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

Hi Grass Hopper. No, the internet is not a "public place". It's certainly "public", but it's not a "place". You can't walk into the internet. "Places" have to have a physical location. Streets, parking lots, bars, hotel lobbies and parks etc. are all examples of "public places". "Places" where the "public" has access. They're have been several court cases that have helped to make this definition clear. Meaghan is right. A provider can't be prosecuted for advertising their own services. The Criminal Code says "No person shall be prosecuted for... the advertisement of their own sexual services." However online services such as Lyla and Backpages can be prosecuted if they publish your advertisements for sexual services. That's why advertisements on these sites can't explicitly mention sexual services.

Not exactly. The definitions of "public place" and "place" haven't changed. Changing them to include publications and the internet etc would have affected too many other areas of the law. To address this they made "advertising" "an offer to provide sexual services" illegal. In the article, the police comments are more accurate. The retired professor is correct about his comments with respect to "public place" but he's overlooked (or the journalist didn't understand him) the new advertising provisions. Here are the relevant provisions: Section 197.1 place includes any place, whether or not (a) it is covered or enclosed, (b) it is used permanently or temporarily, or © any person has an exclusive right of user with respect to it; public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied. 286.4 Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months. 286.5 No person shall be prosecuted for (b) an offence under section 286.4 in relation to the advertisement of their own sexual services.

Agreed Cinelli. I've also noticed that a lot of people confuse being caught in an "undercover sting" operation with "entrapment". They are very different. In the case of an "undercover sting", which is what wynn is describing, the action of the police is legal. They are catching someone who has initiated an illegal activity and the police simply go along with it long enough to gather sufficient evidence that a crime has occurred. This is especially useful in cases where first hand witness testimony is the best evidence. Being undercover is a critical part of gathering the evidence. Selling drugs to an undercover officer or negotiating for sexual services from an undercover officer are both examples of legal "undercover stings". "Entrapment" is very different and is an illegal police investigation strategy. In entrapment, the police actually encourage or initiate criminal activity that might not otherwise occur. This could be done by threatening participants or paying them. It could also involve initiating/leading the crime and actively recruiting people to participate. In this case the participants are actually victims of a crime initiated by the police! Despite the frequent use the word "entrapment" on Lyla, I've never seen an actual example of entrapment reported here. Everything I've seen has actually been fear of walking into an "undercover sting". Even then, the only undercover stings that are likely to occur involve street prostitution or underage prostitution. In the first case you should be smart enough not to be communicating in public. In the second case, the police will make it very clear in the advertising that the worker is underaged and therefore you deserve to be caught! (Wynn, just to avoid any confusion. I'm not directing these last comments about street prostitution or underage prostitution at you. Nothing in your post suggested you were interested in these. I'm just using the word "you" to address anyone else reading this.)

The Criminal Code of Canada draws a distinction between soliciting sexual services from someone who is 18 and over versus someone who is under 18. Both are offences, but the primary difference is the minimum and maximum sentences for each type of offence. A conviction for soliciting someone under 18 results in a mandatory prison sentence of between 6 months and 10 years (see Criminal Code excerpt below). In the case of a conviction for soliciting sexual services from someone 18 and over the minimum sentences are fines and the maximum is 18 months. (The minimum sentence is higher if the solicitation occurs where youth under the age of 18 can be expected to be present such as near schools, parks and religious institutions.) In case anyone is wondering, 18 is also the minimum age for pornography. Pornography with youth under 18 is child pornography. 286.1 (2) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person under the age of 18 years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of (a) for a first offence, six months; and (b) for each subsequent offence, one year. The sentences for "procuring" (pimp, agency etc) the sexual services of someone under 18 are much greater (5-14 years). 286.3 (2) Everyone who procures a person under the age of 18 years to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(2), recruits, holds, conceals or harbours a person under the age of 18 who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of that person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years.

People keep referring to this money as a "tip" or "gratuity", which of course is why you're shocked. You should realize that calling it a tip is a euphemism for the service fee the woman charges. She'll tell you how much different services cost once you're in the room. She's not going to rely on a client's discretion to determine how much to "tip" for her services. Other posters have provided an estimate of how much the combined room/service fee typically is. A real "tip" is the money you choose to give over and above the combined room/service fee. Whether or not to give a tip and how much, is at your discretion and based upon all the normal reasons a person might choose to tip.

