Well you have conservative and liberal feminists. Anita Sarkeesian is a great example of a conservative, sex-negative feminist who likes to cherry pick facts and video footage to support an anti-sexualized world view of women.

On the other side you have liberal feminists who are sex-positive, for regulated sex work and support Slut Walks.

It's not exactly conservative vs liberal; there are divisions on sex and the nature of being a woman even within the body of radical feminists.

I'm simplifying extraordinarily here, but one position might be "sex between men and women happens within the constraints of a patriarchal society and had inherent power imbalances, which is problematic; sex work is overwhelmingly poor and powerless women being exploited for sex by men" (at its extreme suggesting political lesbianism) and the other might be "there's nothing intrinsically anti-feminist about sex, and we can imagine forms of sex and sex work which are liberatory rather than oppressive. Sex work is often exploitative but is also work, and sex workers are women who deserve a voice and better treatment" (at its extreme leading to explicitly feminist pornography).

I prefer one to the other, but neither position is hypocritical.

These are called SWERF(sex worker exclusionary radical feminists) and is already an existing term in feminism that is currently under serious discussion in general communities if I understand it correctly. If you dislike SWERFs you’re in good (feminist) company.