Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Proposition K: Changing the Landscape for Sex Workers

By Sienna Baskin and Melissa Ditmore, RH Reality Check. Posted October 29, 2008.


The passage of San Francisco's Proposition K would be a critical first step toward reducing sex workers' vulnerability to violence.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Next week, San Francisco voters will vote on Proposition K, which would prohibit the use of public funds to enforce laws criminalizing prostitution, and mandate that police investigate crimes against sex workers. The passage of Proposition K would change the landscape for sex workers in San Francisco in critical ways.

First, by removing police officers' power to arrest sex workers, it would reduce sex workers' vulnerability to all of the abuses of that power sex workers currently experience: police profiling and harassment, sexual harassment and assault, rape, and extortion of sexual favors under threat of arrest by police officers, and entrapment.

Second, as a public statement that sex workers deserve the same protection from violence as any other person, it would reduce sex workers' vulnerability to violence at the hands of community members, employers, clients, partners and family members. If this proposition is passed and enforced, not only would sex workers' vulnerability to police violence be decreased, but people who do sex work or trade sex for survival needs would also be less likely to have to take greater risks to avoid police attention, and would no longer be forced to run the risk of arrest when trying to report a violent crime committed against them.

The assumption that criminalizing prostitution reduces its prevalence, or even more absurdly, helps those engaged in the sex trade, is fundamentally flawed. Prostitution arrests help no one, especially not the people arrested. Not only is arrest itself traumatic and often violent, it drives sex workers into a broken criminal justice system and comes with a host of collateral consequences. Sex workers who have been arrested may face the loss of their mainstream jobs, adverse impacts on their immigration status, eviction from their homes, or even problems retaining custody of their children. All of these factors may force them to return to the trade, if only to be able to pay fines and legal costs, or because their criminal record precludes them from securing other employment. Most people, when asked why they engage in sex work, cite money as the reason.

Criminalization and arrests do nothing to address the lack of living wage alternatives to prostitution, which should be the real goal of anyone seeking to reduce its prevalence. In fact, criminalization is expensive, both for those arrested and for the city. One thing about Proposition K is that it gets right to the heart of the matter -- the pocketbook -- by prohibiting use of public funds to enforce laws against prostitution, it diverts money away from criminalizing and arresting sex workers and makes it available for more effective efforts to keep everyone safe and secure. These are compelling reasons, but the most compelling reason to stop arresting sex workers is to decrease their vulnerability to violence.

"Revolving Door," a report from the Sex Workers Project (SWP), found that 27% of New York City street-based sex workers interviewed had been subjected to police brutality. In "Behind Closed Doors," the second report released by the SWP, 14% reported violence at the hands of the police. Sex workers described being thrown on the ground and stepped on, having food thrown at them, and being kicked hard enough to require a hospital visit. One sex worker interviewed for a 2005 update to Revolving Door described a police officer who routinely threatened sex workers with violence, telling them: "You are not going to jail tonight, you are going to the hospital."

These patterns are not isolated to New York: A 2007 D.C. study by community organization Different Avenues found that one in five actual or perceived sex workers surveyed who had been approached by police indicated that officers asked them for sex. Most indicated that this had been a negative or humiliating experience. A 2002 Chicago study found that 30% of exotic dancers and 24% of street-based sex workers interviewed who had been raped identified a police officer as the rapist. Approximately 20% of other acts of sexual violence reported by study participants were committed by the police. It is clear that giving police the power to arrest sex workers increases, not decreases, their risk of sexual violence.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: san francisco, sex work, decriminalization, proposition 8

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Prohibition
Posted by: Crazy H on Oct 30, 2008 10:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During alcohol prohibition in the US, anyone who sold alcohol illegally was subject to violence at the hands of organized crime.

After repeal, the violence dropped off to near nothing. When it does happen, it's not about distribution rights.

