This is a non-issue. Prostitutes may be capable of transacting their own business without interference, but that is also the danger. State regulation of prostitution is a trade off for the state and the prostitute.
Ok, that's you not reading the account without a preconceived notion of what you would see. I'm not really sure which part of "many of us will choose to work illegally rather than sacrifice values important to us like freedom, privacy, and control over our work, lives and bodies" was difficult to understand, and hell, regulation could be many, many things, but it is sure not, as it turns out, "a trade off for the . . . prostitute." In fact, there was no trade at all. No one asked the pros what would make their lives better. No one listened to the doctors about what was most effective. Hence, a big effing part of the problem.
Then work illegally. That was going to happen anyway. Im just saying that for the people that want to work within the system, there should be a system.
Your solution is to get rid of the whole thing because it doesnt conform to exactly what the prostitutes want?
As for the state, Alci could well tell you from many repeated arguments with me that I tend to be all about general industry regulation. Now, there's a large caveat here - I really don't like regulation for a) regulation's sake and/or b) based on nonhelpful stereotyping and/or c)that's vastly ineffective. The Nevada brothel system, as it turns out, has a large helping of all three. Addressing these problems in reverse order:
c) I have yet to see how a strict brothel system helps society. It doesn't reduce independent contractors (just removes the protection of the law with an extra helping of, "well, you could be legal if only you were willing to work 14 hour days and live onsite in a highly restricive living environment") and it certainly doesn't promote quality employment practices. Basically, it turns over "policing" of prostitution from the legal state and/or the illegal pimp to a brothel owner, one who is well within his/her (though these days, predominately his) rights to exercise or enforce much of the power of both. Is "accept sex and do what I want, or I'll beat the crap out of you" really that much different from "accept sex and do what I want, or I'll sleep deprive you, fire you, evict you, AND report you to the cops"? Is that really somehow better? For whom? Oh, wait, for the brothel owner it is f-ing awesome. Benefit to society? Nil. Benefit to the state (if one ignores tax dollars, which the state could garner via legalization or decriminalization, frankly)? Nil. Benefit to the sex worker? Nil, and possibly, depending on the brothel, less than nil.
Again, throw out the entire system because it isn't perfect? How about just reform the system. Also, the alternative is to criminalize the use of one's body. Perhaps these sex workers have better career options.
b) It really annoys me, then, that people always play the STI card as if it's the justification for all ills. Look. No one tests the johns/janes that frequent brothels. They don't have to register, they don't have to undergo monthly, yearly, EVER testing. And this is stupid, because if the prostitutes are all clean, and two months later one isn't, how do you think that happened? Oh wait - you mean it wasn't the dirty hooker, it was the client who introduced disease into the transaction? But however will we regulate that? Will we push for comprehensive sex ed? Hand out free birth control and condoms? Put more money into research and sussing out cures? No. Because that would be too much like addressing the damn problem. Instead, the state will continue to punish the "deviants" who work in the sex trade without doing anything that stops the spread of disease, all while validating the stereotype that people who do sex work are petri dishes and shoring up the image of those who would (gasp!) never make that choice as somehow necessarily clean, healthy and above the reproach and reach of disease. Prostitutes and other sex workers are just a drop in the proverbial bucket of at risk sex in America (hello, college campuses and morally restrictive communities - where are you going and what are you doing in that handbasket?), even if you ignore the doctors who are right (if you look at illness gestation periods) when they say that getting testing monthly is, forgive the phrase, overkill.
Sorry, I dont understand your problem here. YOu want them to be tested less or have clients tested too? That's fine, but is that a total deal breaker? I mean, if the compromise is to test the prostitutes and not the clients, is that grounds for throwing out the entire system? talk about overkill. Idk about you, but more testing sounds better than less testing. The other concerns are collateral to the issue - is criminalizing prostitution fair and good? I dont think so. I think people should be able to do with their bodies what they will for the most part, especially if it is the most valuable part of their body.
a) So clearly I can't have been the first to have thought all this through (I'm really, really not). So then why the brothel system? Because it serves multiple functions, especially in Nevada, a state whose prime draws are a dam and a place affectionately known as 'Sin City': tourism, tourism, tourism. Oh, and reelection. If vice is your stock in trade as a draw, but you have a "family" constituency, as a legislator you really have two big options as the situation stands in the states. We can call them The Nevada and The Louisiana. In New Orleans, where you can drink on the street without repercussion, it's a crime (and probably a felony) to blink the wrong way at someone who might have drugs. The city locks up more people than any place on the planet, as it turns out, and all the "Big Sleazyness" if firmly segregated by state regulators to within the parish limits - much of the rest of Louisiana is prime bible-thumpin', huntin', redder-than-thou territory. So, so much for free wheelin'.
In Nevada, on the other hand, the state regulators have firmly segregated the vices to different areas, to an extent. Gambling and visual sex marketing in cities, actual sex in the (very, very) rural country. So basically, in your standard tourist trap town, you can buy anything but actual intercourse. If you want that, you have to travel far from civilization in order to get it. This way, the city is dirty, but not too dirty, and dangerous, but not too dangerous, because the icky bad paid sex is out of sight . . . but not out of mind. So you get all the draw of "Oh! Legal prostitution! So progressive! So . . . salacious!!!" while people who live there can still ride their high horses safe and tucked away from the sex(ual intercourse) work whose taxes they sure as hell aren't ashamed to gouge, and still use those horses to slink off to the nearest "ranch" whenever they "succumb" to "temptation." These methods both suck large, but then, anything that relegates sex to the corner as if it's name were "Baby" as opposed to actually dealing with reality is, to my mind, a detriment not just to the worker but to society as a whole.
So the big social drawbacks? If perpetuating shoddy employment practices isn't enough, feeding a sexual scare culture, demeaning sex workers and promoting a virtual and generally toothless panacea as opposed to addressing very real sexual issues in a forthright and honest manner all do it for me too. No matter where one stands on the outlawing/legalization/decriminalization spectrum of response to prostitution, the Nevada system straight up sucks. We can, and should, do better.
You want more rights for prostitutes, less STD testing, and an honest discourse about sex. I can conditionally agree to all three of those but I'm not understanding why criminalizing is the best way to achieve your goals.