fortunateone

Seek the services of a massage person not a full escort, you have to walk before you run. massage relaxes, and endings will be happy ones. (trying to say what i need to say while avoiding censoring!). Repeat with one person until you feel ready to move onto the next stage, more intimate stage. Don't make the mistake some who are new to this by trying to do too much too soon with the wrong person, then repeating that mistake over and over with a different person for each encounter.

And please remember, they are ATTACHED, meaning that they are not meant to be removed. Proceed with caution, the lady will let you know when or if she wants you to increase the pressure. Start off too hard and fast and grabby and twisty, chances are the play part will end as soon as it started lol

I think children have things that they are just naturally drawn to do or be, and that the main thing is encouraging that. I think that if you have a girl who is clearly pretty, she is going to get compliments on her looks. It is super important for parents to not just accept that but also reply something like 'beautiful on the inside too' and/or 'smart and skillful too', always adding in that compliment that offsets what others see, and remind them of what they are. Same with boys, probably will get he's so athletic, or whatever, and a counter point is that he is smart, or kind, or a great big brother to his younger syblings. Place value on the things that can't be seen, or that society doesn't automatically seem to place higher value on like looks or sporting abilities, and you offer a balance to them. Then when they are older and someone says how pretty they are, they automatically hear another inside voice saying' just as pretty on the inside."

i think you will find lifestyle changes can help avoid the medications. especially if the condition is a direct result of being overweight, sedentary, alcohol, etc. Also weight loss may occur quickly simply by adding one thing (walking 15 minutes a day) and getting rid of one thing (drinking). You can even just cut back, if you drink daily now, cut back to 2 x a week. If you drink 3 drinks, cut back to 1.

i read he agrees to it, on condition of return of dowry, etc, which i think seems a reasonable thing to request, since he will have to get himself a new wife. I think tho he has to take into account that he did have relations with her, this isn't going to be annulled, and she is not going to be able to arrange another marriage i don't think.

re: verification, i don't do it. I started when all there were was 3 line text ads in the back of weekly papers. You give them all the info, they show up or don't based on the conversation. Usually they don't have high expectations, no pics, no videos, no lengthy process to book appts. I've always based everything on a phone conversation. I've had plenty of great regs who do everything from give me (by the phone caller ID) real name, home ph #, cel ph# (when calling en route), general description, work place (by calling from work or wearing a shirt with company name), to calling from a payphone or block #. They come to a private residence as well. Not a single one of them have ever given me an unpleasant encounter, or a minute of trouble. No one has threatened me, assaulted me, robbed me or outed me to building management. I've never felt the need for references, or lengthy screening. I might if i did or wanted to do outcalls, and not for safety reasons, but just because of the time wasters doing fake bookings. if i did outcalls, there is even less chance that i would do so by text or email enquiries.

And yet all articles after these sporting events have confirmed that there is no increase/influx of trafficking, and even an abolitionist group monitored bp ads to determine that there was no increase number of advertisements put up. also no increase of 'trafficked' victims, but i don't see how they could find an increase, since these are people who determined that over 80% of all the ads on bp are 'trafficked' victims. not really any room to increase lol

Pls start with hello and "i saw your ad on ......" i can't tell you how helpful it is to know which ad someone is referring to. i'm assuming if she has a # in her ad, it is on a phone only she is accessing, not family members picking up her phone. But if the content of a text is a concern, why not simply phone the person. That way there are no messages left in view along with your ph#. in all cases, contact the sp according to how she says she wants to be contacted, whether text, phone call, or email, of course.

it is good to hear this, because Mtl was one of the major cities that looked like it was going to be into enforcement. Now it joins other major cities who have spoken up to say they will not.

I hate calling a number where they don't bother to initialize voicemail.

Their recent ad includes phone numbers for contact. Have any of you tried making a phone call? Each sp seems to have a different number. Emma 438*985*1961

Just saw an article (i had seen blue/black), from the manufacturer who said it is indeed blue/black, but now they are planning to make it in gold/white for sale. :)

Why we like NZ, example number 32 Sex worker awarded $10K after messy battle with jilted client http://m.tvnz.co.nz/news/national/6243763

Of course you can contact them. Not everyone posts ads daily or several times a day. Unless their contact info specifically lays out days and times of days available, then go ahead and (within reason) contact them. If they are email only, then it is more obvious you send an email a couple of days ahead of when you would like to visit. if they are phone call only, then use some common sense and only call between 10am and 6pm, don't wait until midnight or 3am for example. if they are not available they will either let you know, or you will reach voicemail. same with texting. just because someone doesn't reply within minutes, as well, doesn't mean that they aren't available. they may be busy. so try again until you reach them (again some common sense, don't send 15 texts asking where is she, and why isn't she answering. when calling, leave a message with a good call back time or instructions about not calling back. Not all sps have common sense either.) if you are using this site or bp, for example many sps are not posting ads every day because they may not need to. bp is costly to do that, in my area posting one on the side is sufficient to last a week, or bumping one every few days also more than enough. i am sure that can be said of many other locations.

