but since you brought up the issue of the terminology "prostitute", and since I like the whole subject of semantics, as that study often has a way of focusing on how etymology influences thinking (and vice versa), I'd like to discuss that for a bit:

The word prostitute originally had nothing to do with a person who trades sex for money.  It refers to the process of corrupting.  Those who wished to denigrate the sex business tarnished that business by getting the public to accept the term.  I don't.  To me, marriage is much more a cause of prostitution on account of the imbalance of power found in most marriage today.

On the other hand, sex for money affords both individuals the opportunity to decide (ideally, of course) what they want to do, and the transaction is devoid of unfair indenturedness that accompanies so much of the sexual interaction in society.

If I had a choice, I'd take the term whore, with all it's ugly connotations, over prostitute any day, as a whore was just a term for a lusty woman.  (Nothing wrong with being lusty, is there?)

We now have settled on the terms "provider" and "hobbyist" as polite ways of referring to ourselves, for better or worse.  The topic of finding better terms has come up time and again.  I've often voted for "goddess" for the former, but find no real good term for the latter.  (God is a bit ostentatious, n'est-ce pas?)  I guess client is OK, except that it sounds a bit bland.

Feminists who damn the sex for money business are most likely uneasy about their sexuality, and therefor project this upon sexuality in general, and pay for play in particular.  They also make the classic mistake of identifying form and functon as the same thing.  It would take books and books to explore the entire question (And there are books to be had.)  It's not a subject that is going to be put to bed (obvious pun) any time soon.