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

Dear Johns: For Shame

By J. Douglas Allen-Taylor, AlterNet. Posted January 18, 2006.


A controversial plan to deter prostitution in an urban neighborhood never quite measured up to its hype.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by J. Douglas Allen-Taylor

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

It was launched with great fanfare last spring -- Operation Shame, a campaign to discourage the "johns" who drive Oakland, Calif.'s late-night streets to pick up prostitutes. At the heart of the campaign was a plan to arrest the johns (a slang term for men who solicit prostitutes) and then display their mugshot photos on prominent 10 feet by 22 feet billboards.

"We're going to shame the out-of-towners and locals who drive to our neighborhood to look for prostitutes," Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente told reporters at the time. Much of the prostitution problem was centered in the Fruitvale section of De La Fuente's 6th Council District, along the International Boulevard business thoroughfare that cuts through the southeastern end of Oakland.

A spokesperson for the Oakland Police Department, Sgt. Rob Stewart, said that the majority of the johns come from outside of Oakland.

The idea behind Operation Shame was that potential johns, seeing the faces of fellow solicitors on billboards, would figure that the potential of having their night-time wanderings come to the very public attention of spouses, relatives, neighbors or employers was not worth the risk. The operation was a project of De La Fuente's office, with the Oakland Police Department cooperating by providing the arrest booking photos.

Eight months later, the billboards have long since disappeared from International Boulevard but the prostitutes have not. On Redbook, an internet chat station that provides a forum for johns, the Oakland street pickings this month seemed as good as they have ever been.

Under the topic "International SW [streetwalking] Action is building up again," one poster recently wrote, "Man I drove down … International on weds wow from 25th to 46th street wall to wall youngsters hot ones black/Latina's/whites didn't see any Asians. Also today around noon one asain around 18th & international, and then a real hot latina in camo/army clothes out for fun."

"I did a sight seeing tour yesterday from downtown oakland …" another poster replied in agreement. "just guessing because i didn't count -- but there had to be at least 50 ladies out in the sunshine in [Oakland] alone."

A drive down International Boulevard at any time of day or night confirms their observation that Oakland's prostitute quarter is as busy as it ever was -- young, well-dressed women in short skirts or shorts still work the pickup areas they commonly call "the stroll," walking nonchalantly from block to block, congregating on corners, catching the eyes of men in slowly passing cars, hustling to jump in when passenger doors fly open.

So what happened?

While five of the billboards did go up last spring -- locations donated by communications giant Clear Channel -- the effectiveness of the shame campaign was undercut at the very beginning by a small constitutional issue apparently overlooked initially by Oakland officials: the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The city had planned to put the faces of arrested johns on the billboards, but constitutional rights advocates quickly pointed out that this opened up the city to potential high-figure lawsuits from any billboarded men who were later exonerated at trial.

"That someone can be punished without being convicted is a violation of our civil liberties," San Francisco magazine quoted John Crew, an attorney in the ACLU's San Francisco office. "People could equate arrest with guilt."

So instead of identifiable pictures on the billboards, the city eventually opted to use the photos of four men recently arrested for solicitation, but with their faces so blurred as to be unidentifiable. "How much clearer do we have to make it?" the billboards proclaimed. "Don't 'john' in Oakland."

At a June press conference underneath one of the billboards, De La Fuente announced, "This is your last and final warning." If johns did not heed that warning, he promised, the next round of billboards would show the mens' faces, unfettered.


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

J. Douglas Allen-Taylor is a journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
The big drop in New York City crime
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 18, 2006 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been told that one way NYC has successfully reduced crime of all sorts has been to look the other way in the enforcement of vice laws. If the culprits are dangerous, then they will get arrested. But so long as they do their business and "don't scare the horses" not only does law enforcement not bother with arrests, the streets of NYC are so dangerous that the best place to proffer vice is within view of the law. That way the real criminals don't mug the vulnerable on the streets.

It may be that I am hearing an urban myth. But I can also understand why something like that would not be publicized. Small towns like Oakland would have a problem with toleration of vice.

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

Prohibition Still Does NOT Work.
Posted by: gar on Jan 18, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anti-prostitution laws like laws banning recreational drugs and any other law making a "commodity" in high demand illegal is doomed to failure. They only result is contempt for laws and law enforcement, lost revenues through underground untaxed economic exchanges, human exploitation and an opportunity for criminals to make money.

