ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 09/02/2014 04:04 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Society and Culture
Egyptian Feminist Poops, Menstruates on Islamic State Flag
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think the U.S. should do more to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine?
  Latest Events
09/02/2014 12:24 PM
dolcevita receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Couple Kidnapped in Decatur, Ga. Found Handcuffed, Shot'
09/02/2014 12:00 PM
dolcevita receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Carrie Underwood Is Pregnant'
09/02/2014 11:43 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Joan Rivers Put on Life Support'
09/02/2014 11:37 AM
dolcevita receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Apple Fixes iCloud Bug Blamed for Leak of Nude Celeb Photos'
09/02/2014 11:18 AM
dolcevita receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Marine Helicopter Goes Down in Gulf of Aden, All 25 Aboard Rescued'
09/02/2014 03:58 AM
Lurker receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Hershey´s Launches New Logo That Looks Like Poop Emoji'
09/01/2014 09:43 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'First Openly Gay NFL Player Michael Sam Cut by Rams'
09/01/2014 09:42 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Hershey´s Launches New Logo That Looks Like Poop Emoji'
09/01/2014 08:24 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'First Openly Gay NFL Player Michael Sam Cut by Rams'
09/01/2014 08:06 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Hershey´s Launches New Logo That Looks Like Poop Emoji'
  3.638 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
03/24/2009 12:48 AM ID: 77798 Permalink   

Men Caught With Prostitutes May Have Letters Sent to Their Wives by Police

 

Florida: Police in Escambia County could soon be sending warning letters to women whose husbands have been caught with prostitutes. There is still no consensus among men in the county on whether or not they think the idea is a good one or not.

"This letter's making you guilty before you get your day in court. You need therapy. You need help. You don't need to be lambasted by your wife," said one. Another man: "She should know. The sooner the better, so she can make up her own decisions."

Still being worked out are the legal issues, says Lt. Pat Spears. "We're not trying to break up homes or tear up marriages. What we're trying to do is a safety issue; warning women what this guy could be taking home," referring to HIV positive women.

 
  Source: www.9news.com  
    WebReporter: caution2 Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  30 Comments
  
  Initially...  
 
I thought that this was too far, but they did provide a good excuse to send these letters (HIV/AIDS).
 
  by: Razaq   03/24/2009 03:03 AM     
  not just aids  
 
but any slew of STI's, Some are known to cause cervical and colon cancer (2 of the strains of HPV). I say send the letters if they are cought with a prostitute, or have the wife come in.
 
  by: ssxxxssssss   03/24/2009 03:56 AM     
  I think  
 
the wife deserves to know. The government should not be in the business of trying to cover up your illicit activities. They should notify you of court dates, charges, etc. just as they would with any other crime.
 
  by: gryphon50a   03/24/2009 04:40 AM     
  I think it sucks that people  
 
have to sneak around behind their partner's back and I think it sucks even more that we have allowed our government to dictate our morality.
The dysfunctional attitude we have about sexuality is the primary reason we have these two problems.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     03/24/2009 05:08 AM     
  Personally  
 
I agree BB. Enter the more sexually 'aware' crouds, and you find yourself shocked at the lack of promescurity and devience. Knowing people who work for companies that import dvd's etc they are all very casual people, not the perverts the media and family groups make out.
All of them have very strong opinions on cheating etc, and the workplace is completly devoide of sexualy harrasment.
"Its more uncomfertable to work in fasion retail than the 'sex industry', I got harrased by workmates and customers in retail, here people are polite and know their bounderies" is a quote as told to me by a friend now in that position.
 
  by: ssxxxssssss   03/24/2009 05:33 AM     
  So...  
 
I'm lost. Their excuse seems a bit threadbare. I mean, are they going to do it if the chick has no STDs? What about if the guy is caught with a mistress doing something illegal that isn't prostitution? To me this just seems like another attempt at the Scarlet A. Of course this whole thing could be stopped just by legalizing prostitution but that just makes too much sense.
 
  by: qwerty017   03/24/2009 05:42 AM     
  thats it  
 
This sounds appropriate in tyhe context of prostitue, but surely a monetary exchange has no physical impact.

This could enter some very gray legal areas, the law is not designed to report infidelity. If it is unsure whether or not the girl is a prostitue is the letter still sent?
 
  by: reverend j roach     03/24/2009 09:06 AM     
  hooray for the Morality Police  
 
did *you* say your prayers last night?
no? that'll be an $80 fine.

free from 'religious persecution' but we'll impose our morality on you, one way or another!
 
  by: redstain   03/24/2009 09:38 AM     
  OK...  
 
1. Why are men being singled out? Surely this is discrimination of the most hypocritical order. (Yes I know that more men go to prostitutes than women - but equal is equal)

2. Is this a morality issue or a disease issue? If it's disease then you have NO right whatsoever to communicate personal information UNTIL a medical check has been done.

I'm all in favour of changing the law so that PEOPLE picked up with prostitutes have to have a medical check and the results forwarded to the spouse IF THEY ARE POSITIVE, but you have NO right whatsoever to insinuate yourself on other peoples' relationships.

This all sounds like a cover for morality police, and frankly I think that's disgusting.
 
  by: chiffington   03/24/2009 11:34 AM     
  @qwerty017 @redstain @chiffington  
 
Qwerty, yeah let's legalize prostitution. There isn't an HIV/AIDS or other STD epidemic already. That makes sense. And if you're argument is "well if it was legal they'd be tested". Yeah, they'd last about a week before some John infected them and they'd be out of work. Rediculous.

@redstain, the police aren't sending letters home to snitch on the guys, but to warn the women of possible STD's they could receive from their significant other's activities. Personally I think you sound like an anit-government idiot who thinks the gov't is always out to get/control us. Read the article and rethink your statement.

@chiffington, really? who's gonna foot the bill on those medical checks you believe we should have first? The government? Most of those take weeks to come back with results (in which time the perp could easily have already infected their partner) Let's face it, they hold these guys for like 2 hours (maybe). Stupidity.

This isn't the "moral police". You broke the fin law, and are now potentially carrying an STD you could unknowingly give your partner. They didn't break the law, and they have the right to protect themselves. The police SHOULD be informing wives/husbands etc. of acts that put them (innocent bystanders) in harms way. All 3 of your comments are ignorant.
 
  by: halfnhalf702   03/24/2009 02:50 PM     
  @above  
 
FYI legalizing prostitution involves more than a check mark in the "legal" box on a piece of paper.
The government will require regular medical exams, safety procedures, sex worker unions, all that jazz, the sex industry already employ a lot of these kind of measures to ensure work safety, it's just a matter of standardizing them.

It would be illegal to disclose medical information, as they're confidential, but if the police can't tell the spouse about the prostitution, then for their spouse' safety they can detain the husbands and notify their wives that the men are under criminal investigation and that they should avoid sexual contacts with them at all costs for undisclosed reasons.

That works just as well and crosses no moral boundaries.
 
  by: silentrage   03/24/2009 03:32 PM     
  /////////  
 
They print their names in the newspaper here for everyone to know. LOL
 
  by: JonSmith     03/24/2009 03:42 PM     
  @halfnhalf702: poor excuse  
 
Snitch on the men to warn the wife about STDs? (shouldn't that be the remit of the doctor?)

ok, let's play your game

What about when the marriage is broken, kids are separated from the marriage.
What about the extra pressure on the welfare state when financial hardships come to pass?

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the spouses being told.. just the nature that police have aribtrarily made decisions about this.
 
  by: redstain   03/24/2009 03:48 PM     
  @halfnhalf702  
 
When you actually have facts you don't pull out of nowhere then we can talk. You really need to actually do some research on a topic before you decide to start spouting off nonsense. Even a cursory look at the empirical evidence compiled from places where prostitution is legal will show you how stupid you look to people that actually know what they are talking about.
 
  by: qwerty017   03/24/2009 04:14 PM     
  You need therapy  
 
you need help?

Man the US is one stuck up place to live. Damn glad I don't live there!
 
  by: Flutje   03/24/2009 04:16 PM     
  LOL  
 
LOL LOL LOL
 
  by: rogeratvfan   03/24/2009 04:19 PM     
  @redstain @qwerty017  
 
@redstain: what about when marriages are broken? I'm pretty sure going to a prostitute means they're in a loveless relationship, which is NOT one they should stay in, nor one where kids should be brought up. (studies show that constantly fighting parents have the same negative impact on children as divorced parents). BTW I came from divorced parents (who were previously in a loveless relationship) and I found my upbringing quite satisfying.

@qwerty017: lol?
"When you actually have facts you don't pull out of nowhere then we can talk. You really need to actually do some research on a topic before you decide to start spouting off nonsense"
First off, I didn't state ANY "facts". Second, I live in las vegas. I'm about 50 miles from several places where prostitution is legal. I'm fully aware how they operate (yes im aware they use safe sex practices etc) but these are not fail proof. Regular testing takes several days if not weeks to come back (I've been tested before, and I know for a "fact" it takes that long). During this time they don't sit these ladies from working, they continue awaiting results). During this time anyone could be infected (no matter how "safe" you try to be).

