You present an honest and interesting challenge, Chris, thanks. I love a good debate, so this will get wordy. First, credit where it is due: I concede your point that a *knowing* omission is still deception and needs to be part of the consideration. If I could write my response over I would include that. Fair point.
That said, I would also say that we tend to want candor on our own terms and viewed through the lens of our own bias don't we? If you knew your new girlfriend was adamantly against sexual harassment, would you immediately fess up to that time at a frat party where you drunkenly pushed a girl against a wall and groped and kissed her when she clearly did not consent? I would argue many would not think it rose to your "big secret" level--even though many potential mates would find it abhorrent, and arguably most men have indulged in similar behavior at least once in their lives--or would if they could get away with it, i.e. not because they understand what a violation it is. (To be clear, I believe sexual harassment is intrinsically unethical and sex work is not, so forgive the analogy for those who feel the same). My point is that the situational context matters, an ongoing pattern of behavior matters, and who that person is at that point in time matters...all of which is more relevant than the Court TV approach of isolating this into just the facts that support your case and spinning it up into something bigger than it may actually be.
As someone who has ample experience with both prostitutes and sugar babies in his checkered and deceptive past, I can only say that in my experience there are differences. The reductionist argument equating sugaring with prostitution I find to typically be from folks who are looking to condemn it rather than understand it. Even if I conceded the point that they were equivalent (and they are not IMO): what then? My experience has also shown that many of them are wonderful, warm, caring, generous, trustworthy souls. And some of them are manipulative, deceptive, and callous. Some are both. In short they are like everyone else. Sex work is only a defining characteristic if you are unable to see past it to the entire person. And seeing past it is the heart of my argument.
And I agree, bringing the patriarchy into this *does* seem irrelevant...to you (and many others to be fair). To me, and likely to any feminist, it's absolutely critical context. Once you appreciate the extent to which sexually powerful women are systemically shamed by culture at large, you realize the bullshit of the extra heapings of judgement put on female sexuality in general and sex workers in particular (typically there is a Bible waving somewhere in there too, which is a conversation on hypocrisy for another day). This is not a wholesale excuse for individual behaviors such as lies of omission, but it does inform the context of why that omission may be both explainable and still ethical. As my friend @Yaelwolfe points out ruefully, a woman's nipple is suggestive and an obscenity charge, and a man's nipple is well, just another day at the beach. And that's an absurdity we all just buy into without thinking. That's also known as "the patriarchy".
(Full disclosure: I'm reading some academic arguments that sex work in fact supports patriarchal institutions, which will be interesting to incorporate into my assessment of it. Point being: I'm open to changing my mind, or at least being less absolute in my opinions when a good argument causes me to reassess!)
