JoyfulC

Spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans and spam. (But baked beans are off.) Seriously, Fred has been after me all week to make up a big pot of onion soup, and make baked French onion soup with lots of melted cheese and homemade croutons.

To Cowboy Kenny: All dogs can talk. But not all humans listen.

Coming home to find some poophead ate the slice of pizza I set aside for a midnight snack. And his explanation is, he's a dog, that's what dogs do, and it's my fault for leaving it out on the counter where he could get it. And then he wants kisses and has pepperoni breath. That should have been MY pepperoni breath!

I guess this came out earlier this year. Interesting. Once again, it's those bad communities failing to keep street prostitutes safe by ensuring that sign poles can bear the weight of their pole dancing. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/pole-dancing-prostitutes_n_1680288.html

Actually, no, Backrubman. Working the streets wasn't necessary 15-20 years ago in the Toronto area. I came to Toronto in 1982, and at that time, you could advertise in the Globe & Mail. The following year, The Buy & Sell Bargain Hunter picked up our ads, and it wasn't much longer after that NOW Magazine was carrying them. So yes, you could be an independent in Toronto at that time without having to resort to the streets. I wonder if the real difference wasn't what one could make on the street. Obviously overhead is pretty low, and whether it's true or not, I don't know, but the police insisted that many streetwalkers were making $700-$1500 a day on the streets. That was more than anyone I knew advertising was making. It's probably the same deal as the professional panhandlers who prey upon people's sympathies but are probably living better than most of the people they hit up. As for drunk driving laws in the DR, could it be that it's not actually that people drive so much better drunk there but that things like insurance and litigation and accident/crime reporting are different there? I think many of these "island paradises" that seek to lure Canadians and others with money go to any lengths to keep official crime rates and such low. How? They look the other way and pretend it doesn't happen. A couple years back, my daughter's iPhone was stolen from her room in a resort in Jamaica where she was on assignment. The person who ended up with it phoned me and a number of other people in her contact list trying to defraud us. From Canada and the US, we provided hotel security with everything they needed to take to the police to track down the criminals. But no. No police report was made. The hotel promptly cut my daughter a cheque for the amount of a brand new phone, and that was the end of it. Screw justice. It was a small price to pay to pretend such crimes simply don't happen there. I suspect the same is true for drinking and driving. I'm sure there's just as much tragedy there as a result of it, but it's covered up to maintain the pristine image as a paradise for those who can afford to pay.

