drlove

What if an SP is advertising a one hour "GFE" experience- Does that count as advertising a service, instead of just time? E.g ( a case could be made that someone has purchased a service from an SP, namely a GFE experience, which would be illegal) - is that right? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I admit I get confused about the semantics. Any clarification would be very much appreciated! Thank you.

By the window in the second floor suites of the Renaissance Hotel.

Not necessarily... it would depend on the established relationship / level of trust between provider and client.

Decriminalisation of sex workers in England and Wales backed by MPs "...The HASC, made up of a number of influential cross-party MPs, recommends the immediate decriminalisation of sex workers, with criminal sanctions against brothel-keeping and soliciting lifted. Make no mistake: this is huge. The committee's report, which is the result of a seven-month inquiry, marks an unprecedented step towards ensuring better, safer working conditions for the UK's 72,800 sex workers. Notably, the committee has rejected the Nordic Model of criminalising sex buyers, as implemented in Northern Ireland last year and, most tantalising of all, has acknowledged that full decriminalisation has verifiable success." Global Network of Sex Work Projects http://www.nswp.org/ Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-backed-by-mps http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/mps-h...of-sex-workers

Exactly... That's what I was thinking as well. Although, the new law has been in place for over a year and a half, and it seems that LE have pretty much left consenting adults alone.

While the east coast is not Vancouver in terms of real estate appreciation, there's always a silver lining. Housing prices are dirt cheap (relatively speaking) which means you can have your home paid off faster. Secondly, while low interest rates are bad news for investments, you can also save a fortune assuming that you have a mortgage. Basically, you have two choices, either play the markets or hide your money under the mattress. At least when things go bad, you can benefit from dollar /cost averaging if you're an investor. The best advice I can offer is to find someone you trust to manage your portfolio. Hope that helps!

As Meaghan said, be well diversified.... start off by maxing out your RRSPs. Once you start, it will have a cumulative effect as you can re-invest your tax refunds (approximately 30% of your initial investment). It can add up quickly. You can also invest in non registered funds and your TFSA. That's a good spot to park any extra cash you have lying around. Of course, don't forget real estate - Aside from your primary residence, you can purchase investment properties, or if you don't really want to be a landlord, consider flipping. If you know a decent contractor, you can buy fixer uppers, have them renovated and sell them for a decent profit. Just some ideas...

BP is a mixed bag, and not really for those who don't want to gamble. I agree that in this era where the whole dynamics of the industry have changed, it's better to stick with ladies one knows are reputable. That's not to say that there aren't diamonds in the rough, but it is disappointing that more of them don't appear to be on sites such as this.

You're welcome!

A link to her ad would be useful.

[B]How some feminists hurt sex-trade workers[/B] [INDENT] By: Stuart Chambers Posted: 06/21/2016 4:00 AM [URL="http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/how-some-feminists-hurt-sex-trade-workers-383734561.html#comments"]http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opi....html#comments[/URL] When the Liberal government revisits the prostitution debate later this year, some feminists will once again embrace the prohibitionist position. And once again, they will sidestep uncomfortable truths. For example, rather than acknowledge the link between indoor sex work and enhanced safety conditions for prostitutes, prohibitionist feminists will instead rely on circular arguments. Put simply, paid sex is wrong because it is wrong to purchase sex; therefore, men who purchase sex from women are the source of the problem. This brand of principled moralism, however, has little to do with empiricism and everything to do with ideology. The initial backlash began in 2010 when the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had to decide whether or not the law violated the Charter rights of prostitutes in the Terri-Jean Bedford case. Credible evidence led to two conclusions: (1) "indoor" prostitution was significantly safer than "outdoor" prostitution; and (2) the laws in Canada were a direct factor in making "outdoor" prostitution dangerous. In other words, the law contributed directly to sex workers being beaten, raped and murdered. As Justice Susan Himel noted, "significantly more physical violence occurred in street prostitution as compared to (legal) brothels." Yet some feminists refused to accept research that challenged their own agenda. In 2011, a coalition of seven abolitionist feminist groups (the "interveners") submitted a factum to support the federal governmentâ??s appeal of Bedford. The interveners not only dismissed Justice Himelâ??s findings, that criminal laws expose prostitutes to violence by preventing them from working indoors and adopting specific safety measures, they also insisted the risks associated with sex work were derived from the purchase of sexual services: "Contrary to the analysis of the court, indoor prostitution is not safe or healthy for women. The danger to womenâ??s security is a function not of the laws constraining prostitution, but of the actions of men who demand the sale of womenâ??s bodies." So why would abolitionist feminists so vehemently deny the difference in safety between in-call and out-call prostitution? First, acknowledging this difference provides constitutional validity for in-call sex work, an option radical feminists reject outright since the buyers of sex â?? men â?? would go unpunished. Second, by refuting the impact of location on womenâ??s security, prohibitionist feminists do not have to take ownership of the fact their own entrenched position is a contributing factor in violence against sex workers. In place of an evidence-based approach, feminists opposed to legalizing prostitution have forwarded their own gendered solution: "asymmetrical criminalization." Under this proposal, the demand for sex would be treated differently than the supply of sex, meaning Canadaâ??s current criminal laws violate the constitutional rights of "prostituted women" but not the rights of "buyers, pimps, brothel owner and others who exploit prostituted women." As "victimizers," male clients would be charged criminally. As "victims," female sex workers would be offered exit strategies. In anticipation of a Supreme Court challenge, the interveners submitted an additional factum in 2013. Predictably, they rejected any qualitative or quantitative data concerning safer indoor working conditions. From their perspective, "focus on location distracts attention from the men who are the source of prostitutionâ??s harms." Unfortunately for prohibitionists, the claim men "universally oppress and exploit prostituted women" has proven unpersuasive in courts of law because it is ideologically, not empirically, driven. In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada â?? in a 9-0 unanimous decision â?? struck down the Criminal Code provisions restricting paid sexual services because the old laws put sex workers at increased risk. Judges do not have the luxury of ignoring evidence or sustaining a gender war. Much to the chagrin of prohibitionists, the new Liberal government has adopted the logic of the judiciary. Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould admitted last year, "the safety of the workers is fundamentally important" in reducing the incidence of violence against women. By putting the health and welfare of prostitutes above ideology, Wilson-Raybould will be steering law and public policy in a more rational and compassionate direction. [I]Stuart Chambers, PhD, teaches in the faculties of arts and social sciences at the University of Ottawa.[/I] [/INDENT]