I don't care for some of the stigmatizing language in the article, I think the Straight could do better. [url]http://www.straight.com/news/395931/reasonable-doubt-prostitution-heart-womens-rights-canada[/url] [QUOTE]In 1917, Alice Jamieson, one of only two female magistrates in the British Empire at the time, heard the case of Lizzie Cyr. Jamieson convicted Cyr of vagrancy and sentenced her to six months of hard labour. The crime of â??vagrancyâ? was a way to regulate or criminalize prostitution. Cyrâ??s lawyer appealed and argued that the judgment could not stand because Jamieson, the magistrate, as a woman, was not a person. Jamieson was appointed a magistrate in the first place to preside over womenâ??s court. The year before, Emily Murphy, her fellow female magistrate, had made a big stink about not being allowed to attend a trial of a woman for prostitution. She said that if prostitution cases were not acceptable for â??mixed companyâ? then the government needed to set up a court presided over by women to try other women. The government agreed and appointed Murphy as a magistrate. Jamiesonâ??s appointment followed shortly after. The Alberta Supreme Court upheld Jamiesonâ??s right to occupy her position as magistrate and her conviction of Lizzie Cyr stood. This in turn provided the platform from which Emily Murphy and her colleagues, collectively known as the Famous Five, to challenge the British North America Act, which stated that women were not persons. Fast-forward to today and prostitution is still at the heart of womenâ??s rights in Canada. In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the many of the prostitution laws because they were unconstitutional. The SCC gave the government of Canada a year to enact new constitutional laws. The government decided on adopting the controversial Nordic model of regulating prostitution. The theory behind the Nordic model of regulating prostitution is that all prostitutes are victims. Because these people (mostly women) selling sex are victims, the government as of December 2014 does not criminalize their activities. Instead they criminalize the market for their activities, they make it illegal to purchase sex, to communicate for the purposes of purchasing sex, and to advertise sexual services in exchange for money. They also make it illegal to profit off a person selling sexual services. So whatâ??s wrong with this? Selling sex is clearly not a job many people would care to have. The new laws protect women by criminalizing men who buy sex. The only people risking jeopardy are the men who facilitate the sex trade by providing a market for it and the pimps that profit off womenâ??s bodies, right? If you criminalize the pimps, then it means women cannot be compelled into selling their bodies for sex, right? Wrong. In the Bedford decision, the court acknowledges why women engage in prostitution. Some prostitutes will be people who freely choose to engage in prostitution; many, however, â??have no meaningful choice but to do so. Ms. Bedford herself stated that she initially prostituted herself 'to make enough money to at least feed myself.'â? â??Whether because of financial desperation, drug addictions, mental illness, or compulsion from pimps, they often have little choice but to sell their bodies for money. Realistically, while they may retain some minimal power of choice...these are not people who can be said to be truly 'choosing' a risky line of businessâ? (Canada [Attorney General] v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, para 86). In instituting the new laws, which recognize women as victims of prostitution, the government has not implemented new social strategies to support and assist women in poverty, facing mental health issues, addictions issues, or other issues that arise as a result of marginalization. They have disregarded the SCC's comments on why women turn to prostitution to support themselves. Worse, they have disregarded the SCCs comments on the unconstitutionality of the government enacting laws which make a risky profession even more unsafe and risky: â??The violence of a john does not diminish the role of the state in making a prostitute more vulnerable to that violence.â? The new laws, which criminalize the johns, are unlikely to finally now, in the 21st century, stamp out the oldest profession and do not protect women from violent johns. In Bedford, the SCC examined the various ways women protect themselves while engaging in prostitution. They determined that the safest way for women to conduct business was on an in-call basis. The law as it was before and as it still stands makes it illegal for an in-call prostitution business. Prior to December 2014, in order to comply with the law, women had to either take to the street (the most risky way of prostituting oneself) or operate on an out-call basis (meeting a john at a hotel room or the johnâ??s residence). An in-call service allows women to screen clients at various stages of the process and have other people on-site or on-call to ensure their safety. Criminalizing johns for purchasing sex will make it more difficult for prostitutes to verify their clientâ??s identity, which is a key safety measure in prostitution. The john bears all the legal risk in purchasing sex making it more likely that they will take steps to conceal their identity. Furthermore, it means that any street transactions for purchasing sex will likely be conducted in secluded spots where the prostitute is at greater risk. The new prostitution laws are somewhat reminiscent of the early 1900s when women were not persons and could be convicted of vagrancy for being out in public without a legitimate reason. There was little regard for the social reasons then as to why women engaged in prostitution and no regard for womenâ??s right to choose what to do with their own bodies. Today, women are considered victims of prostitution without any regard to the social reasons for why women engage in prostitution and in complete disregard for the women, who freely choose prostitution, to choose to do what they want with their own bodies. [I][SIZE="1"]For an interesting analysis on vice and womenâ??s rights, see Vivian Namasteâ??s speech recorded on January 29. For more commentary on the new prostitution laws, see Vancouver criminal defence lawyer Sarah Leamonâ??s report on Global News. Laurel Dietz practices family law and criminal defence with Dogwood Law Corporation in Victoria, B.C. Reasonable Doubt appears on Straight.com on Fridays. She can be followed on Twitter at twitter.com/UnbundledLawyer. You can send your questions for the column to its writers at [email][email protected][/email]. A word of caution: You should not act or rely on the information provided in this column. It is not legal advice. To ensure your interests are protected, retain or formally seek advice from a lawyer.[/SIZE][/I][/QUOTE]

