Let's all set the two retarded and overwhelmingly sexist posts by Pyg and Joe aside, and start with some actual definitions.

"Sex-positive feminism, also known as pro-sex feminism, sex-radical feminism, or sexually liberal feminism, is a movement that began in the early 1980s. Some became involved in the sex-positive feminist movement in response to efforts by anti-pornography feminists, such as Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan and Dorchen Leidholdt, to put pornography at the center of a feminist explanation of women's oppression." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism

Sexual autonomy, including the right to sell it in an above-board market not subject to the enslaving constraints of many modern-day sex industries, is fully compatible with the notion that women are full people with full rights and abilities to have their bodily autonomy respected, to make their own decisions, to express themselves sexually an otherwise, to define their own social roles, etc.

Sex services have, in most cultures, been presented in an objectifying and degrading manner because most societies rest on underpinnings that are profoundly patriarchal. But I am not convinced that sex services are inherently objectifying. I think this is much more dependent on social context. Both Grecian hetaerae and Japanese geisha, for example, were often highly influential in politics and society, highly educated, and financially autonomous. Similarly, it’s a bit more difficult to argue that in, say, Sumer or Babylon, where prostitution was a low-level religious calling in that it was run out of temples and said temples were themselves dedicated to highly revered female deities and in most cases staffed predominantly by female clergy, prostitution was inherently objectifying. On the other hand, the Aztecs also ran their prostitution services out of temples, but in their society pre-pubescent girls were forced into prostitution and, at the age of about 20, were unceremoniously beheaded and dumped in neighboring lakes; so an argument saying that prostitution demeaned and objectified women would in this case not be difficult to make.

I won’t dispute that in the scenario you pose, “sex workers are paid to be a male fantasy.” The more essential question, however, is what is that fantasy? Under our culture’s currently confused system of what is sexually normative and acceptable, it may well be that sex workers are being paid to represent fantasy images or act out fantasy scenarios that reinforce the objectification and degradation of women. But that’s not a function of sex-for-pay per se; that’s a function of the sexual fantasy for which pay is being offered. In the idealized, fully-equalized society you posit, those fantasies might well have different contours because our notions about what is “sexy” would very likely be different, insofar as they would (perhaps) no longer be bound up with harmful baggage concerning dominance/passivity, ownership/autonomy, control/disempowerment, etc. The social value of women’s lives and autonomy would be held equivalent to that of men in the popular mind. The media culture through which women’s sexuality is publicly represented would probably be different; the economic realities of sex work would most certainly be different. As you suggest, were these the realities, sex work would look a lot more like “another customer service job.”

Moreover, in shocking headline news, women like sex. Given that it’s consensual and all that basic stuff, we like having it and we like attracting it and we like thinking about it and “looking” at it (I use quotes on this latter only because most surveys indicate that more women prefer written erotica whereas more men prefer pornographic film). Embracing and claiming our right to be sexual beings is completely compatible and some would argue essential to feminism – as Naomi Wolf put it, “orgasm is the body's natural call to feminist politics.”

The problem isn’t so much the sale of sex as the manner in which it’s packaged. Feminists like Annie Sprinkle and Susie Bright are certainly not afraid of approaching sex – and the sale of sex – not only from the vantagepoint of what women want and need out of the sex industry and their own sex lives and in terms of what sexual representation says or can say “about” women, but also in terms of the intersections of human sexuality not only with commerce but also with spirituality, art, politics, self-image, and social empowerment or disempowerment. Discouraging women from sexual self-expression only fuels the disempowerment of women by permitting men to do what women aren’t (be sexual beings) and therefore to control the arena of human sexual expression. The result of this is a heavy stigmatization of women who sell sex and the enabling of their enslavement by a heavily patriarchal system of black-market sex work, such as the pimping system or the international trafficking industry. On the other hand, were women really on a level playing field with men in making the decision whether to become CEOs or homemakers or to sell snatch (and assuming along with this fully-equal society that women no longer make up 70% of the poor, and being “treated equally by society and the media” neither providers nor consumers of sex services are stigmatized), then a goodly number of the above-mentioned problems would vanish. The market for sexual services and sexual companionship, though, would probably not vanish –again, the hetaerae and the geisha make good examples here.

So as you say, if we assume for purposes of this discussion that sex industries were “legal, regulated trades . . . no longer plagued by discrimination, violence, and misogyny,” then sex work is entirely compatible with feminist thought.

Not only do women sell their bodies for sex, but they also sell their womb and sometimes even their eggs.

But as far as the sex industry existing along side of feminism, sure. Even a feminist needs a good pounding every once in a while to keep her well lubed ;)

Yo women, I'm really happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but african americans faced one of the worst oppressions of all time. Of all time.

Depends on what form of feminism:

Feminism: Idea that women should be treated the same as men (i.e, can vote, same criminal penalties, etc.)

Feminazism: Idea that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD should try to equalize the playing field exactly. Make sure that women hold equal positions in power; make sure that the average pay rate of men and women are the same; make sure that the amount of women who stay home is the same as the amount of men who stay home; video games have plain looking (no big tits or pretty faces) heroins, equal to the amount of heroes; Spike TV is no longer television for guys. Guys Choice awards can no longer exist. Deodorant is no longer separated by gender. Feminine products are now called "products". The term Woman is banned (since it means side of man). Let's see:

Split the check on the first date.

No holding doors for the woman.

Takes turns on picking each other up for a date.

Miss Universe pageants are no longer looking for the hottest chick, but the smartest one (making the ratings sky rocket, i'm sure). Banning the terms bitch and ho on the radio (destroying rap just how nigga was banned). And much, much more.

Alright, now that we got that out of the way. With feminism, yes, it can coexist. Women do their thing and guys pay for it. Everyone's satisfied.

With feminazism, no. Somehow, getting paid for a service is now sexist. Women are not being FORCED into objective positions, they choose to do it for money. Feminazis only wanna put these women out of work. Shame on them.

Edit: Feminazism also includes:

Integration of sports for men and women and the amount for both genders are equal.

Amount of cheerleaders are equal of men and women.

The band C U Next Tuesday is banned because their acronym is CUNT.

The band Cockpunch! is banned cause it refers to physical treatment of only ONE gender's genitals.