The government should subsidize prostitution

The misunderstanding is but obvious from Pro's arguments. I agree that I should have made pointed arguments. The context here is not only about high entry barrier but, the fact that legalization lead to it. All the while when Pro has been pointing out that the prostitution was not "fully" or properly legalized, Netherlands case clearly demonstrates that stringent legalization creates high entry barrier thus persuading prostitues to seek out to pimps and brothels for customers. I would be very interested in Pro's definition of "proper" legalization, if he so thinks that Australian Government did not do it. So, in short, context forms the whole argument and not what is convenient.Encourages Innovation and Progress - Sex is not a basic need as in food, water and air are. First, Abraham Maslow's survey sample included only people who had reached self-actualization. Second, Abraham Maslow did not consider the Collective and Individualistic (Cultural Legacy) influences of humans highly predominant in determining needs. Third, it is proper to interpret "sex" as a basic need as in "need for companion and procreation", rather than sexual pleasure. Sex is medically an act of releasing endorphin in our body. It is the highest stage of intimacy. Intimacy or Companionship comes first. Not sex. Many people ac cross the globe lead and achieve great milestones in their lives without having sex. They could not have done the same without food, air and water. Sex is an expression of companionship.Reduce Depression - There is hardly anything to address under this point since most of it I covered in the last one. If prostitution were legalized - properly with all relevant mechanisms and checks put in place - business becomes so sparse for prostitues that people prefer relationships or enslave themselves to pimps. Please study this aspect; no use arguing sex as a basic need. Please take a look at what data indicates. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)Reduce Sexual Assault - Con's mention of Netherlands, as a place where legalization of prostitution has reduced sex crimes is a downright lie. I would please suggest to do some reading on this - both from the sources provided above and for simplicity wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...). No country has benefited from this act.Reduce unemployment - I mean to suggest nothing more than is usual from "by choice". However, Pro put a lot of imaginative content so let me clear a few things. First, please go through various studies that in no uncertain terms prove my argument. (Sample - http://crime.about.com...) Pro has not provided any data (quantitative or qualitative) whatsoever supporting his argument. Thus, for all we know, this is Pro's own opinions. Second, Germany's example very clearly shows that people don't treat it as a profession. It is their problems with life forcing them into it. How is it hard to relate to the point? There is a basic difference between "selling the use" of one's body and "selling the body" itself. If a distinction can't be made, then I cannot help in this aspect any more than to suggest that it is like actors looking beautiful versues actors having excellent acting skills. Prostitution - legal or otherwise - is only sexual exploitation, a drudgery for those doing it and a means of exploitation for the so called "customers"(http://en.wikipedia.org...). In Netherlands, Australia, Nevada, India etc. it is a failed social experiment. Very certainly a law will only complicate things and its impacts on society is beyond measure. Since 90% of the people involved in it are women; men gain an unnecessary dominance. Companions are always of sexually attractive gender as that is the only way humans can continue their race. However, this in no possible way, proves that sex is a basic need.