roamingguy

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jimmy-carter-offers-canada-advice-on-updating-prostitution-laws-1.2654394

I requested, once in my early days, for a lady to show up dress and high heels. She never said no, but when she showed up she was wearing sweats (btw sweats are very sexy) and not a dress. She explained to me that the hotel I selected (I wasn't a local, and it looked good in the website, and it was clean comfortable) was well known for hookers (her word) hence why she dressed discretely. But what she wore, sexy Then another lady I saw, at her incall, I asked her to wear a dress, one she wore in her website. It looked really good in her website, and on her in person. But she found it a bit uncomfortable I guess is the word. Anyhow no more clothing requests for me, whatever the lady wears, she looks GREAT!!!!!...and a lady showing up dressed comfortably, well that is the important thing. And two people comfortable together GREAT And apologies to the ladies who show up and see me, looking like an unmade bed LOL A rambling, with a lot of pleasant flashbacks as I wrote RG

I have no problem with this being about SP safety. But you know who is really great at SP safety...SP's who look after it themselves, imposing their own boundaries, screening clients and so on. Case in point. Did you need politicians to develop your screening methods and tell you what is and isn't allowed. You prove exactly what I believe. SP's are better at controlling this than politicians/lawmakers Politicians wouldn't impose laws restricting bj for example to cbj only because they care about the professional companion's health or client's health. But unlike falling from a ladder, hurting one, one only person, it's not an epidemic. But the fear of a SP getting an STD/STI also would lead to fears of an STD/STI epidemic. And if fears of an STD/STI epidemic are considered, then it's not a workplace safety issue, it's a public health issue. And as a public health issue, all, not just SP's/Clients to consider. And it's an issue that affects all sexually active, not just professionally sexually active people, so the same legislation should be across the board But as I also just argued, you don't need lawmakers to draft legislation in a field which they really don't 100 percent understand. You ladies know it much much better, and are better at screening, imposing your own boundaries and so on. BTW I'm not missing your point, I completely understand your argument. I just have this opinion, that's all A rambling RG

I can see both sides of the coin in relation to telling the owner about being offered more than advertised. On one side you could report the incident to the owner, because if this is going on, and unreported, there is the potential that one day it could come to light in less discrete ways, and not only does that MP offering services run the risk of losing her job (and worse), the owner could lose her business, all ladies lose their jobs, and if a raid, all clients charged...that's one possibility, worse case scenario On the other side, if you don't report, don't mention it at all ever again. And you decide if you want to go back to the spa. And hope it never gets reported by any other client. BTW you at least can control it, if you report it to the Spa owner, he/she can deal with it in house. Someone else may report it, but not to the spa, to the police who may deal with it some other way Finally, you can report it to the spa owner, anonymously, and not say who you saw, nor exact date/time you were there. The owner can then call in all MP's for a meeting telling what is and isn't allowed, the MP doing "more" might get the hint, stop, problem solved and no one loses their job. Not saying what should/shouldn't be done, and the choices are yours to make A rambling over my first cup (yes I know late) of coffee RG

Well seeing as this thread is popping up again (no pun intended) here's a link to a thread I started about one option available, mentioned earlier but call this a bump LOL It may not be for everyone, but might help some http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=98245&highlight=argenine A rambling RG

Being non judgemental about looks is what makes you ladies so beautiful to me...I know I'm not GQ material, but when I'm going to see a lady, well Goddess, you all make me feel like I should be on the cover of GQ (hope that's coming out right)...saying THANK YOU to you for what is given sometimes doesn't seem enough And from me at least, don't worry about photos, I would need a wide angle lense to overcome the belly and a magnifying glass to make more of what I have...BTW said very much tongue in cheek for a morning smile. I wouldn't do those type of pictures. A half tongue in cheek half serious rambling RG

I understand what Fortunateone is saying too and get it. I just believe any legislation around restrictions on what a SP can and can't do is morality based more than safety based The general argument is the underlying assumption that STD/STI's would go uncontrolled and society is put at risk Your analogy about Home Depot, if a guy climbs unsafely at home, if he falls, he hurts just himself, but at work, yes Labour Laws come into play and Home Depot doesn't want all legal ramnifications not to mention insurance hassles. But whether safety gear is used or not used, the risk is borne by one person alone All I maintain is if the risk of STD/STI's is really the reason for government restrictions, then ALL sexually active people need to be governed by the same rules and regulations (ie no bbbj)...but we won't see that because lawmakers have a different morality when it comes to sex for money...not to mention a politician who has a mistress on the side doesn't want to give up his bbbj's...did I say that outloud LOL. For arguments sake, the risk of not using protection doesn't just mean a risk for the companion, it means potentially all future sexual partners are at risk too. But if reducing risk is the rationale, all I'm left wondering is why is the monetary transaction increasing the risk. All bb should be treated equally risky whether in this lifestyle or civilian lifestyle and equally regulated Ooops one last thought. If there is going to be legislation specific to SP/Client such as no BBBJ wouldn't it be better to have it drafted and regulated by a board of SP's. Not unprecedented to have professional organizations regulate their own, for example "The Bar" regulating Lawyers (Law Society Of Upper Canada in Ontario) or the College of Physicians and Surgeons for doctors and so on Keep the professionals who know the profession regulating it, and the politicians out of it. Last thought, well till the next one RG

I am sorry but I do disagree with the sex work and morality comment. I know of some very sexual active women, some you might, although I hate using the term because it sounds judgemental, call promiscuous...I prefer very sexually active. But one in fact has her dates at parties where heavy drinking and drug use (cocaine) takes place The guys are young, single, and well looking for a notch in their belt They brag at work. When asked if they wear a condom when having sex, no is the answer. Ask if they get tested...the answer "For what?" I am only setting the scene (true btw) I am sure there are variants of this across Canada and the United States, well the world It isn't clients meeting professional companions, who are professionals who are well versed in STD/STI risk reduction, testing etc. It is consenting adults engaging in sexual activity. But there is no money exchanged. Does that make their sexual activity any less risky than if it is between a SP/Client. Both cases, both true btw. So what is it about paid companionship making a BBBJ high risk versus two consenting adults hooking up and engaging in sex including a BBBJ. Actually likely engaging in BBFS too All I'm asking is what is it that makes the exchange of money jump something to high risk...it should be considered equally high risk and safety standards imposed whether the sex act is between a SP/Client or BF/GF or two adults dating or two adults and a one night stand. But throw in money, which really just makes the date no strings attached, and all of a sudden the government is involved. If it was about safety, BBBJ plus other sexual activities would be regulated on everyone, not just SP/Client. But singling out SP/Client only, that's government morality A rambling RG

Just my two cents on the married woman, or married man more attractive and keeping in mind this other recent thread http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=179205&highlight=canadian+woman+beautiful Maybe, just maybe, there is something sexy and attractive about a woman (or man) who seems unobtainable. Because of it being illegal in the United States for example, ladies screen and very selective about who they see, which for guys makes American women almost unobtainable, and thus much more desirable. Likewise, a married woman (or man) who commits to her husband/his wife, well that commitment, a lifetime commitment with an oath forsaking all others, maybe that makes the person all the more attractive Maybe it's the unobtainable or appearance of being unobtainable that makes a person attractive. The chase is more fun than the catch Ah, what the f*** do I know :-) RG

Not disagreeing, but unless you have your head square on your shoulders, be it as a married or single man, or married or single woman, whether in the SP/Client relationship or outside of it.....when in love/lust/infatuation, the grass always looks greener from the other side...till you get to the other side Throw in adult kids from both families (speaking as an adult kid who first hand witnessed this) there is short term and long term fallout not even thought of But I just wanted to make the point that married men are not necessarily risk free for SP's nor are single guys, relationship wise I suppose for clients, there is the same that could be said about some companions, who may want to have a relationship. But I do believe it is less marital status that determines potential relationship risk for an SP/Client than the individual person...you are no more safe or at risk if the companion/client is single or married...how she/he's head is wired is more a determining factor A rambling RG

Now a question? What if the married man who sees an SP does develop feelings for her...she's not an SP to him, more than a exclusive paid mistress from his end, she is the "other woman" More the woman that this man is having an affair with (in his mind) than a paid companion and there is an underlying business relationship The lady is willing to continue seeing the man, even though she has her head on straight that this is at it's core a business relationship. The married man, deludes himself that the business aspect of the relationship will end and they will live happily ever after Or he will string her along, and she will believe he will leave his wife for her and never does BTW a similar type of thing could happen with a client who's a single man and a SP who's a single woman My point, the relationship risks, they are there, whether SP/Client (either, or or both) are single or married. A rambling RG

Well to me my (well now ex) fiancé was the most beautiful woman in the world, and definitely she wasn't busty, actually she was (hate using the phrase) but flat chested.....but she was beautiful to me. Right up to the point she got pregnant with another man's baby I had an encounter (if you want to call it that) with an escort (if you want to call her that)...beautiful, could be a swimsuit model, busty, if she walked in a bar, guys would get whiplash from turning their head. Beautiful right up to the point she stole from me.....so yes physically beautiful, but busty or not, ugly on the inside, no character A cross section of women I have had encounters with, most busty to some degree, every recommendation I have written, well they are all beautiful (search my recos for London, Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa).....every lady I recommended is beautiful, busty or not. And while more ladies than not are busty to some extreme or not, by the same token, do you think if all SP's were polled, do you think there is a higher than average amount of busty women in the SP community compared to women overall (is that making sense???) Looks get someone in the door, for me, bust size while attractive, isn't the absolute requirement for beauty, nor is it needed to get in the door so to speak But it's that inner beauty, that quality that she could show up mascara running, hair in curlers, wearing old sweats and a tshirt, and she's still beautiful, that keeps her in the door, you want her to stay, that's what matters A rambling RG

Taylor Swift Picture To Burn The list of her break up songs...well she'd be somewhat scary to date me thinks LOL RG

FYI This single guy appreciates the efforts all you ladies make to make me feel like a desired man I hope it shows in our encounters, not only the donation and gift and donation and my recommendations, not to mention my posts on CERB in general For me, the companionship you ladies provide has a intangible value far exceeding the donation asked for And this single guy doesn't need to get married to appreciate you ladies, I appreciate you more than you know already And this guy, FYI is single because he wants to be single, and isn't going to change. That however doesn't mean I can't like, respect or enjoy the companionship you provide A rambling RG

And none of these screenings have anything to really do with getting clean blood. The only ABSOLUTE way to ensure you get clean blood, is to test it first and scientifically see if it is clean...which I believe is what they end up doing anyway.....frankly I'd hate for the blood supply's cleanliness dependant on the word of people who fill out a questionnaire. But some of the questions are really more based on the government's "morality" if you will...and I wonder how many politicians'/lawmakers' would pass the questionnaire? BTW I flunk off the top of my head around six areas A morning rambling RG

I swear I do not understand government "thinking" at times. In Australia BBBJ is illegal for providers to provide as part of their service. Why is the government so paternalistic to it's citizens? Is this restriction on BBBJ just to providers, or to everyone? I mean the risk is the same whether it is a SP/Client, or two people dating in a non committed relationship, or non monogamous relationship or well you get the idea My point, what makes BBBJ such a risk, a risk to be outlawed, only when it is done as a result of a monetary transaction. BTW Canada isn't much better. Take for example the Canadian Blood Services requirement on being a blood donor. Certain sex acts (although some do) in and of themselves don't bar you from donating blood, if you paid for sex in the last twelve months, or had sex with someone who takes money for sex, then you can't donate. What is it about money that makes sex acts so risky...if no monetary transaction, then those same sex acts OK....??? Anyhow, a lady should just establish her boundaries and restrictions and the gentlemen respect them...no need for government to be involved BTW maybe all these restrictions on this lifestyle have less to do with concerns about sexual health, I mean if the politicians/lawmakers truly cared about sexual health, wouldn't BBBJ, well any BB be outlawed, and only BB sex allowed with two consenting adults done in a sterile medical environment after thorough testing only if the sex is intended for reproduction. Making such restrictions might be the government's roundabout way of eliminating prostitution. Sorry, just had a quick brain fart there, but then again, it seems that's how the government runs A rambling RG

As long as the encounter, be it fifteen minutes, an hour, four hours, a day well you get the idea, is mutually beneficial, there is nothing wrong with the encounter. And I certainly am not saying fifteen minute encounters are wrong, they're just not for me But this lifestyle has something for everyone RG

Woke up today to watch Von Ryan's Express Followed by Sands Of Iwo Jima right now half watching Hell Is For Heroes But the best, at 1pm, get to record The Longest Day (...I like having a PVR :-) ) because I'll be watching the Guns Of Navarone Memorial Day Weekend and Good War Movies come on RG

I might try the fifteen minute option if I lived in Ottawa too. But I would have enough money for a donation so at the thirteen minute mark I can give the lady enough money for fifteen more fifteen minute sessions (I'd want a four hour session ;-) ) Mind you being an outcall type of guy, I can't see a lady driving across town to my hotel for a fifteen minute outcall....well this is all hypothetical, I'm from small town Ontario and will keep to longer encounters A rambling RG

About to brew my second cup of coffee, surfing CERB, reading/replying to emails, Von Ryan's Express (bunch of good war movies on this weekend because of Memorial Day Weekend) and shortly about to head out for a walk, pick up some groceries and stop in at the pharmacy RG

Actually my doctor told me the number of physicals he did every week, including prostate exam. After that I wasn't so much embarrassed, more like, well I felt, ummm, cheap LOL:icon_cry: Seriously, nothing to be embarrassed about, it's your health, and whether checking your prostate, or treating ED, this is what your doctor is there for. A trained professional who knows about these things and options available BTW Pfeizer Corporation wouldn't even bother to create Viagra unless there was money in it, and the only way there could be money is if ED affected a lot, I mean a lot of men Me, well the various ED drugs I can't use because of various health issues making them contra indicated. But my doctor suggested L Arginine is OK for me (which I first heard of from Soleil, thank you again) The girl who works at GNC where I buy L Arginine, and she can't be more than 21-22 not only rang in the sale, she also took me to the locked shelf, allowed me to look at some other ED stuff, in a helpful, very non judgemental way. (my doctor had told me the stuff to look for and avoid in OTC remedies) Now if a girl can be helpful and professional working in a store like this, don't you think your doctor is professional too. Probably the embarrassment is in a patient's mind until he broaches the subject with his doctor...once brought up, the embarrassment is gone A rambling RG

Happy Birthday Carrie Enjoy your special day RG

Go to the upper right hand corner of your screen, should be a line a box and an x Click on the box, see if your screen restores to full size line-minimizing screen X-closing screen Box-makes screen smaller RG

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/female-westjet-pilot-posts-passenger-s-sexist-note-on-facebook-1.2559603