancing racial and gender equity, are a huge part of our work.
When I say “our work,” I am distinctly referring to the work of poor, queer, trans, and disabled nonwhite peoples and our comrades. Many of us are multiply marginalized and engaging in deviant occupations, and thus we cannot disentangle one mode of oppression from another. Connecting various forms of erotic labor to other forms of labor has proven to be incredibly complex—laws governing erotic labor vary widely from legal pornography and erotic dancing (stripping), to quasilegal cyber erotic labor (including cammodeling and selling access to explicit videos on sites like OnlyFans and ManyVids), to illegal prostitution (sex work), to selling erotic items such as underwear. Currently, the sex worker rights movement has stalled around the issues of decriminalization/legalization and stigma. During the pandemic, a debate arose about whether or not sex work is care work, or “essential work.” More Black, Asian, Latine, queer and trans folks are involved, and more visible, in this current wave of the sex worker rights movement, than ever before. Likely this is due to the ubiquity of social media, which increases the ability to connect and organize across borders.
With this connection comes tension. As a former street-based prostitute and current low end erotic laborer (of various modes), I have witnessed lupephobia from strippers/dommes complaining about dancers and fellow performers who do “extras.” Extras could be anything from letting a customer palm your breasts where it is illegal to engaging in “illicit” activity with clients outside of the club. Club owners often contractually prohibit dancing at parties outside of work. None of these restrictions are for the safety of the dancers; they are to protect the interests of the club and keep it from being targeted and shut down by law enforcement.
These tensions are inextricable from working conditions shaped by capitalism’s inherent exploitation of labor. For example, after erotic dancer Genea Sky fell from a two-story pole at XTC Cabaret in Dallas and fractured her jaw, she did not qualify for worker’s compensation because she was categorized as an independent contractor rather than an employee. This is common for erotic dancers: club contracts often remove liability for club owners and place all responsibility for injury and assault on the dancers. However, dancers are still required to behave as if they are employees, reporting to work for specific shifts and facing penalties should they not show up as scheduled. Yet they are still charged a “house fee” and they still have to tip out the staff. This is the problem with sex work as “work.”
I prefer to approach sex work and erotic labor both as informal labor and as nonwork, or antiwork. My initial rationale for trading sex was simple: I needed money. As I aged and got my first “real job,” I discovered something: I hated work. The longest I held a vanilla, or non-sexual, job was a year. Stripping, and various forms of prostitution (street-based, freestyle, hoeing, and sugaring), allowed me the flexibility I desired. Later, when I became a mother, camming, sugar dates, and amateur porn creation provided that same flexibility. Recently I was diagnosed with moderate-to-severe ADHD. After dropping out of college multiple times, quitting jobs, poor impulse control, social/productivity anxiety, and a second pregnancy, postpartum depression drove me to seek medical help. Disability makes it even more imperative that I not work. I am horrible at meeting deadlines, even self-imposed ones. Content creation (via ManyVids), phone sex, camming, and prostitution are my current modes of nonwork, along with writing, speaking engagements, and other gigs and informal labor. Thus, the phrase “sex work is work” is not very appealing to me, though I understand why some people are fans of it. As Kathi Weeks pointed out in The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries, much of the utility of “sex work” comes from its relation to conventional work:
As a replacement for the label prostitution, the category helps to shift the terms of discussion from the dilemmas posed by a social problem to questions of economic practice; rather than a character flaw that produces a moral crisis, sex work is reconceived as an employment option that can generate income and provide opportunity. . . . The approach usefully demoralizes the debates about the nature, value, and legitimacy of sex for wages in one way, but it often does so by problematically remoralizing it in another; it shifts the discussion from one moral terrain to another, from that of a suspect sexual practice to that of a respectable employment relation.
The conception of sex work in terms of work or antiwork may also usefully unsettle older narratives that have been both false and harmful. Empowerment and the related “sacred whore” mythos have roots in the first wave of the sex worker rights movement. During what many term the “sex wars,” sex workers basically had to choose between a binary of empowerment (to align with sex-positive feminists) or exploitation (the anti-prostitution/anti-porn “abolitionists”). This led to a general erasure of most nonwhite, poor, immigrant, and LGBTQ perspectives, and a silencing of those on the margins of the movement whose experiences within sex work had been less than positive, or downright violent.
Even though there are more Black, Asian, and Latine organizers and participants in the sex worker rights movement today, white-centricity is still somewhat of a problem within the movement. Nonprofit organizations and other public and private entities tend to function as (neo)liberal gatekeepers. The media tends to center or reach out to white cis sex workers first and foremost, and grants commonly contain specific requirements for how money must be used. Money is power in a capitalist economy, and white erotic laborers and anti-trafficking advocates simply have more access to it. By partnering with conservatives, radical feminists were able to advance the anti-prostitution cause with solid financial and social backing. Liberals and conservatives have united over trafficking, deemed “modern-day slavery,” ushering in (or perhaps benefitting from) a wave of social conservatism, concerned with:
[A] growing market economy commodifying more aspects of life, middle class concerns about race and immigration, feminist concerns about male sexual exploitation of women, conventional religious beliefs about proper gender roles, virtue, the family and sexual morality, and neoliberal ideologies which blame individuals rather than structures for social problems.
