29 October 2008 /
Keeping San Francisco Safe From Prostitutes?
/ 8 COMMENTS
Blog
- New Zeroes: A Wayback Machine for everything else
- Here’s Your Fucking Jetpack: The 00’s & the Sex Future That Wasn’t
- Doing It Professionally
- “Dear Internet”
- Under the umbrella of sex: or, Foucault’s wet dream
- Blonde Salvation
- New York (The First 6 Months, roughly)
- “where is your line?”: how we’re opening up consent
- Naturally Indignant
- Claiming “Spitzer 2.0″ as a headline before everybody else does
Can’t do much about PropK here in Madison, WI…but your comment about the condoms used as criminal intent evidence really caught my eye. A little research has me really scared, until I realized the solution: if everybody carries around six condoms, everywhere, regardless of whether they need them, cops will have to actually, well, find REAL evidence before arresting. I wrote about it on hotsafersex.com, but meanwhile here’s keeping my fingers crossed that it will pass, and Prop8 won’t.
That’s a good point, Graydancer. In fact, being up there in Madison where that huge university is, getting everyone to carry around loads of condoms would probably be a good thing. Hey, I know how wild those UW-Madison parties get!
I find it interesting that such a measure would be introduced in San Francisco of all places.
I happen to believe that the measure has its roots in a much more diabolical scheme. I believe that powerful, wealthy men want access (unrestricted) to buy sex from men, women, boys and girls.
I know that may sound overly simplistic or even naive, but I believe that, as is all legislation, there is a progression- a slow but steady advance towards goals. I would see this as a first-step towards the day where (just like in many countries around this world) girls and boys as young as 11 and 12 are prostituted to the highest bidder.
I could see that happening in Frisco within a decade or two.
Just a thought.
Prop K would allow those in the sex trade recourse they don’t currently have due to prejudice, discrimination, and inequity in the criminal justice system — inequities that already favor the most powerful. As in your example — “powerful, wealthy men” already have access to buy sex from pretty much whoever they please — no need for any “diabolical” scheme. The truly wealthy and powerful can afford not to get caught as clients of sex workers not due to any “scheme,” but for the same reasons they can get out of paying taxes: the right lawyers, and a pattern of law enforcement that privileges them.
Trackbacks