NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to know if you would support a completely unrestricted legalization (as San Francisco is proposing) or if you would be more willing to accept something along the lines of licensed prostitution (as may be found in some European countries as well as Nevada), or if you think that prostitution is a completely anti-woman thing, or if you think it's bad from a religious point of view.

Bonus information from you if you are a prostitute.

http://newsmax.com/newsfront/san_francisco_prostitute/2008/10/29/145592.html

San Francisco Proposes Legalizing Prostitution

Already a well-known sanctuary city for illegal immigrants, San Francisco soon may become a safe haven for prostitution rings.

If citizens approve Proposition K on city ballots Tuesday, San Francisco would become the first major U.S. city to decriminalize prostitution. If it passes, local police will be forbidden from investigating, arresting or prosecuting anyone for selling sex.

Technically, prostitution would not be legalized, because that’s against California state law. But local law enforcement would have no power to pursue sex workers or their business associates.

Proponents say the measure will free up $11 million the police spend each year arresting prostitutes and allow them to form collectives.

The city’s Democratic Party has endorsed the proposition, but San Francisco’s mayor, district attorney, and business leaders fear the new law would given pimps and hookers free run in any area of San Francisco, not just the traditional Red Light districts. The San Francisco Chronicle has editorialized against the ballot question.

“We wouldn't be able to investigate prostitution, and it's going to be pretty difficult for us to locate these folks who are victims of trafficking otherwise," Capt. Al Pardini, head of the city police department's vice unit, told the Associated Press. “It's pretty rare that we get a call that says: 'I'm a victim of human trafficking' or 'I suspect human trafficking in my neighborhood.'"

The law likely would also hamper any support local police could give to federal agents investigating drugs trafficking networks, burglary rings or other criminal networks if they overlap with prostitution rings, as they often do. Moreover, the law might even cripple any efforts that would involve racial profiling — a necessary tool in tracking rings run by Asian gangs, for instance.

“The crime of prostitution does not exist by itself," said San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris. “Along with it come pimps, johns and other crimes that really impact the safety of neighborhoods."

But supporters of the measure see it as freeing sex workers from stigma and having to depend on pimps. They point out that a form of prostitution is already legal in two states. Brothels are allowed in rural counties in Nevada. Rhode Island permits the sale of sex behind closed doors between consulting adults, but it prohibits street prostitution and brothels.

"We feel that repressive policies don't help trafficking victims, and that human rights-based approaches, including decriminalization, are actually more effective," said Carol Leigh, co-founder of the Bay Area Sex Workers Advocacy Network and a longtime advocate for prostitutes' rights.

The Rev. Lea Brown, a lesbian minister at Metropolitan Community Church of San Francisco, compared prostitutes to same-sex couples in the discrimination they must face. She supports Proposition K.

“Some of us like spanking. Some of us just want to be held. Some of us want to be told what to do,” Brown wrote in the San Francisco Bay Guardian, an alternative newspaper. “I want to live in a world where we all have opportunities to experience those transcendent places without shame, and where the sex workers who can help us access those places may do so without fear of arrest or stigmatization.”

But what about sex slaves? Under the new law authorities will be limited in their investigations of rings that kidnap or force women into the sex trade from Third World countries in Asia and elsewhere, experts say.

Jeanne Pirro, a former New York prosecutor and now a TV host, predicted to Fox News that prostitution rings will flock to San Francisco as a safe harbor from prosecution. She pointed out that the city already hosts international fairs for sadomasochists that are fully legal.

“The problem here is that victims of sex trafficking . . . if there is the passage of this ordinance, are going to suffer,” Pirro said. “The police, law enforcement, will not be able to investigate women who are trafficked into this country as prostitutes.”

I support decriminalised, but heavily regulated (and possibly unionised) prostitution.

I support decriminalised, but heavily regulated (and possibly unionised) prostitution.

^This.

I support decriminalised, but heavily regulated (and possibly unionised) prostitution.

My major concern is human trafficking and pimping, followed by mandatory regular testing for disease.

I'm fine with prostitution. I don't ENDORSE it, but I'm not against it.

Not so much that I would support than I would not oppose option 3.

I support decriminalised, but heavily regulated (and possibly unionised) prostitution.

I like many of the others, agree with this.

This poll will close January 12th 2008 . . .

San Francisco Proposes Legalizing Prostitution

. . . .

