Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
A Consideration for Proposition K Swing Voters
A CBS poll found equal numbers of Proposition K proponents and opponents, and just under a third were undecided. For some undecided voters, one of the key issues involved is whether "providers" of commercial sex freely choose to do so, or are most often forced or coerced. While undecided voters may be frustrated by the conflicting claims of supporters and opponents of Proposition K regarding free choice, we argue that government has the right and obligation to prohibit behavior placing others at risk, regardless of whether its voluntary.
People with firm opinions about prostitution long ago have decided upon their vote on Proposition K, which would effectively decriminalize prostitution in San Francisco. The positions of the two camps are well established: Opponents see prostitution as inherently degrading, exploitative, and dangerous, and cite evidence that street prostitutes are often forced or coerced by pimps or traffickers. Proponents counter that prostitution between consenting adults is sexual behavior that the state has no business regulating, and contend that most prostitutes freely choose “sex work.”
Little is know about the remaining third of voters who are undecided. If the arguments of the opponents and proponents of Proposition K have not persuaded them by now, what will swing their vote? For those stymied by the conflicting accounts of “free choice” in prostitution, consider the following: It’s irrelevant.
Proponents of Proposition K argue that there are no victims when two consenting adults agree on a price for sex. The argument for decriminalization is essentially libertarian: People should have the right to do what they please provided they do not harm others. There lies the fatal flaw in the logic underlying Proposition K: Prostitution is not harmless - even assuming that all involved are consenting adults - and more importantly, poses undeniable risks to others.
Sex-for-pay poses grave risks, not only to the participants, but to others. The evidence is overwhelming. "Customers” or “johns" frequently seek and pay a premium for unprotected sex, which greatly increases the risks of contracting and spreading STDs, HIV, hepatitis, tuberculosis and more. If consenting adults want to put themselves at risk, so be it. But others pay the price -- particularly spouses and partners, whose health is also threatened. If a john doesn't disclose or treat his disease, his partner may unwittingly pass it on to their children.
Teens are particularly at risk. Most runaway and throwaway girls are approached for commercial sex within 48 hours of appearing on the streets. The average age at which girls are drawn into prostitution is between 12 and 16. Under other circumstances, California law would prosecute perpetrators for rape or statutory rape and protect the victims. Even when men do not intend to buy sex from minors (and often, they do), it happens. Looks can be deceiving, and San Francisco police have processed as adults, based upon their appearance, girls they have arrested who are under 14 years of age.
Homicide rates among prostituted women are the highest of any group ever studied. The majority are raped while “working.” Over three-quarters are assaulted or robbed by customers, traffickers, and/or pimps. Somewhat better conditions may exist in elite legal brothels or escort services, but research finds that crime and exploitation abound there as well.
The state doesn't even have to prove that harm actually occurred in any given case. It must only establish that the behavior places others at risk. For example, drunk driving is illegal because the risk to others is unacceptably high, and indoor smoking is regulated to prevent harm to non-smokers. U.S. courts have repeatedly upheld the government’s right and obligation to protect all citizens, even those who claim they don’t want or need protection.
Proponents of decriminalization argue that the irrefutable dangers of prostitution result from its illegal status, and not from the “business” itself. They claim that when prostitution is not driven underground, conditions for providers of commercial sex and others will improve. Proposing decriminalization as the way to improve health and safety tortures logic and defies common sense. Proposition K asks voters to believe that the pimps, traffickers, and johns who currently exploit and abuse providers of commercial sex with alarming frequency will somehow behave better with a complete lack of regulation and police oversight.
While people on both sides of the debate generally agree that more should be done to protect providers of commercial sex, Proposition K is not the answer. It will allow pimps and traffickers to operate unabated, will make police bystanders to the chaos and blight of street prostitution that they witness daily, and will offer nothing in the way of compensating outreach or programming for prostituted women and girls.
--------------------------------------------------
Michael Shively and Kristen Wheeler coauthored the evaluation of San Francisco’s First Offender Prostitution Program for the U.S. Department of Justice.
