SFist: How Will You Vote on Prop. K?

SamSez

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:10:33 -0800

Actually, a lot of prostitutes on the internet also have pimps. Also, legalization and decriminalization do not decrease the numbers of pimps. The prostitutes in the windows of Amsterdam have pimps and the prostitutes in decriminalized New Zealand have pimps. Battery, coercion, assault, kidnapping and rape happen to women in vulnerable situations. There's nothing more vulnerable than being naked behind a closed door with a stranger you met on the Internet. Laws can not change that. Society cannot be there for every transaction to make sure the guys don't get violent. If he does, what proof do you have? It's a no win situation. There s no way to make prostitution safe. Not to even mention the effect on someone's self esteem when they feel forced to have sex with multiple people a week because they feel they have no other options. That's not a job, that's a prison and a dangerous one at that. Prostitution leaves devastated people in its wake. Please stop pretendin it can be a nice job. You are hurting people who believe you and then get trapped in it before they realize what the brutal reality really is.

Violet_Palmer

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:42:56 -0800

You think that prostitutes already feel okay about reporting attacks to the police? I can assure you that most of them do not, because we know full well that the people who arrest us are not people we can trust to look out for our well being. I was once assaulted by a customer in front of half a dozen witnesses. When the police showed up, they said they could either arrest both of us, or walk away. Not wanting a criminal record for prostitution, I asked them to walk away. The cop suggested that I get a pimp to deal with that kind of situation in the future. And of course there will be built-in regulation! Any sex-based business will need to get the same kind of city licenses and permits as any other kind of business. Zoning regulations will apply. Labor protections will apply to the workers. We'll have OSHA standards enforced as they are at any other workplace. And if our working conditions are unfair, we'll be able to organize for our rights like any other worker. Prop K will NOT make life easier for pimps. In fact, if anything, Prop K will make life more difficult for anyone who wishes to exploit sex workers. Many sex workers have pimps because they feel that pimps are the best protection they can get from violent customers and police. Prop K will make it easier for us to protect ourselves and each other so we don't need pimps! In contrast to other places, sex workers will be able to report violence against them to the police, and have that be taken seriously . . . if I were a violent pimp, I would sure stay away from someplace like that. I would also like to point out that the majority of sex workers don't have pimps. Most prostitutes in San Francisco operate independently through the internet. With current laws, any safety precautions we take can be used as evidence against us. Condoms can be used as evidence. Warning a friend about a dangerous customer is illegal. Talking about condoms with our customers can get us arrested. Our jobs are dangerous enough without having to worry about the police too. The legislation specifically states that the police must focus on investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against sex workers, including battery, coercion, assault, kidnapping and rape. Most of the people working on the campaign are sex workers. Proposition K is about worker safety, public safety, and public health. Please vote Yes on Prop K if you care about human rights for all people!

SamSez

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:38:23 -0800

You can have sex with whomever you want as long as they are of age and it is consensual. However, if you are going to charge money for it, then you have yourself a business, and businesses are regulated. You can't open a hair salon in this town without city licenses and permits. In fact a hair salon needs additional licensing because when you are touching people you are supposed to get training so you don't hurt them. Prop K wants pimps to be able to open up a brothel where people's orifices are rented to other people to insert into and ejaculate and yet there is supposed to be no regulation, licensing, and taxing of that. We're all just supposed to look the other way. Sorry. The real problem with Prop K is that it was written by an convicted escort agency owner (aka pimp) who forgot in include any services or protections for prostitutes. They just want the cops off their back so they can make their money. Prostitutes can already report attacks, abuse, and rape - and they do. They are not going to be more likely to report these things if Prop K passes. Prostitution will still be illegal and they know that. Prop K is all about making life easy for pimps.

christine100

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:18:52 -0800

Most high priced call girls love their work. Because they can think for themselves, and can use their brain. Having women make good money, sometimes even more than lawyers and doctors per hour elevates women. Woman know how to handle men in the bedroom. Women get men to pay lots of money for it. This is empowering to women. There are many jobs that you may consider demeaning, such as cleaning bathrooms, or putting up with bosses that put you down. While making minimum wage. Why don't people talk about these low paying toilet cleaning jobs? You don't think these jobs demeans women? How many unskilled women with no work experience and not much education can make hundreds, even thousands of dollars per hour? Would you rather have these women make five dollars per hour cleaning toilets? Prostitution if done correctly elevates women especially if they work for themselves. Government should not control who people have sex with. That is the biggest government control that is possible. If the government tells people who they should sleep with, what is next? That is the highest level of the government controlling the people that can possible happen. If the government controls the most private, personal sex relations, what is next?

