Letter to the editor sent to the Examiner
Starchild,
Excellent letter!
I agree 100% with your goal of decriminalizing prostitution and would like to see the City's budget gutted of all funds that target prostitution, pornography, drug use, cigarette use, sugar consumption, hydrogenated-oil consumption, etc.
One reason City Hall and its high-percentage female police force waste time, funds and energy on prostitution is to protect its feminized police force from the dangerous criminals who would regularly swat 5' tall, pony-tailed female police officers like flies if the madams on the City's police force didn't have heavily-armed-male muscle there to protect them. To a lesser degree, I, also, believe prostitution laws exist to protect male police officers from the same criminal element. Prostitution laws are OSHA for the City's feminized police force and theatre to sooth the leftists who believe men and women are physiologically and psychologically identical. (I am not saying that male is superior to female or vice-versa. I am saying that male and female are different and men are better suited for the brutal realities of dealing with violent criminals, the type that will crown a cop with her own baton.)
I realize anti-prostitution laws have existed in San Francisco for a long time. It seems to me, however, that the current crusade against prostitution has escalated with the rise in the number of female police officers that go into the streets to arrest criminals. In my nineteen years in San Francisco, I believe prostitution busts were a lower priority in the Tenderloin, my neighborhood, under Mayor Jordan than Mayors Brown and Newsom and believe there were less female officers in the streets during Jordan's time in office.
I have not conducted a total head count of who is for or against decriminalization of prostitution in San Francisco and, therefore, have no way of knowing what the actual consensus is on this issue. Like you, I have had many conversations with fellow citizens on this topic. Based on those conversations, I have come to the following conclusions: (1) Most female, non-prostitute, San Franciscans are offended by the existence of prostitution and consider it a threat to their personal safety, even if it is legalized and off the streets. They support the raids on massage parlors and government monitoring of internet prostitution. They want prostitution to remain illegal and to disappear. (2) Most male San Franciscans "state" they are offended by the existence of prostitution, even if it is legalized and off the streets and want it to remain illegal. I suspect many of these men have no qualms with prostitution when they, like Eliot Spitzer and Jimmy Swaggart, can get away with it.
Spitzer, Swaggart, Newsom and Kamala Harris prove that puritans, many of them hypocritical puritans, exist in all regions of America, not just New England and southern states, and come from a rainbow of multi-cultural perspectives. San Francisco's puritans are called progressives. Many of them have long hair; some are gay; others take trips; some commune with Gaia; others perform radical street theater; and many of them are anti-war, provided a Democrat is not president; nevertheless, these secular holy-rollers have one thing in common, they are as puritan and backwards as their estranged Bible-thumping brothers and sisters. Progressives verbally state they are for consensual sex. The problem with progressives is that their mouths and their actions tell radically different stories: progressives are for consensual sex provided progressives approve of the consensual sex act, its participants and motivation for participants getting together, otherwise, they are rabidly against it.
I believe these issues, and the funding of progressive anti-prostitution groups, are the main reasons prostitution is illegal in progressive/puritan San Francisco.
All the best,
Don Fields