Progressives are much concerned with inequality of wealth, yet have little concern for inequality of social status, which arguably more important for happiness. One facet of this is inequality in access to sexual partners: there is a huge disparity between the number and quality of sexual partners of attractive vs. ugly women, and of high-status vs. loserly men. To be logically consistent, progressives should support policies to reduce sexual inequality, as long as they aren’t too coercive (no more than taxation is coercive).
Fortunately, we already have people who don’t have to be coerced to provide sex for a price - these are called prostitutes. Legalizing and subsidizing prostitution would be a highly “sexually progressive” policy - it would benefit low-status men and women much more than high-status men and women.
(It would also be lovely, and perfectly consistent with other strains of progressive thought, to levy a tax to pay for this that falls entirely on the beautiful and charming. Or to establish a Sex Stamps/Prostit-aid Bureau to coerce them into providing services to deserving citizens at below-“market” rates. After all, they happen to be blessed with gifts that nature hasn’t granted everyone. And their gifts wouldn’t be worth anything if society hadn’t provided them with an opportunity to make use of them. But one step at a time; let’s not get ahead of ourselves here.)