My point was: if you break the law (ie: go to a prostitute where prositution is NOT legal), then yes you're about 1000x more likely to contract a sexual disease than from a legal one (which is still NOT safe), but your sig. other deserves to know they may be infected from your "illegal" actions.

BTW my brother went to UNR at the same time I went to UNLV, I've made the drive past those places about 30x visiting him and my family in reno and when I was a teenager was curious and researched them. I find it cute you think you're the only one who's "up on the facts".

BTW there's lots of places in the world where prostitution is legal... I know, but guess what? They're all sh*tholes. Coincidence? I think not.
 
  by: halfnhalf702   03/24/2009 06:44 PM     
  @halfnhalf702  
 
::First off, I didn't state ANY "facts".
>>So you are basing everything you are saying on opinion? ROFL. Yet again, bring some facts and not stuff you pull out of nowhere.
::Second, I live in las vegas. I'm about 50 miles from several places where prostitution is legal. I'm fully aware how they operate (yes im aware they use safe sex practices etc) but these are not fail proof. Regular testing takes several days if not weeks to come back (I've been tested before, and I know for a "fact" it takes that long). During this time they don't sit these ladies from working, they continue awaiting results). During this time anyone could be infected (no matter how "safe" you try to be).
>>Yet noone has ever been infected from a Nevada Brothel.
::My point was: if you break the law (ie: go to a prostitute where prositution is NOT legal), then yes you're about 1000x more likely to contract a sexual disease than from a legal one (which is still NOT safe), but your sig. other deserves to know they may be infected from your "illegal" actions.
>>Ummm... no. If they are going to use disease as a reason then they actually need to test for disease. And if they do then it would come under Doctor-Patient confidentiality. Which is why they don't actually test. They are just trying to shame the guy, not protect his wife.
::BTW my brother went to UNR at the same time I went to UNLV, I've made the drive past those places about 30x visiting him and my family in reno and when I was a teenager was curious and researched them. I find it cute you think you're the only one who's "up on the facts".
>>I'm not the only one. I just know more than you do about this topic.
::BTW there's lots of places in the world where prostitution is legal... I know, but guess what? They're all sh*tholes. Coincidence? I think not.
>>Really? So Canada, Nevada, Rhode Island, UK, Ireland, France, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, and New Zealand are shitholes? Wow. That's news to me. Or are you just pulling facts out of nowhere again? ROFL
 
  by: qwerty017   03/24/2009 07:22 PM     
  @qwerty017  
 
http://prostitution.procon.org/...

Read up on your facts... no one has ever been infected? lol?! and you say *I* come up with facts...

Took me about 12 seconds with google to find a site that talks about the "average" number of cases.

"In an average year in the brothels, we might see, statewide, a dozen or two dozen cases of gonorrhea and chlamydia combined, and we have seen no syphilis cases at all in several years. That’s not really very much, since each working girl can expect five or six parties a day" - Is that a lot? No. Do they spread disease? Yes.

When you break the law, you lose certain rights. (ie: sex offenders have to register with the state). If you go to an illegal prostitute, you broke the law, and yes, as part of your punishment they can send a letter to anyone you may cause harm to as a part of your actions. If you don't like it... DON'T DO THE FIN CRIME!! wow.

Think of it this way. Say you hire a hitman to take out your wife. You get caught in a sting and convicted. Should the police not tell your wife you wanted to harm her? Should you have full confidentiality? Clearly this isn't quite fitting as murder and postitution aren't the same and one implies intentionally causing harm while the other is not intentional, but my point is, if you do an illegal activity and you're caught, the police do/should have the right to inform anyone you could cause harm to.

If you want to go to a legal prostitute, go for it. You break the law, you lose the right to your confidentiality.

And yes, the parts of those cities/countries where prostitution is fostered, are indeed sh*tholes. I've been to Europe and around those areas which aren't much different from the areas here in NV; All of them are dumps.
 
  by: halfnhalf702   03/24/2009 08:54 PM     
  @halfnhalf702  
 
LOL. I told you I wasn't going to argue with you if you didn't have any facts. And what do you pull out? A set of statements completely irrelevant to what is being discussed as the police are not sending them out stating that the person might have the Clap or something. They are sending it out for AIDS since that is incurable at this time. And the only statement regarding AIDS on that page says that there has never been a case in 16 years of someone getting it from a brothel but under the CON heading there is one there stating that prostitutes who do have AIDS already cover up since giving a John AIDS kind of makes them lose money since nobody will want to go to them. Other than that? Everything else is just stupid. Comparing prostitution to hitmen? LOL. Stating that a small part of whatever few cities you have been in were trashed because of prostitution? You forget that the whole city, state, or country is where it is legalized. Not just one small area, so yet again you fail. ROFL. Anyways, since you don't have facts to support your side I am now ignoring you.
 
  by: qwerty017   03/24/2009 09:38 PM     
  @qwerty017  
 
You have yet to state any facts except which countries/states have legalized prostitution...

