cyclo

There is another possibility. Mirage offers a range of photographic services for sp’s and models. They also do boudoir and pin up shots for women who I assume are not in the business. Maybe she hired them to do her pics. If the photo session was done in their studio it wouldn’t be surprising to see the same room, furniture and props. I’ve seen independant sp’s in Toronto who had similar photos (room, furniture, lighting, props and style) because they used the same photographer/studio. Not all photographers can be trusted to do this work or be experienced enough to do it well. Going to a trusted studio makes sense and is simple. http://mirage-entertainment.cc/photography-services/

As mentioned above Perb would be the best source for reviews. For advertisements the following two sites are useful. Eros is a reliable site for independents: https://www.eros.com/ Carman Fox is a reliable agency: http://www.carmanfox.com/

I’ve met female family members, professional colleagues, friends and sp’s in hotel lobbies. How can you tell who I’m meeting? You can’t. Hotel lobbies are busy places with people coming, goIng and yes, meeting/greeting each other. Take some time to watch a desk clerk. I’ve never seen one scanning the lobby. They’re pretty busy checking people in/out, answering the phone, talking to guests, checking info on their computers and coordinating work with other staff. We don’t live in a Soviet style police state where your every move is watched by somebody who will be rewarded as an informant. Your coming and going is really not interesting. You won’t draw any attention unless you’re causing a public disturbance. Greet your sp warmly, exchange a few pleasantries and then move along to the elevators. I’ve never been in a Holiday Inn that required key card access to the elevators and I’m assuming that the one you were in didn’t require it. I don’t know why this sp wanted to meet you in the lobby first. I assume it was just part of her final gut check/verification before going upstairs with you. She’s at infinitely more risk of violence from a client than you are of being arrested. If she felt the need to see you in a public lobby first, be a nice confident guy and go along with her request.

From another thread, here’s the answer to your inquiry about Angel.

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/04/25/26093525/on-sexual-deprivation-sex-workers-incels-and-violence

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/j5akqd/inside-the-secret-home-lives-of-sex-workers

No it's not normal to require an e-transfer before you know each other. It's a con game. You might as well send your money to a Nigerian widow who requires a small amount of money from you to help transfer her deceased husband's large financial estate haha Having said that I have used e-transfer several times with women I know very well. In these cases, as with any other e-transfer, I'm dealing with someone I know and trust and we both appreciate the convenience.

Whoops! I responded twice so I deleted this one.

1. You can't always reach a conclusion about the law simply by reading the words on the page. Previous legal decisions have a significant bearing on how laws are interpreted going forward. 2. Before Bill C-36 was ever introduced, the Criminal Code had provisions prohibiting communicating prostitution services in a public place. Numerous cases turned on the issue of "communicating". These precedents affect how the current law is interpreted. There's nothing in the new law that appears to undermine these precedents. 3. The most important change introduced by Bill C-36 is that purchasing sexual services is now illegal (it wasn't before) and providing sexual services is still legal. The issues you're raising about communication, by the customer, haven't been significantly changed by Bill C-36. 4. It may be fun over a beer to debate the cadence of how the law is read "obtaining (pause) for consideration" or whether a phrase should or should not be hyphenated "obtaining-for-consideration". However in a court of law you're not likely to get to first base with these kinds of arguments. Very few judicial decisions turn on this type of grammatical analysis. 5. Finally, the specific facts of a case are always relevant to a decision. The law prohibits communication to obtain sexual services "for consideration" in any "place". In the example you gave of text communication, there might not be a violation of the communication provisions because the Criminal Code defines a "place" as being "covered or enclosed" (Section 197.1) and previous cases have determined that electronic communication etc is not a "place". But you have "obtain(ed) for consideration"... "the sexual services of a person" and your text is not only evidence of that, it's evidence that you've entered into a contract. Having said all this, in the real world most Police Depts. are only laying charges in cases involving exploited individuals (underage, trafficked, coerced etc.). The common advice to avoid legal problems is to seek out providers who are reasonably well known and do your due diligence to avoid any providers who you think may fall into these categories. I hope this helps. If you want a bit of background on the government's thinking when they drafted Bill C-36 in general as well as discussion of specific provisions, here's a link to the Department of Justice "Technical Paper: Bill C-36, Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act". http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p1.html#edn25