fortunateone

You could set a fee for this that if you want to, comes off the session fee. or 50% of it is deducted from the session fee. YOu have to keep in mind that you cannot meet in a public place and discuss rates and services anyway, so if that is their intention, you can simply decline by pointing that it is considered 'public solicitation' which you and they would be guilty of it you agreed, and the discussion took a turn towards fees or services. A few things come to mind with these kinds of enquiries. One has been mentioned: the picture collector. They want all your info, but provide none. They want a face pic, then arrange for you to show up somewhere, they know what you look like, but you don't know if they are watching you from somewhere, what you drove, etc. Don't do it. The other thing that I suggest is it is supposed to be a couple. You have to speak (on the phone in other words) to both halves of this couple. you have to verify that it is actually a couple. You have to verify that she really is on board with this and not just 'going along'.

Or join the circus. Or enlist in the army. Or be wilfully unemployed. Or be that student who never graduates. Or get pregnant at 15. Or get someone pregnant at 15. \\ There is a ton of things parents don't necessarily want their kids to do with their lives. But it always comes down to that it isn't their choice to make.

i do as well. I think that everything carries on as usual, just will be different things to work around. I'd like to see more from Swedish/Norwegian sex workers, but i think language is an issue to find out how they work around the law, and the repercussions if their client is hit with a fine.

[url]http://www.change.org/petitions/the-governments-of-norway-and-sweden-recognise-that-the-criminalisation-of-the-purchase-of-sex-the-so-called-swedish-model-is-of-considerable-harm-to-sex-workers-2#[/url] Petitioning The governments of Norway and Sweden Recognise that the criminalisation of the purchase of sex â?? the so-called Swedish model â?? is of considerable harm to sex workers Petition by Rose Alliance [QUOTE]We, the undersigned, would like to criticise in the strongest possible terms the evaluation of the Norwegian criminalisation of the purchase of sex, which was published in August 2014. The report is inconsistent and misleading in its assertions, and plays down the very real damaging outcomes of the legislation. The report claims that the law has been successful in decreasing levels of sex work. However, the only thing that can be demonstrated is that levels of street-based sex work have decreased. Most sex work is off-street in Norway, and levels of indoor sex work cannot be accurately estimated (and the report concedes this). It therefore cannot be claimed that overall levels of sex work have reduced. We note a concerning similarity to Swedenâ??s 2010 evaluation of the Swedish criminalisation of the purchase of sex, which suggests that the law has successfully decreased levels of sex work whilst only providing evidence of a decline in street sex work. The report also notes that economic conditions of sex work have declined following the legislation. This serves only to exacerbate harm and danger for sex workers, and arguing that it reduces levels of sex work is erroneous given that overall levels cannot be shown to have declined. The report indeed notes that dangers for sex workers have increased, with shorter negotiation times with agitated and stressed clients, and an unwillingness to report violence and difficulties to the police. Though the report asserts that there are no indications that violence has increased, this is again misleading, since the report also notes that sex workers do not report such violence to the police due to the law. Since the law has made sex work more dangerous and made sex workers more vulnerable, the report would do well to emphasise how concerning these side-effects of the legislation are. It is noted that both sex workers and service providers reports increased harassment by the police, including condoms being used as evidence of prostitution and sex workers being accused of encouraging a crime. The focus on condoms, and the avoidance to carry them it has resulted in, is noted as potentially affecting sex workers health negatively, yet there is no concern expressed in regards to harmful and abusive police practices. Again, there is similarity to the Swedish evaluation of the Swedish model, which notes that sex workers experience more harm, danger, and stigma due to the law, and then suggests that this should be regarded as positive in efforts to reduce levels of sex work. In short, the law cannot be accurately asserted to have decreased overall levels of sex work, as it sets out to do. As with the Swedish model, the law has made sex work more dangerous. The report plays down the harm the legislation has done, whilst it presents its findings in such a way as to suggest the legislation has been successful, when it has been anything but. We demand that Swedish and Norwegian governments focus on the welfare, health, and safety of sex workers. We demand they recognise that the criminalisation of the purchase of sex â?? the so-called Swedish model â?? is of considerable harm to sex workers, especially those who are already heavily marginalised and stigmatised. For more information on how the current laws affects sex workers in Sweden and Norway, please read: The Swedish Sexpurchase Act: Claimed Success and Documented Effects, by Susanne Dodillet and Petra Ã?stergren [url]http://gup.ub.gu.se/records/fulltext/140671.pdf[/url] A Particular Kind of Violence: Swedish Social Policy Puzzles of a Multipurpose Criminal Law, by Ola Florin [url]http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-012-0086-1#page-1[/url] Swedenâ??s abolitionist discourse and law: Effects on the dynamics of Swedish sex work and on the lives of Swedenâ??s sex workers, by Jay Levy & Pye Jakobsson [url]http://crj.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/31/1748895814528926.abstract[/url] Is There a Nordic Prostitution Regime? By May-Len Skilbrei & Charlotta Holmström [url]http://eng.kilden.forskningsradet.no/c52781/publikasjon/vis.html?tid=80096[/url] Dangerous Liaisons, A report on the violence women in prostitution in Oslo are exposed to, by Ulla Bjørndahl [url]http://humboldt1982.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dangerous-liaisons.pdf[/url] Jasmine and Dora forever (video), by Carol Leigh [url]http://vimeo.com/87450331[/url] Should Buying Sex Be Illegal? by Michelle Goldberg, (published in The Nation 18th of August, 2014) [url]http://www.thenation.com/article/180835/should-buying-sex-be-illegal[/url] Förbud mot köp av sexuell tjänst, En utvärdering 1999â??2008, SOU 2010:49 [url]http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/14/91/42/ed1c91ad.pdf[/url] Evaluering av forbudet mot kjøp av seksuelle tjenester, by Ingeborg Rasmussen, Steinar Strom, Sidsel Sverdrup & Vibeke Woien Hansen [url]http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/38780386/Evaluering_sexkjoepsloven_2014.pdf[/url] [/QUOTE]

