The term's origin has to do with the perverting of something rather than what it is now associated with which is the sexual entertainment of a client.

I'm fine with using the term prostitute for crooked politicians, cops and what have you, but there's nothing perverted about making people happy through sexuality, even when done for pay, unless you want to call nearly every form of entertainment prostitution as well.

As for Ms. Anderson, she freely admits that she saw Mr. Sheen for money, and fully expected that there would be some physical romancing going on.  That settles the question of what she is; now it's just a matter of what name we are going to give it.

As for what Mr. Sheen is, well, that's a topic for another thread, I'd say.

She is a sex worker, or provider, or courtesan and I'm sure we can come up with others.

The words "Whore", "Prostitute", and "Provider"

Tracy Quan does a good job of calling out porn stars and other sex workers who continue to contribute to the stigmatization of prostitutes.  I understand the reasonable concern about being associated with illegality, but stigmatizing other women is unconscionable.

I have used the term "provider" myself on this board (although in person I sometimes use the word "hooker", which many women are completely unoffended by, and like to use themselves), because I have had the feeling that the word "prostitute" makes many women on this board feel uncomfortable.

But perhaps it is time to see the word "prostitute" as neutral rather than pejorative, even on this board, at least when speaking in the context of sex workers' rights.

I think that often, in the end, it is the woman's perspective on whether a term is intended to convey respect or disrespect, that determines how she reacts to the term being used to describe her.

Most of us want sex and a certain amount of money.  Some women are willing to sell sex and some men are willing to buy it.  If that woman is a "whore" then her client is a "whore-monger".   Mr. Sheen was calling Ms. Anderson names in anger.  So what?  It just doesn't make any difference.  Knowing the reputations of the parties, most will likely consider Ms. Anderson as there to sell sex and Mr. Sheen as there to buy it (though both have denied that so far).   The question is:   Is Ms. Anderson's cause(s) of action worth any substantial money.  I say little if any in the eyes of the general public, and it wil be the general public who decides her case short of a settlement.  Neither party has "clean hands" here and both are culpable for certain things.  Prostitution, extortion, perjury, assult, battery...these are all crimes of varying degrees.  Extortion and perjury can be pretty serious.  So can assault and/or batttery but Ms. Anderson was not physically injured.  I think she has opened up a pandoras box of trouble for herself.    

In the end, it was a pretty balanced piece from someone who is no stranger to this life. That Capri Anderson wants to somehow legitimize her existence by proclaiming that she is not a prostitute actually sets the sex workers movement up for failure. Whether she trades time or a "little romance" for the money she expected to receive, people would have rallied to her side if she had to guts to say, yes, I am an escort or whatever euphemism, you are most comfortable with. Charlie is a neanderthal who makes more money in a week and Capri will likely make in her lifetime. That he has a penchant for seeing "prostitutes" has been well chronicled. That he is boorish, obtuse, and an all around drunk and drug abuser is lesser known, yet at the root of why he won't make 50.  So Capri gets her 15 minutes of fame and she'll likely get a little money, but in the end, she'll always be perceived a just a whore. Game, set match to a real goof, Charlie Sheen.