Here's a possibly-controversial take, but joining the army isn't really even close to the best analogy for a male-dominated industry where you "sell your body".
Being a labourer is. Working in industries like construction, but not as a skilled tradesman. It doesn't carry the same moral weight riley was going for though.
What I hate with this is that is defines that the army itself is good or bad. But in reality it is what it is used for.
If its actually used for defence, then it's very honorable. When it's used as a tool to exploit resources to the rich, (aka generally being the aggressor), it's not.
I would never compare, being a sex worker is obviously incredibly more honorable
But...saying that something is more honorable than something else is comparing them?
EDIT: to be clear, her point is absolutely valid. This isn't (to misquote a replier) "But I must find way for sex lady be dumb". Her actual point is spot-on. This particular linguistic evolution just feels weird to me - feels like the new "literally".
I don't think I'll ever understand why women who choose to enter the sex trade are demonised. It's a job, some enjoy it and some don't, but everyone enjoys getting paid. Though the comparison between people who rent their bodies (sex workers do get to keep their own bodies after work) and people who gamble their bodies (soldiers don't always get to come home as part of the job) is a little off.
I'd compare sex work to sex work. War is war whether or not you want to include women or not. It just happens to be that most straight people prefer not to have unnecessary wars without personal benefit. If we created conscious war machines with their own minds, autonomy and conscience, then we would probably have trouble. Especially with all the anti-war memes and how peace loving myself and the vast majority of humanity is.