Think about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

if sex workers don't trust cops, decriminalization is pointless
Posted by: anotherday on Oct 30, 2008 12:30 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sex workers who don't trust cops now aren't going to trust cops more if Prop K passes, so the idea that decriminalization will make it so abused women report more pimp and john abuse against them is specious. Rape victims of all sorts, not just prostitutes, know that our justice system is incapable of treating victims of sexual assault with the fairness and humanity they deserve. Consequently, most rape victims don't report to police, and the decriminalized status of rape victims has nothing to do with it.

What concerns me most about Proposition K is that it seeks to defund a sex worker rights program that has been helping women get out from prostitution for fourteen years. Why would a law that's supposed to help sex workers include a provision to remove funding from a successful, award-winning program begun by a former sex worker to help other sex workers? Why didn't this article's authors address the issue?

The San Francisco ballot summary claims, "Proposition K would prohibit the City from funding or supporting the First Offender Prostitution Program"

According to the nonprofit organization's website, these are services offered by the program Proposition K seeks to eliminate.

"* Services to aid girls to permanently exit the criminal justice system and to rebuild their lives free of sexual exploitation, prostitution and abuse.

* Early intervention for women by providing in-custody and out-of-custody assessments, referrals, peer support, rehabilitation, vocational training, and case management for women trying to exit prostitution.

* Arrests of male customers ("Johns") and "John School," an educational program for first offenders that takes a real-world, confrontation-style look at the legal, health, and other risks and effects of prostitution. Administrative fees collected from the Johns fund the intervention services for women and girls.

FOPP clients have access to individual case management, groups, legal advocacy, and referrals to a variety of health, education, legal, housing, and trauma and substance abuse recovery resources.

The program has served thousands of girls, young adults, women and men since 1995. The return on investment for FOPP results from lowered recidivism, decreased costs from lowered use of the criminal justice system and health care, improved quality of life in the areas affected by prostitution, and the entry of former prostitutes into mainstream jobs and lifestyles."

http://www.sagesf.org/html/about_services_fopp.htm

Can someone explain how a law that's supposed to be for sex workers can attack the ability of a successful sex worker aid program to provide the many beneficial services outlined above?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: Sex Workers? Posted by: davmills
proposition K Prostitution
Posted by: christine100 on Oct 31, 2008 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The opponents of this proposition K are telling lies, and scare tactics to get people to vote against it. By lying and saying that all prostitutes are forced to do it against their will. Yet they can never find anyone who was a victim of this. Where are all these victims? Why aren’t they coming out and talking and showing themselves? It’s just a made up lie. It is very difficult to force anyone to do something against their will. They would need 24 hour guards, and be watched over like being in prison, with no chance to escape. 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 and racial feminists need to invent a victim in order to get support. They could have chosen the johns, the hookers or the city itself. They chose the hookers to be the victims even though it’s the hookers who want to decriminalize because they realize it’s the police, justice system and the government that hurts them, not the johns. 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 and justice system who abuse them and their customers. By the way, there is a federal law the says any foreigner who was a victim of prostitution in the USA if they go to the justice department and complain and help prosecute their pimp, then they can stay in the USA, get a green card and become a US citizen. So that means these women will then be encouraged to lie about it, in order to become citizens. So if you are a woman, just lie, pick a random guy to be your pimp and you can become a US citizen, and get money from the government. Easy - isn’t it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No on K; Minorities DO NOT want this help thank you
Posted by: easter on Oct 31, 2008 4:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Proposition K has been passed off as something that will help minorities. I am a Middle Eastern woman (Iraqi) who ran away from home and was homeless in San Francisco along with many vulnerable women , children and some young men, running away from abusive situations. They are pressured and pushed to desperation into doing things they would never "want" to do. Things that rob them of dignity. And I don't mean "religious" dignity, just plain old fashioned human dignity, for being robbed of human rights.



I was told I am an American and that since I am I did not have to take the abuse of my culture. I was told I would leave home and I would be able to be an independent woman in America. What I wasn't told is that no one would help me, I wasn't told that no one would give a teenage girl any help or a job unless she used her body for them, I also was not told that the men I would meet when I left would want to inflict much more harm on me than the men of my family would have ever done. I was told I was free, eight years later I still don't feel that women are truly free in America. I know that had prostitution been legal in San Francisco when I was a young woman alone, I honestly don't think I would have made it out alive...I feel responsible to speak up for the many that I know are vulnerable to be taken advantage of should this be legalized.