If citizens approve Proposition K on city ballots Tuesday, San Francisco would become the first major U.S. city to decriminalize prostitution.

Bad journalism is bad.

I see no reason that prostitution should be illegal, so I'm all for getting rid of those laws.

I do see reason for it to be regulated, however. I think licensing brothels would be a good option, as well as having periodic testing for prostitutes.

I'm a bit iffy on how the latter would be enforced on non-brothel prostitutes, though.

My major concern is human trafficking and pimping, followed by mandatory regular testing for disease.

Why is the only thing going through my head now... the issue of them filling out their tax returns and deciding what is a deductible.....

My major concern is human trafficking and pimping, followed by mandatory regular testing for disease.

I agree with the concerns about trafficking and pimping, which is why I support decriminalisation. You are never going to totally prevent trafficking and pimping, just like you'll never totally prevent illegal workers from being exploited...but when you regulate a legal industry, then it's easier to see what is above board, and seperate it from what is not, and focus on stopping the one, and not the other.

Regulation wise, I'd say regular STI testing would be part of the regulatory scheme.

I see no reason that prostitution should be illegal, so I'm all for getting rid of those laws.

I do see reason for it to be regulated, however. I think licensing brothels would be a good option, as well as having periodic testing for prostitutes.

I'm a bit iffy on how the latter would be enforced on non-brothel prostitutes, though.

I think a lot of prostitutes nowadays, if they have access to the Internet, pick up people on dating websites and chat rooms, and the process of "the sale" which formerly took place on the street takes place behind closed doors in private between consenting adults. That's pretty hard to regulate, unless you provide some sort of incentive (a current license that shows her clean as of last month's test, for instance).

I've always thought it strange to make it legal to give it away for free, while criminalizing those who demand payment.

I support decriminalised, but heavily regulated (and possibly unionised) prostitution.

That. Well, without the "possibly", probably.

Why is the only thing going through my head now... the issue of them filling out their tax returns and deciding what is a deductible.....

For a female courtesan with male clients birth control is obviously a work related expense . . .

I support decriminalizing prostitution and mandatory testing. The only part that would be a problem would be the massive strain on the medical system.

This poll will close January 12th 2008 . . .

1 December 2008.

Jolt is a UK server remember?

1 December 2008.

Jolt is a UK server remember?

I'm wondering if Redwulf thinks I have some miraculous control over the crap that is Jolt...

Although I am morally against prostitution, having it illegal ultimately causes more heath and human rights violations than it is worth. By not allowing prostitutes to be able to come to the police, it allows them to be raped, and taken severe advantage by pimps and thieves. It also puts many women into a cycle that they can never break out of, ultimately causing for so many abuses to occur with no hope of regaining their sense of dignity.

Mandating standard STI and health checkups will aid in the control of disease, as well as give those that are by far the least fortunate to be able to possibly make a living for themselves outside of the sexual services they do now. It is nothing but a win-win situation.

In contrary to this, the religious right will surely comment on how terrible this is, and protest it till they turn blue in the face. I have a question to them though, why not help your fellow man? Is this no less of what Jesus did to Mary Magdalene?

1 December 2008.

Jolt is a UK server remember?

Confuisng Brits and backwards dates . . . needs more caffeine.

Although I am morally against prostitution,

On what grounds?

I'm also with the legalised, but heavily regulated and unionised model.

Confuisng Brits and backwards dates . . . needs more caffeine.

I would argue we have it more logical as its in order left to right in order of length from shortest to longest - Day, Month, Year.

But thats a matter for a pointless thread I might start sometime in the future if I get really bored :p

I support decriminalised, but heavily regulated (and possibly unionised) prostitution.

I join those who endorse this position.

I join those who endorse this position.

Damnit I forgot to get pins made.

I think a lot of prostitutes nowadays, if they have access to the Internet, pick up people on dating websites and chat rooms, and the process of "the sale" which formerly took place on the street takes place behind closed doors in private between consenting adults. That's pretty hard to regulate, unless you provide some sort of incentive (a current license that shows her clean as of last month's test, for instance).

I've always thought it strange to make it legal to give it away for free, while criminalizing those who demand payment.

This is what I was thinking. You could definitely regulate brothels, as they would be registered businesses. But regulating individual prostitutes would be more difficult, and I wouldn't advocate arresting people for unlicensed prostitution or something like that.

