Two Thirty

Me too, I think this is a really good idea for a thread. I've always found that nothing is more flattering or appreciated than the attention that you give. Apart from playtime, providing a great shower and maybe having unscented men's spray or pump deodorant on hand (not a solid bar) for after is nice and thoughtful.

Don't know about the rest of you, but C-36 intimidates me. Even though Justin said he'll repeal it, for now it's still on the books (just like criminality for 420 possession btw). That makes me especially appreciate the certainty that comes with visiting Parker. Certainty that a great time and discretion will be provided? If you engage in this hobby, you know getting those things can be iffy. Parker? No worries. Ever since she returned to the trade, I've found her always positive and engaging in the most sensual way. Even though she's smart enough to do whatever she wants, Parker CHOOSES to please men, providing a true girlfriend experience without any of the downside. She takes pride in knowing her way around a man, and that pride extends to her place, which whenever I've visited has always been clean and well appointed (shower, soap, towels and mouthwash supplied). It helps my peace of mind as well that her place is easy to get to, only minutes from downtown in a decent safe neighbourhood. Yes, a donation is my part of the deal. And yes, it surely helps that I be respectful of her boundaries. But for me, that part is just practicing common decency, as I would for any friend. And Parker is definitely someone you want as your friend - with benefits :icon_wink:

Good on ya, Cato!

Harper minority, and maybe even a majority if Trudeau keeps shooting from his lip, which is quite possible with Harper campaigning on peoples' fears and laying out wedge issues for Trudeau to trip over.

December 7th is infamous, not only as the day for when Pearl Harbor was attacked back in 1941, but also last year for when Bill C-36 came into force. Both were very dark days. And for both occasions, our freedom to choose was attacked. Before, during and after C-36 became the law, there has been a lot of discussion in this forum about what hobbyists would do under threat of being labelled criminals. Some have outright retired. Others, like myself, have curtailed this hobby drastically, waiting to see how the law would be enforced. But then, Parker announced in a cerb ad her return to Ottawa after a long absence. When I heard that she was back, my first thought was, "Criminality be damned!" I just had to see her! And I did As I've written before, there's no one thing about Parker that gets me going. With me she was all the things I could want in a girlfriend, but without the baggage. Being sensible, respectful and clean were things that were always very well received by her. Still are. And just like her pics, she still has that college girl hottie look that I like. I suppose that's why I never found my communication with her difficult. In fact, my take is that we're both pretty real about just wanting to have fun, and so we do what each of us is willing to do for the other to make that happen. Can't say that the time we've shared is ever spent exactly the same way, but this much I know: Being giving counts But don't just take my word for it. Parker is a long time member here, and now that she's returned, discover for yourself about the reasons behind all the great recos she's earned in the past, and then post one of your own. Cheers!

With an academic background in economics, one wonders if Harper could set aside the emotional vitriol and see the logic of the economic argument presented in this article?

Not sure if this op-ed, which appears in today's G&M, counts. But I thought it worthwhile to note, as it was written by Angela Campbell, an associate professor in the Faculty of Law, McGill University. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/we-condemn-attacks-on-women-at-work-unless-its-sex-work/article21533142/

Yes, I was referring to the notion that we should always act to minimize if not eliminate harm. I think we can all agree that C-36 is harmful. But as Mightypen points out, the difficulty is about what action to take. The effect from sensationalizing something (someone) that would go with outing a federal Conservative Party politician would likely be shortlived, since that politician can always be isolated and replaced. And let's get real: What are the odds that a government of a different political stripe would repeal C-36 after it becomes law, or even try to amend it? That's why it needs to be fought somehow before it can become law. Because as Mightypen also points out, a process is in place to challenge laws and have them changed. But that process is unreasonably long, especially considering the harm that can happen in the meantime.

I can understand how and why providers might be torn over whether a client should be outed, especially the people who make or enforce the law. It's been said many times and many different ways: A provider's business is built in large part on being absolutely trustworthy and discrete, no matter what. But is there never an exception? As people nevermind as a provider, ask yourself this: Generally speaking, if you were being made to submit to something - anything - without your consent (or you witnessed someone being subordinated without their expressed consent), would you at least try to stand up for yourself, or would you just let it happen? Maybe your answer might fall along the lines of, "It depends... on the gravity of the situation" or something similar. Well, my take on C-36 is that not only does it continue to endanger a provider's constitutional right to health and safety of the person, it goes even further by perpetuating that danger. In my book, that's an attack by any definition. As a provider you might think that you yourself will be fine if C-36 became law... but for sure others won't, providers and clients alike. If you can't bring yourself to supporting the outing of those clients who as politicians support bringing C-36 into force, perhaps you might consider another form of protest, including refusing to see them, and outing them amongst yourselves. But to do nothing except just stand by and let this attack happen?

Well said Miss Lane. I'd say also that the SP disclosing the fact in advance would probably be best, to allow the client to make an informed choice to receive the service, which could alleviate any potential self-consciousness on the part of the SP to provide her time and service. Consent is everything.