Yes, that's exactly what the abolitionists do. Another thing is they take the report about New Zealand and take things out of context, or that are actually irrelevant. For example, you will see them shout hysterically that the PRA (prostitution reform act) according to the 5 year report 'failed' to eliminate or reduce violence against women. It was never the purpose of the decriminalization of prostitution in NZ to eliminate VAW, that being a social ill, not a prostitution ill. They will say that the decrim (of incalls for example) 'failed' to eliminate street work. Another thing that the PRA was not intended to do was reduce SWs. Then they claim that trafficking increased, something that hasn't actually been studied or proven to have happened. In order to say something has increased (or decreased) first you have to know what it was in the first place. In NZ, they did as best they could a study of the number of sps, their input etc, they could then say there has been no increase in the overall number of sps, because they compare it to what they researched before. With Sweden, they did not research it, neither trafficking or the total number of sps. There is no way at all that they can now say there were any changes to anything. There is no data to compare from 1999 to 2014.

Especially if it is multiple pages of posts. If you don't reply to it when on page one or two, then you know you'll forget your point. Sometimes i go back and edit whatever i've done due to that lol

They are discredited for a reason, imo. There is a lot of good research out there. One thing that came up recently is the 5 year report on the ban in Norway. Whoever is doing the report wants the focus on proving that the demand has decreased due to the laws. Norway's LE has actually done a lot of harm directed at the sps, including campaigns to get them evicted. I think a lot of the reported decrease in 'demand' is actually a decrease in 'supply'. It made me think again that the people researching and commenting and deciding know very little about this biz. demand and supply tends to be pretty static. legalization doesn't increase demand and criminalization doesn't decrease it. I base this on experience. i work in an area that is physically small, the city I mean. there is room for a certain number of sps. Let's say there are 10, and there are 500 clients. based on my experience, from time to time sps drop out, they might retire or move. So from time to time there are only 8 sps in my immediate area. There are still 500 clients seeking services. When 2 sps in my area drop out, the demands for MY time increase as those guys who weren't seeing me are now contacting the remaining 8 looking for a replacement. What these studies do not take into account is that the sps who remain working are doing so probably because business has increased due to clients coming to see them, due to some sps being driven out of the biz.

