So leftists call any profiting off of someone's labor exploitation with regards to capitalists. Basically, if you're presently doing (from the leftist's perspective) "nothing" to profit off of something you have, you're an exploiter, and we must violently appropriate your property to remedy this economic inequality.
I'm inclined to say, even if a relationship fits some leftist's definition of "exploitation:" so what? As long as it's voluntary, who cares if both sides are free to leave and end the relationship; but let's take it for granted that if something fits the leftist definition of exploitation it's evil and universalize the principle: exploitative relationships warrant a revocation of property rights/complete disregard for them.
Let's say Jane is Joe's wife, and she's the only other woman for hundreds of miles on the frontier, and will only have sex with Joe, a cattle rancher, in exchange for 10 healthy cows being put in her name (she would otherwise have little property); just to preempt any crude suggestions, we'll say the cows have feline AIDs that are transmissible to humans so that's not an option for Joe. Jane did not let on that this would be her standard prior to marriage, and divorce (for the sake of this thought experiment) is forbidden. This is an exorbitant rate, even with what cattle are worth today. Even though Joe is a generally great guy, this woman refuses to allow Joe access to her body, her property, and is trying to extort his surplus value in exchange for access to her vagina, something she didn't even earn! It was just given to her by biology, the effort she put towards maintaining her vagina is far less than the effort a person has to put forward to save enough money and build enough experience to gain access to a significant quantity of capital goods. Jane is trying to take a massive amount of resources from Joe in exchange for access to her property, logically speaking, this is a form of exploitation that would justify Joe forcing himself upon Jane if she won't allow Joe access to the means of copulation. This is far worse than denying someone access to means of production because means of copulation are not earned by literally any of the people that possess them.
Let's just make it clear, I don't actually think rape is morally acceptable, this is just a reductio ad absurdum.
Another example. Let's say we have two proles, Nedey and Eyntitled (woman and man respectively), Nedey offers Eyntitled 50 trillion rubles to protect her while she makes 1,000 trillion rubles whoring herself out. Exploitation! Why should Nedey profit off of the means of copulation while Nedey is having his surplus protection value exploited, clearly Eyntitled is justified in making a sex slave out of Nedey.
Another example, let's say Prole Ayy offers Prole Lmao 5 apples in exchange for 100 oranges. Clearly this would be an exploitative relationship, so Prole Lmao is justified in taking the 5 apples by force and telling Prole Ayy to go fuck himself.
Checkmate, leftists, your theory of exploitation justifies force = retarded.
Just in general, the idea that we must resolve economic inequality with a coercive inequality is insane.