Wait, if anyone points out that they don't have to be out there and can work indoors, then we're told, no, they can't, they don't have the resources to do so. But when someone suggests that they be offered the resources, then it switches up and becomes about what they want. Backrubman tells us that he knew a streetwalker who had a great apartment she could have had people over to (she obviously had him over) and saved up for her retirement. So why was it necessary for her to be on the street again? I think that sort of story only makes people more angry. It's like, it's one thing to be annoyed with street beggars, but when you read an article in the paper about professional street beggars living in some swanky house in the suburbs and driving a nice car, that only hardens people's hearts against all street beggars all the more. I don't think the people in these communities really care what else these streetwalkers and their customers do, as long as it isn't street prostitution in their neighbourhood. It is against the law, and they expect LE to enforce the law. What's so evil about that? And that brings us back to the drunk drivers, the speeders, the litterers. Hell, you can even use this argument about kiddy diddlers. No matter how much law enforcement there is, we still have perverts who want to mess sexually with children. So? How is that an argument for abandoning the laws or enforcement efforts? I'm guessing that street enforcement is a lot like RIDE program enforcement in my area. People are drinking and driving, being crazy, then the OPP busts somebody one weekend, and it sobers everyone else up. For a while. At first, it puts a complete stop to things. Then people drink and drive, but don't get too outrageous about it. But when the OPP aren't back for a month, next thing you know, they're reeling drunk behind the wheel, swerving all over, driving home at 15 kph with their lights off at 1 am because they're so drunk they think they're being careful. No, the enforcement doesn't completely eradicate drunk driving, but when there is periodic enforcement, it at least quiets things down for a while and keeps the overall average level of drunk driving down a bit. If there weren't periodic RIDE enforcement operations, people would just be hog wild drunk driving all the time. But it is illegal to communicate in a public place or a place open to public view for the purposes of prostitution. I imagine when streetwalkers and their customers are busted, that's the nature of the charge. Am I wrong? I don't know how to explain this to you. It's legal for me to hold a pillow. But it's not legal for me to hold a pillow over my husband's face in his sleep for the purposes of suffocating him. I doubt that a viable murder defense would be that I was legally holding a pillow. And in places where everything is done to ensure that there is shelter for everyone, you still find homeless sleeping on the streets. Someone mentioned something about mental illness/substance abuse a while back, and frankly, I wonder if that isn't part of the problem that puts people on the street (at least the streetwalkers, anyway--not so sure about the street customers). So because you can't force people means you must abandon any law you can't enforce 100%? You're saying you think we should have no speeding laws or enforcement? No drinking and driving laws or enforcement? Exactly what laws do you figure we have a right to have and enforce? Only those that no one would break anyway? Well, get over it, because you do live in a society which has the right to demand a certain level of responsible behaviour from people in public. And society gets to decide where to draw the line. I'm just not buying it. If someone is self-destructive enough and makes such poor choices as to put herself out on the street, I don't for a minute believe she's going to magically develop this great intuition about people, given a few extra minutes to size someone up. You and I both know that desperation drives them to the streets, and it will drive them to take a risk rather than lose a chance for some cash in hand too. Again, I'd remind you that Gary Ridgeway, who may have killed more than 100 streetwalkers, had no problem getting women to hop in his car and let him take them somewhere to do business. I'm guessing most of them were quite surprised when he killed them instead of paying them, because up until then, he probably wasn't too much different than most men they worked for. So let's not bullshit each other that streetwalkers have any tremendous safety advantage if given a couple extra minutes to size someone up. And frankly, while I have intuition, of course, I don't even rely on it and I've been in this business all my adult life and then some. Sure, I like to talk to someone, get a bead on his attitude, but I also like to have something on him, just in case my instincts were off. These days, you can't just phone up and order a pizza delivered without some sort of ID. That's the world we live in. So to jump in someone's car and let them drive you off without even leaving anything behind with your back up person to ensure you get back safely, or that person gets a follow-up visit from the cops, is just insane. As long as she's working the streets, she will not be safer. She may be safer from being busted, if you could somehow convince communities that they have an obligation to put up with the problems her choices make, but she won't be physically safer. Again, the problem isn't prostitution; it's streetwalking. The thing that is never mentioned here is how many people get off the streets. I imagine there are people who started out on the streets in desperation, but quickly realized the risks were too much, the rewards too meager, and who took their earnings from the street and used it to set themselves up in safer, more comfortable and more socially responsible circumstances. I know a number of customers who initially went to the streets when they first started hobbying. A couple were busted, and it was a hard lesson learned. But if they'd done their homework _before_ going to the streets, they might have sidestepped that tragedy. Most smartened up along the way, and came to realize that going to the streets was dangerous for them, both legally and physically. Just as with drinking and driving, some people do smarten up and decide to behave more responsibly and make better decisions for themselves. The fact that some don't, and continue creating problems all the while exposing themselves to unnecessary risks, is a lousy argument for abandoning the laws or the street enforcement policies.

That may be true, but please remember that the community does not have an obligation to make streetwalking safer, easier (or more lucrative, for that matter). People say there will always be streetwalking because some men just prefer to be able to hop in their car, drive around, see the "goods," pick someone up, and have it all over and done with, quickly and conveniently. And because they've made it clear that there will always be a demand for this, everyone else should be cowed into accommodating them. These are the same men who can't be bothered properly disposing of their used condoms. They have consistently made it clear that they'd prefer to just whip them off and throw them on the ground for someone else to deal with. That's their preference, and since they have consistently made it clear that this is their preference and will always be their preference (and since, after all, they are MEN), then I suppose the community must accommodate them by finding someone else to pick up their jizz-filled condoms. Right?