Mickey Goodman is a freelance journalist based in Atlanta who has written about prostitution and sex trafficking for Reuters and other news outlets.
Little is know about the remaining third of voters who are undecided. If the arguments of the opponents and proponents of Proposition K have not persuaded them by now, what will swing their vote? For those stymied by the conflicting accounts of “free choice” in prostitution, consider the following: It’s irrelevant.
Proponents of Proposition K argue that there are no victims when two consenting adults agree on a price for sex. The argument for decriminalization is essentially libertarian: People should have the right to do what they please provided they do not harm others. There lies the fatal flaw in the logic underlying Proposition K: Prostitution is not harmless - even assuming that all involved are consenting adults - and more importantly, poses undeniable risks to others.
Sex-for-pay poses grave risks, not only to the participants, but to others. The evidence is overwhelming. "Customers” or “johns" frequently seek and pay a premium for unprotected sex, which greatly increases the risks of contracting and spreading STDs, HIV, hepatitis, tuberculosis and more. If consenting adults want to put themselves at risk, so be it. But others pay the price -- particularly spouses and partners, whose health is also threatened. If a john doesn't disclose or treat his disease, his partner may unwittingly pass it on to their children.
Teens are particularly at risk. Most runaway and throwaway girls are approached for commercial sex within 48 hours of appearing on the streets. The average age at which girls are drawn into prostitution is between 12 and 16. Under other circumstances, California law would prosecute perpetrators for rape or statutory rape and protect the victims. Even when men do not intend to buy sex from minors (and often, they do), it happens. Looks can be deceiving, and San Francisco police have processed as adults, based upon their appearance, girls they have arrested who are under 14 years of age.
Homicide rates among prostituted women are the highest of any group ever studied. The majority are raped while “working.” Over three-quarters are assaulted or robbed by customers, traffickers, and/or pimps. Somewhat better conditions may exist in elite legal brothels or escort services, but research finds that crime and exploitation abound there as well.
The state doesn't even have to prove that harm actually occurred in any given case. It must only establish that the behavior places others at risk. For example, drunk driving is illegal because the risk to others is unacceptably high, and indoor smoking is regulated to prevent harm to non-smokers. U.S. courts have repeatedly upheld the government’s right and obligation to protect all citizens, even those who claim they don’t want or need protection.
Proponents of decriminalization argue that the irrefutable dangers of prostitution result from its illegal status, and not from the “business” itself. They claim that when prostitution is not driven underground, conditions for providers of commercial sex and others will improve. Proposing decriminalization as the way to improve health and safety tortures logic and defies common sense. Proposition K asks voters to believe that the pimps, traffickers, and johns who currently exploit and abuse providers of commercial sex with alarming frequency will somehow behave better with a complete lack of regulation and police oversight.
While people on both sides of the debate generally agree that more should be done to protect providers of commercial sex, Proposition K is not the answer. It will allow pimps and traffickers to operate unabated, will make police bystanders to the chaos and blight of street prostitution that they witness daily, and will offer nothing in the way of compensating outreach or programming for prostituted women and girls.
--------------------------------------------------
Michael Shively and Kristen Wheeler coauthored the evaluation of San Francisco’s First Offender Prostitution Program for the U.S. Department of Justice.
Mickey Goodman is a freelance journalist based in Atlanta who has written about prostitution and sex trafficking for Reuters and other news outlets.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I'll just repost my same comment from the other post:
Title: Please don't misrepresent proponents of Prop K
There are many reasons why people enter into prostitution, and there is a wide range of experiences in prostitution. The proponents of Prop K DO recognize this.
Some people love doing sex work. Some love it sometimes and hate it other times. Some don't mind doing it, and find it to be their best way of making money. Some people are coerced, and desperately want out. We do recognize this.
The opponents of Prop K, on the other hand, barely differentiate between consensual prostitution and coerced prostitution. In one of their ballot arguments, they wrote that 90% of prostitutes are trafficked victims. On their website, they write that prostitution is paid rape. They also put the term "sex worker" in quotes because they don't want to give legitimacy to the term. They prefer the term "prostituted women."
