The definition you offer for a women leaves the possibility that it is done without the need that money change hands when it qualifies it as 'especially for money', meaning it does not have to be done for money. The alternative word that is offered would also apply.Well, yeah, s/he does, since that is the DEFINITION of 'prostitute.'
From Mirriam-Webster:
a : a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse especially for money : whore
b : a male who engages in sexual and especially homosexual practices for money
IN other words, if someone is married to a professional who does it for money, s/he is married to a prostitute. If s/he is married to someone who no longer does it for money, or who does it for free, s/he is not married to a prostitute.
the clients always choose. The prostitutes seldom do. I certainly don't know any young person who puts "prostitute" in his/her list of 'what I want to be when I grow up." Do you?
And the OP doesn't have any conditions. All it does is beg the question of whether prostitution is ever harmless. I counter claimed...no. AND I provided evidence/argument for my claim. I haven't seen anybody show prostitution can be 'harmless."
The OP does offer conditions and I do not see it begging the question. Under those conditions, it is a personal choice. I agree with personal choice even if I do not agree with the specific choice and would not make that choice myself. Others are free to choose as they see fit or are you suggesting that we all be made to accept the choices of others. This is not about a choice of which client to accept or reject. You have jumped further down the road on that one.