Indeed.

The conflict of interest part is particularly jarring. It is like someone who is attracted to boys can never talk about his feelings. Yet, this seems to only be a problem when it comes to pedophiles: people still say that gay people are the only ones who have the right to discuss homosexuality, because they feel it (the so-called "place of speech"), and the same goes for other minorities. It bothers me how everything is inverted when it comes to us. If it was a scholarly work that is being funded, then it would be a problem (for example, a study on soft drinks sponsored by Coca-cola), but this is totally not the case. The idea that exchanging services for money is exploitative reveals a Marxist bias, indeed. So, yeah, your points are valid. But I still think that we should open an exception on child prostitution: that would be still exploitative, because the benefit would not be mutual, not because of the money thing. It would not be mutual because the boy would be unable to fence for himself and demand a just pay, if that were to be denied. Plus, as a teacher, I think that most low-income kids would stop attending to school if prostitution was allowed for them, so there would be an intellectual loss in society.