A TED Talk by Mary Roach, author of the books Stiff; Spook; and Bonk.

[B]Candida Royalle, 64, Dies; Filmed Erotica for Women[/B] New York Times By SAM ROBERTS, SEPT. 10, 2015 Candida Royalle a former star of pornographic movies who became a self-styled feminist filmmaker spurning what she called a misogynistic â??wham, bam, thank you, maâ??amâ? genre to create erotica that would appeal to women, died on Monday at her home in Mattituck, N.Y., on Long Island. She was 64. The cause was ovarian cancer, said her friend and fellow actress and writer Veronica Vera. Ms. Royalle was 30 when she shifted from starring in movies to producing and directing films for her own company, Femme Productions. She defined her work as female-oriented, sensuously explicit cinema as opposed to formulaic hard-core pornographic films that she said degraded women for the pleasure of men. With her niche foray into pornography, Ms. Royalle maintained, performers gained a degree of dignity and a male-dominated industry belatedly recognized that couples could enjoy blue movies together. She also saw an untapped market. â??Women were curious and wanted to see if there were some sexy movies they could enjoy with their partner, and there was nothing out there for that,â? she told Smashing Interviews magazine last year. Angie Rowntree, a producer and publisher of pornography, said in an email that the common thread in Ms. Royalleâ??s work was â??a commitment to the principle that women have the right to explore, enjoy and celebrate their sexuality, openly and proudly, without taking any kind of metaphorical back seat to men.â? Some critics disagreed. Norma Ramos, general counsel of the advocacy group Women Against Pornography, said in a 1992 Elle magazine interview that there was no distinction between Ms. Royalleâ??s work and other pornography that â??eroticizes womenâ??s inequality.â? She accused Ms. Royalle of having engaged in of â??prostitution on paper or celluloid.â? Ms. Royalle was a founder of Feminists for Free Expression, a so-called sex-positive organization that opposes censorship and created a support group for actresses in erotic films who are exploited by their employers. In her films, which she infused with plots, passion, seduction and even romance, she insisted on safe sex (despite the objections of some distributors) Candice Marion Vadala was born on Oct. 15, 1950, in Brooklyn. Her father, Louis, was a jazz drummer. Her mother, the former Margaret Oâ??Bannon, left her and her sister, Cinthea, when she was 18 months old. She was raised by her stepmother, Helen Duffy. â??You basically grow up thinking, â??I wasnâ??t good enough for my own mother to want to stick around,â??â? Ms. Royalle told Smashing Interviews. She had recently discovered that her mother had apparently left to escape an abusive husband and had died of ovarian cancer. She is survived by her sister. Ms. Royalle graduated from the High School of Art and Design in New York and attended Parsons School of Design, now part of the New School. She moved to California after that and appeared in some two dozen pornographic films with titles like â??Kinky Tricksâ? and â??Hot & Saucy Pizza Girls.â? â??My parents, now deceased, were shocked when they first learned of my clandestine life as a porn star but ultimately declared their love for me, and respected what I created in terms of my production company and the businesswoman I became,â? Ms. Royalle wrote on her website. In 1980, she returned to New York to pursue an entrepreneurial career. â??It was unthinkable that an X-rated actress or model would go on to play such a strong executive role,â? Tracy Quan, author of the novel â??Diary of a Manhattan Call Girl,â? said in an email. â??Candida changed all that.â? She teamed with Jandirk Groet, a Dutch designer, to market ergonomic vibrators. She also gave lectures and in 2004 wrote a book, â??How to Tell a Naked Man What to Do: Sex Advice From a Woman Who Knows.â? Mostly she wrote, directed and produced movies, originally with a partner, Lauren Niemi. Ms. Royalleâ??s husband, Per Sjosted (they later divorced), also produced. Members of his family, who were film distributors in Europe, helped finance Femme Productions in 1984 and its first videos, â??Femmeâ? and â??Urban Heat.â? In those films, Linda Williams wrote in â??Hard Core: The Power, Pleasure and the â??Frenzy of the Visible,â?? â? â??there is a distinct shift from the confessional, voyeuristic mode of much feature-length narrative â?? a quality of catching bodies in the act of experiencing involuntary pleasures â?? to the performative mode of the jam session â?? a quality (akin to Astaire-Rogers) of bodies performing pleasurably for each other.â? Given her lofty aspirations to elevate the art form, Ms. Royalle was asked in 2012 whether pornography still deserved a bad rap. â??Perhaps if we werenâ??t still so consumed with guilt and shame about sex, neither watching nor performing in these films would carry the weight it does,â? she replied. â??But then, perhaps we wouldnâ??t be so interested in them, either. If the fruit were not forbidden, would anyone care to take a bite?â? [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/movies/candida-royalle-maker-of-x-rated-films-dies-at-64.html[/url] Personal tribute by Petra Joy [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/11851832/Candida-Royalle-the-feminist-porn-queen-Im-missing-her-already.html[/url]

