The government should subsidize prostitution

As one can clearly see in the case of the Australian law, it is the law itself which creates barriers to entry, not the fact that prostitution is legal. This is what I was talking about that it was not completely legalized. It was legalized with conditions built in that are difficult to meet. The law itself requires that prostitution be done in a building designated for that purpose which meets a variety of other requirements. Clearly the barriers to entry are not a product of legalization but the law itself.I agree with Con that companionship is an important part of human life. I also agree that sex can be an expression of intimacy among companions. Prostitution cannot replace companionship. However, even when not in a relationship, humans still feel compelled toward sex. This is often satisfied through one night stands and the like. It is this basic need for sex that prostitution can and does address. In fact, a legal and regulated sex industry would often be safer than random hook ups at a bar. It is certainly less time consuming than hanging around bars hoping to hook up, and does not involve consuming alcohol and other detrimental behaviors. For this reason prostitution is a net gain for society as a whole and should not only be legal but also encouraged.Con contends that if prostitution were completely legal, it would be so prevalent that prostitutes would compete each other out of business. Of course, even a cursory knowledge of economics should dissuade anyone from believing this. Con curiously seems to claim that the increased availability of prostitutes would cause people to prefer relationships. I have already discussed earlier that sex as an expression of intimacy and sex as the fulfillment of a basic need are vastly different situations and prostitutes would not be put out of business by relationships. I also fail to see how, as Con claims, that prostitutes would choose to "enslave themselves to pimps" once legalized. This is something that happens because it is illegal.Con's source about the Netherlands refers to human trafficking, indeed a problem that needs to be addressed, but that still doesn't change the fact that sexual assualt in the netherlands is significantly lower than in the US which Con offered no evidence against.In an attempt to prove that prostitution is not a job, Con links to an article that seems to have nothing to do with his point. Indeed there are serious issues prostitutes face and it's only after normalizing and accepting prostitution that these issues will be able to be addressed properly. As long as prostitution is viewed by many as shameful, bad, or wrong, prostitutes will continue to be victimized. Once we all view it as just as viable a profession as working in a retail store, the "shadiness" will inevitably go away. Con also seems to believe that anyone who refuses to join a union is not in a legitimate profession, an absurd contention I won't waste any space arguing against because it's obviously incorrect.Con likens prostitution to modeling (as opposed to acting). I agree with him on this point, and also believe that modeling should be completely legal and viewed as a valid career path. Luckily it already is. We should afford this same courtesy to prostitutes. Con also says that a law will only complicate things while arguing in favor of a law to ban prostitution, a strange contradiction.In summary, if prostitution were not only legal but also normalized and fully embraced as a legitimate career choice, all of society would be better off. Let me repeat that simple legalization is not enough. It needs to be normalized and accepted. All of Con's points about the downside of prostitution are either because it is illegal, because the laws are designed badly, or simply because the profession is viewed as wrong or shameful even in places where it's legal. It is because of this last point that legalization is not enough. We need to normalize and encourage it as a legitimate career choice.