https://openparliament.ca/debates/20.../sean-casey-3/ Sean Casey Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of that question. This government is very committed to attacking the scourge of human trafficking in this country. We are well seized of this issue. We were the ones who instituted an inquiry into murdered and missing aboriginal women. We are also going to be reviewing in detail the provisions of Bill C-36, the flawed piece of legislation that was brought in by the previous government. We are seized of it, we are acting on it, and we will indeed come up with an evidence-based solution to this terrible scourge.

Wow... if that's the case, you'd think Justin would be right on that, especially considering the view his father had on the subject...

Looks like Megan has her ad up again... Has anyone else seen her lately?

Let's hope so... it's good to remain positive. And if they don't, it's up to us to keep reminding them! *lol*

This was a case involving street action, so not sure how it will play out. The initial reason for the sting was complaints from the public. Perhaps a challenge might carry more weight if it was a case of LE charging someone in the privacy of their home, with the sex being consensual between two adults, not bothering anyone. At least that way, the crown couldn't come back and say it was a public nuisance or some such rationale...

That makes sense. I know a lot of legitimate escorts advertise GFE, so that's not an issue. I was just thinking along the lines of this: if there was a sting and these ladies were targeted in an effort to get to their clients, it may be easier to make a charge stick with someone purchasing a GFE package using text (thus a documented electronic trail) than say, someone purchasing an hour's worth of time over the phone.

First, I'd like to say thank you to Meaghan for another informative, well thought out post. I feel the government was intentionally ambiguous in its legislation so as to obfuscate what is and what is not permissible. That said, I myself am still confused about some parts of the new law. For instance, I understand the concept of buying time and companionship as opposed to a sexual service. E.g (one hour of a lady's time for "X" amount of dollars) However, if a lady is offering a one hour "GFE" experience for "X" amount, does that qualify as a sexual service, or is it still considered 'time and companionship'? If someone could answer this for me, I'd be very grateful! Thank you.

Well, at the very least, the next few months should prove entertaining!

For me it's my top floor condo overlooking the water... it's an elegant little hideaway I sometimes don't want to leave. I feel everyone needs that piece of personal space they can retreat to and shut the world out while they recharge their batteries for the next day's adventures...

RG is gone??? Say it isn't so!

Some people say, "Never say never." I wonder if they realize they've said it twice in the same sentence... Feel free to add your own.

I'd just like to reiterate part of my previous post... Why is it that Ms. Bedford seems to have given up the fight, so to speak? I remember seeing an interview on The National at a time when C-36 was being drafted. A female lawyer (her name escapes me) clearly stated that if C-36 passes, the issue will go right back to court. Sadly, that hasn't happened. Moreover,I was fully expecting the three individuals who brought forth the original challenge to in essence, pick up where they left off and continue. While their intentions were good, the status quo if left unchanged, has actually left us in a worse predicament than we were in previously. To leave things as they are basically defeats the purpose of what the court challenge was all about - to make sexwork safer for all of the beautiful, intelligent ladies who choose to partake in it.

That was my first thought, but I checked the article and it's dated April 29th, 2016. I think you're likely correct about what happened. However, it irks me when the media release articles like this and don't bother to check their facts first... it's very misleading.

I hope you're right!