I liked this article, and a related one. Very indepth, and great info to be used against C36, imo

just an fyi, the Celine Bissette article is posted in this In the news section as well, for those who wish to see what it was that JL is responding to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/08/05/celine-bisette-sex-workers-unite/

I can say this is a red flag, but it is also a red flag for other reasons. One is, is this an offer you received by speaking directly to the sp, or was it all done via text or email. If it wasn't speaking to her, there is a good chance that she is not answering these enquiries, which means that the offer could be done without her knowledge. It is like the agencies who tell the guy the sp is 22 and blonde, but send a 30 year old brunette. It is the sp who has to deal with an angry client, who wants what he was promised, in this case bbfs. Another issue with this service, again when the sp isn't in charge, is that she is coerced and underage. It is entirely possible, as there was a maritime case maybe two years ago of a 17 year old being forced to be an sp, and she was also being forced to provide bbfs. (Now in the old days, a pimp didn't allow any of his sps to kiss a client, let alone anything GFE. Now they don't care, the sp is disposable. or they really just don't know about stds, and so on. ) And then there is the new to biz, maybe legal age, maybe under age who literally does not know how stds are transmitted, or the potential dangers, or they literally do not care. Sometimes foreign workers fall into this category because the sex std education isn't permitted in that country, sometimes it is an older woman entering the business and this kind of thing doesn't occur to her as being taboo. Sometimes some of them literally think that if there is no CIP, then it is 'safe' (this is something we also see with the bbbjs, no cim, totally safe, which is debatable). If the advertised age is young, I'd suggest reporting to LE, for them to check out. She could be underage, she could be coerced, it would be the first thing I would assume when I see an offer of bbfs.

I'm waiting for the first judge to throw out the first case. Officer, you are charging this person with the purchase of sexual services is that right? What exactly do you consider sexual services? Well, you know, like the lady says, 'everyone knows' what sexual services are. Oh, really.

[url]http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/08/05/celine-bisette-sex-workers-unite/[/url] [QUOTE]Last month, Toronto sex worker Jessica Lee issued a statement on the Toronto Escort Review Board, a website for people who buy and sell sexual services in the Toronto area. In her posting, she urged her fellow sex workers to join her in a campaign to send letters to parliamentarians, informing them about the experiences of people who practice â??high end sex work.â? Her goal is to convince Parliament to reject Bill C-36, legislation that would, if passed, criminalize many aspects of the sex trade. Lee christened her campaign the â??Happy Hookers of Canadaâ? and explained that her movement is necessary because it â??separates the experience of [those] choosing high end sex workâ? from â??those stuck in the survival sex trade.â? She argued that high end sex work is â??generally a free-will choiceâ? made by â??empowered womenâ? and contrasted it with survival sex work, which she claimed is entered into by people facing poverty, battling addictions or experiencing mental health problems. As a sex worker of nine years and a fellow advocate of decriminalizing the sex trade in Canada, I was dismayed to learn of Leeâ??s attempt to divide sex workers into categories of either happy or unhappy. I was also disappointed to see her reinforce the myth that addiction and mental illness are problems faced primarily by so-called survival sex workers, and rarely by high end escorts. The reality is that people working in our industry have diverse experiences. Some enjoy doing sex work. Others do not. Some people are ambivalent. It is also important to recognize that mental health issues affect sex workers across all tiers of the industry, just like they affect people in every segment of Canadian society. Addiction, too, is not restricted to street-based or survival sex workers; I know several â??high endâ? escorts who battle alcohol and drug addiction. What troubles me most about Leeâ??s movement is the underlying implication that the perspectives of happy sex workers should be highlighted in the campaign opposing Bill C-36. No sex workerâ??s experience is more important than any otherâ??s, and happiness in oneâ??s chosen career is irrelevant to oneâ??s right to safety and security. To the best of my knowledge, no other labour rights movement leverages worker happiness in the struggle to secure safe working conditions. The reason so many people are opposed to Bill C-36 is not because it interferes with anyoneâ??s freedom to choose a career that makes them happy, but because it violates sex workersâ?? Charter-guaranteed right to safety and security. Jean McDonald, the executive director of the Toronto sex worker support organization Maggieâ??s, shares my perspective. On July 16, she issued a response to Leeâ??s campaign launch to announce that Maggieâ??s does not support the approach of the Happy Hookers of Canada. McDonald argued that the campaign will cause more harm than good, and urged Lee to take down her collectiveâ??s website. It shouldnâ??t matter whether a sex worker is happy, sad, a drug user, sober, supporting children, paying for university or paying down debt. All our stories matter McDonald explained that she views the initiative as â??divisive and dismissive,â? because it does not acknowledge the harms that criminalization causes to all sex workers, regardless of whether they are happy or not. She encouraged Lee to adopt a more inclusive strategy and abandon stereotypes that reinforce the stigma already faced by sex workers. Unfortunately, Lee is as yet unmoved by critics of her approach. She recently complained that people who are speaking out against the Happy Hooker campaign are trying to silence her story of being happily employed in the sex industry. What Lee fails to understand is that critiquing her political strategy is not an attempt to prevent her from sharing her personal experiences. Rather, it is an attempt to strengthen the sex worker rights movement by encouraging everyone involved to question their tactics and ensure that they are including the perspectives of everyone who will be affected by Canadaâ??s new prostitution laws. It shouldnâ??t matter whether a sex worker is happy, sad, a drug user, sober, supporting children, paying for university or paying down debt. All our stories matter and we all have a right to stay safe. There is no need to highlight the experiences of â??happy hookersâ? in a fight against Bill C-36, because happiness is not the most important factor in this debate â?? safety is. Criminalizing the sex industry will have negative consequences for all sex workers, and we should stand in solidarity with each other, not distance ourselves from those among us who do not measure up to some arbitrary standard of what a respectable, deserving sex worker looks like.[/QUOTE]

Make sure she reports directly to back page as well. Especially if stolen pics are being used.

I just wonder how many of them pick up something like C36, look it over, roll their eyes, and say to themselves, "wtf, how I am supposed to go out and defend this BS? I'm going to look like the biggest idiot ever when the SCC overturned it on Dec 14, 2014".

Thanks! She was one of the speakers that was on when i watched the hearings. One of those antiC36s who never get asked any questions was how I remembered it. Not even a Con saying, gee Sandra, how is any of your research about sex workers and stds relevant to our discussions today?

Last time I checked, my initial meetings with other sps didn't come about because they called me up to pay me for my services. In other words, we do not have a business relationship (defined by the fact I run a business, and that my clients pay me for my services.) if I choose to meet another sp who is working in the same industry doing the same thing that I am doing, it is not for the sake of marketing/advertising that I do that. If i were to be one of those 'hang out' sps who does go for lunch or coffee, the ultimate motivator in those setups isn't networking and/or friendship, it is the potential future business that may come out of taking a step outside of the paid arena. But I don't consider business networking with other business owners to be the same thing as client/sp off the clock encounters. I hate to bring this up, but if we want to be successful in changing C36, we have to all work together about this issue of how we define prostitution itself. If we are calling ourselves sex workers, and this is sex work, then there needs to be a respect and agreement on both sides that everyone understands that we are running a business, we provide services, and that we are not in the business of 'selling ourselves' and doing stuff like off the clock or having clients expect off the clock or friendships, not client/provider relationships, imo just may not actually help the way others perceive us all. just vague off topic ramblings, that may not actually start or end anywhere specific. :)

Great article [url]http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=198995[/url] [QUOTE]When we focus on the act of prostitution as the source of all problems in sex workersâ?? lives, we find victims where there are none â?? and ignore the stateâ??s role in creating unnecessary dangers By NAOMI SAYERS [/QUOTE]

Be prepared to provide references. Don't choose anyone who is available on short notice, maybe not even someone who is available on same day notice. Do not choose anyone who does not require references and screening information. Do not choose to see anyone who does not have recent (3 months or less old) reviews, and who does not also have reviews from one to two to three years back. DOZENS of reviews, then check over the actual reviewer's history. Make sure that at least some of them have posted DOZENS of other sp reviews. If you are not prepared to provide all information, do not seek the services of any US sp. Period. Also you can try ..... dot net