All this has been thoroughly demonstrated by the abject failure of "The Great Experiment" of prohibition in the twentith century. Further proof can be found in the still on-going "war on drugs." The United States has spent untold billions on this so-called war. The results are informative.

We can't build prisons fast enough to hold people arrested for using drugs and/or being in possession of drugs. We now have a greater percentage of our population in prison than any country in the world now or at any time in history.

I don't personally condone drug use nor do I condone prostitution. On the other hand, I don't oppose transactions between two consenting adults. In Nevada, prostitution is legal and exists under controlled circumstances. I have been to Las Vegas many times and have been out on the streets at all hours of the day and night and have never once been approached by a prostitute nor have I seen streets crowded with "street walkers."

No one should be in that business who doesn't choose to be but by making the practice illegal, we are putting such control out of societies hands, just as making drugs illegal puts the distribution and usage out of the control society and into the hands of criminals.

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

bad source of info
Posted by: T.S. on Jan 18, 2006 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll assume the man who wrote this has never lived as a woman in an area rife with prostitution because otherwise he would know johns on their predatory searches for prostitutes consider any women or girl potential prey.

I have been propositioned many times by men such as the self-reporting johns in the article and I have never been a prostitute, just poor, so pardon me for not believing them able to look at women in ethnic neighborhoods and tell the prostitutes from the not-prostitutes. All females are whores to men who pay for sex, and the anecdotes by women and young girls in my neighborhood could prove it to anyone who disbelieves.

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

» RE: bad source of info Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: bad source of info Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: bad source of info Posted by: T.S.
I Still Don't Get It
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 18, 2006 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In many areas of Europe where prostitution is legal, if you don't look for it you will never see it. Isn't that much better than what is going on here?

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

Busted for Decoy
Posted by: eastcoker on Jan 18, 2006 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hello folks,
It's been a while. I am getting sick of the religious world so it is back to the secular world.
Well this article is about my community.
And I have to say my dad busted a cop who posing as a hooker. I was raised to believe that prostitution should be decriminalized. And that is the thought that crosses my mind upon reading this article.
Now this is an odd stance for a Christian to take, but take it I will.
Decriminalize prostitution!
Yours
Eastcoker (after the TS Eliot poem, not the drug)

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

Very small fact correction
Posted by: nathanhj on Jan 18, 2006 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
De La Fuente actually represents the 5th Council District. Desly Brooks represents the 6th.

This program is about De La Fuente's mayoral ambitions more than anything else, so I'm not surpised its got problems.

I mean besides the Puritan moral ethos upon which it is founded (which, by the way, also posits that women are nothing but temptresses of men, so, of course it does nothing to deal with the fact that in a patriarchy, all women can be, and often are, seen as nothing but whores).

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

men desire prostitution, women survive prostitution
Posted by: T.S. on Jan 18, 2006 2:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I already live in a world were women's survival is based on men's desires. That's the world feminists and others who care more about women than they do about commerce or snubbing conservatives or "protecting the innocents" are trying to do something about. I want a world where women's survival is not based on sexual servitude to men's desire, and here I see the liberals who are supposed to be feminists' allies in forging this new world shrug their shoulders at the most bare form of sexism (read: men's entitlement to women's bodies) and decide there's no point in struggling against men's NEED and RIGHT to access women's bodies whenever and however they want. Hey ladies, men want their whores so it's only right that men get their whores, end of story. Whether women want to survive by being men's whores apparently isn't worth bothering to ask.

The average age of entry into prostitution has gotten lower in the past few years, and it's getting lower still, but that age of entry is currently 13-years-old and still men want to talk about those 13-year-old's "rights" to choose prostitution as a career. The average age of entry into prostitution will go down to 12-years-old soon, and still the conversation will be about the 12-year-old's "right" to choose to be a whore because people who don't want to see the 13-year-olds right now aren't going to see the 12-year-old average new sex worker in a few years.

Legalization in the Netherlands, Germany and Australia is not protecting women, in sex work or out, from men's violence. It's a nice theory, but it hasn't been working and even some Dutch politicians are rethinking if tourist money is worth the increased trans-border slavery, increased child prostitution, and increased organized criminal activity that legalized prostitution has incontrovertibly brought to the Netherlands.

