What about prostitutes? It's a job. They're not wrong.
You seem to confused and lump things together. Here are some clarifications you obviously need.
Capitalism is the best and only system that's ever worked, the only thing that pushes scientific and technological innovation. What would you prefer, communism? How will you incentivize people to do any meaningful, quality work without a hierarchy to climb? You could say that communism is actually built on fundamentally more virtuous ideals than capitalism, yet any attempted application in history has led people to commit inhumanly heinous crimes. Now how could a more well-intentioned system lead to something so tragic as opposed a less well-intentioned system leading to so much good? Here's the kicker; no system exists in a vacuum, they're machines, their output is determined on what is input. Now, what is the input? Human society. You overgeneralize and oversimplify the negative side of humanity for the sake of your weak argument and understanding of economics and social psychology. Look at the diseases we've eradicated, child mortality rates are lower than they've ever been, none of which would have been possible without capitalistic incentivization; it does greater good than harm. But does capitalism incentivize the bad as well? Yes, and here's why; it's a resource distribution system, not a social wellbeing system. Humanity is lacking in the latter system, but it is developing them, and is particularly progressive in Nordic and some European countries. Such systems include: taxes, free education, universal basic income; which will be a reality if Americans elect Andrew Yang as their next president. If you imagine a world where these wellbeing systems hold precedence over any other system, now capitalism seems just. So you see, you confused both, and lumped them into one. You're not mad at capitalism, you're mad at the lack of social wellbeing systems, and wrongfully attribute the negativity manifested to whatever economic system that happens to be dominant at the moment.
On the porn thing, again you confuse a whole industry for individuals who do it because they enjoy it. They don't need to climax on camera, they're putting on a show, it's like acting. They can very well climax off camera. They do a job that's more enjoyable than most jobs and they get paid, it's a perfectly fine job, I don't see what your point is. You see kids shows, the presenters and hosts are acting more happy and lively than they do in real life. Do you find something wrong with that?
As for Argendana herself, she clearly does it because she likes it. How can you tell? Because it's extreme, nobody would push their body to such extremes for the measly amount of money she's probably making for it. Just because she isn't climaxing doesn't mean she isn't enjoying it either.
