Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems that you are hoping that a guy is caught and his home life destroyed, children humiliated, and a probable divorce and there could be some underlying reason. I think that is particularly that police waste the time to catch the Johns and ruin their lives. It is entrapment and it is not a good thing. Guys do get fined for the use of prostitutes. But for the John it goes well beyond that. I am only saying that sometimes (as I mentioned in my earlier posting), there can be a reason. The morality of prostitution should be none of our concerns. That is what we have a God for?
I am not judging the morality of it. I agree w/ you - I am not into voyeurism about other people's bedroom habits, as it were. Who is doing what w/ whom is none of my business . . . it is the whole thing about passing STDS or HIV around . . . and the unfairness that women get hauled off to jail that concerns me.
They could put anklet bracelets on the John's that do get caught and prostitutes as well if they enter certain known locations or near a place of worship, park, or school similar to what is being consider with sex offenders.
The state is already considering doing this to sex offenders and people arrested for DWI's
The money from the anklet monitoring could be use to give those who are on drugs etc treatment
I am just offering my opinion and in no way supporting either side since Im against the "Scarlett Letter" mentality.
The other difference is the amount of money involved. Call girls are a lot more expensive than street prostitutes.
Yes, very true. And the expensive call girls - from what we have heard w/ these Madames that get busted (i.e. Heidi Fleiss) . . . people pay a bundle for their services and they are very careful w/ their health issues. At least, that is what they always say.
They could put anklet bracelets on the John's that do get caught and prostitutes as well if they enter certain known locations or near a place of worship, park, or school similar to what is being consider with sex offenders.
The state is already considering doing this to sex offenders and people arrested for DWI's
The money from the anklet monitoring could be use to give those who are on drugs etc treatment
I am just offering my opinion and in no way supporting either side since Im against the "Scarlett Letter" mentality.
Well, maybe it is wrong to put the men's pictures out there. I just don't know. I agree - the "Scarlett Letter" mentality is a turn-off. I guess for me . . . two things: unknowing partners who may be exposed to disease b/c their SO was out w/ a prostitute . . . and women getting hauled into jail when the men don't.
Just worrisome from both a public health issue perspective . . . and from a legal standpoint, it doesn't seem fair that the women go to jail and the men don't.
Would you argue that one person involved in a street fight should have their picture published or be identified, and the other, equally guilt person, does not? Prostitution is a crime under current laws and it's the women who suffer. They get arrested, not the men, they get their picture in the paper, not the men, they have to serve time or pay a fine, not the men. There wouldn't be a crime without the men participating, so all I was saying is that both parties to the crime should be identified and both should have criminal penalties.
Would you argue that one person involved in a street fight should have their picture published or be identified, and the other, equally guilt person, does not? Prostitution is a crime under current laws and it's the women who suffer. They get arrested, not the men, they get their picture in the paper, not the men, they have to serve time or pay a fine, not the men. There wouldn't be a crime without the men participating, so all I was saying is that both parties to the crime should be identified and both should have criminal penalties.
Very well put, SouthernBelle! It has always seemed like a disparity to me - that women get thrown in jail . . . and the men walk off. Your argument is very logical and convincing.
There are some really quirky state laws out there. NC had one that people are violating the law to live together w/o being married. Seriously!!!! There are some other laws - don't know if they have been repealed or not - but they had to do w/sex between consenting adults. (I honestly thought all these laws, wh/ were enacted prior to the 20th Century, had been repealed).
Nevertheless - it just seems to me that the women should not be subjected to jail sentences unless the men are, too.
There are some really quirky state laws out there. NC had one that people are violating the law to live together w/o being married. Seriously!!!! There are some other laws - don't know if they have been repealed or not - but they had to do w/sex between consenting adults. (I honestly thought all these laws, wh/ were enacted prior to the 20th Century, had been repealed).
Nevertheless - it just seems to me that the women should not be subjected to jail sentences unless the men are, too.
Wow-this and SK's post will make for a VERY interesting thread on the laws and mores regardindg sex in CLT! Maybe when I have some time I need to form the thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
