roamingguy

Neither...intimate lovemaking with kissing and lots of snuggles (it's hot but loving, not psychotic ;-) ) Who to hate the worst...Peter MacKay, Joy Smith or Stephen Harper LOL RG

One very important point to consider when going to the pharmacy to buy deodorant...well better explained here......... Blonde Judi and Jon got married and she was at the drug store looking at the men's toiletries. A clerk comes up to help her and asks if she needs assistance. "I'm looking for some deodorant for my new husband Jon, but I don't know what type he uses." The clerk says, "Is it the ball type?" "No," says Judi, it's for his underarms." Moral of the story, make sure you get the right type of deodorant Sorry, just a little, yes very little, humour RG :-)

Well some of us read the instructions (or website) as the case may be ;-) RG

Also those using text speak...is it me or is that annoying. Write out your words. I'm not the spelling police' date=' not everyone is a good speller, but attempt to write the word If I write and want to find out how you are, I'll ask "How are you?", not How RU...just as an example I wonder if parents and the schools even teach etiquette and manners anymore [img']http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6a/c0/df/6ac0dfda9265210708d1d6f9ef74bde7.jpg[/img] Anyhow...a rambling Thank You :-) RG

That I stumbled across http://www.wikihow.com/Shave-Your-Pubic-Hair RG

I like Lee. His sense of humour and insightful posts help keep CERB not just a board, but a community RG

Groceries then a flannel shirt (for those cool fall days) and socks and underwear Speaking of which, WTF do people tear open a package of underwear, pull two out (it's a four pack) and leave them laying out on the bottom of the shelf and the package with only two in it, haphazardly put back on the rack RG

What I found (two experiences) the one time used cowgirl and well it was (from my perspective) as close to having uncovered intercourse while still practicing safe sex The second time, and it was likely me, well not likely, it was me...we were making love culminating with intercourse. My concern was getting inside the condom. I was worried I'd push the condom aside or push it inside, well basically worried that it would turn out to be unsafe. Maybe it's my lack of experience with the lady condom, maybe practice would make perfect but for missionary I was inept. And I didn't was to force anything, these ladies are great, and I wouldn't do anything to hurt them. And potentially placing the lady at risk of unprotected sex by my fumbling would hurt her One thing, if using a lady condom, then the man doesn't wear a condom And vice versa. Two condoms rubbing against each other causes tearing and leads to unsafe sex Anyhow, a rambling RG

Happy Birthday Someguy Have a Great Day RG

Just got up a little while ago (4am yikes!!!). making and enjoying a coffee, and sitting relaxing...shortly, like 530 off to the Y I'll go RG

A quiet beach resort with a special lady Hmmm as PM...Harper, Trudeau or Mulcair RG

The only time I've had to show ID is at hotels checking in, a credit card and a piece of ID. (I'm an outcall type of guy) But never to a companion But there was one time I showed my badge/ID (I used to be in LE) to a lady I was seeing...because she was interested. I showed her my medal too. I guess a new take on the old line "come up and see my etchings" LOL RG

I like frank because he likes everyone which makes him likeable RG :-)

Hug leading to a kiss, or a kiss leading to a hug, ohhh I'm just so happy she showed up and I didn't stumble answering the knock on my door, well what happens first happens first Friends or Family (parents & siblings, not spouse/sons&daughters) RG

And here's the link http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/faq.php?s=&do=search&q=abbreviations&match=all&titlesonly=0 RG

With a lady I want to see I would disclose requested verification information, including name, cell phone, email, board handle confirmed by pm. If I'm interested in meeting a lady trust issues for me are not a issue. I use certain things to establish if a lady is trustworthy if I haven't heard of her...board presence, recommendations, maybe another well established SP has heard of her and so on. But someone just starting up, out of the blue, I'm not too likely to reveal anything, mind you I'm not likely to see someone new, that no one knows irrespective of whether she requires verification/screening RG

