I suspected you thought that's what equality was, Larry. As you might expect, I passionately disagree with you, because I think the "lens" that you look through is myopic. The peripheral vision you are missing contains all the social construction and context.
It appears that through your lens, if women are "empowered" enough to be paid for their sexual assets and the men doing the paying are ripped off by the club and treated with contempt by the women, this awful behaviour is evidence of equality.
I agree with you incidentally, that women are evidently capable of engaging in sex acts with male strippers, but as I said upthread, the notion that women paying for sex, objectifying men and treating punters with contempt is an advance on creating an egalitarian society, is fundamentally flawed.
The day after feeling the "power" you describe, those female strippers and YouTube exhibitionists will drive into a garage for a repair and receive poorer service than a man in the same position, they will be overlooked in favour of a man at work and receive less pay, they will be described as "emotional" by their boss and not "assertive" or "angry", they will come home from a day's work and find that another night's work awaits them because their male partner didn't "see" the pile of toys scattered across the living room, they will be criticised by other men and women for not nurturing their relationship and their Mums will tutt when they admit they don't iron their husbands' shirts.
In simplified terms that's the social context you're missing here. When faced with that, giving a male stripper a blow-job the night before or selling your body for sexual titillation doesn't seem quite the force for equality you could pretend it was, does it?
Regardless of gender, paying for sex in all its forms damages our society, but pretending that we don't live in a patriarchical society and that treating men with contempt somehow equalises the position is naive in the extreme.