The Second Formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative

The Second Formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative says that one should "Act only in such a way that you treat humanity - whether in your own person or that of another - never merely as a means, but always as an end in itself." From this statement I understand it as you cannot treat someone as a means to get what you desire or need. Unfortunately you see this everywhere in the world now especially in America: women using their assets to seduce others into getting them what they want or simply buying them an alcoholic drink; teachers using students as a means for a paycheck; befriending people so they could vouch for you, etc. I also understand that if you violate this formulation, it means that one is irrational. But I have a question, what if you use someone as a means to get what you want but that other person is also benefitting from your manipulation? Would it then be irrational to use someone as a means? For example we talked about prostitution in class on Wednesday. The idea of selling sex or sexual acts is indeed immoral in my own preference, but for Kant I don't think it is. Both people are benefitting from using each other. I know two wrongs don't make a right but in this case someone has a sexual desire and gets it fulfilled by a prostitue. This prostitute in turn is getting paid for his/her services.  In the end both of these individuals are using each other but they are both benefitting each other. I think prostitution is only a violation of Kant's second formulation if this man/woman prostitute were not getting paid. Could there be special exceptions like this one to Kant's second formulation?

I honestly think that we should look at the outcome of the situation before we consider that situation as using someone as a means for something else. Another example would be in the case of befriending someone to vouch for you. What if you befriend that person only to get a job because you know you are very capable of fulfilling the duties required of that job? When you befriend that person and get the job you then are benefitting whatever company/corporation/hospital you are working for because you are performing your job to the best of your ability and thus kind of benefitting the other person because now their word is golden for vouching for you. If this were the situation, befriending someone as a means for a job when you can perform the job well, and that person's word becoming reliable is not violating Kant's second formulation because both individuals are benefitting. If both people are benefitting I don't consider that irrational. But of course it would be, if someone used you to get a job and then in turn couldn't perform a job well. That would be a violation. So in conclusion I think we need to look at the outcomes of each situation before we consider it violating Kant's Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative.