SFist: Photo du Jour 213

travin

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:52:07 -0800

beglund & violet, good points. thanks for posting them.

Violet_Palmer

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:55:03 -0800

"You're not decriminalizing prostitution so much as legitimizing pimping. If the prostitution was organized a la Nevada brothels, this proposal might find more support." Actually, sex workers in a coercive situation will be in a much better position to get out if they can go to the police without fear of being arrested themselves. The Nevada brothel owners are just state-sanctioned pimps. Nevada brothel workers are literally locked inside and are not allowed to leave the brothel much of the time. The brothel owners can pressure them to see customers they're not comfortable with. There's little freedom or respect for the workers. Sex workers need self-determination as well as safety.

Violet_Palmer

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:45:47 -0800

"Rincon, another bad consequence is that if prostitution were legal, government programs to help jobless or partially disabled folks, including the EDD, can require people to accept this type of employment or loose their subsidies." Actually this law will not *legalize* prostitution. Decriminalization means that laws will no longer be enforced. There will absolutely not be any mandatory prostitution.

Violet_Palmer

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:41:17 -0800

RinconhillSF have you actually read the proposition? Or have you just guessed at what might be beyond the title? The only thing this law will do is stop the city from spending money on arresting and prosecuting people for prostitution. Child prostitution and violent pimps will still be 100% illegal! Chid prostitution will still be illegal because it's illegal to have sex with a minor. Pimping will still be illegal because violence and forced labor are illegal. Police will have MORE resources to use to investigate violent crime. When adult sex workers and clients are unafraid to report suspected exploitation, children and trafficking victims will be in a better position to receive assistance. Did you know that right now trafficked persons and children are ARRESTED for prostitution in the name of saving them? With the change in law, victims will no longer be arrested. Police will have to go after the pimps and traffickers instead. This is a safety issue. Sex workers need to be able to report violence against them to the police without fear of being arrested. Customers need to be able to call the police without fear if they suspect that someone is working underage or being coerced.

Belgand

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:54:31 -0800

@travin Not to be a dick, but how do current regulations deal with stripping? Or, for that matter, porn? That's what always gets to me. Porn is totally legal. You can easily pay someone to have sex with someone else. You can even star in the thing yourself. The thing is, as long as you're filming it with the intent of making a profit by selling it it's ok. I've often wondered it there might be a way to exploit this as a loophole by offering some sort of "Be a Porn Star" fantasy service. You pay them and in exchange they run you through a standard scenario with one of their contract workers, film it (perhaps with various degrees of privacy as is already done in a few cases for other "shoot your own porn" services), and give you a copy of the tape as a souvenir. True, you're just paying to have sex with someone, but isn't that a big part of the porn star fantasy? It actually gets dangerously close to blurring the line between loophole and legitimate fantasy camp type idea that works on it's own merits. Those merits being "you get to sleep with presumably attractive people".

RinconHillSF

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:52:41 -0800

Oy.

travin

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:42:53 -0800

Rincon, another bad consequence is that if prostitution were legal, government programs to help jobless or partially disabled folks, including the EDD, can require people to accept this type of employment or loose their subsidies. ------------------------ Standard question #235 - 237: - Have you refused any type of work? - Do you have any physical limitations or illness that prevents you from performing any work? - Within these dates, have you worked whether you were paid or not? -------------------- Nothing like putting the state and federal governments into the mandated prostitution business. But the benefit is that it will create a lot of new healthy industry jobs and federal funding programs for clinics and non-profits.

Generic

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:06:00 -0800

@ zinzin, Chris Weekly True.

zinzin

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:56:31 -0800

that's really the point. decriminalization (for prostitution or pot) needs to come with regulation. i know regulation is a bad word for the usual rabid "political progressive" types....but we all can see how well THAT system is working for us a little bit of structure, a little less chaos (and bullshit) might be worth a try.

Chris Weekly

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:09:48 -0800

You're not decriminalizing prostitution so much as legitimizing pimping. If the prostitution was organized a la Nevada brothels, this proposal might find more support.

RinconHillSF

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:21:51 -0800

Prime example of a ballot measure that makes voters believe they're getting one thing, but they're actually creating some bad consequences. One consequence would be that the police force would restricted from using resources to investigate pimps selling children for prostitution. Another consequence is that our police force could not use resources to investigate trafficking of humans to sell for sex. As always, Vote NO on propositions you don't have time to look beyond the title - the consequences are often much worse than the title let's on.

mattymatt

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:54:48 -0800

I like how all of the bullet points have exclamation points except "common sense." That's the one that needs emphasis the most.

pdx6

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:52:05 -0800

D3criminaliz3 pot while we're at it.

Generic

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:49:24 -0800

I dunno. $11.4 million could buy a lot of stuff.

KatyG

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:47:11 -0800

But they didn't use "!" for the "I", therefore, I dismiss their argument entirely.

OrangeDrink

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:45:48 -0800

the 3's show they're serious.