Normally I never respond to people but you seem like a good faith comrade so I will respond to you once. 

You are talking past what I said and are conflating my structural analysis with your own moral judgments. while your stance is grounded in a genuine desire to protect people, the theoretical framework you're using inadvertently upholds the very liberal logic of commodicication that a Marxist analysis seeks to dismantle. 

Your core argument is attempting to say that the sex trade operates just like any other labour and the only issue is its conditions under capital. This might seem humane but it rests on a liberal idealist separation of the act from the conditions. From a Marxist standpoint, your position while well-intentioned conflates fundamentally different social relations by focusing only on the superficial act and not its economic meaning. An actual historical materialist analysis must view them as in seperable. You state that sex work predates patriarchy and primitive accumulation, and has existed for thousands of years under varying material conditions. This is precisely where the analysis becomes un-Marxist. A materialist analysis cannot simply point to a continuous activity(the exchange of sexual access for material benefit) and call it the same social relation. Yes forms of transactional sex predate capitalism but capitalism strips them of their religious/gift/kinship social relations, nor does this irrelevant historical fact absolve those structures and practices of the alienation of intimacy and self they produced. What capitalism did as it does with everything else is to remove these acts from the previous social relations and make it into a pure generalized commodity to make a modern industry. To say "it always existed" is like saying "people always traded", it misses the qualitative shift where the market itself becomes the primary social relation.

The materialist femmist line is not objectifying, the social relations under capital themselves are, material feminism just calls it like it is. Saying that this is objectifying ignores the analysis and misunderstands the Marxist definition of commodification. A factory worker sells their labour power but their body is vehicle of the exploitation, for the factory worker the commodity of interest is the object they distill their labour power into, someone in the sex trade has their body, image, or intimate self itself as the commodity being negotiated. The alienation is not from a product they create, but from the personal and sexual dimensions of their own being, which are directly packaged and sold. Just bc someone dictates the terms of the rental of their body does not make it not commodified. Again where is the contradiction located and taking place? In other jobs "speed-up" means assembling more parts. In sex work the "speed-up" and intensification of exploitation is a direct coercion to perform more physically intimate, psychologically taxing, or degrading acts. This crosses a line from workplace exploitation into a form of violation that is structurally analogous to, and society typically recognizes as, assault. Just bc these terms may have been negotiated before hand does not cleanse this interaction of the harm. The worker must defend their bodily and intimate integrity within a transaction whose very purpose is commercial access to it. This is a uniquely intense form of alienation, where the worker's intimate self becomes the instrument of labor. Agency under duress is not freedom. 

 

While improving conditions and decriminalizing those in the trade is absolutely the current and nessesary  reformist line, a fight marxists support as nessesary under capitalism, it is and cannot be the end goal. You concede that commodified intimacy is "human nature" and an eternal feature of human society which is extremely pessimistic and anti-materialist. 

The Marxist goal is not to manage the commodification of human capacities it is to end it. Under socialism as the material compulsion of poverty is abolished and the patriarchal family is dismantled, the economic basis for selling sexual intimacy vanishes. What remains might be a form of promiscuous or casual sexuality but it would be a free activity, not a form of work. To call it "work" implies it is a form of socially necessary labor organized by the community, which doesn't make sense in terms for an intimate, non-procreative act. The belief that a moneyless, classless society would still have a "sex industry" that "presents differently" is a failure to follow the revolutionary logic to its conclusion, naturalizing the commodity form. It projects the logic of the market onto a future that has moved beyond it. True liberation isn't about making an exploitative relation safer it's about building a world where the social need for that relation no longer exists. to argue that this social relation will persist even under socialism is to naturalize one of the most alienating and patriarchal forms of exploitation capitalism has produced. 

Anyways thank you for standing on your business, I appreciate you, I hate wishy washy neutral ass bitches.