December 13, 2007
Call Off Your Old Tired Eth-- Oh, For A Golden Shower I Charge $250, Baby
Seeing as how San Francisco spends $11.4 million enforcing prostitution, Supe Jake McGoldrick, according to the Examiner, "asked the city attorney to draft legislation directing San Francisco police to make prostitution one of its lowest enforcement priorities." Making the oldest profession in the world a lower priority would possibly "help curb trafficking and exploitation in the sex industry." Just dandy, right? Well, not for Newsom.
The Mayor shot down the legislation. saying that "legalization of prostitution would be a terrible mistake," because of...bad stuff happening around security gates, or security cameras, or something like that. He does mention that reducing police concentration on tricking would "further the prospects that that will continue." A valid possibility. But Jake McGoldrick's argument claims just the opposite will happens. Another valid possibility.
Obviously it's a complicated issue (with sexy results!) Overly complicated City Hall politicking aside, we're not exactly sure why Newsom isn't down for a reduced police effort when it comes to ho'ing; it's not going anywhere anytime soon. But ultimately, being soft on whoredom doesn't look good on the Gav's record. In case, you know, he has plans for any future campaigning outside the left-leaning Bay Area. Hard, as always, is always best when it comes to any sexually-laced issue. [rimshot]
(Oh, and speaking of the Examiner article cited above, did you know that there's a Middle Polk neighborhood? You did? Well, we didn't.)
|
This all sounds dandy if you are a white, middle class "progressive" living in the kinds of hipster and other nabes white, middle class "progressives" tend to congregate in, which, not suprisingly, are nabes that don't have a lot of prositution to begin with.
On the other hand, if you are poor or working class person of color living in the neighborhoods where prositution IS a problem, then you probably wouldn't be all that excited to know, that in addition to the drug dealers filling the empty houses in your hood with grow houses, now you have to deal with the cops being told they can't deal with the hookers hanging out in front of your apartment building every day. (Hookers, who, in addition to be attractants for other sorts of undesireable activity, are also often underage.)
This is right up there with the sfister who felt guilty about tattling on some gutter punk with a rabid dog.
Prostitution is an issue that has to be dealt with whether or not it is legal. If you just ignore it, other problems will crop up. For that reason, this idea is a stupid way to save money. Gavin is right in not supporting it.
If its time to legalize prostitution, a comprehensive way of dealing with it is needed.
seems pretty short-sighted to me. just making prostitution a low priority does nothing to deal with the actual issues that need to be taken into consideration in the decriminalization process. like health care, appropriate wages and increased security for the sex workers.
And of course a police officer always appreciates a dumbass telling him/her how to do their job.
You can legalize it, but the pimps will still be pimping and the girls will still be slaves. There will always be people undercutting the competition.
This is all soooo easily fixed.
All we need is a comprehensive outreach program to eliminate the digital divide between streetwalkin' ho's and their more internet-savvy counterparts, the call girls. It's as simple as a yahoo account, really.
The problem (I think we can all agree in SF) is not the exchange of sex for money per se, but rather the negative social ills that follow.
A neighborhood-specific initiative that teaches these girls how to use the "erotic services" section of Craigslist will eliminate the need for streetwalking. It would go a long way towards cutting out abusive pimps as the middle-men, while simultaneously increasing property values. (Okay, that last one is a stretch, but you see what I mean.)
Oakland has made great strides in this regard. Every time I go to my favorite internet cafe in Oakland, I can't swing a dead cat without hitting some working girl updating her CL account and making appointments with her various johns via cellphone. Contrast this with the corner of Polk & Post streets in SF, and it's like night versus day.
This is all soooo easily fixed.
All we need is a shoe-string of an outreach program to eliminate the digital divide between streetwalkin' ho's and their more internet-savvy counterparts, the call girls. It's as simple as an anonynous yahoo account, really.
The problem (I think we can all agree in SF) is not the exchange of sex for money per se, but rather the negative social ills that follow.
A neighborhood-specific initiative that teaches these girls how to use the "erotic services" section of Craigslist will eliminate the need for streetwalking. It would go a long way towards cutting out abusive pimps as the middle-men, while simultaneously increasing property values. (Okay, that last one is a stretch, but you see what I mean.)
Oakland has made great strides in this regard. Every time I go to my favorite internet cafe in Oakland, I can't swing a dead cat without hitting some working girl updating her CL account and making appointments with her various johns via cellphone. Contrast this with the corner of Polk & Post streets in SF, and it's like night versus day.
