Prostitution do more harm than good

I will show that prostitution does not provide more harm than good. The main problem with Pro's position is that it does not account for subjective value. Pro cannot measure the value that prostitution customers place on the service. The fact that those customers do so voluntarily shows that they place a higher value on the service than they do on the costs. The same rule applies to prostitutes, who's voluntary participation shows they value the monetary benefits more highly than the work performed or other risks. Given the above arguments, in order for Pro to win this debate, it would need to be shown that prostitutes and their customers exchange goods/services in a way that defies logic. For that reason, it isn't really necessary for me to rebut Pro's points. However, for the sake of completeness:First Pro contends that prostitution is bad for the health of all parties involved. Pro bases this on the frequency of sexual encounters increasing STD's. There are two problems with this: one, both prostitutes and their customers understand this risk and still voluntarily participate. That issue is already baked into the costs of the voluntary exchange. Two, there are many examples of cases where people pay money to participate in things that are potentially bad for their health: smoking, rock climbing, sky diving, car racing, hockey, eating unhealthy food, etc. Would Pro argue that all these consumers are wrong to pay for these services because they do more harm than good? Next Pro contends that those participating do not really consent to the exchange. This is simply a bald assertion and clearly false. Pro seems to base this on the assumption that prostitutes or their customers will claim they are STD free but will lie about this. However, this is a simple breach of contract. Would Pro argue that automobile sales provide more harm than good because sometimes a customer receives a lemon? Pro next contends that lack of regulation is a problem. However, customers of prostitution are free to assess the risks of an encounter based on whether it is or is not regulated. Also, Pro's contention that narcotics are found everywhere there is prostitution is also a bald assertion. Even if Pro can show that this actually occurs, I would say that this is because participants in victimless crimes (prostitution & illegal drugs) tend to congregate demographically. And, this is a debate about prostitution not illegal drugs. Pro claims that both the prostitute and the client degrades themselves by participating. This is a moral question which must be answered by the participants. Is Pro claiming that the event of prostitution causes moral harm to others NOT participating? If not, then again, since the act of prostitution is voluntary, the participants have weighed these costs. Pro next claims that prostitutes give the impression that clients are allowed to act violently toward them. This sounds like another bald assertion based on movie prostitutes. However, I will simply point out that the agreement between a prostitute and the client generally does not include a "violence is ok" clause. If the client acts violently toward a prostitute, this is not only a breach of contract, but is also a crime (and not a victimless crime). In conclusion, to show that prostitution does more harm than good, Pro must show that those voluntarily participating are incapable of subjectively valuing the things they participate in. Or Pro must show that prostitution's benefits are overshadowed by the harm caused to other's NOT participating.