christine100

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:17:48 -0800

The opponents of this Proposition K are telling lies, and scare tactics to get people to vote against it. Proposition K requires authorities to enforce existing laws that prohibit coercion, extortion, sexual assault, underage workers and other crimes regardless of whether or not the victim is a sex worker. So this is not a valid augment. The opponents are saying that all prostitutes are forced to do it against their will. Yet they can never find many victims of this. Where are all these victims? Why aren’t they coming out and talking and showing themselves? It is very difficult to force anyone to do something against their will. They would need to kidnap women, hide them away, have 24 hour guards, have them watched over like being in prison, with no chance to escape, force them to have sex with the general public, all under the radar of police and the general public. Do you think just anyone can do this? Do you think this is so easy that it happens all the time? Try getting someone to do something they don’t want to do and see how successful you are - you won’t be. Since this is a victimless crime, the opponents and racial feminists need to invent a victim in order to get support. They could have chosen the johns, the sex workers or the city itself. They chose the sex workers to be the victims even though it’s the sex workers who want to decriminalize because they realize it’s the police, justice system and the government that hurts them, not the johns or pimps. Why is it that the ONLY people who are working for this to pass are the prostitutes themselves? Why would the victims themselves want this to pass? Maybe it is because they are victims of the police, justice system, and government who abuse them and their customers. These are the real abusers. By the way, there is a federal law that says any foreigner who was a victim of prostitution in the USA if they go to the justice department and complain and help prosecute their pimp, then they can stay in the USA, get a green card and become a US citizen. So that means these women will then be encouraged to lie about it, in order to become citizens. So if you are a foreign woman, just lie, pick a random guy to be your pimp and you can become a US citizen, and get money from the government. Easy - isn’t it?

Doctor Memory

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 22:44:20 -0800

Sigh, I really, really want to be able to support Prop K. But the thing is... you know, there are plenty of actual examples of first-world countries (and even one state in our own country) managing to decriminalize or outright legalize prostitution in a manner that actually works in the long run, and Prop K basically looks at all of those examples and says "eh, whatever, it'll sort itself out somehow." Oddly enough, I don't share that optimism.

The Angry Young Man

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:26:35 -0800

I voted no because this proposition went further than was intended by de facto legalizing both promotion (pimping) and solicitation of prostitutes. By doing this, the whole point of decriminalizing prostitution (essentially preventing abuse of hookers) is defeated because the primary abusers (i.e., pimps and johns) will no longer be subject to arrest and prosecution. Should the authors of this legislation like to go back to the drawing board and rework their proposal so that pimps and johns aren't let off scott free, I'd be happy to vote for it. I have no problem with legalized rental of one's various orifices for quick American dollars. As long as they're using condoms and applying spermicidal jams and jellies to the region, I'm of the opinion that they're not hurting anyone and should be left alone to conduct their trade in peace (Obviously I am not impressed by the hysterical mewlings of left over 1970's second wave feminists on sex work because I'm a male and even though I'm a big pansy with wrists spinning like propellers, I'm still a potential rapist,etc.)

shotwell

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:05:19 -0800

Great post, spysea. I'm voting "no," not because I'm against legalized, regulated prostitution, but because this prop is so poorly worded. Please check out the non-partisan San Francisco Planning and Urban Research report on what effect Prop K is likely to have on day-to-day life in San Francisco: http://www.spur.org/documents/1108_ballot_analysis.shtm#k In neighborhoods such as mine that are already negatively affected by street prostitution, we are very concerned that this measure, which decriminalizes -- but does not regulate -- pimping and prostitution, will make a bad situation much, much worse. Right now, we can call police to help clear our block of pimps and prostitutes, which is a nightly occurrence. If K passes, we will no longer have that remedy. Personally, I would love to see prostitution legalized and regulated, with testing and taxation, and designated brothel zones located away from residential areas. Prop K doesn't aim to do any of these things, however, and I'm quite concerned that the voters of San Francisco will support an ideal while glossing over the actual implications of this proposal as it is worded.

