I mostly agree in that it can't be prevented and it's better for everyone to regulate and tax it. I disagree that it's some kind of scheme to persecute
It is linked to poverty and a lack of education, I think that's the common denominator.
Discussion
Account manager sleeps with client to get contract = not prostitution
B-list celebrity sleeps with director to get big role = not prostitution
Journalist sleeps with general to get classified scoop = not prostitution
Employee sleeps with boss to get coveted promotion = not prostitution
Working class but well-read girl with crooked teeth gets paid to go to restaurants with tycoon, sympathise with his first world problems, and later sleep with him = prostitution
(Last example was my neighbour one place I lived)
That's what I mean by how selective the criminalisation is.
Sex is an asset that has been used to influence behavior for as long as humans have existed. The same is true for deception, intelligence, etc. Your girlfriend could deny sex because she's pissed off with you, for example, or offer it up when she's happy.
When you're selling sex for money, it's a business transaction. It's similar to selling your body's ability to lift objects or dig up dirt.
Helping your friend build a fence is different from being a professional fence builder who sells that service.
Wealthier people can choose forms of exchange with more formalities and more ambiguity (and consequently more economic friction).
You've chosen good examples, but its often not that clear cut.
I have a friend who was once a (non-stripper) entertainer at a bar in Japan. Sex wasn't explicitly required, but boyfriends were forbidden, to make sure the customers felt they were in with a chance. Grey area. Not a big jump from there to some account management or acting careers.
And on the flip side, my neighbour had a favourite client she was always happy to see. And before I knew her, her last boyfriend had started out as a client.
I don't think its practical to distinguish, and I certainly don't think its practical to distinguish in a nondiscriminatory way.
Has a service been exchanged for money? If the answer is yes then I think that's a clear enough way to distinguish it.
Let's say you have a friend who runs a coffee shop, for example. If you pay for a coffee, that's a business transaction. If they offer you a coffee for free because they like you, that's not.
The end result is the same, you got a coffee, but the dynamic is entirely different.
Once the client becomes the boyfriend, he no longer pays for sex and the dynamic is completely different.
I do agree that wealthier people have more options, as I agree that poor people are way more likely to resort to prostitution. I don't think prostitution is that ambiguous though.
What if I get the coffee for free because I helped her with an assignment? What if I get the coffee for free because she thinks then I'll vote for her in a party preselection for delegates to the state convention? (Both of these have happened with me).
Commercial vs noncommercial is actually very hard to distinguish some times, and business at the higher levels is less about cash and more about relationships.
(I've never paid cash for sex, but I've written papers, offered sympathy, helped with chores/moving, taken out socially, given tours of my city, in more ambiguous circumstances)
Sure, but influencing someone through various means, including sex, is not the same as selling sex for money.
Anything can garner influence, from gifts to small favors to just being nice to someone or having a family connection.
Most corporations recognize this, for example, which is why they have policies in place to regulate gifts, workplace relationships, etc. They're not seen as business transactions, they're seen as liabilities.
If I sell expensive watches at my store, it is not the same as me gifting an expensive watch to gain influence. One is a business transaction, the other is not.
On another note, you sly fox you! ;)