Angela, you make a good case in point. It hasn't happened in a very long time, but back in the 70s, I had a roommate who was the original bleeding heart. She'd see some poor beat up streetwalker, and drag her home where we'd feed her, help her heal, try to give her advice and a head start on making better money, being independent , and getting off the streets to safer working conditions. But without fail, every single time, once they were able to work again, their old pimps came around and off they went, back to the streets. And most of the time, our home was broken into shortly after that. I'm not saying that streetwalkers are bad people. Some that I knew were beautiful people. But they were highly self-destructive and consistently made bad choices for themselves. One thing became immediately obvious: if a person makes bad choices for themselves, they're not going to make better choices with respect to others. And that's why I wouldn't take my own challenge from above. And why I also understand why people don't want streetwalkers in their neighbourhoods. Also, I wish people who are so critical here would understand that I know a LOT of what it's like not to have resources to work. I come from a time when you either worked for an agency or a massage parlour, or you were on the street. Except some of us found a third alternative back in the day. We used to do something we called "freelancing," which was sort of an upscale alternative to streetwalking. It involved going into lounges in business class hotels to pick up business. It differed from streetwalking in a number of ways. You were on private property, so you could be thrown out and even banned if the establishment didn't like you. There were strict codes for dress, and even stricter (although unwritten, unspoken) codes for behaviour. Basically, you had to be an asset to the establishment, and never cause it any trouble. The hotels weren't stupid. They knew their customers were looking for these services, and they knew there were a lot of women willing to provide them. They had no use for any woman who was going to make their lounge look seedy, nor any SP whose business with their guests was going to result in problems or calls to hotel security. In short, they knew whores were a fact of life, but they only wanted the best on their premises. If you wanted to be welcome, you had to meet or exceed expectations. I did very well by freelancing. I saw other women getting run off, night after night, but I was always welcome. And when I was away for a while, when I'd walk back into a lounge I hadn't been in for weeks or months, everybody was thrilled to see me. In more than a decade of freelancing, I rarely paid for a drink. Once they got to know me, they were always on the house. (But they were also always virgins. One rule was, you weren't there to get loaded.) I'm sure there are streetwalkers who are obnoxious and who cause problems, but I've never seen this with my own eyes. That's not to say I haven't seen huge problems caused by the streetwalking business. Most of it, in my opinion, is caused by the obnoxious behaviour of the customers. They're the ones milling around and around, acting like a neighbourhood exists for no other purpose than their interests. They're the ones who accost, often rudely, women who obviously aren't working. If there are used condoms on the ground, well, guess whose possession those condoms were in before they got tossed. This is why, and I'll say it again (although I'm sure people like Berlin don't want to hear it because she's too busy assigning opinions to me that she'd rather argue with), I'd rather see enforcement target street customers and target them hard. As we've seen with drinking and driving laws, even the harshest penalties are sometimes not enough to spur people to modify their behaviour. But at the very least, I think enforcement policies should be, what they call in government, "revenue generating." They should look to recover the highest possible percentage of enforcement costs from fines and property seizures from the customers who are charged. Charge more of them and drive penalties to the max. Don't worry about charging streetwalkers. As the business dries up, they'll go away on their own. I don't know if I knew anyone with a DUI charge before I moved out of town. Out here in the boonies, it seems that a large number of men in the community I live in have them. One thing that surprises me about DUI is that there is an automatic 3-month license suspension upon being charged. I'm still trying to figure out how that can even be legal. How can one be penalized before being tried? But somehow or other, that's the rule. Maybe we need something similar for street customers. I think John School is a joke.

How about an adult challenge: Will any of the SPs here who are concerned about the safety of streetwalkers go so far as to HELP get people off the streets by overcoming the problems that put them out there? This help would include: -- Providing cell phones for them or allowing them to advertise and take messages on your cell numbers. -- Let them see customers at your incall location. -- Help them place ads online or include them in your print advertising. -- Provide transportation to them so they, too, can do outcalls. Unless and until you're ready to do anything yourselves, you're being ridiculous to demand that the community do anything for them. Put your money where your mouth is, people. Adopt a streetwalker and get her off the streets. Show us how much you care.