Cement Brunette

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:35:42 -0800

If it becomes legal, are services then taxed? uh-oh, NO on K!

Ginger

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:08:57 -0800

I now know what movie I'll be watching tonight. Thanks for the suggestion SFist. River Phoenix as a prostitute FTW.

RinconHillSF

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:50:46 -0800

Voting NO ... Prop K supporters need to do their homework and write a better law that doesn't hinder San Francisco police from finding and liberating 10 - 17 year old girls who are held against their will and sold to conference attendees and others in the City to get their sexual jollies. I'm all for focusing police on other problems, but children (and adults for that matter) being held as sex slaves is a big problem in San Francisco.

spysea

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:49:37 -0800

San Fran’s Prop K: A Very Bad Short-Sighted Idea ? Most people who know me will be very surprised that I don’t support SF’s Prop K. This is the bill that many claim will decriminalize prostitution in San Francisco and anyone who knows me knows that I’m a fairly strong proponent of that. So why do I believe Prop K is short-sighted? Prop K doesn’t actually decriminalize prostitution. It will be a city law and laws against prostitution are state laws. What Prop K does is say that the City cannot spend any money enforcing the state prostitution laws. It prevents city police from arresting anyone for prostitution. It does not, in any way, limit the city from investigating, arresting, and prosecuting people for crimes such as human trafficking or underage prostitution. So far, so good. With Prop K someone can establish a brothel anywhere in the city they want. They can put up any signage they want. Streetwalkers will be able to ply their wares on any corner or in front of any store. I’m all for ending our wars on prostitution. SF spent between $2.8 and $11 million last year enforcing prostitution laws and yet they have just as much prostitution as any other city. Civil prohibitions against personal vice are simply not realistically enforceable, no matter how much money we spend. As Steven Levitt noted in his 2007 draft paper on prostitution – “A prostitute is more likely to have sex with a police officer than to get officially arrested by one.” Our laws don’t reduce activity, they only drive it underground which makes life that much easier for human traffickers to enslave women of all ages and makes things that much more dangerous for the prostitutes and their clients. And the list goes on and on. Our war on prostitution causes far more problems than the original problem it was intended to solve. However, I’m also a proponent of limited (VERY LIMITED) regulation. I have no problem with sex workers who provide outcall services going anywhere in the city to meet a client. A brothel next to a school or streetwalkers on any corner is another matter. Not just for me, but for most people in San Francisco. With legal prostitution cities need to be able to, within reason, regulate where businesses are located. They need to be able to establish zones where indoor brothels or red light windows can be located and what kind of advertising they may post on the outside of their buildings. They need to be able to limit where streetwalkers may ply their trade. Prop K may not allow this. Depending on one’s reading of the laws it may be impossible to establish any zoning under Prop K. Here’s what I fear will happen. The average San Francisco sexworker is not a wallflower. Just watch many of the annual parades with Scarlet Harlot and her entourage if you don’t believe me. With no boundaries they will go wherever they want and do whatever they want to get attention and make money. If I were them I’d do the same. That’s the point. Find as many potential customers as possible so you have the greatest choice of who you service and can make the most money with the fewest hassles. Many people who support decriminalization will find a brothel across from their favorite kids store or streetwalkers in front of their favorite café. “This isn’t what I signed up for.” They’ll say. The political types in city hall will start getting engulfed in complaints. Now, the average politicians way of dealing with things is brash and trash. Nuance is not their strong suit. While a good option at this point would be very moderate regulation, they’ll instead pontificate on the need to reverse Prop K. Instead of finding a way to establish some reasonable zones for brothels, windows, and streetworkers, they’ll go full throttle back to the current failed attempts at civil enforcement of prostitution laws. Instead of a proposition on the 2011 ballot to allow the moderate regulation that Prop K doesn’t allow, expect a proposition to abolish Prop K. And it will likely pass with a large margin. And you know what, prostitution won’t go down any, but complaints will. The bulk of prostitution will go back underground and streetworkers will re-congregate to ‘safer’ areas. People will be less likely to complain about it, even when they see it near their favorite café, if they just think the cops are doing something about it, than if not. After this it could be 50 years before anyone can even think of decriminalizing prostitution again in San Francisco. And worse, anytime decrim is brought up anywhere else, all the opponents will need to do is point to the failed decriminalization in San Francisco of 2008 and the battle will be done.