You can't go wrong with Carman Fox. It's the most reputable agency in Vancouver. The photos on their website are accurate and their booking system is straight forward and reliable. http://www.carmanfox.com

You should not brush or floss your teeth shortly before having sex. Instead use a mouthwash, breath mint or gum. Brushing or flossing your teeth can cause small amounts of bleeding on the gums. Since blood is a bodily fluid, this increases the risk to your partner. Simultaneously, it presents a risk to you since you now have an opening in the mucous membrane of your mouth through which infection can enter. Most sources I've read suggest a minimum of 30 minutes between brushing or flossing and having sex. This particular source is more conservative and recommends 2 hours. I should add that the risk of HIV transmission from oral sex is very low. In addition, there doesn't appear to be any certainty around the number of infections in which teeth brushing/flossing was the sole risk factor. Having said that it's an easy risk factor to eliminate simply by using mouthwash etc. I've attached a fact sheet on HIV and factors affecting HIV transmission. Here's a few essential quotes relevant to teeth brushing/flossing. HIV can get into the blood through breaks in the skin (for example, wounds or open sores) or by passing through a mucous membrane. Mucous membranes are tissues that line the surfaces of body cavities, such as the nostrils, mouth, throat, vagina, urethra, anus and rectum. Brushing or flossing teeth can cause minor cuts, abrasions and inflammation, which can increase the risk of HIV infection. It is advisable to avoid performing oral sex for up to two hours after brushing or flossing so the gums have a chance to heal. http://www.catie.ca/en/fact-sheets/prevention/hiv-transmission-overview

In the case of underage prostitution, the onus is always on the adult, not the youth or child. What does this mean in practical terms? First, communicating with a minor who is an escort is always a criminal offence. Second, saying that you believed she was 18 or older because she provided you with ID or because of the way she looked is not a defence to the charge. The idea that checking ID is sufficient verification of age is a myth, just like it's a myth that police officers can't sexually touch during an investigation. We all know that it's possible to get fake ID, therefore while checking ID might be a good starting point, a client's legal and ethical responsibilities don't end there. As Ice4fun and Emma Alexander suggested "when there is a question of legal age it is better to error on the side of caution and not take the risk" and "when in doubt..better to be safe then sorry.." This is very good advice, in fact the best advice you're going to get. If you like younger women, there will be circumstances where you'll never be sure how old the escort is regardless of what the ID says. Another thing to keep in mind is that the older you are, the harder it is for you to determine whether you're talking to someone who's 16, 17, 18 or 19 for example. The sentence for a first offence for communicating or using the services of an underage person is 6 months. It's a year for each additional offence to a maximum of 10 years. As you pointed out you're also added to the sex offender registry for life. Bobolakj I can see that you want to do the right thing but I want you and anyone else reading this to understand that checking ID is not sufficient. You need to use all of your intelligence and intuition to make your decision. You can't put that back on the child or youth who showed you a fake ID. You don't want a teenager making life altering decisions for you and then turn around and blame them for tricking you. In fact, you want to do everything possible to protect them, even if that's protecting them from themselves.