Some only know about advertising on bp, and some who may know about other places to advertise have zero interest in advertising on those other places. Even tho cerb is free to post on, it can be time consuming for someone not fully computer patient to register, set up a profile, load in pics, then go find the correct place to post an ad, find out that symbols and the current nonsense in ad titles are not permitted here, and feel like they've outstayed their welcome, they are not allowed to post, then they leave again. (not saying that they aren't bright enough to figure out that ad titles have rules and that if they followed the rules, the ads are still OK, but first impressions matter. Basically if BP isn't broke, no need to seek other places. Sps don't determine their rates, services or professionalisms based on the advertising site. Nor does the fact that they've chosen a site that some consider unworthy determine their rates, services or professionalism. You can't just automatically assume that the sp who posts on one site is somehow unworthy, nor can you automatically assume she is untrustworthy or less truthful. People who advertise on ad sites with forums, (or those who choose to avoid sites like that), are simply making advertising choices. neither right nor wrong, good or bad. An ad site, in other words, has no attached stigma. It is only those who somehow decided, even without ever using it (sp and clients alike) to attach one to it. Sps and clients who use it, this stigmatized advertising site, know better. They use it because it works.

Hmm, and you want those people to possibly rule something in your favour (for a change) in the future?

I have for foreign travel checked out the reviews on tripadvisor, i think it is. They allow customer photos of the rooms. There is nothing as revealing as guest photos of the rooms lol also, had good luck when I am searching using Expedia, because of the reviews and ratings. What I do not like, is to reserve a room, you have to pay for the room. If anything goes wrong, and it is less than 24 hours, oh well. I booked a Hong Kong hotel (NOT CHEAP) and the person I booked it for didn't like the room (FUSSY) and so changed hotels, and of course in HK even if you book via a china travel site (ctrip) I couldn't get the $$ back. Mainland china, on ctrip, most of the hotels you can get a reservation without paying in full, and just pay at the hotel, but at least the room is booked for you.

