John Schools: Like AA Meetings For Dudes Who Hire Prostitutes
Posted by: Nikki Dowling
Filed in:
news
11:50AM, Thursday August 27th 2009
About 50 cities in the U.S. have come up with an interesting way to handle dudes who are caught trying to pick up prostitutes—they’re sending them to “John Schools.” In these AA-like meetings, the guys listen to presentations by former prostitutes who tell them how brutal the industry is, health experts who share how dangerous sex-for-hire can be, and therapists who try to get them to understand why they were trying to buy nookie in the first place. The idea is to get the guys—about half of whom are married—to understand that hiring a prostitute isn’t a fun and harmless thing, but that they’re actually part of a much bigger problem. Only first-time offenders are eligible for these AA-like meetings, which are generally held in churches or government buildings. (Repeat offenders and those who try to solicit minors are dealt with more harshly.) The guys also have to pay a $250 fee and finish the class without trying to buy another woman.
The idea is to punish the buyers rather than the prostitutes themselves, who in the traditional legal system are generally given much more severe punishments than the dudes who use their services. Some think if men stop buying sex, women will stop selling it.
But not everyone thinks these schools are effective. Although men often leave the schools feeling super embarrassed, some don’t think the classes are punishment enough. And others believe prostitution should just be legal. What do you think? [CNN]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
Riley
wrote on August 27 2009 @ 11:03 am: [report]
Legalize it. The government needs to stop holding hands and worry about other things. Want to pay for sex? Go ahead. Buy some marijuana while you are at it. If you legalize and tax it, the system will regulate itself for the most part.
Kefka
wrote on August 27 2009 @ 11:15 am: [report]
In other articles regarding this subject, people actually suggest putting johns on the sex offender registry as a deterrent. Really? As if the registry isn’t filled with public urinators, streakers, and teens who had consensual relations with other teens, now we need to be notified when someone paid $20 for oral sex? Truth about the registry @ http://www.oncefallen.com
sadie
wrote on August 27 2009 @ 11:32 am: [report]
Didn’t we just talk about this? Not all Johns are evil or in need of therapy. Not all prostitutes hate their work. The reason the work can be dangerous/brutal is because it is forced underground. Legalize it.
Riley
wrote on August 27 2009 @ 11:35 am: [report]
@Sadie - Yes! With the same exact stock photo too. Looks like a lot of topics have been recycled lately. Suppose it is “green” online reporting?
_jsw_
wrote on August 27 2009 @ 11:38 am: [report]
“Some think if men stop buying sex, women will stop selling it.”
I’d say that’s a pretty iron-clad argument, if one rules out lesbians and women who buy sex for their men, neither of which likely account for a large part of the prostitution business model.
However, I agree completely that it should be legalized and regulated. There’s really no downside to that. It would make it more prevalent. It’ll just make it safer and reduce the related crimes associated with it. As a society, we’d be better off.
Arsenic
wrote on August 27 2009 @ 11:42 am: [report]
Legalize it! A lot of these problems would be greatly reduced if the industry were regulated. It’s time we stopped letting artificial “morals” get in the way of doing what is best for everyone.
justme
wrote on August 27 2009 @ 11:46 am: [report]
Because it isn’t legal and won’t be for a very very long time - and because yes a significant number of the women are in fact being exploited (yes I realize not all) I am FOR this qualifying you for the sex offender list.
I wholly agree that the sex offender list is a joke in that there are thousands of people on the list that don’t deserve to be there. However, prostitution is illegal - both buying and selling. These men know what they are doing is illegal and if they think it is a victimless crime they are only lying to themselves to feel better about it.
The article talks about going to John School on the first strike but suggests strike two is either jail time or sex offender registry. 91% said the registry threat would keep them from re-offending. I can get behind those numbers.
Riley
wrote on August 27 2009 @ 11:52 am: [report]
@Justme - Sex offender registry is meant to protect people from violent and potentially violent predators. Just because someone is willing to pay $50 for a handy doesn’t mean they are going to strangle the person afterwards or forcibly do anything to anyone.
Its like making a felon out of a parking ticket violation.
_jsw_
wrote on August 27 2009 @ 12:01 pm: [report]
@Riley: I could not agree more. Diluting the sex offender registry will do nothing beneficial for anyone - except for hardcore sex offenders, who will have an easier time convincing people they’re not bad by claiming to be one of the many trivial “offenders” on the list.
40yrolddad
wrote on August 27 2009 @ 12:02 pm: [report]
“Sex offender registry is meant to protect people from violent and potentially violent predators.”
it may have started w/that intent but @ this point has degenerated into little more than a “get out of bill of rights free” card for religious nuts & opportunistic politicians, cops & prosecutors. I’ll be picking my 6 yr-old up at his bus stop in 30 min & I’m far more concerned about random drivers running the stop sign and/or texting (a REAL threat to him) than I am that somebody on my street have have hired a prostitute but then I can do math…
justme
wrote on August 27 2009 @ 12:09 pm: [report]
All I’m saying about the list is that.
1. it seems to be a deterrent.
2. If you get on the list by looking a kiddy porn online - not actually touching anyone, If you get on the list by having concentual sex with a girl who’s mom doesn’t like you - then why shouldn’t you get on the list for deliberately braking the law with a sex act?
justme
wrote on August 27 2009 @ 12:15 pm: [report]
braking = breaking (oops)