Much of liberal feminism is simply framing the capitulation to normalized violence against women as liberatory.
The indoor/outdoor [prostitution] distinction basically functions ideologically to feed the illusion, beloved by moralists of most all politics, that the women in prostitution who appear classy really have upper class options: that they are exercising free choice (perhaps even a bad one), being well paid, enjoying themselves, could leave anytime they want, are relatively safe if they are careful, and are not being compelled or hurt, at least not very much. Apart from reading the empirical studies, the moralists should try it sometime.
Basically: people don’t “consent” to things they want.
You “consent” to go into work on your day off… you “consent” to a police search… at the very best, you “consent” to an operation or something like that. You’re either being politely forced (by someone with power over you), or it’s something you have to do to get some benefits, but you don’t at all want the thing itself. You don’t “consent” to hanging out, or a slice of cake. You “want” that. Therefore, the fact that women are being coerced into sex with men is made apparent simply by the word used, before we even look into rape culture at all.
The way people have moved onto “enthusiastic consent” only further underlines this. They admit that consent is a forced, grudging kind of thing by default. But notice how they don’t move on to “truly wanting it and saying that you want it” or something more like that. Just be more cute and cheerful when you sign that contract, don’t make him lose his boner!! Ugh.