So maybe just the incentive would be the easiest. Someone could say they were a medically certified prostitute and most johns would prefer that over one who had not been tested.

As much as I would never screw a whore, I can see the need for a legal ruling to support this
There are so many people out there that suck so badly with hooking up with others, that they need to go pay for sex,

Prostitutes are regarded in a similar fashion to mercenaries: They are good when you need them, but the law doesnt like them

Legal Brotherls would by legit employment of a sort, and also, legal brothels would just be another business enterprise that would pay tax as any other, as long as standing laws are enforced - the prostitutes must pass regular medical checks to ensure they wont spread diseases, and that the brothels are drug-free

As much as I would never screw a whore,



You say that so disparagingly.

It's not as though a "whore" is cheap. She's actually charging money for something that other women give away for free. Now who's cheap?

I support decriminalised, but heavily regulated (and possibly unionised) prostitution.^This.Ditto!

Tho the Unionized part reminds me of a joke where a man searches for a unionized brothel, because he wants to make sure the workers are getting a fair share of the profits. when he finds one, he's so happy he points to a young lady and says, "I choose her."

the Madam stops him and points to an 80+ yr old and says "sorry hun, union rules, Betty has seinority."

My major concern is human trafficking and pimping, followed by mandatory regular testing for disease.
if regulated properly, mandatory regular testing can be required as well as licening to weed out the traffickers. also, if put under OSHA and other Job Safety Regulations, then the days of "pimps beating their hos" would be numbered.

You say that so disparagingly.

It's not as though a "whore" is cheap. She's actually charging money for something that other women give away for free. Now who's cheap?

no, not 'cheap'. but the fact that she's charging for something that others give away...

wouldn't that be price gouging? :p

no, not 'cheap'. but the fact that she's charging for something that others give away...

wouldn't that be price gouging? :p

The women who give it away for free might be Communists. You know, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

I support decriminalised, but heavily regulated (and possibly unionised) prostitution.^This.I join those who endorse this position.Ditto!
http://www.cartoonesque.com/futurama/rsrc/persos/scruffy.jpg
Seconded.

...or, fifthed...

The women who give it away for free might be Communists. You know, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

or they could just be very generous.

or they could be overflowing with love for their fellow man.

or they could just be nymphos. :p

Legalise, heavily regulate it, compulsory blood tests etc.

If worse comes to worse, I would consider becoming a prostitute, if and when the business is regulated. And if anyone's scandalized, have some Prozac.

If worse comes to worse, I would consider becoming a prostitute, if and when the business is regulated. And if anyone's scandalized, have some Prozac.

Hopefully it will never get that bad.

Oh, and free condoms at the brothels, which are compulsory, as are STD checks for the male clients.

Hopefully it will never get that bad.

Of course. I would only consider it if I were on a dire situation.

It's just a way to get trafficking legalized. Its horrible. Its degrading to women, and it disgusts me. They should shoot everyone who's done it or payed one.

It's just a way to get trafficking legalized. Its horrible. Its degrading to women, and it disgusts me. They should shoot everyone who's done it or payed one.

I like how it's degrading to women, yet we have men here prostituting themselves...

and some of them are dressed as women...

I like how it's degrading to women, yet we have men here prostituting themselves...

And maybe it degrades them, too.

i like how it's degrading to women, yet we have men here prostituting themselves...

And some of them are dressed as women...

They are degradin' women! Shoot 'em!!!

It's just a way to get trafficking legalized.

Is it now?

Its horrible.

Perhaps.

Its degrading to women,

Is it degrading if they choose it?

And what about men?

and it disgusts me.

Then don't do it.

They should shoot everyone who's done it or payed one.

Seriously?

Is it now?



Perhaps.



Is it degrading if they choose it?

And what about men?



Then don't do it.



Seriously?

No no no no no, ya' can't use logic, it doesn't work that way.
Just agree to everything they say, simpler that way xD

As long as it is regulated, we could also tax it.

I support decriminalised, but heavily regulated (and possibly unionised) prostitution.

Madame Sinuhue has summed up my opinion.

My two slightly copypasted cents on this matter is this:

I support decriminalised, but heavily regulated (and possibly unionised) prostitution.
(That makes it Seventhed?!)

But i'd better be really fucking heavily regulated!

I have more respect for a prostitute working to feed her children then any of those scammers, liars and crooks on wall street that got us into the financial crisis that we bailed out.