Consensual sex workers should not be criminalized, but those that are coerced should not be treated like criminals, either. Criminalization makes it worse for sex workers regardless of how they got into the business, and regardless of whether they want to get out. You cannot rescue people that don't want to be rescued. For those that do need other alternatives, they need to be able to receive those alternatives before they get arrested.
Criminalization also makes sex work more dangerous. Sex workers have no recourse if they are a victim of violence. Regardless of why they are a sex worker, we need to decriminalize prostitution and bring equal protection to all sex workers. Prop K will not solve everyone's problems, but it will make it better for all those involved.
Title: Please don't misrepresent proponents of Prop K
There are many reasons why people enter into prostitution, and there is a wide range of experiences in prostitution. The proponents of Prop K DO recognize this.
Some people love doing sex work. Some love it sometimes and hate it other times. Some don't mind doing it, and find it to be their best way of making money. Some people are coerced, and desperately want out. We do recognize this.
The opponents of Prop K, on the other hand, barely differentiate between consensual prostitution and coerced prostitution. In one of their ballot arguments, they wrote that 90% of prostitutes are trafficked victims. On their website, they write that prostitution is paid rape. They also put the term "sex worker" in quotes because they don't want to give legitimacy to the term. They prefer the term "prostituted women."
Consensual sex workers should not be criminalized, but those that are coerced should not be treated like criminals, either. Criminalization makes it worse for sex workers regardless of how they got into the business, and regardless of whether they want to get out. You cannot rescue people that don't want to be rescued. For those that do need other alternatives, they need to be able to receive those alternatives before they get arrested.
Criminalization also makes sex work more dangerous. Sex workers have no recourse if they are a victim of violence. Regardless of why they are a sex worker, we need to decriminalize prostitution and bring equal protection to all sex workers. Prop K will not solve everyone's problems, but it will make it better for all those involved.
For more information:
http://www.yesonpropk.org
Why is "free choice" irrelevant? I've considered it and found that it is quite relevant. And this article has not shown how "it's irrelevant."
Moreover, none of the arguments the authors propound about why Prop K is bad hold any water. Don't for a second think that Bay Area citizens are easily swayed by your "massaging" of facts and fear-mongering.
1) Article says: Prostitution bad because it harms spouses and partners of johns who engage in consenting, unprotected sex with prostitutes.
Bay Area citizens say: Give me a break! So should we make adultery illegal again as well? Adultery harms spouses and partners of cheaters as well, since adulterers engage in unprotected sex. The evidence is overwhelming. Just look at all the children born out of wedlock!
2) Article says: "Teens are particularly at risk."
Bay Area citizens say: But teens are not consenting adults. They cannot consent and they are not adults. The law should punish those adults who engage in sex with minors. Plain and simple.
3) Article says: "Homicide rates among prostituted women are the highest of any group ever studied."
Bay Area citizens say: Yes. Why is that? Because johns think they can get away with it and they regularly do. Why do johns have that type of mindset? Because prostituted women are afraid to go to the police. Their trade is regulated by pimps and thugs, rather than by the state, which has forsaken them. Time and time again it has been shown that a vice which is prohibited by law is merely driven underground and run by criminal organizations. Once the vice is decriminalized and regulated by the state, all the criminal elements slowly slip away. Prohibition, anyone?
4) Article says: "The state doesn't even have to prove that harm actually occurred in any given case."
Bay Area citizens say: So what? That statement doesn't add anything to the discussion. The fact that the state has power to do something doesn't mean that it should. It has nothing to do with whether 'free choice' is relevant or not. It has nothing to do with whether regulating indoor smoking either. The statement is merely there to evince an air of authority to the article, as if saying "U.S. courts did this" or "the state does that" actually matters as to whether this VOTER proposition should be passed or not.
5) Article says: "Proposing decriminalization as the way to improve health and safety tortures logic and defies common sense."