Happy Birthday Krissy Enjoy your special day RG

It may look strange but in fact, contrary to stereotype, seeing escorts is not about anonymous sexual encounters. And screening/verification commonplace, for me at least, appears more the rule, not exception A prospective client wants to be intimate with a lady. Intimacy begins with trust. And a lady, until she knows you beyond a board handle, disposable cell phone number and email address (also easy to get) is not likely to book a date with you. In my experience, most ladies I see screen/verify which has required my giving my real name, board handle confirmed by PM, cell phone number and email, and of course a reference by an established professional companion You want to see a lady (who has never met you) alone intimately. You want and expect her to trust you based on your word that you are and will be a good client. But you don't trust her with your personal information. Her concern first and foremost is her safety and security, and second, whether you will be compatible. Your concern, is your privacy To put another way, you argue concern that the request for information isn't done by a provider, but by the client's wife. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. For the companion, her concern is that the prospective client is really a legitimate client, and that you aren't the next Robert Pickton. A lady's safety trumps a man's privacy each and every time SP's don't necessarily need to know each other, but they do know of each other. And a verifiable reference is done with the lady's name, board profile, email and her website. Ladies who screen don't for the most part use SP's booked off BP/CL. They also don't consider escort agencies a reliable reference. They want a reference from an independent escort with her own webpage etc. Is a clients wife going to go to the trouble of creating a escort's webpage to nab her husband acting on her suspicion alone that her husband sees escorts. And how does she even know he would pick her (under guise of an SP) to contact with so many SP's to choose from...really a far fetched scenario JMHO A wife would have better luck checking her husband's history on the computer first or if that concerned, install keylogging software on her husbands computer Ladies will admit to knowing you as a former client if you, the former client asked that lady to provide you with a reference to a companion you wish to see. They release information to that third party with your consent and after you request it. Of course a lady will have to remember you as a client, because she destroys all contact information about you after your encounter which is why a lady you saw say four years ago, just once, won't likely give you a reference but one you saw at the most a year ago would be a good reference. The only exception to discretion is if a guy turned out to be a bad date, then the lady may have the guys name added to the black list/bad date list I don't know how long you have been involved in this lifestyle, but I've been involved since 2010 (not all that long compared to most) but most of the ladies I've contacted for dates, starting in 2010, required full verification/screening including a reference and my real name. Until we met in person we didn't know each other. But with that information given, they accepted my request for a date. And I trust the ladies far more with my information than I do the government, cable companies, bank, phone company etc At the end of the day you have to do what is right for you. But by the same token, remember the ladies will do the same. I also foresee far more use of screening/verification once C36 passes Anyhow, a rambling RG

Leftover roast pork and sauerkraut That pork just fell off the bone...yummy yesterday, looking forward to it tonight, and tomorrow and day after that Washed down with water...oh god I'm drinking lots of water For desert going to run to the store, see if they have blueberries, if not, strawberries RG

Ah but things not on that list well Google is your friend A very resourceful tool when looking for something Case in point https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=deep+australian+kiss RG :-)

Don't know don't use either But prefer homemade soup over homemade ice cream LOL :-) Continued encounters with a regular companion (or client) or First time encounter with a new companion (or client) RG

One of the arguments for C36 is that it will combat sex trafficking. It is MacKay et al that create this perception. The point, I guess I poorly made is that laws exist already. C36 isn't needed to combat something when other laws already exist to combat it I've never argued street prostitution isn't going to be targeted, in fact I argued LE's focus is likely going to be on street prostitution. In terms of LE resources it's require little resources with high return (arrests) as opposed to going after a client and courtesan who act discreetly . But for all the fears abounding about C36 I just wonder why no one, well relatively few were in fear of existing laws, such as no incalls, no agencies (living off the avails) and so on And even MacKay's speech about C36 seemed all focused on street prostitution. My opinion is that those who se escorts/courtesans discretely are not going to be targeted by LE. And as long as talk of sex and money is kept out of any communications be it email/text/pm/phone then what can you be charged with? Anyhow... RG

I like Tracie for her positivity, supporting this board and community in her posts and in recognizing member's milestones RG

Just remember, yes it is in the political limelight in Ottawa, but does anyone really believe that cops are sitting in their cruisers eagerly awaiting the passing of C36? For LE it will be business as usual If LE were true believers, they wouldn't need C36 Since living off the avails is illegal, why are there so many escort agencies and no big police raids A lot of ladies offer incall dates. Why no raids on a lady's incall...easy enough to find a lady that offers a date at her home or hotel Human trafficking, well if such a big LE concern, why not investigate and enforce it now. There are already laws on the books Same holds true with underage prostitution, if such a big LE concern, why not investigate and enforce it now As for reading your email and looking at websites you view, internet users privacy has been upheld by SCC http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/internet-users-privacy-upheld-by-canada-s-top-court-1.2673823 Cops would need a warrant to search your internet use (and I assume email too, need internet for that) To get enough evidence to go to a judge requires a fair bit of investigation before hand. I really don't see police having the resources and time for it...they don't now, what's going to change Those of us discreetly practicing this lifestyle (two consenting adults behind closed doors) and JMO really have nothing to fear. It's going to be street prostitution that's LE focus I know, I must sound like a record skipping LOL RG

If a case of buzzing the apartment/condo and she lets you in I can't see any problem But if the building is more secure, it may detract people. Case in point, I saw a lady in Toronto back in 2010 at her condo. I had to know the keypad code number to punch which unlocked the security door into the lobby. And I walked by a desk with security officers (going by a hotel front desk is nothing) These guys were to make sure anyone walking by weren't rift raft and to remove them if needs be. And to that end, now I walked in like I belonged there, but I had to know the lady's real name (not her escort persona name) in case security asked me who I was visiting And of course, I needed the condo apartment number Something that elaborate doesn't lend itself to an incall JMHO RG