Exactly. Random people should stop trying to play "morality police" on consenting adults engaging in legal activities in their own private spaces in their private time. It's none of your concern what other people do.
What do you mean, "consenting adults" and "private spaces"?
It's transactional and commercial, someone is using money to get access to another's body, at least as exploitative as work generally is. It's something that wouldn't happen without the money, hence it obviously exerts some power in the relation.
You're conflating what sex workers do with what people who feel lust and excitement and decide to get intimate do.
You should spend some time with sex workers. Pretty much the first lesson in this line of work is that you act well and submit to the whims and wishes of your clients, and the second lesson is to put some hard limits on what you'll do or you'll be abused.
It's generally an act, one person faking attraction or friendship or whatever and another person paying for it. Sometimes sex workers get to know clients personally, but outside porn where the 'client', i.e. the producer or whoever is paying, isn't the one you're fucking I've never heard about a sex worker initiating a non-paying relationship with a client.
To answer your actual question, no, this is not a common type of behaviour.
You're conflating sex workers with sex slaves. Nobody's forcing you to be a sex worker for them if the job is done within the confines of the law between consenting adults.
Unemployment is low in the developed west, there are tens of thousands of other legal careers you can choose if you want to support yourself.
There's no manufactured imbalance of power here since nobody's forcing you into sex work. You choosing to strip to gooners online for money is your voluntary choice as an adult so take responsibility for it and don't outsource it by blaming those paying for your life choices.
No, it's not a choice to sell your labour, unless you're born into wealth and a few even more unlikely options. It's something you do under the threat of misery and starvation.
And you should really, really spend some time with some sex workers and listen to them instead of some grifter dipshit that calls himself a fan of Mises or whatever.
And survival sex workers don’t represent all sex workers no matter who you listen to
Its mostly an information asymmetry if they choose to sell their labor that way and dont want to, or do want to and believe it is the most lucrative choice for them
part of the whole sex worker activist movement is the observation that other kinds of workers dont have to be representatives of their entire occupation based on their mood that day
And if you are American you are born into obscene wealth that most people throughout history wouldn't be able to comprehend, so what's your point? Throughout my life I've listened to all sorts of people who were "poor since birth" and it's always code for "I want money from you without having to work"
By stating that people's private business shouldn't concern others, you are also imposing a moral system on others. Throughout most of the history, and to many people even now, morality extends beyond what's observable to outsiders. See e.g. what most of the religions have to say on issues such as homosexuality or eating certain foods.
I'm not saying I have the right answer to all of this either, I'm just pointing out that your "morally neutral" stance isn't as neutral as you'd like to think.
>By stating that people's private business shouldn't concern others, you are also imposing a moral system on others
Only in mental gymnastics. Staying out of other people's private lives is not a question of my own morality but also the law in most western democracies. I am free to do whatever I want as long as my freedom doesn't negatively affect anyone else. If you're not affected by what I'm doing in private, why are you trying to involve yourself in it and act as a judge?
You're literally telling other people to stop doing stuff that you don't want them doing, specifically the act of telling others what to do.
You're allowed to do that, and we're allowed to point out that this doesn't work in practice and that the failure in practice is itself why we're not surprised or even upset about the hypocrisy.
The laws themselves were written to tell people what to do. That's why they come with actual punishments if you break them, not merely arguements like on the internet. And some of those laws do actually ban various acts associated with prostitution, though the stated reasons for such laws are also often out of sync with the consequences given what is easiest to prosecute.
Any that takes Leviticus seriously will have issues with both food and male homosexuality, though I'd point out that not all denominations of Christianity do so about homosexuality and most Christians expressly reject the bits about food.
People can be weirdly selective about such things, which is why I've not seen any suggestion by current christians that sacrificing a bird and dipping another bird in it's blood and then then shaking the blood soaked bird on the patient is a valid cure for leprosy. (Chapter 14:1-7)
Just realised that the text in Leveticus if taken literally says women are not allowed to have straight sex, only gay sex:
"""You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination""" - Leviticus 18:22
That said, translations are more of an art than a science, that's why there are so many of them.
It might instead be interpreted as a statement against being bisexual like me, where either gay or straight is fine but doing both is what the writer (from the Watsonian perspective, god) doesn't like.
It comes down to consensus in practice.