Actually, I hadn't insulted Berlin (who obviously has me blocked) yet, but she may find what I have to say now insulting. At least at this moment. She seems to me to be an intelligent young woman. I'm thinking she may one day mature to the point of being able to separate reality from wishful thinking and histrionics. Then perhaps she'll understand what I'm trying to say. It does us no service to lash out at communities that are fed up with street prostitution, shaming them and especially accusing them of being complicit in violence against streetwalkers. If you ask them how best to keep streetwalkers safe, they will tell you "get them off the streets." Don't believe me? Ask them. And I happen to agree with them. I don't see how you can make streetwalking safe. As for jumping on a high horse about nuisance, it's obvious some of our fearless activist SPs (who have decided to speak for all of us) have never worked in situations where morality was the trigger for law enforcement. In our present situation in Canada, in most places, if you're out of sight, you're out of mind. Consenting adults can pretty much do as they please in private. But I've worked places where there were cops dedicated full time to ferreting out prostitutes and their customers, no matter how they worked, simply on the basis of enforcing morality. I've worked in places where the cops would bust an SP and get her to turn on her customers, and vice versa. You want to change the laws? Be careful what you wish for. I find it interesting that no one has answered my points about how we should equate their arguments to things like drunk driving, speeding, littering, parking wherever one damned well pleases. You can say that there's always been street prostitution. The same argument goes for community complaints and the sweeps they trigger. I do worry about streetwalkers, and I don't for a minute believe anyone who puts herself on the street is going to be safer just because she can do it with impunity. Count me among those who prays these girls get busted before they get hurt, because as awful as getting busted might be, that's not the worst thing that can happen to them out there. I'll admit, there might be a better alternative to busting them, but that alternative must involve getting them off the streets. Prostitution isn't the problem. Streetwalking is the problem.

Dim sum pork & shrimp dumplings with maple-garlic sauce. (And for a late night snack, we have some leftover pizza.)

I lived in two red-light districts in the 80s. Believe me, prostitution was a problem. I'll agree that the prostitutes themselves weren't the biggest problem, but the fact that street prostitution was going on was a huge problem. I don't think that anyone who has ever lived or attempted to run a business in or near a red-light district would agree that street prostitution doesn't cause problems. Enforcement operations are generated by complaints from within the community. Obviously the community has problems if there are complaints. Unfortunately, the same can be said of just about any law. Look at speeding, for example. Everybody does it. Should they just pull down the speed limit signs and let people drive whatever speed they want? Drinking and driving has been a particularly intransigent problem to solve, and to date, the laws still aren't tremendously effective (although, greater penalties have had the best impact on people's choices to date). But since people obviously want to drink and drive, do you also agree we should just abandon our DUI laws and enforcement and admit defeat? Littering is another. There are laws against it, but still people do it. Does that make it okay? Yes, but the harm here is being done to the community. They view street sweeps as being harm reduction. One thing you need to understand is that society feels no obligation to make streetwalking safer nor to make it easier for them to do their business. The community has made it clear that it has little problem with prostitution, as long as it's done in private. Whatever reason someone feels they can't or don't want to do it in private, that's not society's problem. Society's problem is that they do it in public, on the streets in front of their homes and businesses. Myself? I never complain about streetwalkers and their customers. But then, they're not doing it out in front of my house. Rather, I live next to a very busy intersection that people LOVE to roar through. My next-door neighbour has it even worse than me. She's right on the corner, and I swear, it sounds like cars, trucks and motorcycles are tearing right through her living room. (Which hasn't happened yet, but never say never.) Is it necessary that people be this noisy? No. Every once in a while, an OPP cruiser parks out here, and then, people drive very sensibly and QUIETLY. They don't zoom up to the corner and stand on the brakes. They don't step on it halfway over the bridge. They don't have their radios turned up so loud you can feel their bass indoors with your windows closed. You can barely hear the traffic out there when there's a cop on the corner. Isn't it too bad that people need to drive like assholes unless there are visibly potential consequences to their doing so? I imagine many communities feel the same way about the odd street sweep. They probably wish they'd happen more often. I disagree with you. Street prostitutes face more violent and problematic customers _because_ they don't have the ability to screen. As you say, by the time they even suspect something's wrong, they're already in the car. Many serial killers who preyed upon streetwalkers never even got violent until after the fact. Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer, who may have killed more than 100 women, all or almost all streetwalkers, said he killed them because he didn't want to have to pay them. Streetwalking is inherently dangerous. And yet, they still chose to do it. Are you saying that this means that we have to allow streetwalkers and their customers to do absolutely anything they want, anywhere they want to, because any attempt to crack down on them will only make things more difficult and dangerous for them? Isn't that a bit like them holding themselves hostage to get what they want? Perhaps streetwalkers should be allowed to entertain their customers in libraries and public buildings, or walk their customers right into businesses and private homes, because if we don't let them do that, they won't be safe. You have to draw the line somewhere, and society has drawn in. They don't want prostitutes and their customers on their streets. Then perhaps, instead of being arrested and charged, they should be arrested and taken for psychiatric or substance abuse assessments. Maybe instead of turning a blind eye while they make bad choices that harm our communities and pose a danger to themselves, we should be trying to help them dry out or get onto some sort of effective treatment. Again, though, that's not the community's problem to solve. The community's problem is that they have all kinds of craziness going on due to street prostitution and the problems it attracts. I don't like to see the streetwalkers charged, but I think street customers should be. You can't blame communities for demanding street sweeps.