To me it really isnt a matter of morals as much as its about how we can make it safe

Legalize it, Regulate it, and tax it. Keep the regs simple and easily complied with, and the taxes low enough that "Non-Tax" prostitution isn't commercially viable on the black market (kind of like booze), that legal status makes it possible to do something to deal with and put-paid-to some of the worst scum in our cities (pimps who use drugs and/or violence on women.)

Legalize it, Regulate it, and tax it. Keep the regs simple and easily complied with, and the taxes low enough that "Non-Tax" prostitution isn't commercially viable on the black market (kind of like booze), that legal status makes it possible to do something to deal with and put-paid-to some of the worst scum in our cities (pimps who use drugs and/or violence on women.)

with it leagalized and regulated, you can put it under OSHA for the US (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and a whole slew of labor laws that include regulated working hours as well as worker safety. one can also use Drug Enforcement Laws as it will apply to work place safety.

with all the regulation, violations can be severe and anyone trying their hand at freelancing without regestering for a licence of some sort (also a way to help find traffikers) can face stiffer penalties.

with it leagalized and regulated, you can put it under OSHA for the US (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and a whole slew of labor laws that include regulated working hours as well as worker safety. one can also use Drug Enforcement Laws as it will apply to work place safety.

with all the regulation, violations can be severe and anyone trying their hand at freelancing without regestering for a licence of some sort (also a way to help find traffikers) can face stiffer penalties.

And if a man or woman is unemployed, and has functioning genitals, the state can force them to be a prostitute...

And if a man or woman is unemployed, and has functioning genitals, the state can force them to be a prostitute...
You know, some states run ABC stores rather than let the private sector handle liquor sales. I could see some states requiring that all prostitutes working in the state work for them directly on salary.

As in any part of the service sector, cash tips will be appreciated.

What San Fran is proposing is a bad idea. It's a way of trying to work around state restrictions, and I understand that, but what they would do would be worse than what is currently going on.

Personally, I would legalize prostitution with licensing for both sex workers and their places of employment. STD screening and inspections of places of employment for both health standards and employee abuse should be a part of this.

In principle, yes. Because in principle it is just another service. In practice I strongly doubt there are many prostitutes who chose their job over here where it is legal. I think there's a lot of bathwater and very little baby, so I'm all for throwing the lot away.

I also think being paid for sex should be legal, but paying for it should be illegal.

And if a man or woman is unemployed, and has functioning genitals, the state can force them to be a prostitute...

You clearly are unfamiliar with the "reasonable person" standard usually incorporated into legal interpretation . . .

To be clear, I have significant moral qualms about prostitution. It's the treating of a human being as a commodity, and by its nature is dehumanizing. That being said, we live in the City of Men, not the City of God, and the former has things like gutters to deal with things that aren't found in the latter, that aren't pretty, but nevertheless are necessary to keep crap off the streets. Given that we have to deal with these unpretty aspects of human nature, regulation and legalization seems to me to be the best possible option for any woman who does end up in the flesh-trade. Given that the work is no longer illegal, it'll be much harder for pimps to coerce their workers because now women will be able to go in to the police without being booked. Similarly, legalization allows for above-ground protection of the prostitutes in the face of potentially-violent johns; it also allows prostitutes to negotiate binding contracts that can't be shirked.

Do I like it? Not at all. Do I think it's allows morally repugnant acts to be sanctioned by our society? Yes. But do I also think that it's the best of all possible bad options. Definately.

And if a man or woman is unemployed, and has functioning genitals, the state can force them to be a prostitute...

and how... pray tell, will the state force them to be prostitutes?

and how... pray tell, will the state force them to be prostitutes?

In Illogical Land, all illogical things make sense.

Legalizing prostitution will make it safer.
How don't conservatives get that lol :p

In Illogical Land, all illogical things make sense.

:p

for a moment, the Scene in HISTORY OF THE WORLD PT 1 came to mind.

Unemployment lady: "Did you look for a job last week?"
Man: "Yes"
UL: "have you tried Prostitution?"
Man: "no"
UL: "well, no money since you didn't try all possible openings!"

prosititutes are just like politicians. Both are overpayed people with fake personalities who work hard to screw people over.

prosititutes are just like politicians. Both are overpayed people with fake personalities who work hard to screw people over.

... except with Prostitutes, the screwed are usually smiling. ;)