Well, true...not going to attempt to argue the "oldest profession in the world" maxim. lol Once you've seen the "menu" for the sex shop in Pompeii etched into the wall, it kinda kills any argument in that regard.

I suppose the "herself" vs "her services" is best differentiated between how one views sex itself. I'm not as easily able to compartmentalize, ergo I have difficulty separating sex as the loving expression I tend to think of it as (or prefer, I suppose is more apt) and sex as a "no strings attached" activity. Granted, I do see and fully comprehend how it can be/is done...it's not like that truly baffles me or anything. But given that I do view sex in generally the former light, the notion of selling it to anyone who can produce a twenty dollar bill (not that I really know pricing, so bear with me there) is in seedy deals is a significant perversion to my ideal. lol As I said, my post is purely based off my own objective morality.

I should note that I'm not trying to say general sex without love is some "perversion" or anything like that, and I'm certainly not judging on the basis of one having a casual fling. That's, again in my own eyes, entirely different. It just seems...callous, the way the "business" is conducted.

As far as the people who aren't able to get sex the "normal" way (lol in which, based on your introductory clause, you're giving me way too much credit as far as implied capability with the opposite sex, but thank you ), I suppose that is a point, but as I view it, why should another person (the girl) have to something she, in what I imagine is all likelihood, do something she probably has no interest in doing (as an "at best" scenario) with this guy simply because he has some spare change? Granted, that applies to a lot of professions...I really couldn't give two (your word here) if the irate customer at my drive through gets his ice cream with his meal, to give an example. But again, going back to my own view, it's...different, giving the nature of the "good" in question.