By Lori Musicer

LAST SUMMER THE city's massage practitioners were forced to apply for a new kind of permit under the San Francisco Massage Ordinance, a mandate that transferred the registration for all massage professionals – both massage therapists and adult-entertainment workers – from the San Francisco Police Department's Vice Crimes Division to the Department of Public Health's Environmental Health Section. The new permits distinguish between "general" and "advanced" practitioners and allow for home-based practitioners to obtain a permit. The massage community has generally applauded the ordinance as a step toward protecting both practitioners and patrons. However, the industry is divided about the appropriate next step to further segregate massage therapy from sex work.

The massage community is divided about whether to implement a statewide licensing system, which some say would bring consistency and accountability, or to eliminate the licensing process altogether, which would appease others, who point out that the city doesn't require a permit for any other health professionals. And no one is thrilled about the annual fees, which range from $100 to $240.

When massage permits were put under the SFPD's jurisdiction 30 years ago, the intention was to regulate adult-entertainment massage, which was thought to be a cover for prostitution and drug dealing. But massage therapy has since evolved into a legitimate healing art, and Sup. Chris Daly sailed the ordinance to a near-unanimous victory in 2003.

"Most practitioners felt there was a stigma attached to being licensed through the police department," Daly says. "And the advocates for those on the sex-work side felt that licensing with the health department would forward their goals of moving toward a more harm-reduction model than one of criminalization."

"It adds another layer of legitimacy in bringing skilled touch into the mainstream," adds David Palmer, founder and president of TouchPro Institute and president of the San Francisco Coalition of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork Practitioners. Bay Area sex-work advocate Carol Leigh, a.k.a. Scarlot Harlot, believes the ordinance is creating "a more favorable, respectful, and less intimidating environment" for erotic massage workers, and that it's a step in the right direction for them as well. "The health department is still ironing out the kinks," Leigh says.

Officials and advocates hope the new permitting structure will encourage massage therapists who work from home to work legally. Of course, the city stands to gain revenue from these home-workers going legit – the DPH has issued 1,026 practitioner ID badges, 80 business permits, and 121 licenses for out-call services – but it claims it's not just about the money. "It's an opportunity to provide people from both sides of the massage spectrum with education on health and sanitation," DPH Environmental Health Section director Dr. Rajiv Bhatia says.

Massage practitioner Jack Walder recently became "legal" for the first time after running an unlicensed private practice out of his home for nearly 15 years. "The license gives me validity," he says. However, the ordinance hasn't lured all self-employed practitioners into the system. Heather, who prefers not to disclose her last name, has an in-home private practice and doesn't plan to apply for a license. "I am glad that the rules around massage practice in San Francisco have changed, but I still find the bureaucracy and the hefty annual fees to be unacceptable," she says. "These constitute an unfair and unnecessary barrier to entry to my profession."

"The ordinance is still not where we would like [massage laws] to be," says Irene Diamond, director of Diamond Massage and Wellness Center (1841 Lombard, S.F. 415-921-1290). Diamond and many others in the field believe that the next logical step would be for California to join the 31 states that already have statewide regulations. To accomplish this, Assemblymember Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) introduced A.B. 1388 to protect patrons and provide them with recourse if they have problems with a massage provider, and to protect practitioners. Though the bill still needs some tweaking, the movement seems to be picking up steam with the help of the Coalition for California State Massage Licensing (www.handsonca.com), and practitioners like Diamond, who have lobbied for state licensing as an active member of the American Massage Therapy Association.