Poll: Should Prostitution Be Decriminalized?

Posted by: Simcha Whitehill Filed in: news, polls
4:00PM, Friday July 25th 2008

The world’s oldest profession wants to finally go legit—the Erotic Service Providers Union (ESPU) in San Francisco is trying to protect their hard working membership, the Johns, and the Janes, by asking for the decriminalization of solicitation and prostitution. The city already has a unique First Offender Prostitution Program, which allows people arrested for soliciting sex the option to pay $1000 tuition fee for a graphic sexual health class. Frankly, it also has a pretty poor success rate for scaring attendees back into thinking the best things in life are free, but the ESPU is less concerned with curbing their clients’ desires. What the union really wants is to keep its workers safe, as many sex workers don’t report assaults or rapes because they’re afraid of being penalized for breaking the law with their profession. The ESPU has a bill on the ballot this fall that would decriminalize sex work in the city. They argue that when the pros have to sneak around to handle their business, it makes them exponentially more susceptible to abuse and exploitation. [Newsweek]

So what do you all think: should sex work be decriminalized (in San Francisco or anywhere else in the U.S.)?

comments

dallas
wrote on July 26 2008 @ 08:40 am: [report]

Why is there no just “yes” option. I actually don’t want prostitution to be legalized, just decriminalized. I don’t think we should mandate that sex workers get STI tests. If anyone should get tested, it should be the Johns - they’re the ones that want the service after all. Requiring mandatory testing of sex workers contributes to the impression that all sex workers are dirty carriers of disease.

So I just vote “yes”.

slava
wrote on July 26 2008 @ 09:07 am: [report]

Prostitution should be decriminalized, not legalized. Legalization is a permitting system like the one in the Nevada brothels. It costs almost $1 million to open a brothel, and this system gives too much power to the owners of the brothels to set up whatever conditions they want. In some cases, workers there are on lockdown. They are not allowed to leave, and they have to be available to work 24 hours per day. Decriminalization, on the other hand, means that prostitutes cannot be arrested, and it gives workers equal protection if they are a victim of violence.

Suzanne Hammond
wrote on July 26 2008 @ 04:32 pm: [report]

Yes, why no just “yes” option? If a client knows a prostitute carries no STIs he’s more likely to push for unsafe sex. Plus if you try to regulate it, you just leave lots of it underground. Word is San Francisco is spending $11.4m this year in its Canute-like efforts to quell prostitution, just think what more effort could go into grown up crime fighting with that money.

Amelia
wrote on July 27 2008 @ 08:53 am: [report]

I guess the main reason why I didn’t just have a “Yes” option is I wanted to set apart those who also believe in legalization from those who just support decriminalization.

dallas
wrote on July 27 2008 @ 12:58 pm: [report]

Amelia,

I totally hear what you’re saying, but it seems like the way you have the vote set up now, there isn’t an option for people who want just to decriminalize it. You have to vote to legalize it too. Or is that what you’re trying to do with the second option? Maybe I misunderstood it. In that case, my apologies.

Amelia
wrote on July 27 2008 @ 04:04 pm: [report]

@dallas Yes, the second choice is meant to be “Yes, I support decriminalization but NOT legalization.” You make a good point that maybe it’s not clear enough. I’ve tweaked the poll slightly to reflect that.

Deniz
wrote on August 3 2008 @ 12:05 pm: [report]

I live in Germany, where prostitution is legal.
You can go online and pick out a call girl, not to mention there are three different places in my area where you can go.

No one here cares, and I don’t see how it is “corrupting society” as conservative Christians claim.

I asked a few people what they would think of prostitution being illegal, and they replied “Why put anyone in prison over this? It’s just ridiculous.”

Pointer
wrote on August 3 2008 @ 02:06 pm: [report]

I am a Dutchman at age 67 and single, a client of a lady at age 32 who has 30 clients per week. She is working together with a female friend and both have their own stock of engaged clients. As a client you have every week the same day and at the same time your own hour with her and that’s enough for the old me. We have a lot of pleasure and the price is weekly paid by direct debit, also if I don’t come. Clients are obliged tot HIV-tests just like the ladies are.
It’s €162 per hour, increased according to the price-index numbers, but ones a week it is much cheaper than a marriage and you can take the quality for granted.
Drugs, smoking or being under influence are forbidden and your condition has to be firm, else you are out and there are always men on the waiting list.
It is not so that you have to be single, but if you are married it is rarely uncommon that your wife does not know and agree with the arrangement.
What’s wrong with it?

Starchild
wrote on August 4 2008 @ 04:21 am: [report]

Excellent comments from slava. As a sex worker, I don’t want the criminal justice system me and acting as my pimp. Many managers and agents who are doing nothing to harm sex workers, but simply working in a business relationship with us like in any other industry are wrongly called pimps. The pimps that we object to are the ones that engage in coercion and violence against us, take our money, or infringe on our liberty. And that’s exactly what the government’s police and prosecutors do when they arrest, harass, fine and jail us. If you object to the exploitation of sex workers, support the decriminalization of prostitution, because our #1 exploiter is the government.

Darryl Lomas
wrote on August 26 2008 @ 11:21 pm: [report]

Come on People, Lose the Christen Guilt Complex!! These Women need to Safe!!! In all ways.