Ok, I have a bit of time, so here we go
But regardless, even if you characterization was truthful, you still haven't provided any rationale causally connecting Jaichind's attitude specifically to progressive sexual ethics. All you're saying here is that, under (a particular brand of) (self-described) progressivism, there would be no moral argument against Jaichind's attitude. That doesn't prove that (that particular brand of) (self-described) progressivism is the cause of Jaichind's attitude - let alone that such causal process was "inevitable".
My argument was incorrect in two ways:
1) Conflating 'consent only' sexual ethics with social liberalism at large.
2) Arguing for causation, when people are perfectly capable of making unprincipled exceptions.
So yes, what you outlined above is correct; a large percentage of social liberals have no rational reason to oppose Jaichind's attitude towards the sex trade. If consent is the only basis for sexual morality, then investing in sex isn't materially different from investing in automobile manufacturing, but it doesn't imply causation. Whether due to the West's post-Christian 'hangover', or not thinking things through, or unprincipled exceptions, most people as you said, do not make the leap from 'consent only' to being pro sexual capitalism.
For one thing, "most progressives" don't actually take this view of sexual ethic. They might espouse some of the attitudes associated with it, but when challenged to think about it, most of them concede at least one of two things: that "consent" can't be understood as the mere absence of direct physical coercion, or that there are other relevant criteria to take into account than just consent.
You say people that understand that consent "can't be understood as the mere absence of direct physical coercion." Are you describing the criticism that Badger posted; that consent is impossible in the face of poverty? If so, I'm well aware of that view and include it in my criticism of consent ethics.
The problem with this argument is that its economic, not sexual. You mentioned homo economicus as though its a neoliberal thing, but it can easily be applied to large swathes of the left today. Badger's criticism is a good example of this since it is primarily an economic argument. To use my automobile example, if prostitutes at SexInc unionized like Detroit autoworkers, and had a northern European welfare state, Badger's criticism wouldn't apply and investing in Ford wouldn't be different from investing in SexInc.
You argue that most progressives don't hold to consent only, but that premise is questionable once you update the definition of consent. A lot of people on the social left hold to the updated version of 'consent-only' and they don't really have a rational reason to oppose investing in SexInc. Now that doesn't mean that they'll be gung ho for SexInc tomorrow, but I'd argue that as time goes on and new generations come on the scene, accepting the logical implications of this view will become more common and we'll be all the worse for it.
Whatever the state of moral discourse might be on the forum, it's not exactly a good reflection of society as a whole, or even of the modern left.
My experience has been that 'consent-only' is more popular on the forum than off. On the forum, a lot of posters take their politics very seriously, and walk through the implications of arguments, which is not very common off a politics forum. Since 'consent-only' ethics is a facile view, it makes sense that I run into it more often offline.