Even intracommunally, support from alleged sex positive Black feminists and academics is capricious. Current discourse is plagued by cis-heterosexual women’s individual economic concerns (hypergamy, child support, cheating, etc.) and middle-class sentiments, blended with residual concerns from the second and third wave (marriage and motherhood as socially and economically oppressive, prostitution as a threat). Because the vast majority of sex worker clients are white, cisgender men, Black feminists’ political history around prostitution is complicated. Prostitution is a class, as well as a racial, sex, and gender issue, for Black people. Audre Lorde’s renowned essay “Uses of the Erotic” is a shining example of the lupephobia embedded within our feminist lineage:
The erotic has often been misnamed by men and used against women. It has been made into the confused, the trivial, the psychotic, the plasticized sensation. For this reason, we have often turned away from the exploration and consideration of the erotic as a source of power and information, confusing it with its opposite, the pornographic. But pornography is a direct denial of the power of the erotic, for it represents the suppression of true feeling. Pornography emphasizes sensation without feeling.
This supposed dichotomy between the erotic and pornography gives me pause. This perception is reflective of the way that sex work, including porn performance, is viewed by the masses, regardless of their political inclinations. Reaching back to Eileen Boros and Rhacel Salazar Parreñas’s conception of intimate labor and Amalia L. Cabezas’s notion of sexual-affective relationships, I take issue with the reductive, moralistic claim that sexual services, erotic services which we trade for material or other compensation, are necessarily, or inherently, degrading and devoid of emotional return. Lorde writes:
The aim of each thing which we do is to make our lives and the lives of our children richer and more possible . . . . The principal horror of any system which defines the good in terms of profit rather than in terms of human need, or which defines human need to the exclusion of the psychic and emotional components of that need – the principal horror of such a system is that it robs our work of its erotic value, its erotic power, and life appeal and fulfillment. Such a system reduces work to a travesty of necessities, a duty by which we learn bread or oblivion for ourselves and those we love . . . . There are frequent attempts to equate pornography and eroticism, two diametrically opposed uses of the sexual. Because of these attempts, it has become fashionable to separate the spiritual (psychic and emotional) from the political, to see them as contradictory or antithetical.
Erotic labor and writing sex worker theory have fed and clothed my children. It is necessary to complicate our perspectives on what it means to engage eroticism, while steering clear of the simplistic divine feminine empowerment narratives that have dominated sex worker rhetoric.
In response to both Alice Walker’s definition of womanism, and Audre Lorde’s conception of the erotic, I fashioned a philosophy that centers my deviant perspective. By coining proheauxism (proheaux womanism) and elaborating on what it means to be “pro-hoe,” I complicate these moral and social objections to whoredom with an anarcho-Black, community-centered, antiwork/anticapitalist, womanist stance:
proheauxism[:] 1. Proheaux womanism. Derived from the more colloquial “pro-hoe[]” ([s]pelling altered to reflect difference & refinement). A sex worker womanist, feminist, or hustler-heaux committed to collective and personal justice, not just sexually, but through recognition of labor and physical security. Radically thotty, and proud of it. Curious about their sexuality, about birth and rebirth, about challenge and change, about redemption and reparations, about the physical and the emotional. Loves the river in all its incarnations. A pro-sex, pro-pleasure politic that is specifically centered on the multiply marginalized. Might be: marvelous. One who owns oneself and one’s own sexuality or gender expression, regardless of whether or not they are attached to a man or masculine person.
2. A womanist who rejects antiheaux sentiments as well as respectability, racial capitalism, and whore hierarchies. Rejects misogynoir and transmisogynoir—all forms of misogyny, period. Does not accept nor engage in active or passive transphobia, homophobia, colorism, xenophobia, classism, or anti Blackness. Doesn’t juxtapose the erotic and pornography, and recognizes that non-exploitative pleasure comes in varied forms, is not always sex-centered, and is paramount to the human experience. Against all forms of erasure and systemic oppression. Recognizes that solidarity is impossible without acknowledging difference and rejects the urge to homogenize experiences under the guise of inclusivity.
There are many things to consider when theorizing a practice of pro-sex worker, pro-pleasure politic. Under the current unjust system, we cannot appeal to non-sex workers’ morality. In the face of overwhelming signs and discrimination, we must demand ethical treatment. We must demand humanity, and humane policy that reflects and balances the needs of the multiply marginalized. I too desire to make the lives of my children “richer and more possible.” Sex work has “erotic value” and, as (non)work, has bolstered my “life appeal and fulfillment.” It is the empowerment/exploitation binary (choice vs. coercion), racism, classism, poverty, and ableist, prejudicial policy that have impeded me at every turn. The following pieces interrogate the reality of implementing a proheaux politic in the arena of policy. Clarifying the effects of recent legislation on the lives and livelihood of erotic laborers, the following brilliant pieces expose the impact of discriminatory legislation, and tentative victories, from an anti-racist, intersectional lens.
