canuckhooker

Because some dancers are often notorious for not following the schedule. Also it is a hell of a lot of work for the club to put up and maintain. And often short notice on the schedule etc. Even the schedule does you no good if the lady decides to freelance and just shows up with out being on schedule.

Different Chanel. The Tease Chanel is a Brazillian. Jewels was at the Dollar about a month ago.

Yes always day times. Not every day, but they have been there several times in the past week.

They are back at Tease as of this week.

It depends totally on where you are staying. Most of the clubs have dancers who love couples. Tease has been left off the discussion so far, (downtown myopia? or something else?) but I know many couples have been very happy with their reception, and service, there.

With all due respect Mod, where did you get that definiton/deliniation ? It is ambiguous in current law, (even with precedent) and is even more ambiguous with what is proposed in C36.

The point is not that people are lala-ing away, but that comments are being made that do not reflect the reality of how our system works. The government can pass any law it wants. The courts decide if it violates the charter. So this C-36 can be passed, and it can be challenged in the courts. But that will take time. So prepare to "live in interesting times". But what has really been forgotten in this whole debate is that wonderful gift that Pierre Trudeau left us with, Section 33 of the Charter, "the notwithstanding clause". (sarcasm is intended about Trudeau's gift) If the government wants it can over-rule the SCC on any ruling including section 7 which was the basis for the Bedford decision. They can ignore any SCC ruling for a period of 5 years, and that can be extended indefinitely. So even if the Supreme Court rules, parliament can say, "Too bad, so sad, this law is for the public good." That is the reality. That is how our government works. There is a big difference between attacking someone's comments and opinions and pointing out that they don't have a clear understanding of the subject on which they are commenting.

Seriously? Understand how our government works. The SCC is the body that decides if any particular is constitutional. They can only do that after a law is passed, unless the government decides to pass a bill to them for a ruling before tabling it in the house. Simple. In this case the government, ( and yes despite how much you may hate them, they are the government) has proposed new laws, that they say, address the issues raised by the SCC ruling. We are all speculating on whether the SCC will have issues with the new laws currently being discussed, nobody knows how they may react. The one thing that is clear is that the Bedford decision said the government can decide on how they want to view prostitution. So they could make it wide open and go for local regulation, or the could outlaw the whole businesss (sale and purchase) or they could go for the hybrid, which is what they chose. Their approach IMHO is flawed only because they only outlawed one side of the transaction. They didn't have the will to outlaw totally. If they outlawed, sale and purchase then there would be nothing to appeal. The whole Bedford decision was based on people engaged in legal acts being put in a bad spot by inconsistent laws. If the whole thing is illegal, then all those arguments are moot. We don't have to ensure a safe work place for criminals. As was said earlier during the whole Bedford process, be careful what you wish for, you may not like the result.

I am fully aware of the significance of the Nazi Night of the Long Knives, and agree the use of the term is hyperbole. I was not debating the points of the repatriation debate, not the War Measures act. I was making the point that Harper was not the only, nor the worst prime minister for using his powers this way. Again, the reason for the articles has nothing to do with what he is doing, but because he is a conservative.

And of course what is missed in this, is what was said in the first few lines. He was a follower and admirer of Pierre Trudeau. Now regarded as being at different ends of the political spectrum, their tactics are remarkably similar. Trudeau was a bully, and not afraid to use measures like the War Measures act to achieve his ends. Who can forget the quote "Just watch me" ? He bullied and maneuvered Quebec into signing the constitution, something that is still not forgiven by many in that province. That is why terms such as "Night of the Long Knives", a reference to an event in the rise of the Nazi party, is used by many Quebec nationalists. Other provinces and politicians who saw some of the flaws in the Charter were also bullied into accepting it, and the odious "notwithstanding clause", including Jean Chretien. The problem is the press forgets these little incidents. Harper is not the first of his ilk. Trudeau perfected it many years ago, and Mackenzie King before him. It is upsetting to them not because of his tactics, but because he is a conservative.

Really? We got your message... no need to post it all over the board. Catch up on the informed discussions on this board where many of the facts and opinions are discussed.

It closed about a month ago, and a lot of the ladies have landed at Tease. They like the atmosphere, so I am told.

I am not a big Rosie fan, but she hit in on the head with this article.

It is not unintended. It is all-encompassing. How can you say a prostitute is being forced to sell her body, and not say the same about a dancer in a contact club, or an MA. They have kept it like this to avoid loopholes. Can you imagine how they would try and define a sexual service, and decide where to draw the line? It is still going to the SCC and the outlawing of things like SC's that have been around forever is one more reason this will not last.

They removed a bunch of comments. I posted one that is gone, as are many others.

Not really, they have been critical of this approach and the Nordic model. None of he comments support what MacKay said. In fact I know those are not his word, it is the party line. I am sure he is choking saying them in some cases. He knows the truth.

I am intimately familiar with Service Canada, and whatever they call HRDC these days. There is nothing in the SC mandate that would get them involved in this at all. HRDC, maybe, only because they have Labour and all the employment and EI policy. SC is a program delivery arm and would not be making visits like this at this time.

So every cop in Canada thinks that people who see prostitutes are pervs? Gee I never knew. There are a couple of my acquaintance who were unaware, I will have to tell them. Since you said it, it has to be true.

I wouldn't bet on that. I used to do BB support for a Government department and that was the belief. A lot of senior folks used Pin to Pin to avoid leaving a trail that could be subject to Access requests. The messages are not stored on the server, but they are not secure and very easy to intercept with the right technology.

It is all of the above. Years ago, when the earth was still cooling I was posted to Germany with the Canadian army. The European attitude to nudity was refreshing. Saunas were mixed and you never wrapped yourself in a towel or wore a swimsuit. People of all ages and sexes there only for the effects of a therapeutic and relaxing sauna session. However I knew a lot of my Canadian male friends who would not go because they couldn't handle it being a non-sexual situation. They were afraid they would "pop a boner". The beach near where I lived was FKK. This was before FKK became synonymous with "big city brothel" and merely meant nudist. Again, not a problem, except for a small segment of Canadian soldiers who would show up in their cut-off jeans, wife-beaters and a six pack of beer, walking around the beach, leering, drooling and mumbling "tits....." Complete immature arseholes that gave all of us a bad name. The fact that to get to the beach they drove right by two "full-service" strip-clubs/topless bars shows you how cheap and lazy they were. Then I return to Ottawa and hear of this fabled Meech Lake place where there is basically a nude beach. I went there and was shocked. The place over-run by gay men, (nothing wrong with that) using it as a pick up place. A bunch of nude men standing around with partial erections eyeing every other guy that came by looking for someone to sneak off into the bushes with. The offensive part wasn't that it was gay men. It could have been women doing the same thing. It was that they had sexualized what should have been a normal and liberating recreational experience. Or there were also the fully dressed equivalents of the soldiers I saw in Germany, there to see if they can find a naked woman to ogle. I think in general most North Americans don't have the maturity to handle this. Many single guys participate as a way to pick-up (women or other men), or to fill their voyeuristic tendencies. It is sad, and I long for my days back in Europe where it was accepted and normal.

Really? Well POF and Ashley Madison spring to mind. It may not be open, but it is how may make "first contact", and I know it from personal experience.

I have said this elsewhere, but you don't have to be a client or identify yourself as one to have strong opinions on this. It is a civil liberties issue. Consenting adults etc. It is the start of a slippery slope. We have laws against exploiting minors, trafficking, slavery, exploiting anyone. Why do we need a law so specific? Because politicians are lazy. And you can blame the Tories all you want, there are supporters of this in all of the parties. They are afraid to be stigmatized so they will say what they think people will want to hear. It is not about sex, it is about basic human liberties and dignity.

Would every body please relax?? This is proposed legislation. We have seen what has happened lately with that. First off, the DOJ took a punch to the balls with the SCC ruling. This is the counter-punch, the first, knee-jerk reaction. A sort of trying to see who is in charge the legislative or the judicial arm of our government. Did the punch hit its target? We don't know yet. We see it coming but it needs to go through a bunch of hurdles to hit on the chin. (read the other very informed posts on the subject) So all of this is premature. Just because Mackay got up and said it and proposed it, doesn't mean that it will become law. It could be a tactic. We all need to be vigilant, express our opinions and talk a lot. You don't have to say you see escorts to voice an opinion that the government's current proposal is anti-human rights, anti-freedom of choice. You don't have to say why you have the opinion, just express it.

1. Premature to speculate 2. No idea if spa services are considered "sexual services" under the new legislation. 3. Advertising can only be done by the individual offering the sexual service. 4. If they are sexual services then working for a spa will be illegal. 5. If it is a sexual service then it is illegal to be a customer. 6. Refer to point 1. Too early to tell.

Again, it is still not law. It will have to be reviewed by committee, three readings, Senate and Royal Assent. It will not be done before the summer recess. And then it could also die on the order paper. If they prorogue Parliament, then back to square one. Despite what has been said by the government's talking heads, a lot of those comments have been to appease the abolitionists, "See look, we are doing something!" knowing full well that it is not going to go through unchanged. The court of public opinion alone is going to go nuts with this bill. But they can blame public opinion and others for the changes. There are so many holes and missteps in this bill it is crazy. I am still looking for a definition of "Sexual service" but have not been able to find it. The old procuring law specified "sexual intercourse" but I can't see where sexual service is defined. So where do they draw the line on that? Are BJ's and HJ's OK? Could a lap dance be construed as a sexual service? (it really is in some ways) What about webcam girls? It can be sex, and you are paying. This is still a long way off, and I doubt it will be passed before the deadline on the SCC ruling, which could make things very interesting.