That's the reality of legalized prostitution, which exists in Amsterdam and of which the Ouderzijds Achterburgwal, where we live, is the neon-lit throbbing heart.
I did not know that San Francisco was contemplating legalizing prostitution (hat tip Freakonomics). Interesting. Proponents say that this would improve the health and safety of 'sex workers' and cut law enforcement costs by millions. Opponents say that SF would instantly descend into a pit of sin and depravity.
Based on my experiences in Amsterdam, here is what I would expect if prostitution were legalized in some form in SF:
- Prostitutes would indeed be safer. If the well-being of the women is your main concern, as it is with organizations such as OZ100, then legalized prostitution is a good thing. The girls don't have to hide, and because they are more visible they are easier to keep track of.
- Law enforcement costs would not drop substantially. The government here in Amsterdam has spent a fair amount of energy recently trying to discourage organized crime from taking over the RLD. It's safe to say that what you gain in not having to bust prostitutes every night you lose to fighting the pimps.
- Prostitutes are not likely to be freer. A recent study in Amsterdam indicated that over 80% of girls are under some form of coercion. This most frequently comes in the form of pimps, who tend to be a cross between a bad boss and a really bad boyfriend.
- The incidence of prostitution would rise as people travel to the city to take advantage of it.
- San Franciscans are unlikely to comprise most of the prostitutes. Very few of the girls in the windows here are Dutch. They're much more likely to be Eastern European or from even further away.
- Pimps will continue to play a major role in the sex trade, whether legal or not.
- Girls will continue to find it much easier to get into prostitution than to get out of it.
The OZ100 community has firsthand experience with this, so it bears elaboration: for whatever reason, girls seldom leave the sex industry. There's a lot of debate on why this is so. Do their pimps threaten them? Are they hooked on drugs? Are they hooked on the money? Is it the only option open to them? Or do they actually enjoy it? No one can say for sure, but the fact that even those that contemplate a career change seldom follow through should make it clear that this is not 'just a job'.
A job is something you can walk away from.
3 comments:
In my experience, it's very easy to say you're going to walk away from a job, but it's much harder to actually follow through on it if you haven't got a skills-set and a LOT of support to back you up.
I made a choice a few years back to walk away from geophysics, because I was bored and tired and thought I wanted a change. After touring endless agencies, I ended up working in telemarketing -- the only job for which I was told I was qualified (North Devon doesn't have a lot of jobs on offer at the best of times -- it's a factory or a phone centre). I have never been so utterly completely bored in all my life, and when I was next offered a geophysics job, I leapt back in with both feet and no regrets.
I was lucky because I had the option and the skills to go back to a fairly well-paying job that suddenly didn't seem anywhere near as boring as I'd thought. I think not everyone has that luxury.
I don't really know anything about it, but I do know that economics can have a strong control over people's job choices. I've known people who got good paying jobs, with no room for growth, that they never left, because they knew if they were to go to college, or get involved in a new career, they'd have to take a pay cut (even if it meant later on making more money). It's just too hard to give up making X number of a dollars right away, even if it meant making more, or having a better life for yourself later on. Especially once you get really used to it, and it becomes a major part of your life.
Just some historic background: the building which the Anglicans are using is in fact quite old. It was built in 1626 and was used as clothmakers guild hall up to 1771. One of the more famous paintings by Rembrandt: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Rembrandt_-_The_Syndecs_of_the_Clothmakers%27_Guild_.jpg was made for this room, moved in 1771 to the city hall and is now in the Rijksmuseum. The building was renovated in 1827 and is since then in use as the Anglican Church.
Your are right ofcourse that it is a kind of new building. The house we are both living in at the moment is 21 years older.
Post a Comment