I fully support legalized prostitution. I am a libertarian, I think all drugs should be legal, and all those serving drug-related sentences should be freed. I think all forms of sex should be legal. I even think that people should be able to marry as many people as they want, as long as their partners know about their other spouses. I don't think the government should be in the business of telling us what to do in our personal lives.

Having said that, this proposition is an example of why people like me have left California for good, despite being born and raised there. You can't fix the problems associated with prostitution by allowing prostitutes to run loose in the streets. First of all, many of them are addicted to drugs. And you can't ask the police to turn a blind eye to what is happening in the city. You should have learned this lesson when it came to the homeless problem. People in San Francisco think that they are very tolerant about homelessness, when all they have really done is abandon certain areas of the city to the homeless. There are certain streets in San Francisco that you can't drive down without getting your car pissed on by some homeless dude peeing into the street. That's not a solution, it's neglect. The last thing you want to do is abandon another section of town to the whores.

You need to regulate prostitution. You need to locate legal brothels away from residential neighborhoods. You need to test the prostitutes for disease, just as you test hamburgers for E-coli. It's a question of public health. You need to provide medical treatment and community outreach to prostitutes who are trapped in a bad situation. And finally, you need to tax it, in order to provide these prostitutes with government services.

If you support legalized prostitution, as I do, you should also make sure that these activists never appear on television. They may or may not be smart, caring people, but they talk crazy talk, and they turn independent moderate voters, like me, against you.

San Francisco probably can't deal with this problem because the brothels, in order to be acceptable to the public, will need to be located out in the deep suburbs, behind a hill.

Get some well-respected pillar of the community in a small, fiscally-challenged town out in the delta to support a conservative, well-reasoned piece of legislation establishing legal brothels, and you will more likely than not get what you want.

You want respect for sex workers? Stop proposing legislation like this.

from MY point of view, prostitution is pointless; it is better to give back their testicles to (ex-)men. To achieve this, just contact another type of master, actually one of the shaolin type ;) (Eeeh, what are you saying about the Dalaï-Lama :???: Bah, un homme à femmes celui-là lol)...
now for women wanting to get paid for what they can do to me, I clearly agree to... ejaculate for their own pleasure; then, *true* women just know what to do with sperm; it is their world and not any of our problem - eh! actually, to ejaculate is easy to achieve, makes us happy and the women too! :-D

Wow, bwhorn, what the heck? I admit that I don't know a lot about Prop K, but you could do a lot better to convince me against it by explaining WHY you find it stupid and incoherent. They seemed to do a fine job for me. Peter and Kink.com has no obligation to represent views he and it do not share; that's the beauty of owning a private business (although the government has been encroaching on it). I'm sure we'd all find it more than a little bit ridiculous if Behind Kink put up an anti-BDSM report every time they put up a pro-one. If you don't get Kink's stands from the very nature of the business, I say it's your problem for being shocked.

And we have laws against foreigners "meddling in our elections"? As in, expressing an opinion on them? I can't tell whether you're trying to be threatening or what.

Again, I can see pros as well as cons for Prop K. But I find most of the comments here to be rather bewildering. Where is the intelligent debate?

I'm a bit disappointed that your video didn't have Maxine Doogan, who's the brains behind Prop. K. She's been on KGO Radio speaking for Prop. K. She heads the Erotic Services Provider Union. She's a labor organizer, a good speaker, quite personable (she's worked as a call girl and is proud of it) and she makes a better case for Prop. K than most of the people on your video.

Yes, bwhorn, WTF? You seem to be suggesting that the first amendment shouldn't apply to Mr. Acworth or kink.com. That doesn't seem very American of you.

Kink.com works with sex-workers every day, and this strikes me as an obvious position for them to take.

Voting yes is not going to make the streets any safer. Once perpetrators find out prostitution is "legal" in San Francisco, your going to have an even higher rise in crime in the bay area then it's ever witnessed since it's earliest foundations. You'll see...

I'm sorry, but that 11.4 million dollars is put into more then Vice busting some little hooker on the street, it's goes into fighting major street gangs such a "La Eme" and MS-13 down to the pimps and perpetrators who travel" the circuit" dealing in the sex trade from city to city. Plus all the baggage that comes with it like drug dealing, robberies and the like. But besides all that, do you honestly think their should be a support system for sex workers? Honestly, only a select few people have the mental stability of being a porn star or a whore as the majority of them either drug addicts or commit suicide. The fact that you see so many 18 year old girls performing hardcore sex on video is truly disturbing. Maybe Kink is a little better at taking precautions and being concerned about their talent. But the rest of the porn companies, managers, suitcase pimps and all the other scumballs couldn't give one shit. Why do you think they don't even test for herpes. It's only because they know 98% of the talent and know the remaining 2% will get it sooner or later.

BTY, I use to work on porn shoots as a PA, so I know exactly what goes on in front and behind the camera.

You are absolutely right. I can suck a dick or two while I type, I'm incredibly talented.

Are you perchance annoyed that I am speaking eloquently and assuredly about this issue, while you can only see fit to babble about 'what a ho I am' or 'how the whole world will come to san francisco to set up shop'?

You know...it's pretty unlikely, that the entire world will come to set up shop in SF when they already have decriminalized or legalized prostitution in their own countries. It's mostly the U.S. that is lagging behind on this issue.

I am mistaken. The current DA is a law and order guy and correctly expects that a K win would not only stop prostitution arrest but would bring in all the baggage (pimps, drugs, disease and the trafficking in humans)that is associated with it. Whatever happened to the old DA, he had a name like "Harrigan" (...a name that shame has never been connected with. To quote the song.) Best for you SF folks to organize your homeless so that when they come-to in the morning they'll have a new card board box to roll out of.

Starchild, I AM a Libertarian, AND a good American. What Kink.com was supporting was not freedom, it was anarchy. They did not propose to legalize prostitution, they proposed to render our police department impotent. I consider that bad policy, and frankly, lazy, stupid thinking. I laid out a plan for legalizing prostitution in my first post. One which does not violate anyone's rights.

By all means, legalize and regulate prostitution. I am all for it. If that's how you want to spend your time, I couldn't care less. But don't tell the police department that they can't enforce the law. That's just plain stupid.

As far as threatening Mr. Acworth's first amendment rights is concerned, many, many people are refused entry into the United States every year because they are considered "Undesirable Aliens". Most famously, recently, Amy Winehouse, for being a cokehead. I suppose you'll have to decide for yourself if that violates her first amendment rights. And it's not just the U.S., Snoop Dogg was refused entry into Great Britain because he is an Undesirable Alien, several American celebrities have been refused entry into Australia in the past couple of years. It has nothing to do with their first amendment rights. Nothing.

As for being a Troll, I come here every couple of months to see if Kink.com has made any progress, which they have not. Frankly, I think Kink.com is destined to do damage to the fetish community, because Peter and his directors are irresponsible and greedy. They talk a good game but they don't even come close to following their own regulations. They will do anything for money, and they will go too far and bring the law down on themselves one of these days.

And that will hurt the entire fetish community.