Yes, and I think if we include the first state in evaluating the exchange then we have to change the first example (voluntary exchange) to not true a priori. I only considered the first example true a priori because I was only considering each person's actions vis-a-vis themselves and not how they affect the other person.
For example, I might not like people coming up to me on the street and trying to sell me things or asking me to donate money. However, if someone does come up to me and I decide to give them money, then I have done so voluntarily. But since I didn't want them to come up to me in the first place, I didn't "profit" from the exchange. The same could be said of products I buy due to advertising that I never wanted to see or products I buy which I thought should never have been produced in the first place.
Exactly, just like you don't have the option to avoid being accosted by men with guns when being robbed.