A School for Johns

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: ETownCanuck @ 07/26/2008 11:08:10 AM

    I love reading this messages, it never ceases to amaze me how incredibly stupid people really are. Did the majority of you actually do any research into the matter or just decide to cram the idea of what you think the world should actually be as pictured in your head to everyone else on here.

    Prostitutes are not going anywhere anytime soon and making it legal where they would be taxed as well have access to medical care can not be a bad thing. And really, to those who know that "one girl" who paid for college working in the sex trade then congratulations, you've met the exception and not the rule.

  • Posted By: Cavallino_Rapante @ 07/24/2008 5:31:46 PM

    I'm not understanding how this can possibly succeed. Many American men are desperately lonely and undersexed - unless the program can arrange social dates for these men that do NOT require the outlay of any funds, then the program is doomed to failure.

    • Posted By: harperc @ 07/24/2008 5:43:31 PM

      What about American women? How many women pick up young boys off the streets when they get lonely? I haven't heard of that happening very often. Maybe it's more justifiable when a man does it. I guess women just are taught from a young age to supress sexual urges while men are taught to give in to them.

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 07/25/2008 4:34:40 PM

        Most women have it a fair bit easier. If most women wants to have their sexual needs met, due to men being "horn dogs", all they have to do is "put out feeler" and all manners of men will beat a path to their doors (that is being quite a bit sarcastic but it does have some reality to it.)

        As for whether prositution should be legalized, I am not sure. As long as the women are being protected and their rights are being ensured. I am in favor of it. As for the question of the johns being tested, it really is up to the prostitute to demand that condoms are being used.

  • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 07/24/2008 5:51:53 PM

    It seems that most of the opposition to legalized prostitution goes hand in hand with opposition to reducing the dangers of prostitution and other supposedly "immoral" activities - needle-exchange programs, sex-ed, distribution of condoms, etc. The attitude seems to be "if people do things I personally oppose, they should suffer horrible diseases and death because they have it coming." Interestingly, these also seem to be the same people who claim they subscribe to compassionate worldviews. The irony would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Of COURSE we need legalized prostitution! Safer for women, safer for men - government should be looking out for the well-being of people's BODIES, not their "souls."

    • Posted By: irateredhead2008 @ 07/25/2008 12:46:37 PM

      actually, legalized prostitution has little to do with improving women's safety and health and everything to do with providing johns a steady stream of new, young, disease-free bodies to feel entitled to. If it were honestly about improving conditions for sex workers, they'd be testing the HELL out of every john and giving THEM the 3rd degree. What happens when a prostitute gets infected since no one tests the "customers"? Where is she to go then? Oh yeah. Women's Health Advocates my ass.

    • Posted By: sjbrock80 @ 07/24/2008 6:07:59 PM

      "Safer for women, safer for men" is a lovely thought. What about kids? That's a great conversation to have with your 15 year old daughter. "Oh, it doesn't matter if you can't get good grades. You don't need to be smart to work on your back."

      The attitude of letting people do whatever the heck they darn well please and find ways and arguments to support why it's right has made our country soft and pathetic. Every little group in the country thinks they are entitled to special or equal rights for their little group. It's getting out of hand.

      • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 07/24/2008 6:24:30 PM

        "Safer for women, safer for men" is a lovely thought. What about kids?

        Heh - I figured we had to get to "but what about the chiiiiiildren?!?" sooner or later. My (very pretty) daughter is only 7, but I encourage her to get good grades because, legal or not, prostitution is not a viable career path for one's entire adulthood. Obviously I'd prefer that she not become a sex worker, but that's ultimately her decision and, if she does make that choice, I would prefer that she not pay with her life.

        As for "letting people do whatever they please," as long as no one is hurt by it, what exactly is the harm? And are you seriously blaming the prevalence of special interest groups (like, saaay, Focus on the Family?) on legalized prostitution? Or just social liberalism in general? Are you really saying there's a causal connection between legalizing prostitution and the agitation of "every little group" for "special or equal rights?" It looks like you just have great bitterness toward anyone who's having more fun than you, and anyone who feels they're being mistreated, but that's hardly the stuff of cause and effect.

        • Posted By: sjbrock80 @ 07/24/2008 7:12:51 PM

          It's not about having fun; it's about the common population being "required" to agree and support lifestyles and special interests. It's about the lowering of standards as a society that bothers me. I'm not a hateful person and I don't mistreat anyone based on their lifestyle. But when things like gay marriage and prostitution start becoming state legislated principles, it bothers me.

          I understand the feeling of "if it doesn't concern me, don't worry about it." But it does concern me even though I'm not into it. It concerns me because of the type of people that will be running around the neighborhoods if more things become legalized and accepted. Will there be more drugs and pimps running around? Will the prostitution be limited to certain areas or can hookers hang out and do their thing anywhere?

          I don't have any bitterness towards people having fun. I like to drink, gamble, and go to Vegas as much as anyone. I don't, however, like all the *** being thrown in your face on the streets. It's horrible for a child to see that, regardless of what you raise them to think.

          • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 07/24/2008 7:21:44 PM

            "It's not about having fun; it's about the common population being "required" to agree and support lifestyles and special interests."

