Prostitutes, Liberals and the Satanic Mills

The liberal justification for the legalization of prostitution has been swirling around in my head this past month.^† I had done some research as an undergrad exploring the topic. I enjoy readings on the institutions of prostitution and sex trafficking, such as Melissa Farley and Kathryn Farr. I find it fascinating, since it boggles me on the level of the heart how anybody could be supportive of prostitution, viewing it as a positive social institution, or even as a tolerable social phenomenon. And at the same time, on a philosophical level, I perfectly understand the justifications made for the prostitution phenomenon — even if I disagree with their validity.  

What I want to draw attention to in today's post is the similarity in the philosophic discourse used to justify prostitution and that used to justify the exploitation* of the working class during the Industrial and Progressive eras. The idea came to me while reading Marx's chapter on the working day in Capital Vol. I. Marx dedicated about 100 pages to a prolonged discussion of the fight to reduce the length of the working day in 19th century England. A particular section caught my eye where the capitalist class made the argument that workers should not be limited in the number of hours they can work if they want to improve their lot. In other words, why should not somebody be able to work extra hours in order to earn more income for themselves and their families? Or, why should somebody not be able to work in a toxic factory environment if it earns them extra income? It might be more financially beneficial than working the family farm. 

The Satanic Mills of the Industrial-Age.

I have found a parallel discourse among modern liberals who seek to vindicate prostitution as a legitimate profession. Even if many of those in prostitution have psychological traumas (particularly a history of sexual abuse), who are we to tell them they should not be able to make needed money by selling their sexual body to another person? Sometimes the most economic decision for a girl from a third-world country, who is pretty and has very little education, is to sell her sexual body for money to improve her lot and perhaps the lot of her family. It might be more financially beneficial than working in a rice patty. 

On the face of it, prima facie, this liberal logic appears reasonable. Even if we view this as an evil, prostitution appears to be, sometimes, the lesser of two evils. And yet, it still leaves a horrible aftertaste on the tongue when the words themselves have been spoken in justification. The fault of this thinking is that it does nothing to challenge the systems of oppression in our world, but rather tacitly supports them and gives them validity. It is the last sigh of a politics that has surrendered to monstrosity.

Without working day legislation—based on the hours and conditions of labor—that limit the arbitrary freedom of workers to sell their labor power to the capitalist factories, we surrender to the system of inhumanity. Some workers may make less money for their families if we limit the length of the working day. Requiring companies to pay for the healthcare of employees may cause capitalists not to hire as many workers, or lay off some workers, than they would before the legislation. Yet, I am not convinced that is a valid reason not to pass said legislation, since the alternative is merely to give capital whatever it wants without struggle. It is to wave the white flag. And, historically, it is not what liberals have done. The progressive movements, in the first half of the 20th century, fought virulently for humane working conditions.

From what I understand, this is a real picture of a British prostitute working her territory.

I am not trying to find commonality with the liberal who thinks that sex work is a social positive, and who glorifies the social institution.^‡ I am trying to draw a parallel between the sex work and industrial-age factory work for the liberal-minded who already believes there is something disordered in prostitution. It is the point that the legalization of prostitution comes from a libertarian ideology, where the free market is the idol, rather than the same progressive spirit that sought to place many restrictions on factory owners and factory labor.

A progressive spirit of liberalism should not glorify the institution of prostitution, based on the same logic used in the struggle for the working day. It should work against its proliferation, for if prostitution is seen as an exploitative form of work,  then the next logical step is to work to eliminate it, just as the progressive movement abolished child labor from the factory system. The ideology which seeks to legalize prostitution possess more genetic similarity to libertarianism than with the spirit of the progressive labor movement. The logic contemporary liberals purport, for the legalization of prostitution, is the same logic capitalists used during the progressive era to justify the exploitation of labor.

Notes:
† I am using the word "liberal," here, in terms of social (modern) liberalism. It is the brand of liberalism that has moved beyond classical liberalism and has incorporated social protections against the unbound logic of the capitalist market. 
* The word "exploitation" should be read in a general sense, here in this post, and not in technical Marxian sense. 
‡ Kari Kesler writes in Sexualities: "I believe that some prostitutes, the ones who exercise control and autonomy in their lives and who have both freely chosen and enjoy their work, can be held up as role models."