+1
I totally agree making it legal as long as it is not sold on the street. Computers are the answer.
I live right by that stretch of Larkin where the tranny-ish hookers seem to work. It's not a huge bother to me, but it IS pretty gross when they flash their boobies to passing cars, or take an ambigiously genital'd piss on the sidewalk.
just making prostitution a low priority does nothing to deal with the actual issues that need to be taken into consideration in the decriminalization process. like health care, appropriate wages and increased security for the sex workers.
Is this what had to happen with medical marijuana? Seems like the "actual issues" you mention are either red herrings, like security that no other segment of society enjoys, or larger issues with the city at large (wages and health care).
Mayor Newsome offered a pithy retort to the idea because he doesn't have anything to offer. Frankly I don't care if people pay each other for sex (I never have), and the only problems people mention are either made-up or those that exist everywhere.
The only real problem mentioned above is pimps, and the money saved in enforcement could be used for programs helping people break away from their pimps. I imagine the police department would rather buy more TASERs with that cash, though.
Turn Alcatraz into a casino and hoville.
sangfroid826: why not pitch that to stjamesinfirmary.org, or see if they know of a program that does something similar. it's nice to have all the answers, but better to be part of the solution.
manys...yes! those are actual issues. they're not red herrings at all. are you telling me that in whatever type of work you do, you don't have some sort of protection against a client harassing you, assaulting you or generally taking advantage of you? you've got to be kidding me. and i'm sure your job also affords you some sort of health insurance and sick days and fare wages. and you have ways to get what you deserve if it isn't given to you. these are things that sex workers do not have, not to mention no recourse of action if their basic human rights are violated.
your comment seems to exude a prejudice against sex workers that makes you blind to the fact that they face serious issues that the general non-sex worker population does not face.
agreed rageahol, st. james infirmary is a great place to start getting ones facts straight.
http://www.stjamesinfirmary.org/index.htm
agreed. www.stjamesinfirmary.org is a good place for resources and help for our ho sisters, ranging from street walkers to high-paid escorts.
Being from Nevada, I'll chime in:
Prostitution is legal in some Nevada counties and regulated by the state. Usually the brothels are outside of city limits, so in the case of SF there would need to be tighter controls to prevent neighborhood blight. No sex is offered on the street or side of the road, the jon has to come into the house to select his woman. Protection is not optional at any price.
This process works exceedingly well, and the women charge far higher rates ($500+/hr), plus they are tested regularly and do their tricks in a safe, monitored environment.
We aren't going to get rid of prostitution in the city as long as humans want to have sex, but we can regulate it, make both interested parties as safe as possible, and detect and prevent human rights violations. We are a liberal city, isn't prostitution liberal?
As someone who's sat through a police commission meeting (basically a yell-at-the-man session), the unwritten rule is that off-street prostitution is already the lowest priority. There are people who complain about Mitchell Bros. at every meeting, and there's never been a bust there. The police commissioners are very adept at communicating their non-interest in certain issues.
But, like drugs, it's ridiculous to remove enforcement completely. The street problems overwhelm the basic morality/immorality debate.
ls
Maybe we should create a general crime of "neighborhood theft" for the jerks who take over our street corners, and take the drugs and prostitution out of it altogether.
Think of the tax revenues that could be generated by a casino/bordello!
But seriously, it would be great to have some more concrete ways to help folks and get under-aged kids out of the whole scene. Maybe legalization & regulation would do that. Or maybe the city would screw that up, too.
R. Kelly loves the headline.
Yeah, it's all fun and games till organized crime shows up.
Here's the problem. Once you announce San Francisco is open for business and the cops are officially looking the other way, every john, pimp and trafficker who reads Google news will be on the next flight into town.
This is business 101 - supply and demand. The johns will show up looking for some. As a rule, johns are not interested in middle-aged white women marching in the streets for their sex-worker rights. Johns want young women, "barely legal" if you will. Wink wink nudge nudge. And johns love little asian and latino women. (Take a look at the Las Vegas yellow pages sometime.)
It's not as easy as you might think to convince high school and college-aged girls to prostitute, there just aren't enough of them. So you gotta import the supply. That requires coercion, violence, drugs, and for your shipping needs, you will have to go with organized crime (why? because they said so.)
So your supposedly progressive law has now resulted in a thriving prostitution, drug, AND organized crime trade. And if you think we have gang violence now, wait until the Armenian mafia is battling with the Mongols or Nortenos for control of the Tenderloin.