Hmmm on one hand I find prostitution personally distasteful and demeaning. I wouldn't want a daughter if mine in the business, but prostitution isn't going anywhere and if the Bunny Ranch (I think its bunny) in Nevada is anything to go by I would rather it be legal and free up the legal system, provide a safe environment for prostitutes to conduct "business" and ensure they're being paid their fair share and not being exploited by a pimp.

And ultimately I'm not sure it is within my rights to tell an overage person they can't sell their body for money. It is their body. Now I might think they need counseling, but thats my personal opinion.

So if I were voting in SF I would vote Yes.

I'd vote yes on principle, BUT it could be a concern that more prostitutes would come to the area.

Personally I don't totally agree with the oldest profession ( if your married it's dead wrong, why is the women doing this etc). However I would vote yes, and I hope they bring this legislation to my side of the bay so I can actually vote yes. Many other countries have decriminalized prostitution and for the most part it is "safer" for both the patron and the prostitute. I generally don't have an issue with prostitution as long as children aren't involved and with decriminalization will they still be able to protect children is my only worry, because in the Bay Area there are just as many child prostitutes as adult ones.

Finally my issue with SF in general is they think that decriminalizing a lot of things ( illegal immigrants) solve problems and it doesn't.

i say legalize it, regulate it and tax the hell out of it.

I agree Great Sommelier.

Oh and just FYI for the people who check " No! Decriminalizing it would increase crime, and make it hard to end sex trafficking."

SF is very tough on sex trafficking and although it is linked to prostitution it is somewhat addressed a lot differently. The crack down in SF on massage parlors ( a hot bed in the area for sex trafficking) making it a public health issue and a highly regulated industry so they can catch traffickers.

Could a stampede of hookers really make San Francisco any worse than it already is? I'd vote legalize it. The man hours and money spent busting up prostitution rings could go directly towards targeting sex trafficking, like cutting out the middle man.

I'm all for it, as long as the male prostitutes get paid the same as their female counterparts, regardless of the quality of their labor.

"i say legalize it, regulate it and tax the hell out of it."

Agreed!

That's cause together we share half a brain...wait, that's not it.

Then again, GS, wouldn't regulating and taxing the hell out of it make it harder for Joe the Gigolo to grow his business and achieve the American dream? ;?

Damn, I'm bad with smileys lately. I meant,

Jude, The owner of the bunny ranch seems to be doing just fine

Joe the Gigolo!

Not if it falls under the standard luxury catagory. Having a woman/man be at your sexual whim is a luxury in my opinion. And those of us familiar with those taxes know that the consumer is taxed not the business. And, if the business is taxed, make the sex more expensive!

You were questioning whether to wink.

"i say legalize it, regulate it and tax the hell out of it."

Absolutely. Never should have been illegal in the first place.

Ah yes, but if you raise taxes on the consumer, it may cause a decrease in business for the business owner anyway, as the consumer will have to pay more and may be less inclined to spend more. So it will still have a negative impact on Joe the Gigolo's burgeoning man-wh*re business.

I'm mostly kidding, anyway. Like I say, I agree with ya on this one, GS.

I agree with GS.

Organic I don't see why males would get paid less on average. If it eventually models the legal prostitution establishments in Nevada then the cost of the experience will vary between prostitute, customer, and demands and will be negotiated ahead of time. Anyways regardless of the sex of the prostitute most of the customers will probably be male. I don't see why they would expect to shell out more or less for either sex prostitute.

Ugh, you people are acting like sex is a privilege for the wealthy.

Sex, like healthcare, is a basic human right. We have to socialize this industry and make sure that everyone receives adequate sexual treatment.

"If it eventually models the legal prostitution establishments in Nevada then the cost of the experience will vary between prostitute, customer, and demands and will be negotiated ahead of time."

You think supply and demand should dictate the prices between employer and employee?

I don't know any case in the United States where "Male Prostitution" is legal, I think it's taboo. I remember when Heidi Fleiss tried to open and legal establishment in Nevada for male prostitutes that many people where against it partially because it was here but mostly because they thought that it wasn't going to be a facility for women to get male company but that it will be a homosexual brothel. In the case of SF a Homosexual Brothel might do very well, but in other parts of the country I doubt it.

"Then again, GS, wouldn't regulating and taxing the hell out of it make it harder for Joe the Gigolo to grow his business and achieve the American dream?"

:hysterical:

Smilies truly elude me...

No, no, no Organic, what I'm saying is that whatever the cost is it is up to the prostitute to decide with the customer based on what the customer wants as far as sex and what the prostitute is willing to accept for it. I guess if the customer really wants a certain prostitute and is willing to shell out more bucks to get what they want and the prostitute is willing then sure (a little supply and demand in that circumstance)? I assume if there are overhead expenses and taxes then there will be a minimum cost.

Yes, that would be supply of the good and demand for the good which would yield the price of the good.

