I would like to acknowledge some merit to what Martin is saying. I agree that prosecuting Johns is superior to prosecuting prostitutes. One theoretical advantage is that prostitutes would be able to hold the threat of the law over a John's head as a weapon. If he tried to abuse her or refuse payment (depending on how payment figured in the legislation) she could threaten to turn him in to the cops. That's a fair bit of power on her side.
But how much would this improve the situation and what might be the hidden consequences? Such legislation would still not enable women to operate in the safety of a bawdy house. They would still be operating in the streets and in venues where the Johns feel safe from being caught but which are not necessarily familiar to the women.
What disturbs me about this proposal is that is keeps prostitution in the streets as opposed to in houses of business operated by women. The whole clichй of a Madam in a whorehouse exists for a reason. When women are able to work together in the same location, they are able to remain organized and protect each other. If something goes wrong with a trick, the woman next door will hear. Someone you know and work with will come to your rescue. You rarely hear of Madams operating in the street. I'm speculating, but I think that may relate to basic physical strength. It seems to me that pimps dominate the street venue of prostitution and that the women have more potential to exercise power and protect themselves in bawdy houses. For women to work indoors, in a stable location however, the profession needs to be completely legal.
[ 11 October 2007: Message edited by: Saber ]
