No kidding?! LOL. It's truly funny how you went to the trouble of quoting the law, long after I've said the law should be changed.
I trust your little rant makes you feel better. ("Moral cesspool"!!! ROTFL!) Obviously, you're incapable of seeing how the prostitute has, in my "moral cesspool," forfeited much of her claim on any "non-consent" argument. She gave ample consent in the act of soliciting. At that point, it became a matter of quid pro quo, tit for tat, offer and acceptance. In my "cesspool," if the alleged rapist's lawyer can convince the jury that his client is not someone that a typical hooker would refuse to service, they'll acquit him of the rape charge. They'll convict him on a lesser charge (because, YES, one or more crimes have been committed against the hooker).
She made a choice. Choices have consequences. It's sort of like, if I decide to forego a helmet while riding my motorcycle, and some idiot pulls out in front of me, causing me to crash, and among my damages are head injuries which could be reasonably assumed to be preventable if I had been wearing a helmet, I believe I've forfeited much of my claim against the idiot regarding the head injuries. He still broke the law by not yielding the right of way. He's still liable for other damages, but not the head injuries.
You see—and I can guess you might pop a vein on this one—it's actually better for all of us that the scumbag would target a hooker who's actively offering him sex, than to victimize a woman who isn't. The punishment must fit the crime, and the two crimes are not equal.
Let me offer you a hypothetical: a man goes up to a prostitute and offers her $20 to fellate him. She agrees. When she unzips his pants, she discovers that his member is covered with sores and lesions from who knows what matter of diseases. Is the woman obligated to fellate the man, or does she have the right to give him back his $20 and tell him to get lost?
If the man forces himself upon her after her refusal, is he stealing $20, or he he stealing something the woman had decided she would not sell for that price (or, likely, for any price)?
Although a prostitute may decide to generally charge a fixed fee schedule, that does not mean that she has to regard all prospective clients equally. She may happily be willing to have sexual relations with one person for $10 (or even for free) and yet demand $500 to have relations with another. That she puts the value of sexual relations with most people at a certain price does not mean the value would be the same for everyone.
Did Bill Clinton teach you the art of spurious logic, or did you teach him?