>what about those who are financially coerced into it?
You will never get a reply to this point. I've read feminists and non-feminists assert this reality, as you have, for about a year now and never come across an honest engagement with it. One has to begin to suspect unwillingness over inability.
1. Financial coercion for sex isn't like financial coercion for labor (which needs to be accompanied by a reasonable argument as to why).
2. Financial coercion for sex is like financial coercion for labor, and they are both done without consent (admitting that most labor is a form of slavery, albeit it not as bad as what people generally think of).
3. Financial coercion for sex is like financial coercion for labor, and as such financial coercion for sex still allows consent, which then leads to the conclusion that coercion (of at least some forms) is not sufficient for stating consent cannot be given.
2 can outright ignored because almost anyone making that argument will never actually live by it and are merely using it as an escape. So either an argument for 1 or to admit the conclusion of 3.
> 2 can outright ignored because almost anyone making that argument will never actually live by it and are merely using it as an escape.
Plenty of socialists seek fundamental reforms of the economic system to mitigate, to the extent possible, and to eliminate if possible, the economic coercion for labor generally, whether the labor involves sex or not, so I don't see how you can say that 2 is always just an escape when it comes to sex work. That position on labor in general is one of the major positions in economic politics in the world.
People make that argument, but if you see how they act, they do not treat it like slavery outside of their arguments.
To bring up another hot topic to show a comparison (because I am more familiar making this point with the other topic), look at a group of pro-life people who call abortion murder, yet do not react the same as if it were. They do not treat those who participate in abortion as child murderers, they do not go through the same extremes that people go through to stop child murder, they do not even fully support rhetoric to treat it like murder (those who seek to outlaw abortions almost never support it being treated as murder with the same penalties, including the doctor being charged similar to a hitman and the mother similar to someone who paid a hitman for a hit). Look how they will treat individuals who had abortions but then changed their view to pro-life compared to how they treat those who have committed acts such as legally murdering a child (or things of near the same nature).
Yes, they say it is murder, but the vast majority do not actually act as if it is.
In the same way, those who say economic coercion is slavery do not act as if they were slaves.
An honest reply could be, say, "it's true that, if I use a prostitute, there is no way of knowing whether she is consenting or if she is financially coerced and it is therefore forced, but is the same not true of clothes? How do I know the shirt I'm wearing didn't have slave labor involved in its creation?"
To which one may respond by, for example, pointing out that clothes are general necessary for human life, while having sex is completely optional.
But such acknowledgements (that use of prostitutes without the possibility of rape is impossible, that sex is optional) would betray the sex-positivity line and the rewards that come with sticking to it.
You will never get a reply to this point. I've read feminists and non-feminists assert this reality, as you have, for about a year now and never come across an honest engagement with it. One has to begin to suspect unwillingness over inability.