Yes. Of course. Don't you think the public has a reasonable right to decide what's a nuisance and to have it dealt with? That's unfair. I think Canadians do care about what a single mother without resources can afford, and that's why we have a reasonable social net and family assistance. The problem wasn't with all loiterers or all stoppers, it was with prostitutes and their customers, and the laws target that. Why do you think that's wrong? When I first came to Canada, the standard was "pressing and persistent" and street prostitution in Toronto was a circus because of that lax standard. That's probably the laxest I've seen street standards in Canada since I've been here, but the fault for tightening up the laws lies with street prostitutes and johns who, given an inch, demanded a mile. They proved that, whatever the limit was, they'd push it. I agree. And too, even if streetwalking was completely decriminalized, it would not make it any safer. People are still out there working under extremely unsafe conditions ripe for predators. Overwhelmingly, the majority of assaults and murders of sex workers happen to streetwalkers. I don't believe that hanging criminal convictions around the necks of streetwalkers will solve much, but it's another thing entirely for street customers. The key to drying up the streetwalking problem is to hit the customers so hard that most won't even try it. No business, no streetwalkers. If this were simply about preferences, that would be a great argument. But this is not just about preferences! It's about community standards, and the community's rights to combat nuisance. There comes a point beyond which an individual's rights must cede to those of the community. Some people (a lot of people in my area) want to be able to jump in their trucks, pop open a beer, and drive around. Since that's their desire, should we simply let them? Some people, when their backseat gets full of fast food bags and other garbage, want to just throw it out the window. Are we obliged to let them do this? Some people might find it convenient to park in front of our driveways or in front of fire hydrants and walk off and leave their cars. Are we obliged to put our needs and safety second to their preferences? The elephant in the room here is that if street prostitution weren't causing problems, there'd be little interest in enforcing street prostitution laws. As long as street prostitution is done in a way that irritates the local community, there's going to be enforcement. I, personally, would prefer to see the emphasis be on the street johns, with outreach and assistance given to street sex workers.

Thanks for the pleasure of your company, Cato, and your thoughts.

Why do you think it is that street work is criminalized while indoor work is almost completely ignored by law enforcement? Do you think it could be because street work is visible and it creates visible problems for the community? While indoor work is usually done very discreetly, and so quietly that often no one knows we're here, let alone has any problems with us. I don't know why street advocates cannot get this: street work causes problems for the community, and that's why it draws complaints and enforcement. There's no big conspiracy here. As for your single mother, she is being very short-sighted. Her chances of getting busted, assaulted or worse are far, far greater than if she did what it took to find an indoor situation. Then where will her kids be? There has to be more to this story than you're telling, Berlin, because in Canada, we provide support to families like hers. Thousands of other single mothers are getting by on family support. What expenses does your streetwalking single mother have that merit her taking the outsized risks of working the streets, and exposing her children to the consequences. Something sniffs wrong with this story. I sometimes think street advocates are so bullheaded, they won't rest until we get complete equality, even though that's far more likely to result in all prostitutes and all customers being treated the same way that streetworkers and their customers are. Only then will you be happy. BTW, street vendors are highly regulated, and it can be very expensive in some places to get one of the few precious licenses given out to sell food on the streets. You think that would work for streetwalkers?

