Re: Fail on four counts (at least)
>(4) Fail for revealing an abhorrent corporate culture to the outside world.
This, if true, wouldn't constitute a failure, but an error.
>The "exploitation" angle isn't really about the girls involved. It's about promoting the general idea that sex can be bought and paid for and is therefore under my control, that it is all about me and what I can get, without reference to the other person. It's about getting (or providing) sexual satisfaction outside of a real relationship, in a way manner which a real relationship can't match because a real relationship deals with imperfect people, not an unattainable showcase, an idealised imagination, which never has to deal with the reality of dirty dishes in the sink and inconsiderate drunken remarks.
In this paragraph, you're selling sex as a commodified service. And doing it fairly well, I must add. It's difficult to discern where, in such exchanges, exploitation occurs; to the extent that the commercial exchange involved is entered into freely (i.e. willingly) by all parties, there doesn't appear to be any exploitation. The 'fake/real' dichotomy you hold out is only relevant (i.e. problematic) when a party to sex-as-a-service exchanges professes fealty in a "real" relationship--or to the idea of such--by being in one.