But it's a victimless crime!! REALLY??????

The fallout has begun as the city of Kennebunk, Maine has started to reveal the list of names on the "johns" list. This is very interesting reading. I don't know any of these people, and if you're reading this, you probably don't know any of them either. What is most interesting to me are the comments from the common folk who live there and have been questioned by journalists seeking to know, "What do YOU think about releasing the names of the client list?"

"Generally, women who were interviewed here seemed to applaud making the list public with as much information as possible. Men, on the other hand, generally thought that the crime was minor and that releasing the names would only harm the families."

I give an honorary thump on the head to the following people for their comments:

1. Typical was a discussion in Duffy’s Tavern here on Tuesday afternoon among three friends, all retirees in their 80s who had gone to high school together. Chet Galeucia, who lives in Saco, said he agreed with his wife that the names should be published. “If I committed a crime, they would publish my name and address,” he said.

But Jim Pickett, who lives in Portland, disagreed. “You don’t want to hurt the families,” he said. Asked whether the husband had not already hurt the family, he said: “But the family doesn’t know about it. It’s not the worst crime. It’s not like stealing.”

Besides, he said, going to a prostitute is “natural.” Who is the victim? he asked. “Certainly not the woman. She’s inviting it. She made $150,000 in 18 months.”

2. Two men on the list argued the names shouldn't be made public because doing so would cause "irreparable harm" to their reputations, their families and their businesses, according to court documents. They deserved to be shielded under state victims' rights laws and the state constitution, their attorney argued.

3. Resident Leonid Temkin had mixed feelings about publicizing the names because it could cause marriages to dissolve and men to lose their jobs. "I think it'll cause a lot of hardship," he said.

4. Derek Roy · Technician at ADT Security Services

well, you can look at it this way. If these guys were getting if at home, they wouldn't have to go out and pay for it.

Reply · 1 ·

 · 18 hours ago

5. bearington

 If the man is paying someone for sex it usually means he is not getting it at home.

But how is prostitution any different than dating.  On a date, you take the woman out, spend money on dinner, drinks and other entertainment all in hopes that you will end up naked in bed with her.  

With prostitution you avoid the unnecessary calories.   

Married men spend a fortune on gifts for their wives; decorating homes; and a lot of other nonsense and rarely get sex.   Most married guys I know say that their wives have little to no interest in sex.  So if he gets it from a willing adult female it removes the burden from the spouse who doesn't want to do it anyway.

 6. RNad67

The reality is that you don't know why some of these men did what they did. Sure, for some it was just the thrill of being with someone new or different, but for others, it could very well be that yes, they are decent, good people, but they happen to be in loveless marriages where their wives no longer show an interest in bedroom activities. The irony is that many of these men DON'T want to leave their wives, but they still have needs. If a discreet encounter with another woman helps accommodate that need and nobody needs to know, is it really that wrong? I say no.                                                              ---------

Lauren here. Are you laughing??? Or screaming at the idiocy of these people?? It is truly scary to see what some people actually say out loud. Isn't the whole point of the clients NOT wanting their names published is because they don't want to suffer the consequences of their actions?? I agree it may "dissolve marriages"!! Isn't this the POINT people??? DON'T THE WIVES HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THEIR LYING, CHEATING, STD-BRINGING-HOME HUBBIES HAVE BEEN UP TO????

It all comes down to this folks---these men made bad choices, and don't want to have to pay the price. Isn't that what cheaters (men and women) have been doing since the beginning of time?? Isn't that what cheating is??? It is lying and deceiving someone to make them think you have been faithful when you have not. 

To say, "so if he gets it from a willing adult female it removes the burden from the spouse who doesn't want to do it anyway" or "he must not be getting it at home" are all examples of excuses cheaters use to justify their behavior. It is downright scary to hear people who haven't been accused of cheating publicly making excuses for complete strangers. I think this reveals their own character and integrity. If you know anyone (oh, for instance, your boyfriend or husband) agrees with any of these excuses, RUN!!!!!!!  

And by the way, we don't know how many of the wives already knew about their men (allegedly) visiting Miss Wright (or other prostitutes) but I think we can all assume probably none.  

AND NOW---THE COMMENTS I LIKE

1. doodlebug2222

Translation:  We don't want our wives to find out we cheated on them.

• Like

2. retphxfiredoremike

Victimless?  Hardly.  Some prostitutes carry STD's which unknowingly will passed on to wives and girlfriends.  These women will be the victims.

3. zomguh: That goes for everyone involved, including the fitness 'instructor'.  Now, if the woman is going to be identified for breaking a specific law, then everybody involved in the same crime(s) should be identified.  Men shouldn't get a break for being stupid, they didn't think of their families or place in the community.

AND MY ALL-TIME FAVORITE COMMENT WHO SAID IT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE---

4. ANN NONOMOUS

I am glad they released these lawbreaker's names and they should have released their addresses and ages as well the same way they do drunk drivers, thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. These men BROKE the law and should not have expectations of being treated any differently than the lowest criminal. Since when did certain crimes have priviledges over other crimes? Buying the services of prostitutes is as criminal as prostitutes selling themselves. Since the cops had no qualms about publishing Ms. Wright's name, age, etc., and her picture was published, they shouldn't have any problem treating the "Johns" the same way and let the chips fall where they may. The time for these men to worry about their wives, families, children, careers, etc., should have been BEFORE they got caught, not AFTER! No sympathy whatsoever for none of them. As for those claiming to be innocent, why would a hooker have your name and videos of you participating in sexual acts if you are "innocent?"

I just heard on the news that one of the wives of one of the "alleged" johns was begging for his name not to be released that not only was she worried about her children (rightly so) but also that he was considering suicide. What a cowardly way to react. Just more avoidance of taking any responsibility whatsoever.

I rest my case. My sincerest condolences to the innocent victims of these immature and dishonest males.  At least now they are empowered with the truth.

• Like