To me, GFE means once I get paid, I put the money aside and treat the guy like someone I'm meeting for an intimate encounter. Whether it be for a 30-minute "quickie" or a multi-hour session. Rates have to be based on something, and I prefer basing mine on time. I never liked that old-school way of getting the guy off and getting him gone. That sucks for repeat business. Rather, I like to know how long a session is going to be, and then try to plan things so that we use up pretty much the whole session having fun. If I watch a clock at all during a session, it's likely to be for help with pacing things. To me, it's like going out to eat. If I only have an hour for lunch, I might hit a local deli or someplace with a lunch buffet, like Pigale. But if I have a whole evening and plan to dine with friends, I might make a reservation at some upscale place that provides a little time for conversation in between courses. And if I'm planning a big party? I might even rent a hall and have it catered. I would note that, back in the 1930s, women lived a very different reality than they do now. The very best most women could hope for was to be a second class citizen, and the women who worked in types of joints the OP described would have been thrilled to be able to access second class citizenry. Yes, it's true. Today women have the nerve to expect to be paid a fair wage for their services. That must suck for men who look back fondly on times of less equality. But I'm pretty happy about it! Additional Comments: It depends on the session. If the customer insisted on a 30-minute session, then yes, going 15 or 20 minutes over is a serious matter. It means he should have booked a lengthier session. If this happens once, it can be excused as a mistake. But when someone consistently tries to book a 30-minute session, knowing full well that he's more likely to be around 45 minutes to an hour, then he's intentionally trying to get more time for less money. As for the guy who takes an hour session and finishes in 45, it's up to the SP if she wishes to give him a refund. She may, if she wants him to repeat. Or she may be taking note and seeing how she could prolong things to last the full hour if she has another opportunity. In any event, the customer did book an hour session with her. I don't see the correlation with enjoying one's work. I think most of the people I see would agree that I have no problem with thoroughly enjoying myself. But I don't think I should be put on the spot to prove that by being willing to give free time. I don't think too many other service professionals who based their rates on time would appreciate it either. In an ideal world. we'd meet and just enjoy ourselves, and afterwards, look at the clock and settle up. Unfortunately, many clients are on a budget and have already decided what to spend. Unless we're going to adopt a "just pay us whatever you want to" approach, we have to base our rates on something. I base mine on time.

I should join and post a pic of my lovely hairy pussy. But that wouldn't really be fair to everyone else, eh? So here's a pic for everyone! (That's Mina, btw. If you ever have occasion to meet her, just keep it to "Yes, ma'am" and "No, ma'am" and you'll do just fine.)

It wasn't my first job, but it was one of my first non-family and non-sex work jobs. It showed me horrible things and levels of despair I never could have imagined. I still see the faces in my mind. I worked one summer for a local nursing home. It was hell on earth for the residents. It was a place families took their inconvenient elderly to wait to die. And often they got few visits. Even worse, the medical staff would prevent them from dying! Many of these people were so old, they were really just being warehoused there. They pissed their beds and lay in it every day. Many had to be fed using a huge syringe. Most of the nursing staff and nurses aids (which I was) were ignorant, mean-spirited hillbillies who tortured and fucked with the poor old folks to make their days go faster. There was no respect, no compassion. I remember seeing little old ladies carted down the hall butt naked on their way to the showers. I saw old men taunted until they lashed out, and were then put in restraints. I remember one of my coworkers literally picking this one old woman up by the hair. The fact that she was skin and bones was probably the only thing that prevented her scalp from being ripped off. One of the most tragic cases was a young woman with CP who was kept there and treated like she was, what they called in those days, retarded. In fact, one of the nurses told me that she was. But I got to know her, and she was probably as high or higher intelligence than most of the staff there. Can you imagine being condemned to such a life, with no hope and no defense? And unlike some prisoner of war camp, these people or their families were actually _paying_ for them to be in this hell. I couldn't bring myself to work there a second summer. I have always had the gift/curse of seeing the child in every person I meet, so perhaps I didn't see the people in there the way others did. My little teenage mind couldn't possibly conceive human beings living in such conditions. It opened my eyes.

