Every man has his price
According to Marxists prostitution is merely one manifestation of the middle class family (Engels held that marriage often degenerates into prostitution) see, for example an article in Slate Magazine, “Socialist Hoares: What Did Karl Marx Think of Prostitution?” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/11/socialist_whores_what_did_karl_marx_think_of_prostitution_.html). I am no Marxist. I am however interested as a writer to explore why certain people (primarily women but men also) take a conscious decision to sell their bodies in return for financial security. In my story Rent (http://newauthoronline.com/2013/03/15/rent/) for example, Leah a girl from a tough council estate in East London’s Tower Hamlets becomes the girlfriend of Ian, a wealthy stockbroker as a means of escaping her grim existence. Leah makes the calculation that sleeping with Ian is a price worth paying to escape from a world in which drug addicts inject themselves on the stairs and the lifts stink of urine. However Leah’s fine clothes and expensive jewellery come at a high price – she sells her soul. Leah doesn’t love Ian (his contemptuous treatment of a young waitress in an expensive restaurant revolts her). She is, however unwilling to break away from the luxurious existence which Ian’s wealth allows her to enjoy.
Again, in my story Damned (http://newauthoronline.com/2013/03/10/damned/) a young Thai girl, Nan determines to seduce her western employer in order to benefit financially when he dies. As a girl of 14 Nan knows that by encouraging John to sleep with her that he is breaking the law and, as such Nan has the power to blackmail him by threatening to inform the authorities if he doesn’t agree to leave her financially secure on his death. Nan has experienced hardship (prior to meeting John she sold food on the streets of Bangkok) and in order to better her condition she calculates that having intercourse with John is a price worth paying.
There are obvious differences in the two stories. Leah lives in the UK where despite her life being grim the welfare state will prevent her from starving (her life in the tower block is horrible but she won’t die). In contrast there is no welfare safety net in Thailand and Nan must work or die. So is Leah more “culpable” than Nan when she determines to provide sex in return for economic security? On one level this is true. Nan is a child who, arguably does not possess the capacity to make an informed choice about selling her body. As an adult John could have resisted her advances however, being weak willed he fails to do so. In contrast Leah is an adult who possesses the intellectual capacity to make informed decisions regarding her own body. One may argue that economic circumstances push Leah into the arms of Ian, however many other people in the same situation as Leah do not opt to sell their bodies by becoming the mistresses of rich men so, ultimately Leah does make a conscious choice. Whether her decision is right or wrong is a matter for my readers to determine. For my own part I am wary of passing moral judgements on others. We are all fallible human beings. Life is rarely black and white, it tends rather to be made up of shades of grey.
