It's one of the peculiarities of the law in most of the United States that giving it away is perfectly legal, but selling it is not.
Sex, I mean.
You can trade it for a dinner or jewelry. You can even establish a sort of leasing arrangement in return for a nice apartment. Or you can simply randomly shower sexual favors on deserving (or undeserving) strangers.
Just don't make it a straight exchange of services for cash.
It's a silly distinction without a difference, of course. But it's one with serious consequences. Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer made his bones, in part, by prosecuting underground sex-for-pay businesses. Then he was hounded from office when he was revealed as an enthusiastic consumer of such services himself.
For Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the consequences were worse. Arrested after years of catering to the sexual tastes of the politically powerful, she chose suicide over an extended stay in prison.
That's quite a penalty for the "crime" of giving people what they want in return for money.
Which is all a long lead in to San Francisco's Proposition K. That's an item that will appear on the ballot this November, offering that city's voters the option of ... well, not fully legalizing, but at least decriminalizing prostitution.
Specifically, Proposition K will forbid police and prosecutors to arrest and pursue charges against people engaged in the consensual sale of sexual services. It will also prevent the city from forcing prostitutes into "re-education programs" that seek to shame workers over their choice of trade.
And the proposition will require the police to "practice consistent and rigorous enforcement against coercion, extortion, battery, rape and other violent crimes, regardless of the victim’s status as a sex worker" -- an important change, since many prostitutes are reluctant to report attacks for fear of being arrested themselves. As with the drug trade, the crime that often accompanies prostitution is an artifact of its illegal status and can be laid at the feet of the bluenoses who want to keep the business in the shadows.
Full legalization would be better, putting the sex trade on the same playing field as sandwich shops, doctor's offices and political consultancies, with above-ground status and legal protections. But we'll take what we can get in a world that is all-too-willing to imprison people for doing what comes naturally -- at a price.
Proposition K deserves support. And it deserves to be emulated elsewhere.
Comments
this is straight prostitution at issue, which can be straighten out should it be decriminalized. on the other side of the fence, what about gay sex on the streets? it's common knowledge in the gay men community, they have their cutey or sweetie boys standing on the street corner, so is this part of the scheme of things? gay men are trying to look awfully straight about it like they don't know about such things. they have their sex for sale as well.
The wording of Proposition K is sex-neutral, so it should apply to straight and gay prostitutes alike.
I agree completely. Prostitution should be legalized.
J.D., thank you for your common sense take on prostitution and San Francisco's Proposition K. I'm a bi male sex worker for decriminalization. Exactly as you say, why should I or anyone else be arrested and persecuted for selling a service (sex) that is perfectly legal to give away or to exchange for dinner and a movie, or a wedding contract, or even to sell for purposes of creating an adult film? The laws on this subject in the U.S. are archaic and based on outdated Victorian morality, not the morals of families and communities in 2008. There is no social consensus that sex workers should be criminalized, and there are much better things that could be done with taxpayer resources than wasting them on this futile crusade against part of our own community. Like maybe letting taxpayers keep more of their money so they will be better able to afford health care, housing, education, etc. -- now there's a concept!
In response to the last post, the fair City-by-the-Bay has always overlooked gay sex and bath houses (at least in the criminal terms of prostition and solicitation) because the gay lobby in the City is largely male and rather powerful. So, unlike with straight massage parlors, they have hardly (if ever) used health code violations as a ruse to shut them down. That said, proposition K (while a step in the right direction) unfortunately frames things solely in terms of sex workers' rights and protection and leaves the door wide open for continued and possibly expanded persecution by the City of the johns. This possibly under the guise of demand-side abatement. Also, the prohibition would be for the use of city-funds but there are grants given for specifically the purpose of harrassing sex workers and their clients. And while, if passed, prop K would disallow referral of sex workers to first offender and diversion programs, it does not prohibit the sending of their customers. In short, it does add protection for the sex workers (which is good) but stops far short (and in my book intentionally so; these people who wrote the prop are not dumb) of decriminalization (which is bad).
For those who would like to help decriminalize prostitution, please join our Meetup group -- http://www.meetup.com/decriminalize/
Yes, Yes, Yes On Proposition K!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!