UGH! Me too. I specifically booked a non-smoking room in a non-smoking wing, but there was some sports event going on, and when the fans got back to their rooms after the games, they were stampeding up and down the hallways, and the marijuana smoke was visible IN my room. Then the party in the adjoining room obviously had a (loud) blender, and at some point, they must have had some sort of a break or spill. What a disaster. I hate to travel!

My MIL used to make these little pickled corns. They were like little baby corn cobs. I loved them, but I could never figure out where you'd buy such things. I finally asked her, and she said she didn't buy them, but would sneak out into the corn fields, and fill her apron with them. !!!! So now I live around some farms that grow corn, and I'm very tempted. But I can just see it now. Mug shot. Fingerprinted. My first criminal record at the age of 55. For cherries, though, I might be willing to risk a moonless midnight harvest. ;)

Silent, obviously I've hurt you. I'm sorry. That was not my intention. Sometimes I suppose I tend to be a little cavalier. First, let me note that I have been in the business since my mid-teens. I just turned 55. I've been happy to receive valuable advice on numerous occasions from other SPs (and I'm still learning from some of my colleagues here), and I've also provided advice and mentoring on many occasions. Secondly, let me say that I am a bitter consumer. Nope, I'm not a happy camper most of the time when it comes to spending my money. I don't know who the great minds running business these days are, but I pretty much think they suck. Positive buying experiences seem to be a rarity these days, and god help you if you should need customer service or technical support. Let me just outline a few recent disappointments: -- We like Quaker Muffets shredded wheat cereal at our house, but we are concerned about GMOs. If possible, we'd like to avoid buying GMO products. So I wrote to Quaker Canada to ask specifically if any GMO products are used in making the Muffets, and if they are used in any of their oat products. I got no response at all for weeks. When I did finally get one, I can sum it up as saying, "that's for us to know and not for you to find out." Gee. Thanks. That's helpful. Not. -- I bought a Skype phone a few years back that was being aggressively marketed to Skype users. Looked like a good deal for me, so I sprung for it. It's made by VTech. I had an installation issue, and VTech essentially sent me to Skype. Skype (rightfully) pointed out that they don't manufacture phones and aren't prepared to provide support on them. A check of a users forum on Skype's site showed that most people had no installation problems, but some percentage, like me, did and weren't getting any help either. I finally found the solution and brought it back to the forum for the other users, and only then was VTech interested in speaking with me. That was 2008. Last week, I decided to use my Skype phone to call my daughter. It didn't work. Grr. A check around indicated that when Skype upgraded its software, VTech didn't bother to update their software to remain compatible. I now have a 4-year-old phone that is no longer supported by the manufacturer. -- We had to buy a new vacuum cleaner recently. We probably should have done more homework, but we live out in the sticks and had to order one out of the catalogue through the local Home Hardware. The model we chose came with a power head, a smooth floor head and several hand attachments. Only trouble is, this puppy made it out of development before adequate testing (or it was designed by someone who's seen pictures of vacuum cleaners, but never actually used one). There are several design flaws, but the most serious was that in order to switch to the power head, you had to attach a cord, by way of clamps, up the wand and across the hose. To switch to the smooth floor head or to use any of the hand attachments, all this had to be removed. Not only is this grossly inconvenient, but all that clamping and unclamping puts excessive wear on the unit. We had to implement a design modification, splitting the cord where the wand meets the hose, and installing a second plug. We also salvaged a second wand out of an old unit for the smooth floor head. Only now can we use the vacuum the way vacuums are needed in the course of cleaning a home. But really, why should we have to pay for a new vacuum, and then modify it to be able to use it? -- We have a grandson who turned 3 over the summer. The poor fellow! It seems like almost everything he touches has a corporate trademark on it, from what he eats to what he wears to what he plays with. We wanted to give him a present, but at that age, what can you give him? We talked it over and decided to send him flowers. He'd have the surprise of a special delivery, the sensuality of the flowers, and he'd know we were thinking of him. So I ordered through the web site of a (previously, anyway!) reputable floral delivery service. We spent $70. When I saw what was delivered, I was heartbroken and embarrassed. It looked like a bouquet you could pick up at a local grocery store for under $20 plunked in a cheap tumbler. The only bright side in all of this is my grandkid doesn't know from flowers. I contacted customer service, and got back a response saying basically, "we're sorry we didn't meet your expectations" with a tone that made it seem like the problem was my expectations, not what was delivered, and an offer of 10% off. I told them not to bother. I made up this pic and posted it to Twitter. The next day, some VP phoned me, again apologizing for my unmet expectations, and gave me a full refund. The local florist delivered a new and more closely approximating bouquet to my grandchild. But really, the whole thing left me sour. What was supposed to be a happy occasion turned into a nightmare of dealing with customer service and doing something that usually isn't my style (but my daughter prodded me) of making a public complaint. In the end, nobody made any money off it (it cost them money), it wasn't a good experience for me, and it turns out they could have delivered something half decent in the first place. So why? Why, why, why??? I wish I could say that this is only an occasional problem, or only occurs in the odd industry, but really, poor quality, bad customer service/support, and such have reached epidemic proportions. The notion that anyone with expertise in any other industry could somehow improve ours seems very odd to me at the moment. If anything, I think we whores should be putting together seminars for other business leaders, to help them get back in touch with the business of satisfying customers and encouraging eagerness to repeat, rather than swearing off and dreading the next time they have to make a purchase. Honestly, things are so bad that, at my house, we have a new motto: don't make it, don't spend it, don't pay taxes on it. We're probably frontrunners, but make no mistake, a movement is building. In its efforts to ever increase profits, I see businesses exhausting consumer good will. More and more people are sick and tired of being told it's none of their business what's in it, just buy it and shut up, or being passed off to someone who, while admirable for their grasp of English, isn't empowered to help customers who find they need support after spending their money. More and more, when I think about buying something, the word "SUCKER!!!" rings in my head. We do experience slow times in this business. This is not just a luxury, but it's an intensely private luxury for many. There are a lot of factors at play. I had a place in Ottawa during the bus strike a few years back. Who would have suspected that a bus strike would cost me so much business? But it did. While few of my clients relied on the bus, they were suddenly having to drive spouses, kids, neighbours, coworkers, employees, and this left them far fewer opportunities to slip away for a little private time. There really are so many things that can and do affect our business. Because of its nature, we tend to be the canary in the coal mine for recessions. I stand firmly behind something Meg said. It's the #1 piece of advice I give to anyone who asks me: make a realistic budget and stick to it. Not only does that help SPs weather tough times, but I also believe it helps them sidestep making choices out of desperation--something that often ends in tragedy. Seriously, silent, I did not mean to offend you. But please understand that, to me, the notion that other businesses might be able to help our business is simply repulsive. I can count on the fingers of one hand the businesses I trust and feel good about buying from these days (and still have enough fingers left over to use chopsticks).