First off, it is NOT legal in the entire state of NV, as it is ILLEGAL in clark county (where las vegas and henderson reside). Each city has "areas" where their legal prostitution congregates, and yes those areas are all dumps (including the ones in NV).

Your statements are ignorant and formed by laughable research at best.

I'm done.
 
  by: halfnhalf702   03/24/2009 09:49 PM     
  Oops wait...  
 
Also, there are lots of "incurable" STDs and ones we have minimal treatments for (not a cure, as cures would get rid of it), but since you think HIV/AIDS is the only epidemic out there, we'll go ahead and let you keep thinking that.

Enjoy your life of little to no research and misinformation.

Now I'm done.
 
  by: halfnhalf702   03/24/2009 09:53 PM     
  Brothels and other adult businesses  
 
are relegated to older and less improved areas because of the social stigma placed on sexuality. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that they do a large amount of business, always have and always will regardless of economic ups and downs. Any other business which runs as profitably and is as sought after are located in busier and more well cared for areas because there is no negative stigma attached to them.

People used to have the right to privacy in this country but that right is being stolen right before our very eyes. For those of you who choose to support these infringements based upon your emotions about prostitution and marital infidelity you are gravely missing the point here. For each right we give away we come ever closer to a police state and whether you believe it or not, at some point, one of your rights will be infringed upon and you will be outraged about it. Sadly though, it will be to late because in your zeal to punish those who don't meet your moral standard you will have already set the precedent.
I suppose that we should also require those who have defaulted on a loan or credit card or who have filed bankruptcy to register in a list that potential creditors can use. Also, people who have been fired from more than 3 jobs should be listed for the protection of potential employers. And while we're at it, let's put everyone who gets a traffic ticket on a list to protect the insurance compan.... ooops, we already have that one.

BB
 
  by: bbeljefe     03/24/2009 10:45 PM     
  @halfnhalf702 and generally...  
 
Firstly, to your comment:

'@chiffington, really? who's gonna foot the bill on those medical checks you believe we should have first? The government? Most of those take weeks to come back with results (in which time the perp could easily have already infected their partner) Let's face it, they hold these guys for like 2 hours (maybe). Stupidity.'

Do you really need to go to abusing people? Calling people 'ignorant' and 'stupid' because you can't see past the end of your nose is a pretty poor showing for someone trying to be respected for their opinion. Grow the FARK up...and if you aren't able to type the word 'SCREWing' then at least have the intelligence to use punctuation to actually establish what you mean. After all, why you started talking about Finnish law I have no idea.

The answer to your question is in your own comments. You've shown a general belief that people who break the law should have reduced rights (which I'm all for, actually) and should be punished - so why aren't they paying for their own tests?

You see, it's not a case of hiding anything from the spouse - the concern here is that police, who have no rights to impose themselves on private family matters, do not have the right to decide who they are going to go tell about a private individual's indiscretions.

Now, if the prostitute is infected with something, then it could be a possibility. If the guilty person is infected then it could be a possibility. However, the assumption that someone is dirty and infected because they've lain with a prostitute is an assumption that cannot be taken under any fair law.

So lets take this entire situation one step further, as others already have done, I see. Where prostitution is legal would the same situation stand? It would be utterly indefensible to have a person perform a legal act and then have their spouse told by the police. How does this balance up with you? You've hurled abuse and said that you're 'well aware' of legal prostitution, but you have provided no real answer to that question.

So what would be the real answer to the whole issue?

To me, the answer is not in punishment of clients, but regulation and control of the industry.

The sex trade is a difficult area to set rules on. Some people say things, what I believe to be pretty daft things, like 'make it illegal and make the punishments so harsh that no-one will go to prostitutes'. These are the people who either don't want sex or have no problem finding partners - but it's not so easy for everyone. Some people just cannot establish a relationship (or don't want to) but still need/want sex.

I believe the real answer is in a generally enforced regulation of the industry, and making the punishments for illegal behaviour at that point over the top.

Some of the laws on the sex trade are just silly. Prostitution in the UK is not actually illegal, but streetwalking is. However, people don't necessarily want to go to a public house for sex, they want anonymity.

