I don't think any work that's fairly paid and suits the ability of the person doing the job is demeaning. There are plenty of area managers who work in fast food that started at the counter and are now approaching six figure salaries. There's a chap I know who owns 11 fast food establishments in central London with his business partner and he started at Starbucks after he left school. These 'demeaning' jobs are great stepping stones if you left school young and weren't given the opportunities or made mistakes and missed out. Even McDonald's helps you gain qualifications now if you take it all seriously and are driven. A major problem with a lot of native workers is they start thinking everything is demeaning unless they're sat in an office earning £50k.
Conversely, I don't think sex work at 18 is healthy for a lot of women. As with all vocations, it suits a special type of lady, one who can deal with every aspect of what it involves. This is anecdotal but an ex gf of mine did exactly what we're discussing here. She worked in McDonald's and hated it, she absolutely did not want to work full time. One evening after a particularly long shift she read an small ad in the back of a local paper advertising for girls to work at a parlour. Ten minutes later she was inside starting her first shift. FOUR years later she'd worked in most of the parlours in Cardiff and Bristol. I met her a year after she'd given up and she'd told me she'd saved absolutely nothing from her years working as a sex worker. She spent it all to help her forget how she'd earned it. Champagne, treating friends, holidays abroad, a car, renting a nice flat. That sort of thing. Civvy sex for her had become mechanical, joyless and marred with memories of hundreds of men. Now clearly she is an example of someone who wasn't cut out for hard work in fast food, but equally wasn't cut out for sex work. I'd even go as far as to argue that her stint as a sex worker had a far more negative effect on her long term well being than any number of shifts at McDonald's could have done.
As for page 3, I have no issue with it as long as it's not on the same shelf as other newspapers. The problem isn't 18yo's posing topless. It's a 'family paper' normalizing sexualization and nudity of young women. Now that would be absolutely fine if we were all allowed to walk around naked and they had just as many cocks and vag in the paper as tits. But the weird thing is it's only ever tits and only ever on skinny, young girl. Again, if we lived in a society where people were free to be naturists wherever and whenever they wanted, Page 3 would be fine.
In truth, printed titties on cheap paper always looked crap. It's 2015. We are a liberated people, always online and are free to have sex with strangers at the drop of a hat. THAT is called progress and long may it continue!
PS. Great to see those girls showing people the majority lived reality of sex work.