Bay Area citizens say: TELL US how it tortures logic and defies common sense. This naked claim is not backed up by any supporting argument. Consider this: The Prohibition of alcohol gave criminal organizations a new stream of revenue. Once Prohibition was repealed, they turned to other "illegal" things. Can you say with a straight face that today alcohol distribution is controlled by criminal rackets?
Police oversight should be directed to pimps and those who exploit prostituted women. Prostituted women should be able to reach out to the police if they need help against pimps and johns. When prostitution is decriminalized (something Prop K does not do), it will be seen as a profession or trade like any other and THERE WILL NO LONGER BE NEED FOR ANY PIMPS.
I am not a supporter of Prop K, but I am sick of this misinformation and sloppy arguments you use to back opposition to Prop K. Get your facts straight, give those facts to the public, and let the voters decide for themselves.
Moreover, none of the arguments the authors propound about why Prop K is bad hold any water. Don't for a second think that Bay Area citizens are easily swayed by your "massaging" of facts and fear-mongering.
1) Article says: Prostitution bad because it harms spouses and partners of johns who engage in consenting, unprotected sex with prostitutes.
Bay Area citizens say: Give me a break! So should we make adultery illegal again as well? Adultery harms spouses and partners of cheaters as well, since adulterers engage in unprotected sex. The evidence is overwhelming. Just look at all the children born out of wedlock!
2) Article says: "Teens are particularly at risk."
Bay Area citizens say: But teens are not consenting adults. They cannot consent and they are not adults. The law should punish those adults who engage in sex with minors. Plain and simple.
3) Article says: "Homicide rates among prostituted women are the highest of any group ever studied."
Bay Area citizens say: Yes. Why is that? Because johns think they can get away with it and they regularly do. Why do johns have that type of mindset? Because prostituted women are afraid to go to the police. Their trade is regulated by pimps and thugs, rather than by the state, which has forsaken them. Time and time again it has been shown that a vice which is prohibited by law is merely driven underground and run by criminal organizations. Once the vice is decriminalized and regulated by the state, all the criminal elements slowly slip away. Prohibition, anyone?
4) Article says: "The state doesn't even have to prove that harm actually occurred in any given case."
Bay Area citizens say: So what? That statement doesn't add anything to the discussion. The fact that the state has power to do something doesn't mean that it should. It has nothing to do with whether 'free choice' is relevant or not. It has nothing to do with whether regulating indoor smoking either. The statement is merely there to evince an air of authority to the article, as if saying "U.S. courts did this" or "the state does that" actually matters as to whether this VOTER proposition should be passed or not.
5) Article says: "Proposing decriminalization as the way to improve health and safety tortures logic and defies common sense."
Bay Area citizens say: TELL US how it tortures logic and defies common sense. This naked claim is not backed up by any supporting argument. Consider this: The Prohibition of alcohol gave criminal organizations a new stream of revenue. Once Prohibition was repealed, they turned to other "illegal" things. Can you say with a straight face that today alcohol distribution is controlled by criminal rackets?
Police oversight should be directed to pimps and those who exploit prostituted women. Prostituted women should be able to reach out to the police if they need help against pimps and johns. When prostitution is decriminalized (something Prop K does not do), it will be seen as a profession or trade like any other and THERE WILL NO LONGER BE NEED FOR ANY PIMPS.
I am not a supporter of Prop K, but I am sick of this misinformation and sloppy arguments you use to back opposition to Prop K. Get your facts straight, give those facts to the public, and let the voters decide for themselves.
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 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.
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?
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?
Thank you for your powerful analysis. Gratefully, San Francisco voters stood firm and said NO to prop K. Your efforts have helped give voice to those who are used and abused by people who believe it is acceptable to treat other human beings as if they were mere property to be bought and sold. Thank you for your help fighting for victims of human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation in San Francisco.
That's funny that Christie calls this analysis powerful.
Anyway, the fight for human rights is not over just because we lost a ballot measure. We will be back.
Anyway, the fight for human rights is not over just because we lost a ballot measure. We will be back.
For more information:
http://www.yesonpropk.org
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$55.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network