We may find it aesthetically or morally displeasing to consider the fact that there are women out there for whom sex-for-money isn't in the least bit offensive; that there are women out there who may quite enjoy that line of work. But by what right do we impose our preferences or morals upon them, to determine that we have rightful censorship over their free will because we regard certain transactions as unpleasant? That is dehumanizing and harmful to those women; not only does it rob them of legitimate choices, but it casts aspersions upon them, arguing that they are lesser quality humans for regarding sex as anything but dirty and evil. We have no such right.

With that being said, we may rightfully regard it as tragic and unconscionable when women feel like they have no other option than to sell sex. That is, indeed, a horrible thing, and we ought to do our utmost to create a world and a society where women (and men) do have better options, that they don't have to accept a role they view as demeaning in order to make ends meet. But raging online about how @cyber-punk is a terrible person because he worked with people who gave women a safe place in which to exercise their option to sell companionship and sex does nothing to help provide more options to them. It is necessary to conclude that our energies would be better allocated in some other way.

If we're looking for the real offenders who rob women of better options, so that we can look for real solutions to help those people, we would do well to spend some time meditating on @builderofcastles's comment.