So make licensed bordellos have forced cleanliness regulations, constant tests on their staff, and allow escorting to set locations, that are kept on the company records.

Don't get me entirely wrong - I don't actually approve of visiting prostitutes if you are married - but then I don't approve of marriage in it's current form either. I do believe that the maximum level of protections should be put out there for people - but I don't believe that some busybody police officer with 'opinions' should have the right to choose to go to someone's home and ruin that person's entire life on a whim. Don't get confused, that IS how it would go down.
 
  by: chiffington   03/25/2009 11:52 AM     
  @halfnfhalf: prostitution = loveless relationship?  
 
"what about when marriages are broken? I'm pretty sure going to a prostitute means they're in a loveless relationship, which is NOT one they should stay in, nor one where kids should be brought up. (studies show that constantly fighting parents have the same negative impact on children as divorced parents)." -halfnhalf

So you're now judge and jury about what constitutes a loveless relationship and what ought to be done about it? Suppose if someone views porn - they *obviously* don't find their spouse interesting enough anymore; Divorce Time!!


"BTW I came from divorced parents (who were previously in a loveless relationship) and I found my upbringing quite satisfying." -halfnhalf

You say you really appreciated your satisfying relationship. What I infer - please correct me if I'm wrong - is you didn't appreciate your enivronment *prior* to the divorce.

I'd like to stress that people's outlooks are based on their 'upbringing/experinces'.

"What may be right for you, may not be right for some" - Diffn't Strokes.
So let others choose their own paths.
 
  by: redstain   03/25/2009 12:26 PM     
  @bbeljefe @chiffington @redstain  
 
redstain: you are correct in assuming I was not happy with my parent arguing and being annoyed daily by one another. After the divorce they were cordial to one another (around my brother and I) and were generally in good spirits throughout their day, which is the part I found quite satisfying. And yes I agree, to each their own, I was merely saying this seemed to be the better solution for me.

Also, viewing porn and having sex with a prostitute is about as close as thinking about killing someone and actually doing it. If you care about someone who wants to be in a monogamous relationship, actually going out and performing the act I believe means you don't love/respect them, and that you should end the relationship.

bbeljefe: If you break the law you lose the right to some privacies... they are not butting their noses into random law abiding citizen's affairs. Just as when a person is accused of sexually abusing a child they search their computer for pictures of such acts.

chiffington: "people who break the law should have reduced rights (which I'm all for, actually) and should be punished - so why aren't they paying for their own tests?" That is a fair way to take care of it, but again the amount of time it would take for these tests to come back is much longer than police hold these individuals. There is still plenty of time for them to infect their unknowing partner before they themselves know.

While I am personally against the morality of prostitution in general, I do not care one way or the other about others' choice and whether or not it is considered "legal". I feel the same way about marijuana. The only reason I would be against it is the possible fostering of spreading more disease.

What I'm saying is, they broke a law, and they should have reduced rights. Just as convicted sex offenders have to register with the state... shouldn't THEY TOO have discretion? I think someone (in this case their partner) who is possibly put in harms way should be told what they're up against and give them a chance to protect themselves (just as the parents of children in a neighborhood with a sex offender currently have the right to know who lives in their area and protect their family).

Yes, I was in a bad mood (thanks to our lovely counselors here) when I replied the other day and apologize for lashing out. Also I didn't use the work "SCREWing" as I thought it was in poor form to curse on open forums... apparently not. (Also, I say the word "f'in" more than "SCREWing" in my daily usage).
 
  by: halfnhalf702   03/25/2009 06:26 PM     
  OR  
 
They should do what we do in New Zealand and legalise prostitution, allowing prostitutes to register for a free yearly health check.

Grow up USA!
 
  by: p_g_chris   03/25/2009 09:05 PM     
  @p_g_chris  
 
you must've skipped the miles of comments on here already...

"...a free yearly health check."

Yearly? Yeah, good idea. Certainly no one would become infected in between 12 months of 5-6 Johns a day...

Also, prostitution IS legal in Nevada, USA outside of Clark County.

Way to be another misinformed America hater! GO NZ!
 
  by: halfnhalf702   03/25/2009 10:37 PM     
  OMG  
 
I have to agree wit BB and SSX.
Shit i must be getting old.LMAO
Prostitution is the oldest proffesion in the world. I mean even Jesus had one. Her name was Mary Magdelain...
Read the bible if you dont know..
 
  by: steve2045     03/26/2009 08:35 PM     
  @halfnhalf702  
 
i mean maybe i took away the wrong point from what you said, but if you look at porn you can't have a meaningful emotional relationship with some-one?
 
  by: mopboydeus   03/27/2009 04:20 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com