Happy Birthday Cato! Treat yourself right :icon_wink:

The SCC ruling on Bedford was a long time coming. Everyone who had a hand in this outcome deserve our thanks, and have earned at least this day to pause and celebrate it. But to paraphrase a number of comments in this thread, only this battle has been won. The war, however, goes on. The whole matter is incredibly divisive; the views of the far right and the far left will never reconcile. With the Harper Government, it's not hard to imagine how they're scheming about how to leverage the emotional response to prostitution and this SCC ruling, and use it as a wedge issue in the next election. After all, anything sex plays waay more sensationally in the media than mere matters of truth, lies and fraud in e.g. the Senate. Let's remember also that the Tories won a majority government despite receiving a minority of the popular vote! So it shouldn't surprise anyone that as a wedge issue, it could suit Harper's purposes to return to power just fine. The key to winning over the SCC was all about being rational. For the first time ever, Canada is recognizing prostitutes as people who have a constitutional right to life, liberty and security, just like the rest of us. Let's not lose sight of that, and going forward, I encourage everyone to do their part to make sure that others don't lose sight of that either.

In my eyes it took a lot of courage to broadcast this news of yours. I applaud that, and the obvious strength of character it took to do so. Fight til the end, man, right til the end!

I quite agree with Nathalie's thoughts on the matter. In fact, "YMMV" is the default regardless when enjoying the privilege of companionship, paid or unpaid. As I had said in another post, "Consent is EVERYTHING." To the question, though, as one would be paying for companionship, indicating up front what makes for an appropriate donation and what is not included for that donation helps a lot. Everything else? Well, to paraphrase Nathalie, let spontaneity and imagination carry the moment :icon_wink:

I'm shopping for a phone myself, and am leaning toward a Blackberry Q10 or the new Q5 that was announced just today for North America (originally, it was supposed to only be aimed at countries that are so-called "emerging economies" as a plastic less expensive version of the Q10). Both have physical QWERTY keyboards, which appeals to me since I can't get the hang of touch screens. Since you say you text, and are used to having (physical) keys, these might fit your needs nicely.

Rather sad, I think, that this topic needs to be aired out. Seeking to negotiate or agreeing to negotiate the donation smacks of cheapness if not desperation. How could either of these things be perceived as attractive? By either side?! I don't know about the rest of you, but being attracted to, and being attractive for, my provider of choice matters a lot to me, making for a worthwhile experience.

My goto comfort food? Soup. Some days I prefer it to be hearty. Sometimes hot n' spicy. Other days, 'more soothing. But for me, any day, it's soup.

The fact you expressed doubts demonstrates that something about the request doesn't sit quite right with you - and that's the key. You need to be comfortable in giving informed consent. If after this discussion you have even the slightest doubt, simply decline the request.

For sure Emily J. is insightful, 'always with something real to say... Congrats on this milestone!

At the risk of creating envy, I'm enjoying my a/c while having dinner.

This is very true. Context is really important, so it's little wonder that communication is mostly non-verbal versus with words, verbal or written (roughly a 70/30 split). Try not to get discouraged. One thing that I don't believe will ever change is how the people that really matter to each of us choose to reach out to us in the way we will be most receptive.

For sure the man keeps things fun here. A real community builder. Congrats!

Thank you, Emily J, for posting Nikki Thomas' op ed. A well thought out piece... ... but too bad that only the literate will grasp the logic of her argument, since it is the illiterate in the general population whose ignorance and fear of this human rights matter needs to be overcome. Yes, of course the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are highly literate, but I have concerns about what the politicians, who come from the general population, will do with the SCOC ruling.

There are a lot of layers to each of the events reported in this news story. While I could offer a comment on each of them, the one that struck me most was the lack of discretion in how the law was dispensed. Did the flight attendant need to report the alleged behavior of the passenger to the flight deck? The main job of the cabin crew is to help ensure the safety of the flight, meaning that if in their judgment a situation develops or could develop that would disrupt that safety, it is within their authority to take action. In this case, the cabin crew deemed the situation a safety risk, and reported it as such to the flight deck. I.E. judgment led to lack of discretion as to action. The pilots cannot leave the cockpit when the aircraft is in flight. They must rely on the (good) judgment of the cabin crew as to the risk being reported to them, and on that basis make a decision as to remedial action. In this case, they called for the flight to be met by police. Interesting, though, that the flight crew did not deem the risk (as described to them) to be so severe as to divert the flight to the nearest airport in order to eliminate the "risk." Then there're the actions of the RCMP... (Shades of Robert Dziekanski...) Of course, all of the facts are not known, yet. One thing seems certain, and that is the alleged provocation that set all of this in motion could have, and arguably should have, not happened at all. Could it have been all avoided with some sensitivity on the part of the flight attendant? Maybe. Was the ensuing reaction to the ignorance(?) of the flight attendant by the offending passenger(s) somewhat over the top? Probably. One thing is certain, though: When it comes to flight safety, no one but NO ONE is going to get any latitude if it is put "at risk." 9/11 and a fellow named George W. Bush have seen to that. So, the next time you find yourself on a commercial flight, know that the cabin crew, however intelligent or ignorant, can exercise some scary authority over you, without discretion.

This happened to me as well with a well reviewed sp here on cerb, and I took the same attitude ie "shit happens."