I dunno. To be honest, I always wondered why some guys would take their business to the street when there are safer and more legal options. Is it cheaper (as long as you don't get busted)? Is it the "walk on the wild side" aspect? Are they unaware of other options? Or is it that there's something desirable about using the services of someone you know is far below you in social status. People often note that many streetwalkers feel like they have to be out there, like they don't have other options. Okay. But what's the street john's excuse? Most independent SPs I know enjoy a status similar to that of most of their customers. They're well-educated, have credit, are members of their communities. Incidences of things like substance abuse or domestic abuse are probably lower amongst the SPs I know than in the general population. I haven't known all that many streetwalkers (don't know any right now), but all that I ever knew could be described as living on the margins of society. Most had substance abuse problems, housing security and domestic violence issues. Maybe somewhere there's some savvy bunch of streetwalking soccer moms, but I've never seen it. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that purchasing sexual services is something private. What does it say when a man flaunts his choice, putting his desires as a priority over others legitimately trying to use the same space (businesses dealing with their customers, families using public space)? I believe that hanging criminal charges around the neck of a streetwalker is only going to drive her (or him) further into the margins. But streetwalking is a huge problem in communities, and the purpose of law enforcement is to reduce problems. I wouldn't mind seeing tougher penalties for street johns. Obviously they view what we have now as a joke, and it doesn't deter them at all. As we've seen with drinking and driving, there are some people you simply can't reason with.

Barbecue spareribs with potato salad.