BANSHEE It's got everything: criminal Amish gangs, criminal Russian gangs, cross dressing asian criminal guy, criminal indigenous gangs, excon criminal main character as the sherrif, and now a former neo Nazi criminal gang guy. oh, and this season, criminal latino gang & criminal black gangs show up. All that and the 17 year old ex Amish girl who is helping her criminal Amish uncle run drugs and the strip club! Oh, and the crazy pants bodyguard guy. Friday nights on HBO

But to me that means people looking for an excuse, again, because if 80% is high, and 10% is low, does that mean go ahead and do the low risk activity now that they have a specific number to go with it? Isn't the level the same i.e. low is low, and high is high, with or without an actual number. And the main thing is, people are getting the information, they are just bypassing the info because it doesn't come with an exact figure? And to them that makes sense? In other words, how will an exact number make these facts any different, or any more serious, or any more valid when they are already being told something is high risk? is it less high risk if the rate is 50% versus their personal cutoff number of 80%. Does it make it less valid if the conditions are based on 50% being reported as 'high', and not the 80% that they personally consider 'high'. and if something is regarded low risk, but they get the STD anyway from doing it, do they get mad at the charts for presenting something as 'safe' when it wasn't? (while denying that low risk is not no risk, of course). lol i mean it can be broken down into a number of ways, but my main question would come back around to; why isn't the fact that the various sites tracking the research into activities categorize some of them as being 'high' risk enough information for anyone? High is high, low is low. These charts do not come without additional information, they list the conditions of the activity, then list the specific STDs that are known to be transmitted due to those activities, and rate them according to how easily and how often these activities result in those stds. The usefulness of the charting is not diminished by the lack of percentages or numbers per 100,000. And no health expert, short of simply exposing non infected people to infected people on a constant and regular basis, is going to be realistically able to tell how many times any specific activity is needed in order to infect another person. Because everyone is different, as mentioned, some get it some do not. Some have it and it is easily transmitted, others have it and it is not transmitting easily, i'm sure. 10 different people with the same STDs, could do the same activity with one person over a period of time, that person may or may not contract something from each of them, or none of them. There are no stats, no numbers, no research that is ever going to give this kind of information in a meaningful way imo. What they can do is say among the people who have been tested, and report what activity they did, then this happened to them. We don't see the ones who have not been tested. We don't see the ones who did the same activity and got nothing. in other words, we do not get a full sample in order to actually present statistics.

Happy birthday, Ex. Stay warm!

imo, they come up with those levels based on numbers, and info given to them from people who come in to be tested and so on. And some STDs are reportable, like syphilis, that is why they know if something has gone up from number X to number Y And misuse of stats, I totally agree. I have not seen one high risk apologist not try to use the .01% or 10% etc that they do find in some studies in order to excuse themselves doing higher risk activity. And again, to the OP, you cannot deny that if you engage in unprotected sex with someone who has an STD, that the risk statistic is 100%.. We are talking about risk level, and percentages. And you have zero risk doing that with someone who does not have an STD, and 100% risk if they do. That is like saying the difference between stepping out in front of a bus, and denying that the risk of getting hit is 100%. it is 100% risk. but here are some numbers. http://www.cfenet.ubc.ca/news/releases/study-finds-aids-incidence-and-related-deaths-drastically-decreasing-bc-with-access

Sorry about your weather this weekend. Thinking of you while

Oh, that's funny, I didn't actually see that part of his post re: the over 60s lol. Yes, it has been in the news a couple of times over the years that this is a growing population for transmission of STIs, but significantly, HIV/Aids as well The other high report group is 14 to 21, who then grow up to be undiagnosed adults spreading stds to other undiagnosed adults. Anyway, the numbers don't lie, if someone has an STI, and you have unprotected activities (damn censorship words) then you have a 100% 'chance' of contracting what they have in that one activity/encounter. It will continue to be 100% chance no matter how many times you repeat with that person, it will be 100% with one, two, three, or 100 times. That is what your risk always is, you can't statisticize your way out of this by saying well, there is a case where only 10% of the encounters resulted in HIV. For those 30 women, their risk and results were 100%

And reason for 'not wanting this to seem like a transaction' # E http://www.mamamia.com.au/social/sex-worker-rights/

I like the bring this book in the shower with you page lol

The Grand Seduction. I am thinking the maritimers would enjoy it. It seems to be a remake of a Quebec film. I actually thought it was British when they were showing the trailers when it was new, but it is set in Newfoundland. Charming