SFist: How Did San Francisco Propositions Do?

SamSez

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:43:37 -0800

Gotta agree with Doctor Memory, there are some examples out there in the big wide world for how to deal with prostitution. The Prop K author chose not to notice what the rest of the world has learned. The other thing to know about Prop K's "drafters" is that there was only one drafter, a singular woman, Maxine Doogan, who was convicted of running an escort agency (pimping) in Seattle and then found her way to our little town to spread her happy message of sex worker rights. Here she is in all her glory... (she's the one in the brown jacket making a lot of noise and scaring the voters outside city hall a few days ago.) Interesting strategy. I love the part at the end where she goes from rabid pit bull to sweet thing in 2 seconds and bats her eyelashes at the cop and asks what union he is with. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QonDybFE024

what

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:39:25 -0800

"this is coming out to be a rather pyrric victory." Well, not really a Pyrrhic victory, as it's not like everyone sacrificed all those other things to help Obama win. If Obama had lost, those ballot initiatives probably would've gone about the same way. (Well, it's debatable, because African-American turnout helped carry 8 to victory, but now I'm just nitpicking my own nitpick. Yay!)

Doctor Memory

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:35:08 -0800

You know there are dozens of examples from around the world of how a society can legalize or decriminalize prostitution while still taking into account the realities of the profession and the needs of the communities it takes place in. And the great thing about Prop K was that its drafters apparently looked at all of those examples and said: "aw, fuck it, that's way too hard." San Francisco is not, I think, rife with antipathy to sex work on its own merits. Next time write a better proposal, and it'll almost certainly get more votes.

SamSez

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:15:51 -0800

Yes, Greg, prostitution "might" be safer if it were legal, depending on how the laws were written. But Prop K wasn't legalization, it was decriminalization. The cops were to be directed to ignore prostitution AND pimping. If someone complains about pimps, too damn bad, the cops are supposed to treat them like fine upstanding citizens. Prostitution laws are state and federal laws. The city can not change them. Prostitutes know they are still breaking the law. They are not going to be more or less likely to report assaults under Prop K. And let's talk about the assaults. The nature of prostitution is that two people are naked and alone in a room. If a woman is assaulted in that circumstance, what is her recourse? If she goes to the police they have only her word for it. That is true for prostitutes and nonprostitutes. Prostitution is dangerous by it's very nature. When you throw in the fact that most johns want young compliant girls (barely legal, spinners, college girls, etc,) how likely are they to go to the cops and insist that charges be filed? The way Prop K was written, the cops couldn't even walk up to a young looking prostitute to find out if she was underage because that would be "investigating prostitution." SF would see an explosion in child prostitution similar to what's going on in Oakland. In fact, the East Bay's prostitution industry would probably drive across the bridge and end up here. Why not go where the cops have been told to ignore you? The city would also be prohibited from taking funds to investigate trafficking. Handing a woman a brochure in their own language explaining that she didn't have to stay with her trafficker would be considered "racial profiling." If this measure had just said that prostitutes could not be arrested, I think it would have passed with flying colors. But the author threw in all this other weird stuff protecting pimps and destroying the SAGE project. I don't know anyone who thinks that prostitutes should be arrested. I also don't know anyone who thinks we should be coddling and protecting pimps. Hence the problem with Prop K.

SFGreg

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:00:42 -0800

@SamSez "Prop K would make the lives of most prostitutes worse." How? Right now prostitutes have to deal with violent pimps, having pimps try to turn them into drug pushers and the difficulty of their job. Oh, and getting arrested. And not being able to go to the police about the violent, drug dealing pimps because what they do is illegal. If it were decriminalized they could go to the police and the incidents of abuse and violence would decrease. It still wouldn't be romantic or easy or an idealized life but I really think it would be better for the prostitutes if it were legal. I suppose you could say it would be best if it didn't exist at all but it always has and always will so the best thing to do is to minimize the damage it can cause. Cheers, Greg

