drlove

Hi, I must have tried logging in about 20 times so far today, and on each occasion (except this one) I've been unceremoniously disconnected almost immediately. I've never had this issue before, so I'm guessing it may be related to the recent technical problems here... can anyone confirm this? Any advice on what I can do to prevent this from re-occurring? Thanks everyone! :)

Does anyone know if the constitutional challenge presented here applies to C-36 in its entirety, or specifically to the advertising / material benefit provisions? Furthermore, if these provisions are found unconstitutional, will the rest of the law stand, or be declared unconstitutional by default? e.g ( the entire premise of sexual services being legal to sell, yet illegal to purchase)

I just wanted to take the time to wish each of you a joyous and peaceful holiday season, however you choose to celebrate it. I hope it brings everything that makes it special for you!

Night Of The Demons

The wonders of technology...

I think you have to understand that this is her occupation, and therefore business. As such, I think it's a stretch to say she's cheating. As for not being upfront with you, that's a grey area. Ideally she would have told you the truth. However, perhaps she felt uncomfortable revealing it due to the pervasive social stigma that STILL surrounds sexwork. (2017 or not, it seems we're still firmly entrenched in the Victorian/ Puritan era, folks!). That said, look at it from your own perspective: Did you inform her that you're a hobbyist? Hypothetically speaking, would you have any compunction about revealing such info to a future GF? Given the nature of what's involved, I think giving the other party a bit of latitude and viewing the glass as half full, not half empty is a prudent course of action here. My two cents for today...

Is this Chelsea Luv?

That's unfortunate... As a rule of good etiquette, most providers do not send unsolicited texts, e-mails or call unannounced. In this hobby, discretion is paramount. Thankfully your wife didn't see it. I know it can be frustrating, but it could have been a lot worse...

Why don't you TOFTT and let us know?

Ad's gone.

Remember the stubby Schooner beer in the 1970's?

Sorry to hear that... hope everything works out for you!

Wow... can they even do that? You're not doing anything illegal according to the law. Perhaps you should consult a lawyer and/or the tenancy board. You may be able to file a lawsuit.

Interesting... I suppose that's part of the risk one assumes when going to see someone, especially now in light of C-36. Do you know what the nature of the altercation was? E.g. Was the neighbour aware of what was going on and confronted the client about it, or was it unrelated? I often wonder if outcalls would be more discreet and less likely to attract atention...

[url]https://ca.yahoo.com/news/privacy-czar-raises-flag-over-203318322.html[/url] OTTAWA â?? Canadian privacy could be imperilled by apparent U.S. plans to demand cellphone and social media passwords from foreign visitors, a federal watchdog says. In a letter to the House of Commons public safety committee, privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien warns the recent pronouncements from the Trump administration could mean intrusive searches â?? even at preclearance facilities in Canada. In February, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly suggested at a hearing that American officials could ask people entering the U.S. about the Internet sites they visit as well as passwords to help assess their online activities. Kelly's proposal prompted an American coalition of human rights and civil liberties organizations and experts in security, technology and the law to express "deep concern." The Wall Street Journal reported last month that visitors to the U.S. could be forced to provide cellphone contacts and social-media passwords. Currently, passengers flying to American cities through eight major Canadian airports can be precleared there by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers. The Commons public safety committee is studying legislation that would expand preclearance operations. Under the bill, U.S. searches at preclearance facilities would be governed by Canadian law, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But Therrien says those protections appear to be hollow because they could not be enforced in court due to immunity provisions that significantly limit access to civil remedies for the actions of U.S. border officers carrying out preclearance duties. In many situations, Therrien says in the letter, "it would appear that Canadians who wish to enter the U.S. will, at preclearance locations in Canada as well as at border points in the U.S., have to face the difficult choice of either accepting a search without grounds or forgoing their wish to travel to the U.S." Under long-standing plans, preclearance is being expanded to Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport and Quebec City's Jean Lesage International Airport, as well as for rail service in Montreal and Vancouver. In March, Canada and the U.S. agreed to bring preclearance to other, unspecified locations. The Liberal government says the preclearance arrangements would strengthen security and prosperity while ensuring respect for the sovereignty of both countries. Efforts to move people and goods across the 49th parallel more quickly and efficiently have unfolded against a backdrop of uncertainty following Donald Trump's election in November. The Nexus trusted-traveller cards of about 200 Canadian permanent residents were suddenly cancelled after Trump issued an executive immigration order banning visitors from several largely Muslim countries. There have also been reports of minorities from Canada being turned away at the U.S. border. â?? Follow @JimBronskill on Twitter Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press

Unfortunately, that's part of the risk that comes with toftt. Very unfortunate this happened to you, but at least if you stick with established, well reviewed ladies, when she says she forgot something and she'll be right back, you'll know she's telling the truth.

Glad to hear everything worked out!

Age is just a number... it's the person that matters. The time you spend together, how you get along, chemistry and making fond memories are much more important. Now to answer your question, it is something that goes on, but that's the lady's decision to make. Personally I do not see a real need for it, since all women are beautiful at any age.

I love the girl next door look... natural beauty is where it's at, for me anyway. I not a big fan of too much make-up etc.. After all, why try to improve on perfection?

That's sad, and very unfortunate... Be supportive and encourage her to seek help, whether that's in the form of an addictions counselor, rehab facility, family, friends or a combination of these networks...You may also want to talk with her about your own experiences, having gone through it. That way, it won't come across as "preaching", and she may be more apt to listen and consider your advice. Hope everything works out for her!

Link appears to be dead.

Interesting... unfortunately I'm not that well versed on the ins and outs of what's involved. I believe someone posted that an individual would first have to be charged with an offense in order to have standing when it comes to actually mounting a challenge. In the case of Bedford, she was charged with operating a common bawdy house. She hired a lawyer (Alan Young) who agreed to take on the case pro bono. She had the fortitude to see it through all the way to the SCC, but thanks to the Conservatives, her win turned into a major setback for the industry. Perhaps someone could provide you with specifics on where to begin and what's involved.

True, but the question I ask is this: Would you be willing to forego your anonymity on this board and become the national posterboy for decriminalization? I suspect the answer to that question would be the same for most hobbyists. The sad truth of the matter is one would be instantly ostracized by the majority of society, and it would be an uphill battle. I'm not saying it's impossible to do, just that the negative repercussions would be severe. I'd hazard a guess and say that the majority of us enjoy a relatively privileged existence, and hence the financial means to participate in this community. Moreover, some of us have significant others with whom we have formed an important bond. When one ponders whether to dive into the fray, they must ask themselves the fundamental question of whether or not it's worth the risk of losing it all once things move into the public sphere. It's that intrinsic fear which keeps the majority of us silent.

Ironic, isn't it? The constitutional challenge brought forth by Bedford et. al. though well intentioned, ended up having a very negative impact on the industry as a whole. I would posit that we are now much worse off, as paying for sex is now illegal, where it wasn't before. The main issues are that no one really wants to come forward and challenge C-36, for reasons mentioned by a previous poster above. Further compounding the issue is the fact that there exists a stigma toward the adult entertainment industry due to a lack of education. Society is apt to believe the depictions most readily seen on tv, movies etc. which does nothing to advocate for our cause or push it forward. I sincerely doubt the that the current government will do anything meaningful with respect to changing C-36 as it's not in their best interests politically. (E.g. it's too much of a hot potato, making for bad optics). Finally, even if another court challenge is launched, it would take years to wind itself through the judicial system. I hate to say it, but it looks as though we will be stuck with this oppressive law for the foreseeable future... I hope I'm wrong.

I hereby nominate you as our official spokesperson! lol