            Who says you have to "agree and support" anything? I don't agree with a lot of practices, let alone support them, but I DO agree that they're the business of the people practicing them. As long as they're not being forced upon my kids (see: creationism in the classroom, non-ed sex ed, etc.), I fully support the freedom of those whose views or lifestyles differ from my own. As for the rest of your arguments, they're purely speculative - "the types of people who will be running around..." you don't know that! You assume that when these practices are "regulated," there will actually be no regulation. Also, when you speak of "standards" being "lowered," you're only talking about YOUR perception of up and down. That can bother you, sure - I've felt our standards were plummeting ever since politics and religion became entangled, but I suspect my up and down are about the opposite of yours. Only thing is, I recognize it's all a matter of opinion, and you don't seem to.

  • Posted By: mistressmax@mindspring.com @ 07/24/2008 10:04:01 PM

    The November ballot measure doesn't impede on the ability to stop actual cases of human trafficking. What the measure does is stop the city from applying for federal or state funding to be use to for racial profiling of alleged trafficking victims. This profiling has resulted in arrests and deportations of sex workers, targeting women of Asian descent, under the guise of fighting human trafficking. Persecuting and arresting sex workers does nothing to stop human trafficking. It is a xenophobic act to assume all Asian erotic laborers are all trafficking victims. To date, nobody has been charged with trafficking at the state or federal level.

  • Posted By: mistressmax@mindspring.com @ 07/24/2008 10:02:16 PM

    FYI, the San Francisco police use the abatement of prostitution laws to arrest women and children who are then trafficed into jail. To date, no one has been charged with trafficking at the state or federal level. The November ballot measure doesn't impede on the ability to stop actual cases of human trafficking. What the measure does is stop the city from applying for federal or state funding to be use to for racial profiling of alleged trafficking victims. This profiling has resulted in arrests and deportations of sex workers, targeting women of Asian descent, under the guise of fighting human trafficking. Persecuting and arresting sex workers does nothing to stop human trafficking. It is a xenophobic act to assume all Asian erotic laborers are all trafficking victims.

  • Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 07/24/2008 7:54:10 PM

    Prostitution, one of the few jobs that the employees need not perform a drug test to get hired or pay taxes! That's The American Way! San Fran should burn down for the s$@ they are pulling!

  • Posted By: jdemo02 @ 07/24/2008 7:52:09 PM

    I just cannot stand this garbage about Countries and states having "second thoughts". I may have second thoughts about getting drunk, but a political body knows what it is doing. Marijuana practically legal in california and prostitution would be the nail in the coffin. Florida has to do all this **** illegally. no one there talks about legalizing anything. Plus, our state can't actually agree on a single political vote.

  • Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 07/24/2008 7:51:55 PM

    Can we now legalize weed? WTF? San Francisco is going bonkers trying to pass stupid immoral laws into the mainstream. What a shame becasue the city is beautiful, but the people are something left to be desired.

  • Posted By: techresmgt @ 07/24/2008 3:50:16 PM

    The feminists strike again.

    • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 07/24/2008 6:57:11 PM

      Yeah, ya gotta hate those filthy feminists - trying to make sex safe and available. Ruining everything that's good about this country, starting with the dangerous and exploitative illegal sex trade. Wait - what was your point again?

      • Posted By: justaguy1970 @ 07/24/2008 7:31:24 PM

        You people have to be kidding right? Did you fail to notice that contries and states that have legalized prositituion are having second thoughts because it is not working to try and make sex workers happier, safer and more fulfilled? And all this 'let people do what they want if it's not hurting anyone" crap is the greatest cop out for having no moral philosophy of any kind that all you bong hitting, psuedo compassionate, closet elitists, regurgitate each time your hypocracy is rubbed the wrong way by someone elses. You have no more compassion for the unfortunate sex workers than you do for right wing fundamentalists- its just your brand of self aggrnadizement to prentend you do. So please come down off your two faced moral high horse and just say it- I am going to take the opposite argument and look down my long nose at anyone who espouses morals because I have no moral compass of my own.

        • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 07/24/2008 7:43:46 PM

          Wooow - amazing how you know every thought and every feeling in the deepest portions of the souls of so many millions of humans. Like the idea that using actual harm as a basis for behavioral standards is "having no moral philosophy of any kind." Good thing you ignore everything people say, 'cause if you didn't, you might be distracted from your preconceptions and prejudices. Now ignore this: your stance is less moral than mine. Just because you drink the right-wing kool-aid doesn't mean you have any grasp of what behavioral standards should be. Substituting dogma for social policy is the corrosive force that's put this country in the tailspin it's in, no matter how gratuitously insultingly you make your point. I have to laugh at your failure to recognize how clearly your divorcing harm from morality tips your hand.

  • Posted By: speckelbelly @ 07/24/2008 7:30:53 PM

    ITS BEEN AROUND SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME! prostitution SHOULD BE REGULATED. JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS! THEN THE PIMPS WOULD BE IN PRISON FOR HURTING THE WOMEN! THE GOVERNMENT WOULD GET TAXES! THE JOHNS WOULD GET SOME RELIEF!

  • Posted By: seti2008 @ 07/24/2008 4:37:42 PM

    Prostitutes are all over San Francisco, every neighborhood. The cops could spend all their time just going after them. I agree with legalization and control. The prostitutes would have to undergo yearly physicals, including STD testing, be given safe sex educations, and be taxed.

  • Posted By: coolrepublica @ 07/24/2008 4:05:39 PM

    can a one day seminar reform johns? The answer is no. If a wife and kids can't get them to stay away from prostitutes nothing can?

    San Fransisco is going down and they don't even know it yet. They want to be the Amsterdam of America. I say instead of moving Europe to America, everyone that wants those kind of changes should just move to Europe. They can afford it. Good riddance.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse