SamanthaEvans

That makes sense to me, Charlotte and drlove. The confusion probably comes from the news reporter and/or their editor. I'm cautiously optimistic, or at least feeling somewhat encouraged, by the kinds of questions the Appeal Court judges have been asking. I know that there are no guarantees, but if the COA upholds Justice Himel's decision, the Supreme Court of Canada may be very cautious about overturning it. Appeal Court judges take a very strong line about respecting other judges' decisions and thought processes. If the COA and Justice Himel agree, the federal government may simply decide to try to enact new legislation rather than spending the time and money for a SCC appeal which, if it agreed with the lower courts' decisions, could make it very difficult for Parliament to ignore these recent definitions, arguments and rulings to bring in new laws.

This is one of the more bizarre claims made in this appeal hearing. Frankly, I don't understand what, exactly, Young is referring to. He seems to have said, a day or two ago, that sex workers and clients can't even legally discuss the use of condoms. If the issue is that it's illegal to have a discussion in a public place about exchanging sex for money, that's true. That would include discussing what kinds of activities are available. But once a sex worker has decided to solicit, I doubt very much that she's going to split hairs over discussing what she will or won't agree to do with a potential client. The way Young's argument is summarized, though, makes it seem that it's illegal for sex workers to discuss services, etc., period, regardless of whether we have the conversation in public or in private.

I never offer bareback services of any kind; my health is more important to me. However, it is true that pineapple juice does sweeten the flavour of ejaculate and it does take up to 24 hours for it to make a difference. With clients, hygiene matters more than anything else. The most important thing you can do is very thorough cleansing, including every crease and fold in your anal/genital area, an hour before your meeting, or after you arrive. Trimming excess or dense pubic hair, too, is much appreciated!

Gender is complex and not limited to physical characteristics or genitalia. Some people have a profound sense of being in the wrong body--for example, they look like a male, but they believe that they should look like, and be, a female. I have a client who is a stunningly beautiful woman. She takes hormonal supplements and has spent thousands of dollars on laser hair removal and electrolysis, but she's horrified by the notion that she might want to have her penis and testicles removed. She would not say that she's hermaphroditic or inter-sex. She describes herself as polymorphous and says that she's a lesbian with a "male package" which she uses in the traditional ways. (And very well, too, I might add!) She has had trouble finding a permanent partner, however. Gender can be defined in so many ways including the gender one prefers to perform in public or in private.

Susan has been a very vocal presence for a long time. She often tends to emphasize "compassionate sex" clients--men with disabilities, physical limitations or who are about to have prostate surgery and face losing erectile function permanently. These are not the majority of most companions' clients, however. She did very well in this interview, I think. Summer-Rain isn't very articulate and is easily confused about the facts. Specifically, the claim that most paid companions enter the sex trade around age 12 or 13 has been debunked many times, but Summer doesn't seem to know it. She also said that she doesn't consider the sex trade to be a form of employment at all, but toward the end of the interview, she says that most women go into the sex trade because of poverty, because of needing to support children and because of having no other options. Her analysis may be correct--though there's some debate about that--and it certainly puts her in the anti-woman camp, overall. When women have no other options, making them criminals is only putting them in greater risk of losing their children. Overall, I think Susan came out sounding reasonable, reflective and aware of the complexities and subtleties related to the appeal, whereas Summer sounded much more doctrinaire, scripted and limited. We'll see how she does when she's actually in court.

Thanks for these summaries, WiT. Maybe it's just my own idealism that's getting hooked, but I don't accept the view, espoused by the feds, that the world is violent and we should all just accept that nothing can be done about it. Why, in a violent world, should sex workers expect to be singled-out for victimization rather than deserving the right to protect ourselves? I visited a jewellery store recently. We had to wait for the staff to open the locked door before we could go in. We knew we were being monitored by a very obvious video camera the whole time we were there. We didn't object to these sensible measures. When the Prime Minister is in town, a chauffeur drives him around in a limousine and he has several RCMP close at hand, presumably for his protection. I have no objection to such security measures. But it seems that, even though I may occasionally frequent high-end jewellery stores, and even though I notice and approve of some of the PM's security provisions, I'm supposed to accept that, in this violent world, I'm not entitled to have driver or bodyguard when I sell something that's as legal to trade as gold, diamonds and pearls. And I should not be allowed to ply my trade from my own home or a place I've retained for the purpose because I'm simply not entitled to the resulting safety and protection. Does the federal government think that it's appropriate for violence to be directed towards me and other paid companions? What I meant to say is, are violent men supposed to have access to us--is that our purpose in society?

It's possible that the federal government won't do anything if the Himel decision is upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal. They don't have to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. If they do, and the SCC upholds the Himel decision, the feds could just let things be. The laws would be nullified. They could wait and see what happens. Will there be unmanageable levels of street prostitution? Will brothels open up all over the country? How will cities and municipalities respond? Doing nothing for awhile could be in the feds' best interests. If everything is okay, there's no reason to create crimes. If things are going badly in some area, new laws may be one approach to dealing with whatever problems arise.

I think so, yes. They might try writing new laws about soliciting to crack down on street prostitution, but they'd only have limited, temporary success if they do that because street prostitution is motivated by drug addiction, mental illnesses and the most dire forms of poverty. Remember that prostitution is legal in Canada, now. It's not legal to operate a brothel and it's not legal for anyone other than the prostitute herself to live off the proceeds of her income. However, there are brothels all over the country, operating undetected under the radar, causing no trouble for anyone. Technically, I'm the sole proprietor and employee of a brothel in one of Vancouver's most up-scale residential neighbourhoods. Charging me would serve no useful purpose because I am not a nuisance, I cause no trouble for anyone, there are no noise problems, no drugs, no late-night drunken brawls outside my door--nothing for the neighbours or the police to be interested in. To charge me would simply be vindictive. If I am prevented from making my living as I do, there's a good chance that I would have to rely on social assistance of various kinds, which is also not in the public interest. I provide for my children on my income. My youngest lives with me. Is he better off without my income? His father refuses to pay child support and it would take a couple of years--and cost a great deal--for the province to get results if they pursue my son's father for unpaid child support because we were on welfare. Technically, my landlord is living on the avails. Should they be charged, though? They say that we are the finest tenants they've ever had and they hope that we'll stay for years to come. We're quiet, undemanding and happy to take care of basic maintenance ourselves. Do taxpayers want to have their money used to pursue women like me? Do they believe that the best thing the police departments can do is to set me up to imagine I'm entertaining another nice middle-aged man only to find that he's a police officer who is going to arrest me? (I'll say nothing about the RCMP and city police officers who are or have been my clients before this.) Maybe--just maybe--it would be better to put the police to work finding the people who have been murdering the prostitutes who work on the streets downtown. If they're concerned about my taxable income, the CRA has ways of ensuring that I pay taxes on my earnings. I'm ready to be audited. I declare my income, so I'm not worried about that. If they're concerned that I may not be healthy and may be spreading diseases, well, lots of people pass communicable diseases to others. It's an offense to knowingly expose others to diseases like HIV/AIDS, but I am 100% certain that I don't have HIV or other serious illnesses. Studies show that a man's wife or girlfriend is more likely to expose him to most STDs than I am. My point in all of this is to question what needs to be regulated. Most paid companions work much as I do. We aren't causing problems. There's no reason to enact laws to regulate our behaviour. If the Himel decision is upheld, it's possible that more people will enter the sex traqde. It's possible, but over time, I don't think there will be a significant increase in the number of paid companions. This work is a lot more difficult and demanding than most people realize. One has to work very hard to make a good living and one has to put up with a lot of nonsense from clients and potential clients, at times. Most women don't stay in the sex trade for very long. So, yes, I do think there's a reasonable chance that the federal government will not rush to pass useless, pointless legislation, particularly if most Canadians don't want it.

The rules allow the Ontario Court of Appeal to take up to six months to release a decision. I know, from personal experience before this court, that they do take the full amount of time allotted to them when they consider any complex issue. We shouldn't expect a decision before late November. Applications to the Supreme Court of Canada take months to prepare and many more months will elapse before an appeal is heard there, too. The Harper government runs on polls and surveys. While the prime minister and some MPs may personally prefer to reduce or eliminate women's access to abortions in Canada, every reputable survey shows that the Canadian public is strongly opposed to re-opening the debate. Canadians are also in favour of decriminalizing prostitution, as Wrinkled in Time outlined, above. The article in this weekend's Globe and Mail, "Why the courts must decriminalize prostitution," has had more than 660 comments as I write this post, and the great majority of those comments are in favour of the article. Most print media estimate that a single written comment represents the views and values of at least 1,500 readers who did not comment. In simple terms, those 660 comments may represent up to about 10,000 readers. One should make allowances for trolls and for simple, one-line responses, but even with that downward adjustment, the number of responses in favour of the article is significant. The Harper government will take note of this--they would be very foolish not to. And, whatever any of us may think about this government and its MPs, they are not stupid, ignorant or incapable of thinking things through. Canadians do not think that the laws presently on the books are working. We may not have much of an idea about what drives women into street prostitution, but no one can ignore the truth: it's the most dangerous form of prostitution, anywhere, because the women who engage in it are too easily preyed upon by guys like Robert Picton. I imagine that the biggest concern for most of the public is that they don't want to have a brothel in their own neighbourhood. They imagine that brothels will bring in a lot of undesirable traffic, noise and dangerous elements. That's fair enough, I suppose, if the stereotype were accurate, but it's not. Most paid companions who work indoors as independents are operating brothels, even if only one woman is working in them. We are all over the country, in every city and in every neighbourhood. We're hard to notice and most of us wouldn't have it any other way.

It's important to remember that the law is a living thing. Justice Himel's decision has been appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. That court may uphold her ruling, overturn it completely, or endorse some parts while rejecting other parts. Whatever the OCA does, the matter will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. It will be several more years before the SCC makes a ruling. They may reject the appeal, revert to Justice Himel 100%, or uphold some things and not others. They may advise Parliament that a new law is needed, or they may not. Parliament may decide to create new laws which may or may not be improvements over the old ones. If there are new laws, people will have to be charged under those laws and more judicial rulings will be made, interpreting sections of the law, defining terms, identifying instances where the laws do or do not apply. Different judges will make different rulings, depending on many factors. Some decisions may be appealed..... It goes on and on. That's why it's important to make a case for change--there are many options and opportunities for success. In Sweden, very shortly after the laws criminalizing the purchase, but not the sale, of erotic services, men were arrested and tried under the new laws. Those laws provided for imprisonment as a reasonable penalty. Judges, however, quickly decided that jailing men for wanting to purchase sex was too extreme. They decided that it wasn't such a horrible crime. They chose to issue fines--which the laws had allowed for--and the amounts of the fines are roughly comparable to speeding tickets, even when the man was a repeat offender. The up-shot has been that the "Swedish model" hasn't actually worked the way it was anticipated to work. Men have little to fear when it comes to purchasing sex in Sweden. Street prostitution did go down about 40% initially, but is now reported to be at the same level as before the laws were enacted. Meanwhile, the incidence of violence directed against outdoor sex workers is reported to have increased. It's hard to say what, exactly, will transpire if the Himel decision is upheld and if the federal government later takes steps to enact new legislation.

Mrrnice, I do agree with you. Potential criminalization affects the lives of our clients--absolutely! I don't think anyone should face the possibility of having a criminal record simply because he was ready to pay, or had paid, to have intimate companionship with a willing, consenting person. How a man spends his time with me and what we do or don't do together--including the willing exchange of money for time--should be no one's business but our own. I think it would be absolutely fantastic if many men would come forward and state, publicly, that they actively seek and enjoy the company of paid companions, massage providers, strippers and dancers. The public has an idea that most of the men who engage our time and services are profoundly deviant in many, many ways. This is absolutely false. I'm sure that all of the ladies here will join me in stating that our clients are ordinary, regular guys from all walks of life who usually would not have a problem finding unpaid female companionship if they wanted it. For many, it's simpler, cheaper, less risky to their marriages and families and less emotionally demanding over time to spend a few hours with one of us occasionally than it is to have an affair. For others who have little time to devote to a relationship, seeing us fulfills their need for intimacy and human contact which may or may not include sex. It's true that men with disabilities, disfigurements and physical limitations also seek our company. Why shouldn't they? The desire for physical connection, closeness and erotic engagement is a basic, human need that has nothing to do with physical abilities. It would gladden my heart if the public could understand that the men who visit me and others give every indication of being as stable, respectful, compassionate and non-violent as the men who never engage us. The anti-sex feminists and others have done a very fine job of convincing the general public that men who pay for sex always want violent, dangerous, degrading and dehumanizing things from their paid companions that no "normal" woman would reasonably agree to do. It's a lie that's difficult to combat. Every one of us who has been in this business for any significant length of time will have a few unfortunate stories to tell. Admittedly, some of us may have nightmares to relate, as well. We screen as carefully as we can, or as carefully as we think we can get away with, but we don't pick up on every subtle nuance or detail. Some men do approach us because they do, indeed, want things that are outside most of our boundaries. But those men are few and far between in my experience. I've been in the sex trade for years and entertained hundreds of men. Not one has ever harmed me physically. I do not consider my work to be traumatizing. I expect to retire one day, perhaps one day soon, and when I do, I don't anticipate coping with unpleasant memories. I can't say the same about my marriage, however. My ex-husband is a very manipulative, emotionally and psychologically abusive man who took deliberate, carefully calculated steps to harm me and our children, all within the confines of what appeared to be a very good, middle class, heterosexual relationship. He was dangerous, yet he acted within the limits of the law. My clients are not dangerous men and should not be forced to limit their actions by laws that don't apply to them or their needs, or to me and mine.

The great majority of women in the sex trade do not want clients to face criminal charges for using our services consensually. When men are anxious, frightened or paranoid, they are much more likely to be dangerous, too. As for whether our clients--on Cerb or not--are as concerned about our safety and well-being as we are, unfortunately that's not an assumption any paid companion can afford to make. As you can see on this board, there are many debates about the safety and screening requirements companions may expect and whether potential clients consider these things to be reasonable, valid or necessary. Many men are more concerned about whether their partners will find out that they've spent time with a paid companion than about the companion's safety and well-being. Sadly, when clients are found out, they generally portray themselves as fine, up-standing men of unimpeachable moral character who would never cheat on their wives or partners and who would never be violent or abusive with anyone, particularly a woman. They will describe us as immoral, irresponsible, lying, cheating, drug-addicted and/or alcoholic, unreliable witnesses and perhaps mentally ill, as well. Even the priciest courtesan suddenly becomes a filthy hooker who is out to entrap a hapless, kind man who never saw her, didn't know who she was, had only offered to help her with something, or was in the wrong place at the wrong time. No matter how wonderful I am, what terrific care, attention and companionship I provide, I know that if a fire breaks out in the hotel when I'm visiting, the last person whose well-being will be on my client's mind is me. I'm interested in what men think about many things, but when they want access to my bed and my body, only my views about my safety matter: I'm the one who will live with the consequences.

SA, I don't know where you get your information, but most paid companions work indoors and are not coerced by pimps. We are no more likely to have drug or alcohol addictions than women in "straight" professions. About 85% of us work indoors. Nearly all of the women who engage in street prostitution have multiple problems: most are addicted to illegal drugs; many also have significant mental health issues and the great majority are aboriginal women. Poverty, though, is the critical factor underlying everything else. Canada has laws against human trafficking. Good laws with stiff penalties, they are, too. The problem is that there is little police or judicial will to enforce these laws. Most of the people who are caught up in genuine human trafficking are farm and industrial workers, not prostitutes. Some women are migrant sex workers. That is, they leave their home countries to come to places like Canada in order to engage in the sex trade. They hope to make a significant amount of money that they can send home to help support their families. Many of the Asian women in the micro-brothels in Vancouver are migrant sex workers who make genuine, deliberate choices to come here on visitor's visas to work for up to six months before returning home. They are not "trafficked." We also have laws against the sexual exploitation of children. They, too, should be relentlessly enforced. There is no excuse whatever for sexually abusing children. That said, if we were to document every person who was sexually abused by anyone before the age of 18 or 19, the number would be staggering! It may be that a large number of women who work as paid companions have been sexually abused at some point in their lives. I do think that many of us have been abused in some way, at some point, usually by fathers, brothers, male relatives, boyfriends, partners, lovers or husbands. It maybe that survivors of violence are over-represented among sex trade workers, but that may not be true. Violence against women is endemic and also sanctioned in our culture. If you don't think so, have a look at debates about what really constitutes violence or how to define what is or is not genuinely abusive. Physical violence is only one kind of abuse. Emotional and psychological abuse are both more prevalent and far more destructive. The Harper Conservatives may try to pass legislation that will make prostitution much more dangerous for many women. The women who are most at risk, however--women working on the streets--will not stop engaging in it. They work in the sex trade because they have no other legitimate alternatives; because of poverty; because of addictions; because of mental health problems. These workers will work in conditions that are much higher risk than they are, now. Pimps will thrive because they will offer to protect the women who work for them and because they will strive to guarantee male clients' safety from the police. Some of the rest of us may decide that it's not worth the hassle to work around whatever new laws are created. These women will retire to other professions. Make no mistake, though: many of us will simply carry on doing what we do. The demand for paid companionship will not go down, regardless of what legislative bodies do. Indeed, when men are under greater pressure to avoid arrest and prosecution, paid companions such as me will have a far easier time screening potential clients. That is, there will be fewer arguments about references, contact information, cell phones and the real identities of our clients. Not only that, but expect our rates to increase, considerably, too! If the Harper government has any genuine interest in protecting women from the likes of Picton, they should outlaw poverty, put an end to the drug trade and make effective mental health resources available to everyone when needed, rather than forcing many to wait months or years to see a psychiatrist. I don't think this will happen, though. Legislating a minimum, liveable income would be expensive. Ending the drug trade would have a profound impact on many economies. Vancouver alone would be directly harmed by such a step. And the government is doing its utmost to limit access to health care already because of the expense. The government is not going to do anything that will actually benefit women, protect any of us from predation or violence, or end the sex trade.

sigh.... Some of these proposals actually sound reasonable, provided that one doesn't know the truth. More and more, I recognize that a few of us companions could probably make a very big difference in any discussion of prostitution in Canada. Most of us, here, are nothing like the stereotype most people subscribe to. The trouble is that the stigma associated with this profession is so damaging and can have such far-reaching repercussions that most of us can't afford to take the risks required. It's a sad irony that, because the governments and police departments have so little interest in taking steps that would protect the lives of women in the sex trade, it's not safe to speak the plain truth about our lives.

You may be right, Cato. However, I've gotta say that right-wingers seem to pay for sex with fewer qualms than the lefties--who get all bent out of shape over whether even high-end ladies really consent to what we doing. Mind, that doesn't mean that right-leaning politicians would have any problem with passing restrictive legislation one morning and then trundling off to see their favourite paid companions that afternoon!

Good idea for this thread, Berlin--thanks! Don't ask for information that's available on my website. You can read all about my rates there. Understand that I may not be able to respond to your text(s) right away. It's instant texting for you, but I may not be available. If you want more than some brief information, please e-mail me. It's okay to text me and tell me that you've done that, if you want to. Everyone is different about this, but I won't make same-day or immediate bookings via text unless I've seen you recently. Recently, for me, means in the last two months. Other companions will have different requirements. Some abbreviations are fine, but texts that are filled with chatspeak or l33t aren't going to get much of a response from me.

Men are attracted to paid companions for many different reasons and have many different fantasies about the time they spend with us. Some want to be the first, or only, appointment of the day. Some revel in the notion that they're one in a series of meetings that day. I have one long-time regular client who always wants to be my last appointment of the day. If you're one of those who wants to be the first or only appointment, I suggest you book a longer meeting--at least 90 minutes or two hours.

Well, speaking as a "proud and confident woman," I've gotta say that "moody and ashamed" are not qualities I find attractive in men. I noticed a long ago that, if a man has a Heathcliff-ian, brooding aspect, he may attract women who will hope to rescue him from himself, explain him to the rest of the world as a sadly misunderstood teddy bear, express confidence in his genius or goodness, yadda yadda, but I wouldn't say that this is a healthy dynamic. My experience is that moody men are often poor communicators with a sense of entitlement who may become very abusive. Coupling moodiness with shame is a toxic mixture. Such men are not ideal clients or dates and, when they meet women with low self-esteem I have to pray that those women have others in their lives who are looking out for them. Men who are a little shy, uncertain and cautious, on the other hand, are often the best clients because their caution tends to mean that they want to assure their companion that they mean no harm. They relax into smiling, happy fellows, ready to have a good time!

If you contact me and offer to bring drugs to our meeting, I won't see you. Period. It adds an element of risk that I'm not prepared to accept. If you arrive drunk, stoned or obviously under the influence of some chemical, I will ask you to leave. I am a very light social drinker and very careful about what I drink, particul!arly with new clients. I've occasionally accepted gifts of homemade wines and cordials, but I never drink them. They've gone down the drain after the meeting ended because I don't know what's really in them or what quality-control procedures have been followed in their making. If a known client were to offer illegal substances, I would decline them because I don't know what's really in them and because I don't want to possess anything like that. I trust that I will be remembered as intoxicating in my own right, not because of drugs and alcohol! :biggrin:

I find this one very erotic....

My handbag is different from my outcall bag, which is a leather briefcase with whatever toys, condoms, lubes, extra stockings and other things I may want or need to have with me. In my handbag: a small make-up kit with powder, mascara, eyeliner, 3-4 lipsticks, a few little safety pins and a small mirror wallet keys hand sanitizer small-size can of hair spray comb brush gum cell phone business cards in a case (not for escort work!) a Moleskine weekly planner two mechanical pencils, a ballpoint pen and a clear plastic 6" ruler a 5.5" x 8.5" Moleskine watercolour sketch book a 4"x 6" pocket field watercolour sketch box containing 24 tiny pans of paint, a palette, a brush with a water reservoir in the handle, two sponges and one folded paper towel an Altoids box lined with spongy foam, holding three conté crayons and a kneaded eraser

Dear ones, Without drawing too fine a point, I will say that I'm a frequent visitor to Vancouver's finest downtown hotels. They're busy places, full of groups, couples and individuals coming and going, back and forth, into the restaurant, the lounge, the shops, taking the hotel dog(s) for a walk, having quick meetings in the lobby. No one is paying any particular attention to anyone unless they're planning to meet someone. The staff are friendly and usually very busy. I imagine that anyone would feel welcome as long as they're properly dressed, relatively clean and not stumbling about in a drunken or drug-addled haze. Particularly in the evening, one will see young women wearing extraordinarily high heels on their feet, unfortunately heavy make-up and as little as possible everywhere else. They're generally new to the profession--this time of year, sex work becomes some university students' summer job for a few weeks. They may turn heads. They elicit knowing grins and occasional snickers from others nearby. But the most observant concierges and hotel staff treat them with the same grace and decorum as they afford everyone else. My point is: stop worrying. If you're in a 4 or 5-star hotel, you're safe. Discretion is the innkeeper's stock-in-trade. Hotels are the site for all kinds of legitimate and shadowy business because they're clean, have prompt, reliable service, have staff who will come at a moment's notice if called but will otherwise allow their guests almost as much privacy as one would expect to have at home, and because the management doesn't ask too many questions. Innkeepers and paid companions have been in cahoots ever since some enterprising fellow realized that he could get a side benefit from ensuring that those of us who practice the world's oldest profession have a place to engage in it.

The Harper government does nothing without extensive polling. Unless the Canadian public suddenly decides that they do want the police to be peering through the curtains to monitor what goes on in the privacy of their homes and hotel rooms, I think it's unlikely that there will be major changes anytime soon. The clearest thing about the Bedford case is that the Supreme Court will get to have a crack at it... in two or three years. Maybe. New legislation may or may not follow that sometime later. I don't think Canadians want a greater police presence in their lives. I think we prefer to keep our sexual choices and behaviours to ourselves. The folks on the far right and the far left who get in a lather about prostitution become very shrill very soon. The best thing for is, for now, is to make sure that we all have accurate information about things like the so-called "Swedish model." For example, no one has been sent to prison for buying sex in Sweden under these laws. Men who are convicted of buying sex receive fines, like fines for speeding, even when they are repeat offenders. And, while the new laws did reduce street prostitution by (only) 40% in the first few years, the reports now are that things are much as they were before the laws came into force. That is, there's still street prostitution in major cities. Sex workers continue to work underground, on the Internet or, unfortunately, through pimps. The women can't be prosecuted for selling sex, it's true, but they still report very high levels of violence from the police. In other words, the things the laws were presumed to address have not changed. I also think that we need to be very clear about the realities of street prostitution in Canada. Women who work outside are the main concern and for good reason. However, I'm too old and jaded to believe that new laws will protect anyone if the police departments don't consider them to be worth looking out for in the first place. Moreover, street sex workers have multiple problems and issues of which prostitution is not the most significant. Outdoor sex workers here in Vancouver have astoundingly high levels of serious mental illness, substance addictions and poverty. Unless we're seriously dedicated to addressing these problems, nothing aimed at eradicating prostitution is going to make a difference.

I agree with others who have suggested you give your relationship another try, if it's important to you. Counselling is good. Find a couples counsellor for the two of you and another counsellor for just you. Suggest that your partner might consider individual counselling for herself as well. Couple's counselling can help the two of you work on communicating with each other, understanding each other's point of view, finding solutions or strategies to handle specific problems and that kind of thing. In private counselling, you might consider exploring your feelings about sex, about women, about yourself, and about your ability to communicate your sexual interests, needs, fantasies and practices with a partner who is or may be your life partner. From my experience, some men see paid companions because there's something they want to experience or express that, for many reasons, they don't feel they can discuss or explore with their intimate life partner. For example, I've had clients who wanted specific kinds of play that they didn't think their wives would accept. Sometimes they feared being judged and/or rejected; sometimes they wanted to keep that specific activity completely separate from the rest of their "usual" lives. Seeing a paid companion was an excellent solution to their predicament, from their point of view, at least. The thing is, despite how liberated we think our culture is, most people have a hard time talking about sex, about their own bodies, about their partner's bodies, about what they really enjoy, what they want, what they've never been able to experiment with but are curious about as well as what they don't want to do. Too much of adult sexual behaviour is badly negotiated, excessively romanticized and includes making a lot of assumptions, relying on (inaccurate) intuition, worrying about shocking or offending one's partner, feeling personal shame and embarrassment. While we might imagine that we can or should be able to have the most intimate, personal conversations with our life partners, unfortunately, that's not true a lot of the time. We invest a lot in our partners and in the role(s) we play in relation to them. It can be very difficult to introduce something new into a long-standing relationship, particularly if one tends to idealize one's partner or if one feels that their role is, at least in part, to protect and shelter the partner from the hard parts of human living. If at the beginning of a relationship a couple isn't able to have frequent, very frank, non-judgmental discussions about sex, bodies, physical abilities and limitations, sexual interests, turn-ons, fantasies and fears, becoming comfortable with these conversations after a lot of time has passed is a monumental task. Maybe your partner will be able to appreciate that seeing a paid companion is a much less risky for your relatinoship than having an affair would be. Or maybe she will feel that infidelity is infidelity, period. Sexual compatibility is as important as compatibility in other areas of our lives. It may be that you and your partner are not compatible. It may be that whatever you've been seeking with paid companions is something she would like to be doing with you, but didn't know wanted. It may be that, even if she wants to do it with you, you have a need to do it with someone who isn't part of your day-to-day life. I hope you can work things out in ways that are constructive and life-enhancing for both of you and for the other people in your lives. If not, I hope that you can part amicably. Take responsibility for what you've done and try not to blame your partner for what has happened. What I am certain of is, if your relationship ends as a result of what's happened, if you don't get a very good handle on what's happened, what your needs are and how to negotiate what you want with future partners, you will repeat this over and over again. I hope that you're able to find a better way for yourself.

I'm not voting, either. But I will say that men are much too focused on this question and it can really interfere with their overall enjoyment of sex throughout their lives. As men age, erectile dysfunction becomes increasingly common, whether from less than ideal health or other factors. The men who are able to experience a broad range of sensations and who appreciate variety in erotic play have the best life-long experiences, by far! Trust me about this: I'm an expert on the sexual responses of middle-aged and older men. :icon_wink: Our culture emphasizes penetrative activity as the ultimate goal and the only "real" way to have sex. This is nonsense, gentlemen! Learn how your body works, what you like and what you'd like to try. Then spend even more time learning about women's bodies and what kinds of things we enjoy and might be curious to explore. The men who do this kind of serious investigation make the very finest lovers, every time. For what it's worth, I will say that two of my absolutely most favourite regular clients can't achieve a lasting erection and haven't been able to do so for years. They are magnificent in bed, and not just because they're good with their hands and tongues--though that does matter! And I know that they have very satisfying orgasms, too!