In last week's post we discussed how many liberals tend to misdiagnosis the problems associated with prostitution. Specifically, there is a very well-intentioned desire to reduce the stigma surrounding sex work. I fully support that effort, and I think I'm following the example of Jesus in doing so.
And yet, reducing stigma does little to address the economic realities that drive women toward prostitution. As we discussed last week, most women involved in sex work are driven to it out of economic desperation. Middle class and wealthy women, by and large, tend avoid sex work as a career move. Poor women face a more grim and dire choice. And these economic disparities conform to a global pattern. As Perry writes,
In the global sex industry, it is the poor countries that provide the 'product' and rich countries that provide the demand. The brothels of the UK, Netherlands and Germany are filled with women from poor parts of the European Union, in particular Romania, as well as some women from West Africa and Southeast Asia, some of whom have been forcibly trafficked, while the rest are there as a result of varying degrees of poverty. Meanwhile, the brothels of Bangkok that cater for tourists are filled with sex buyers from Europe, Australia, and North America. The buyers tend to have lighter coloured skins than the sellers because sex is sold in only one direction along the economic gradient.
Concerning the economic gradient of the global sex trade, I wish liberals, and I say this as a Christian, were a little more Marxist in their analysis of sex work. Stigma is a concern, but I wish liberals would pay more attention to the material conditions affecting women, and do something about those material conditions. It's a sad situation. Liberals used to care about class issues. They don't much anymore.