SamSez

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:43:06 -0800

Prostitution is not a profession. It is abuse. If you look behind the few spokesmodels put in front of the media, prostitution is about johns who want to screw girls and young women, and it's about pimps who convince those girls that they can claw their way out of poverty by turning tricks. The reality is that the pimp eventually turns violent or turns into your drug pusher. The reality is that as you age your price goes way down so you have to do more acts (aka anal) in higher volume to pay the rent. The reality is that your pimp and "friends" will tell you that there's nothing else you can do, once you've been in the life you can't do any other work. The reality is that you lose a certain amount of self esteem every time you have sex you don't want to have with people who disgust you. The big reality is that legalization or decriminalization or criminalization don't change any of those realities. Prostitution isn't noble or romantic or sexy. It leaves burnt-out women behind who try desperately to forget what happened to their bodies while they tried to go somewhere else in their head. Rich girls don't go into prostitution. Poor girls do and they do it because they don't have other options. Can you find a handful of exceptions? Of course. But that doesn't change the reality of most prostitutes. Prop K would make the lives of most prostitutes worse.

largo01

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:30:26 -0800

I'm sad. Prop K was awesome. We need a better campaign next time around.

SFHope

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:22:24 -0800

SamSez, In my eyes prop K was more about ending discrimination against people just because of their profession. In some societies butchers, undertakers, and janitors are considered dirty and undesirable. Fortunately most of the world treats them better than that. The U.S. treats the men and women of the sex industry as second-class citizens, mostly for lingering conservative religious/social class reasons. I hope someday we can end that and build a new class of proud, unionized prostitutes who are given the respect and honor that their profession deserves, like they have in many more enlightened countries. Unfortunately this is the U.S., and even SF is too prudish for that right now, it sees.

spysea

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:18:22 -0800

SF City Attorney to file legal challenge to Prop 8 (And so it begins) San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | 11/5/2008 | AP Posted on November 5, 2008 11:53:59 AM PST by South40 SAN FRANCISCO – The San Francisco City Attorney's office says he plans to challenge the validity of a ballot measure that would change the state constitution to ban gay marriage. Spokesman Matt Dorsey says City Attorney Dennis Herrera will file the legal challenge in the California Supreme Court if the measure passes. With 95 percent of precincts reporting, Proposition 8 is leading with 52 percent of the vote. But there are still as many as 3 million ballots left to be counted. The first lesbian couple to be married in Los Angeles County after the Supreme Court threw out the gay marriage ban also plans to announce a lawsuit against Proposition 8. Attorney Gloria Allred says that lawsuit will argue that the measure is unconstitutional.

zippy_monster

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:01:37 -0800

http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp?id=70720 Who really thinks that the voter turnout was only 49%? According to that site, my absentee ballot hasn't been counted yet... P.S. That one said he stands for change! Clearly he must be some sort of radical socialist monster!!! P.P.S. Change we can believe in: none.

zippy_monster

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:58:37 -0800

Still, especially when people start wising up to the fact that Obama's going to be a fairly mainstream moderate (a change after years of hard-line conservatives, yes, but not entirely the change we really need) this is coming out to be a rather pyrric victory. But he's BLACK HE MUST BE THE PROGRESSIVE SAVIOR!

rahir

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:37:33 -0800

These numbers are for SF only, so while Prop 8 was defeated here,it won across CA. Boo hiss.

TheCharlie

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:20:03 -0800

Your prop 8 number is a bit off. Also, hooray for rejecting the sewage plant renaming measure. It was just a prank in the first place, and kind of a shameful one.

SamSez

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:13:52 -0800

Yay on Obama, yay on 4, yay for trains, yay on prop k. Bummed about prop H and hugely bummed about prop 8. How can it be this close? Maybe we really do need to wait until another generation dies off, but crap! I guess the court system is the next stop. Really glad to see Prop K go down (as it were.) The day the DCCC endorsed K and threw poor women under the wheels of the progressive bus is a shameful day. Here's hoping they get some awareness of what prostitution really is before this issue comes up again.

Belgand

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:00:16 -0800

Frankly it seems that just about everything I voted for other than Obama ended up losing. At least we got prop 4. Still, especially when people start wising up to the fact that Obama's going to be a fairly mainstream moderate (a change after years of hard-line conservatives, yes, but not entirely the change we really need) this is coming out to be a rather pyrric victory.