[url]http://time.com/3005687/what-the-swedish-model-gets-wrong-about-prostitution/[/url] [QUOTE]Making the purchase of sex a crime strips women of agency and autonomy. It should be decriminalized altogether. Prostitution is known as the â??worldâ??s oldest profession,â? and whether it should be criminalized â?? or not â?? is one of the oldest debates among social reformers. Today, a growing consensus around the world claims the sex trade perpetuates male violence against women, and so customers should be held as criminals. On the contrary, itâ??s decriminalizing prostitution that could make womenâ??in and outside the sex industryâ??safer. This modern debate has roots in Victorian England, which branded prostitutes as wicked, depraved and a public nuisance. Yet a shift in social thought throughout the era introduced the prostitute as a victim, often lured or forced into sexual slavery by immoral men. Today, weâ??re seeing a global shift in prostitution attitudes that looks startlingly like the one in Victorian England. Many areas have adopted or are considering whatâ??s known as the â??Swedishâ? or â??Nordic Model,â? which criminalizes the buying, rather than the selling, of sexual services (because, as the logic goes, purchasing sex is a form of male violence against women, thus only customers should be held accountable). In this nouveau-Victorian view, â??sexual slaveryâ? has become â??sex trafficking,â? and itâ??s common to see media referring to brothel owners, pimps, and madams as â??sex traffickersâ? even when those working for them do so willingly. The Swedish model (also adopted by Iceland and Norway and under consideration in France, Canada and the UK) may seem like a step in the right directionâ??a progressive step, a feminist step. But itâ??s not. Conceptually, the system strips women of agency and autonomy. Under the Swedish model, men â??are defined as morally superior to the woman,â? notes author and former sex worker Maggie McNeill in an essay for the Cato Institute. â??He is criminally culpable for his decisions, but she is not.â? Adult women are legally unable to give consent, â??just as an adolescent girl is in the crime of statutory rape.â? From a practical standpoint, criminalizing clients is just the flip side of the same old coin. It still focuses law enforcement efforts and siphons tax dollars toward fighting the sex trade. It still means arresting, fining and jailing people over consensual sex. If we really want to try something newâ??and something that has a real chance at decreasing violence against womenâ??we should decriminalize prostitution altogether. How would this work, exactly? â??Decriminalizingâ? may sound like a less radical step than â??legalization,â? but itâ??s actually quite the opposite. Decriminalization means the removal of all statutory penalties for prostitution and things related to its facilitation, such as advertising. It does not mean there are no municipal codes about how a sex-work business can be run or that general codes about public behavior do not apply, explains Mistress Matisse, a dominatrix, writer and prominent sex-worker rights advocate. Legalization, on the other hand, is a stricter regime, wherein the state doesnâ??t prosecute prostitution per se but takes a heavy-handed approach to its regulation. â??This is how it works in Nevada, for example, where legal brothels exist, but one may not just be an independent sex worker,â? says Matisse. Under both schemes, forcing someone into prostitution (aka sex trafficking) and being involved in the sale or purchase of sex from a minor would obviously remain a crime. But other crimes supposedly associated with the sex trade could be reduced if prostitution were decriminalized. Research has shown incidences of rape to decrease with the availability of prostitution. One recent study of data from Rhode Islandâ??where a loophole allowed legal indoor prostitution in 2003-2009â??found the stateâ??s rape rate declined significantly over this period, especially in urban areas. (The gonorrhea rate also went down.) â??Decriminalization could have potentially large social benefits for the population at largeâ??not just sex market participants,â? wrote economists Scott Cunningham and Manisha Shah in a working paper about their research. In New Zealand, street prostitution, escort services, pimping and brothels were decriminalized in 2003, and so far sex workers and the New Zealand government have raved about the arrangement. A government review in 2008 found the overall number of sex workers had not gone up since prostitution became legal, nor had instances of illegal sex-trafficking. The most significant change was sex workers enjoying safer and better working conditions. Researchers also found high levels of condom use and a very low rate of HIV among New Zealand sex workers. The bottom line on decriminalization is that it is a means of harm reduction. Keeping prostitution illegal is done in the name of women, yet it only perpetuates violence against them while expanding the reach of the carceral state. Decriminalization would end the punitive system wherein sex workersâ??a disproportionately female, minority and transgender groupâ??are being separated from their families, thrown in jail, and saddled with court costs and criminal records over blow-jobs. It would also allow them to take more measures of precaution (like organizing in brothels) and give them access to the legal protections available other workers (like being able to go to the police when theyâ??ve been wronged). Yet for Swedish Model advocates, only the total eradication of the sex trade will â??saveâ? women from the violence and exploitation associated with it. Certainly some in the sex trade â?? like minors, for example â?? are exploited, abused and forced into prostitution, while others arenâ??t literally trafficked but feel trapped in the industry by economic necessity. These are the people who should receive attention, and resources, from social reformers. And there would be a lot more resources to devote if we left consenting adults to exchange money for sex in peace. Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a staff editor for Reason.com. She blogs often at Reasonâ??s Hit & Run and enjoys covering food issues, gender, Gen Y, reproductive rights, intellectual property, sex work and things people are talking about on Twitter. This piece originally appeared at The Weekly Wonk. [/QUOTE]

http://nationalmagazine.ca/Articles/July-2014-Web/Working-for-a-living.aspx Employment law and the practical implications of legalized prostitution.

I think this is appropriate here. I think that some people seem to have fingers in ears lalalaing away, while attacking the comments of some of us who've been dealing with this stuff for a while. Maybe they can stop attacking the people who have legitimate concerns and direct that venom to people like this random stuff https://twitter.com/BridgetST101 https://twitter.com/GIDWatch/status/492024537157230592 https://twitter.com/Im2old4thisship/status/488488039799193600 classic trying to justify saving sps, then turns into an outright obscenity attack lol

You will simply have to rely on the licensing. They make people test every year after a certain age, and at some point, they won't issue the license. Until then, you probably can't do anything.