Maybe the minorities don't want this help, maybe they realize that it will be more of a hindrance than a helping hand. I, as a woman of color, clearly see that Prop K would effectively undo the Emancipation Proclamation. If prop K passes, women and girls could contract themselves- or get trafficked or pimped-into slavery with what amounts to the blessing of the city. This proposition would be completely unconstitutional.



Why not address the more obvious and immediate need, why not help all of those women and girls who tell us that they want to escape prostitution instead of ignoring the involuntary servitude and trafficking of human beings, or worse, making it legal?



Don't kid yourselves, if this is legalized the already weak force women and girls have protecting them will be even weaker, looking even further the other way, with much more leeway around it.

We should take a cue from countries like Sweden, who decided it would be setting a pretty low precedent to allow people to ,essentially, rent their organs. And the Scotland Yard did a hefty investigation when the question of legalizing prostitution came up. They decided it would be best to go at this from the Swedish point of view, which is to NOT prosecute prostitutes but to enforce laws against Johns (and Janes).



Women and girls of color are disproportionately harmed by these activities. You may already know many reasons for this, but I would like to introduce you to a couple you may not have thought of yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CONT
Posted by: easter on Oct 31, 2008 4:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women of color, like myself, coming from very strict and deeply sexist cultural backgrounds are all over this country. They are young and they are learning that they are not the property of their mothers, fathers, uncles and brothers and refuse to become the property of their husbands. By the way, many "white" women are included in this, for instance I have met many Mormon women and young men running away from abuse. Picture a young teenage girl, running away from abuse, from a very "kept" upbringing and then imagine their horror when they do get the courage to flee and end up, like I did, in Portland Oregon or San Francisco to find: 1.) there is no help in much of any way to either protect you or find you employment and shelter 2.) the only jobs that they can find are to be a stripper. Imagine being from a background where you felt like a slave, and find yourself in a place you were told you could be free, but you can only survive if you do what would be the last thing you want to do. Imagine if you throw prostitution, voluntary and involuntary, into the mix. If you can empathize with their experience, you will see what I do, that they feel they have traded the post of a slave for one of a whore. And, so unfortunately, many end up as both.



One other thought that may be novel to you; where do they put things like brothels and strip clubs? In the areas of the lowest income. So now those women, many of color, have what they have avoided right in their back yard. Do you realize the inevitable harassment women and girls in these areas have to face? The threat of rape and bodily harm? Whoever is voting for proposition K should be willing to relocate to the very areas that prostitution will be legalized in. If you want it you should have to live with it, don't zone brothels in areas of those already disenfranchised through their race, culture, class and gender. If brothels are legalized, they should at least be placed in the neighborhoods of those who can afford to spend money on those "services". Is there a doubt that if this were a prop k stipulation, it would never pass?



I urge you to ask those minority organizations opposing this why they do not want prop K to pass and to also to discuss this with women who have been disenfranchised. Don't kid yourself into thinking we want this; at least admit that it is not for women but for the ability to buy them for sex. At least admit, that when these "progressive" organizations say they mean to help the minorities, they obviously didn't ask us if we want that help. We are turning back the clock though, so perhaps they know better than us what is "good for us" and we are going back to the days of slavery, this new slavery, of which the majority is women and the majority is not white.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

controversial
Posted by: agota on Nov 9, 2008 7:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
one of the sex workers i happened to know once used sex toys to defend herself. kind of funny when she told me the story when everyone was at a party once. yes. it is dangerous work, very dangerous

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Criminalizing the activity of johns soliciting sex workers DOES reduce prostitution and exploitation
Posted by: Dayaan on Nov 10, 2008 1:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every study or documentary that I have seen on the problem of prostitution does point to the effectiveness of criminalizing the act of paying for sex or propositioning women and/or men to have sex for money. This is the only law-enforcement activity that reduces prostitution in a community. Legislation that stops the terrorization of the exploited is just the first step; let's also stop the exploiters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]