While I am in total agreement about the decriminalization of prostitution, there is one area that leaves me unsettled. Indoor sex workers are out of view and can cause no real adverse ramifications on any that may be nearby. But outdoor workers could create discomfort to those within their view and certainly can result in problems for nearby businesses. I have never been a fan of the police and certainly do not like what they do to minorities or the socially disadvantaged, yet as a business owner I can also understand their views as well. Is there a compromise?
Humans living in close quarters always have adverse impacts on each other; there’s little that can be done about that unless both parties are willing to sit down and talk things over like reasonable adults who respect each other’s rights. Of course, that’s not encouraged in our society, because if we did that instead of asking Big Brother to violently intervene, it would give Big Brother fewer excuses to meddle in everyone’s business, and we can’t have that. When I was young and living in a small town, most people had little respect for the kind of whiny tattletale who calls the cops on other people instead of trying to handle disagreements themselves; however, that kind of attitude has gone the way of party lines and black-and-white television sets. Nowadays, most people’s first impulse is to call in armed thugs who inevitably make things worse even when they don’t maim or murder someone or otherwise destroy their lives. I’m willing to bet that if a business owner took the time and trouble to talk to street workers rather than talk about them to power-mad busybodies, it might be possible to reach some sort of compromise. But once the pigs are whistled up, any chance of that is gone; would you trust the sincerity of someone whose first impulse was to send heavily-armed, emotionally-stunted, rapist thugs against you instead of talking like free adults? Because I know I wouldn’t.
Lest you think me unsympathetic, please remember that I’m a property owner and businesswoman myself. But while I understand people worrying about possible damage to their livelihoods, what does selling sex have to do with that? You mean to tell me if a bunch of, say, loud drunks from a neighborhood bar were always pissing in your alley, or students from the local university were having non-commercial sex against the side of your delivery truck, or rude uptown types were letting their mutts shit on your doorstep, that you’d be somehow less impacted than if any of those people were making money from their activities? There are already laws against vagrancy, indecent exposure, littering, loitering, etc that can be used to discourage those who don’t respect others’ rights and won’t respond to clear communication; it isn’t necessary to have a separate law criminalizing their motives for the annoying behavior.
(Have a question of your own? Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)
It’s best I think to be able to see and talk to a sex worker you don’t know. Just set aside districts for that. But we are a long way from rationally in US and I think getting worse because of feminism now.
If we applied the logic of singling out street-based sex workers to the food industry, then we’d be outlawing food carts because they “could create discomfort to those within their view” versus indoor establishments. This is not to say that cities could not have street-based sex workers operate within a designated zone, just as food carts are; rather, as Maggie and other sex workers have said, such compromises should be negotiated with the sex workers themselves, not with the police.
Food carts are a fine analogy. Are hairdressers and shoe-shiners permitted to just set up shop on the sidewalk? Should they be? Is this an inherent right; or is the agency that – you know – *built* the sidewalk in the first place (the general public, represented by its democratically elected government) entitled to decide how that sidewalk gets used?
Tyranny of the mob is no better than tyranny of one man or an oligarchy; it may even be worse due to the veneer of legitimacy that modern minds perceive to be granted by the word “democracy”.
Shoe-shiners operated on the street in British and American cities in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and still do so in many countries. Barbers, too, frequently perform their trade outdoors in much of the world.
Do they have the right to do so? I would contend that, so long as they do not interfere with the rights and safety of others (e.g., they don’t unnecessarily block pedestrian traffic) it’s best to leave them be. If there’s any conflict, wouldn’t it be better to negotiate a compromise rather than have one group or person having a simplistic solution imposed on the rest?
This is what sex workers have been saying. If street-based sex workers are to be zoned, then they should be involved in the community discussions and negotiations determining how that is done.
I don’t see a comparison with food carts, shoe-shiners etc. at all. Those businesses involve setting up accoutrements and equipment on the sidewalk, and conducting their business functions right there.
A sex worker is simply a person, standing or walking on the sidewalk, making themselves visible to potential clients. From a legal and practical standpoint, they’re pretty much indistinguishable from a hitchhiker looking for a ride.
If you did want to push the food cart / shoe shine analogy, the nearest sex work equivalent would be… I dunno, a dominatrix setting up a bondage rack on the sidewalk, and administering whippings right there! You might just see that at the Folsom Street Fair, but not otherwise! 😀
I fail to see how the visible presence of equipment makes a person’s means of income more or less valid, whether done on the street or in a building. I mentioned street barbers before; they often carry scissors and comb in their pockets, and get business because others on the street will point them out to someone who asks for a barber. If you’ve ever been to Covent Garden in London, or any venue where street performers ply their trade, some have nothing more than their voice for singing or telling jokes, and a hat to collect contributions from the audience. Should street barbers and street performers be considered “illegitimate” because the tools of their trade are not always visible?
What is at stake is not whether a professional carries or carts their tools with them, or makes them visible. It’s whether they are able to do their trade safely. Criminalizing street-based sex work, even if indoor sex work is not, jeopardizes people’s safety, no matter how they dress or how obvious they seem to be.