So, what if a woman is not a prostitute? Should she be guaranteed to be paid the same as a man in the same position, regardless of what her employer thinks she is worth?

bastylefilegirl, I think you are mistaken. I think the taboo nature of male homosexual sex in certain areas and the discretion that a brothel could provide I think they would do very well in most places and maybe especially on the outskirts of more conservative places.

"Ugh, you people are acting like sex is a privilege for the wealthy.

Sex, like healthcare, is a basic human right. We have to socialize this industry and make sure that everyone receives adequate sexual treatment."

I just had to read that outloud in the office. It was a hit.

I'm with organic on this one...it's a right, lol!

My thoughts are that if it isn't illegal, it will be safer for everyone involved because there can be some sort of regulation. Plus, even without taxing the businesses excessively, you'd still generate some extra tax income based off of income taxes. They're making the money whether it's legal or not, so from the government's perspective you're just giving away free money by making it illegal.

Haha, I want to work in an office where I can say things like that. Any openings?

meh, i'm undecided on this one. on the one hand i think, like some drugs, prostitution would be safe it was legal (and we could tax it)... but on the other hand... living so close to SF, i'm not sure i want to start seeing even MORE gross advertising and promotion of what, at its heart, is a really awful profession that in most cases keeps women oppressed. you know, how they basically have catalogs featuring hookers all over the place in LV? ew. so yeah, i'm a swing voter on this poll.

At the Bunny Ranch they have a general menu of ughhhhh "items" and the patron can pick a prostitute from a line up. Typically the prostitute and the patron negotiate using the menu which has bases prices on it and expand from there i.e. add on charges for more "items". The prostitute does have out of pocket expenses she has to provide her own condoms, toys, extras which she can either buy from the Bunny Ranch Store or bring herself, and a license fee ( prostitute licence). The establishment also gets a cut from the prostitutes stay at the ranch as well as the establishments bar, memorabilia, and when/if prostitutes buy "necessities" from the bunny ranch store and of course like any business the house of prostitution has to pay a business tax as well as property taxes, licencing etc.

Huh, organic I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'm saying that the prostitute themselves set the price for whatever. If would be hard to standardize a price because every customer would want something different whether that be fetish, or time, or attention, or different penetration to be explicit. Because it is the prostitutes body I think they should set the price not employer, with exception of there being a set minimum to keep up the brothel.

I would guess on average men might be paid more than women because there are more female prostitutes, if you are asking about supply and demand. I see it as being more entrepreneurial, if that makes sense. I think men and women should be treated equally and receive the same base wages, by why put a maximum on what either could earn?

I would support legalizing prostitution, but this only decriminalizes it. It would still be illegal. That means you can't tax it or institute other helpful forms of regulation.

More importantly, this could in effect turn a blind eye to the rampant human trafficking problem in San Francisco. If preventing investigation of alleged prostitution results in less protection for sex slaves and victims of human trafficking, then I would oppose it. If there are still sufficient protections in place for victims of human trafficking, then great, let's pass Prop K.

You can't have one or the other setting a price. It's just not possible. Both employer and employee set the price of the labor, out of compromise, in every instance.

So, you don't think that there should be laws making sure that one isn't paid more than the other? Aren't you concerned about gender discrimination? Lilly Ledbetter might have something to say about that.

"Haha, I want to work in an office where I can say things like that. Any openings?"

That's why it pays to have your name on the sign! And you would have to leave Austin.

Jessie, the proposed male house of prostitution I was speaking of was in Nevada where there is legalized prostitution the fear there was it would be a homosexual place of prostitution which seems insane because there are women who visit places like the Bunny Ranch. Like I said in certain parts of the country, hell even in San Fran it's a taboo it brings up the "bathhouse" fears of the 80's!

The company is going to always set the price at the most famous brothel in the U.S. that's how it's done and the prostitute chooses to work there or not. Any company gets to set it's price and typically sets it's price competitively so if you are a Brothel in an area with other brothels your prices are going to probably be similar, however since the Bunny Ranch has it's own TV show I'm sure they charge more than others in the area. So the brothel itself sets "base prices" the prostitute sets up what she is or isn't going to do and negotiates ( hustles) the patron into spending more that is how his/her money is made.

Are female models or average paid more than males? I don't think that type of pay equality is what I think of when I think of gender discrimination. People aren't being paid less for equal work because they're of a certain gender per say they're being paid less because more people want the work from women or men. In that case they're not providing the same "goods." That's my perspective.

Well, I couldn't leave Austin. I just love the political scene and the green movement too much. Also, the subsidization of high-end shopping centers is a real convenience.

Jessie, are you trying to say that because they're not the same gender, they can't provide the same quality of work? Or are you just trying to say that each individual's work is inherently different, and that the price for the work should therefore be decided by the people directly involved in it?

LOL men and women can't provide the same goods as Jessie has said so of course the pay isn't going to be equal. The act of sex for a women is way more "invasive" . The women is the one "typically" being penetrated, and the man "typically" is the one actually doing the penetration, so the services isn't equal therefore why pay the same?

If everyone received adequate sexual treatment, the world would be a much better place.