Introduction to the Symposium
FOSTA in Legal Context by Kendra Albert, Elizabeth Brundige, Lorelei Lee, et al., digs into the FOSTA-SESTA legislation, which shifted the landscape for current erotic laborers and third-party internet platforms. Originally produced for the sex worker-led collective Hacking//Hustling, it brings to light the fact that, despite claims that the new bills would be an improvement upon Section 230 and bring child traffickers to justice, only one prosecution has been brought since their passage. Furthermore, it appears that FOSTA-SESTA had the exact effect that sex worker activists feared: Many of the social media platforms, subscription sites, and third-party payment processors commonly used by erotic laborers for marketing purposes, screening clients, safety tips, and/or payment processing have altered their terms of service to exclude people involved in or adjacent to the sex trades. FOSTA in Legal Context gives us a detailed look at the legal aspect of these laws and what it means.
Heather Berg, whose work typically focuses on the labor aspects of sex work, once again zeroes in on the complexities of legislating erotic labor—specifically porn performance—in the gig economy in her Article, Porn Work, Independent Contractor Misclassification, and the Limits of the Law. Berg highlights the fact that many porn performers would rather manage themselves and retain the maximum level of control over their environment and income than deal with being labeled employees and risk state interference, which would require them to comply with a new set of rules that may not work in their favor. She cautions against the notion that this would be an easy solution to the problem of independent contractor misclassification, and suggests we adopt a policy approach. Berg’s Article draws on ethnographic research and interviews conducted for her book Porn Work, and critiques efforts to regulate this industry without input from current workers.
Lorelei Lee’s The Roots of Modern Day Slavery: The Page Act and the Mann Act reveals and interrogates the appropriation of (Black) abolitionist language by anti-trafficking/anti-porn activists. It breaks down how the myth of “white slavery” (re)entered the minds of the public. The image of a cisgender (cis) white womanhood in danger and in need of protection drives much of the legislation around (cis and trans) women’s bodies in America. White government officials often invoke an image of cis white women or (white) children in peril, combined with racist images of immigrants and Black men stealing American children, in order to stoke the xenophobic fears of a mostly white public imagination. Xenophobic language shaped historic “modern day slavery” rhetoric in two key ways—by telling stories of Italian, Jewish, and other immigrants “seducing” young white women, and by spreading Anti-Asian narratives of primarily Chinese male “enslavers” of Chinese women, who are described as submissive and vulnerable by 19th century white feminists or hyper-sexualized and contagious by white male politicians and labor activists. In revealing the history of anti-trafficking white feminism’s origins in anti-vice religious movements and alignment with anti-immigration activism, we begin to see a picture of what is truly meant by the modern use of the phrase “modern day slavery.”
S. Priya Morley’s Article, The Many Lives of a ‘Win’: Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, moves our gaze away from the United States and towards the Canadian context. Before 2013, it was not illegal to engage in sex work in Canada, but many of the acts surrounding sex work, such as brothel-keeping (“bawdy houses”) and living off the profits of prostitution, were prohibited under the Criminal Code. In 2013, the Supreme Court found these laws to be unconstitutional, but the government responded by enacting new laws that had the effect of criminalizing sex workers again. As Morley outlines, criminalizing sex work particularly impacts street-based, low-end, and poor sex workers, including in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside neighborhood. Morley traces through this recent history of litigation challenging the criminalization of sex work in Canada, and argues that although the litigation did not achieve the substantive ‘win’ that sex workers had hoped for, it has made a significant contribution to access to justice in Canada. Morley’s article echoes my sentiment that legal approaches and even decriminalization are not enough. Instead, we need policy changes beyond decriminalization to protect multiply-marginalized sex workers, like those in the Downtown Eastside.
FOSTA-SESTA reignited the sex worker rights movement and reintroduced the issue of decriminalization to the general public. However, attaining decriminalization and reducing harm is only the first of many steps to procure justice. Sex work legislation intersects with a wide variety of concerns that belie the political fallacy of the “single issue.” This generation of sex intellectuals, sex working theorists, fourth wave feminists/womanists, and erotic academicians, is setting a new tone for the next generation. A new era of disinformation, technological surveillance, and corporate media control is upon us, with capitalist employers and moralizing politicians constantly lobbying for new legislation to impose upon the working public. The proliferation of sex work represents both a decline in economic security, as well as the increasing need for poor and working-class citizens to rely on informal labor and gig work to survive. Advocating for safe working conditions and reexamining the history of racialized, classist, discriminatory labor policy enables us to combat legislation that directly leads to the further marginalization of sex workers and the people who support them. This issue and its articles document the effects of recent legislation on the lives of sex workers and erotic laborers, tracking inconsistencies in how these laws are implemented and celebrating minor strategic victories, while deconstructing racialized terminology and highlighting the complexities of crafting proheaux policies in the face of deep-set stigma.