Prostitution Research and Education

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

Sex Workers & Clients Always Used As Scapegoats By Politicos
Posted by: rubytulips on Jan 18, 2006 4:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can you cover this story and miss reporting the fact that De La Fuente, Sr's SON is currently being charged with FIVE felonies in connection with four alleged sexual assaults or rapes between 10/03 and 04/05 of sexworkers!

That's right! While De La Fuente, Sr was bragging about his "john shaming" campaign his very SON, De La Fuente, Jr was out picking up poor prostitutes in his truck (one of them was underage) and beating and NOT PAYING them!! De La Fuente, Jr is facing 25-years to LIFE as we sit here discussing this! How did you guys miss this factoid? Please do a follow up story and interview some sex workers rights groups like The Sex Workers Outreach Project!

You want to know why the "john shaming" campaign died out so fast and why we haven't heard of it since? That's why!! De La Fuente, Sr. didn't want his son to be on the first billboard!

It looks like Jerry Brown is endorsing De La Fuente as the next mayor of Oakland. Get the word out and don't vote for this guy!

Sexworkers are always used as scapegoats by the same politicians that are screwing them on the side!

Related stories for your review:
SFGate (SF Chronicle)
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 & Friday, February 25, 2005.
Oakland Tribune
May 2, 2005.

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

Maybe government is the problem not the solution
Posted by: jwg on Jan 18, 2006 7:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The solution might be getting government out of the morality business completely, collecting tax is one burden on the populace and imprisonment is another. But I guess that strict adherence to the principle of separation of church and state is too much to ask.

Letting people use their own conscience to solve morality issues would require us to be better educated than we are to be effective.

Maybe this particular problem could be solved by more love and sex in the world.

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

Excellent Quote...
Posted by: Blue Heron on Jan 19, 2006 12:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and one that's hard to refute, whether you are male or female:

"The argument between wives and whores is an old one; each one thinking that whatever she is, at least she is not the other."

-Andrea Dworkin

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

» Not really Posted by: eastcoker
Did you say feminists?
Posted by: Existential Hedonist on Jan 19, 2006 3:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) T.S., you mentioned feminists in your post. I have to ask, just what type of feminist are you? You are clearly someone who wishes to abolish all transactional sex to "save" women from themselves. How dare any so-called feminist tell me what I can do or not do with my body, as long as I am a consenting adult who chooses to do it with another consenting adult (or three).

Your tactics are the same everywhere- you foment hysteria by dragging out the old child prostituition argument, which isn't even the point. The term "child prostitution," after all, is an oxymoron. Whenever an adult avails him or herself of the body of a minor it is purely and simply abuse. Nobody is arguing otherwise here. It has always been a criminal offence, and always will be- those laws do not change when adults who choose to make their bodies commercially available are no longer criminalized.

The link you posted features several papers on research on prostitution. But if one reads carefully, most of the subjects interviewed for this "research" were women from homeless shelters, on the streets, in jails, in drug rehabs, and in battered women's shelters. Hardly a representative sampling if we consider that women who are in jail were most likely on the streets when they were arrested, as well as those women in drug rehab and in homeless shelters. It is well-documented that street-based prostitution in the US accounts for only 10% of all transactional sex, the majority of the participants being independent online escorts, agency call girls, massage parlor workers, or brothel workers.

Not to mention the fact that there were no male subjects to speak of in these studies. There certainly are male sex workers, but the research featured on that site conveniently leaves out this little detail. As does your comment, "I want a world where women's survival is not based on sexual servitude to men's desire, and here I see the liberals who are supposed to be feminists' allies in forging this new world shrug their shoulders at the most bare form of sexism (read: men's entitlement to women's bodies) and decide there's no point in struggling against men's NEED and RIGHT to access women's bodies whenever and however they want." (cont.)

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

» RE: Did you say feminists? Posted by: Existential Hedonist
» RE: Did you say feminists? Posted by: Existential Hedonist
» RE: Did you say feminists? Posted by: Existential Hedonist
» RE: Did you say feminists? Posted by: Existential Hedonist
Are we banning prostiution for their own good?
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 21, 2006 1:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand the case that sex work demeans women. It certainly seems to, in many cases. But from a purely libertarian point of view, isn't criminalizing prostitution really just another attempt by the establishment to legislate morality and tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies?

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

Go! Go! Go!
Posted by: rubytulips on Jan 22, 2006 12:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go Existential Hedonist! Go!

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