Looking for a Date?
Published October 22nd, 2008If you’re willing to pay for an encounter, San Francisco might soon be the place. Soon SF residents will be voting on Prop K, which would prevent enforcement of prostitution laws within the city. It would also allow prostitutes to form collectives - unions, essentially. (Side note, Rhode Island allows sex for cash behind closed doors for consenting adults - who knew?)
I have mixed feelings about this. I have no especially strong objections to sex-for-sale in abstract. I have yet to hear a good explanation why prostitution is illegal, but if you film it, it’s suddenly OK. I mean, what’s the essential difference between prostitution and porn? Seems rather thin. So I don’t think I’d have a real problem with legalization and regulation. Health is the biggest concern to me, both of the employees and the clients. Legalization and regulation would also probably cut down on a lot of the criminal activity surrounding the prostitution business. So all that is OK.
But Measure K doesn’t do that - it simply prevents enforcement of prostitution laws. I think that’s a terrible idea. I agree with the assessment of the mayor, the DA and the police:
They contend that it would increase street prostitution, allow pimps the run of neighborhoods and hamper the fight against sex trafficking, which would remain illegal because it involves forcing people into the sex trade.
I think that’s all true. Quasi-legal status really doesn’t help anyone. It allows the criminal activity to increase and decreases the ability of law enforcement to keep everyone safe. It might allow forced sex workers to be “hidden” in plain sight. And I don’t think that’s what anyone wants.
I don’t live in SF, but I would vote no on Measure K. It’s a half-assed solution, which typically only doubles problems.
No comments yet.