Phaedrus

Congrats, Silverado!

Spas are better. Way better. IMHO... So, the downside first: you don't have the choice that a SC gives you. You can't just walk in and take your pick of twenty or fifty people, or sit down and wait to see what catches your eye. Some folks visit spas and pick one of the available MAs; other folks decide who they want to see and go to see that person when she's working (CMJ doesn't do walk-ins, so you'd be better off doing a little research in advance). Now, the good stuff... if you're not comfortable in the open setting of a SC, you'll probably find spas far better. You'll almost never set eyes on another client; at CMJ you may well not see anyone except the lady you're visiting, and if you do it'll be one of the other ladies. You get someone's undivided attention for whatever length of time you choose, and you know how long and what it'll cost you up front; there's none of this "OK, one more song" business, or having to count the damn things. It's much easier to get to know the ladies, because they're not trying to hustle you for a dance while you're talking to them. And you will have... more fun. A lot more fun. In conclusion: what Claire said :)

...apparently.

I think that's the only reason for censorship: hatred and fear of what someone has to say, and the root cause of that is generally the censor's own insecurity and lack of counter-argument. And yeah... book burning does lie down that road. Those who are confident in their own beliefs and arguments are usually very happy to be challenged and to take on any opponents that appear. They understand that this is the only way to make your own arguments stronger. And, ultimately, there is acceptance of a fundamental fact: if you seek to convince other people that you're right, you must also be prepared to be convinced that you're wrong, and to change your position accordingly. Unfortunately we all tie our own sense of self-worth up with our opinions to some extent, and so this can be very hard indeed...

Two things about freedom of speech... First: freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences of your speech (although those consequences are also subject to the law). Legal consequences are not censorship. Second: the right to freedom of speech does not imply any right to be listened to or published. Declining to publish or give a platform to someone else's speech, for whatever reason, is not censorship. These things often get lost whenever free speech comes up. When a corporate bigwig says something objectionable and finds that his company is subject to a publicity disaster and that the result of this is that his resignation becomes necessary, people yell about censorship - but that's just consequences. When a student body (or part of it) objects strenuously to being addressed by a person whose views they disagree with, that might be both contemptible closed-mindedness on their part and a contemptible lack of balls on the part of the schools that kowtow to it... but it isn't censorship. As for Charlie Hebdo... they may have been objectionable, and they may have frequently broken the unwritten golden rule of satire (punch up, not down), but the massacre at their office has simply illustrated the feeble-mindedness of a couple of thin-skinned murderers.

Hope you've had an awesome day, Rebecca!

http://www.lyla.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?ltr=C&t=28598

I don't have much to say on the rights and wrongs of this that hasn't already been said. However, if you'll permit me a slight digression... this illustrates two things that I find interesting, both of which are a product of the increasingly interconnected world we live in. The first is the permanence of everything. I have no doubt that douchebag guys have been having conversations like this since time immemorial, but until very recently they'd have been just that - conversations. Even if they were overheard and reported to others by someone, they could just be denied and nothing could ever be proven. But now... much social intercourse occurs online, and what happens online tends to be a lot more permanent and provable than many people think. And this means that people can't get away with things that could have escaped unremarked and unpunished even a few years ago. The second is the ever-increasing speed of social change. Look at how long it took for racism to go from the idea that it might not be OK, to the point where it had become socially unacceptable in polite society. Then look at the speed of the same transition for homophobia (quicker, I think), and in more recent years - or even months - the increased awareness of trans folks and the discrimination they face, and the kind of thing we're talking about here. It's becoming ever-easier for those who wish to speak out to do so, to find support, and to get the message out to the world that the assumptions people make and the things that people do without thinking very hard about it actually do real harm to real people. We live in interesting times!

He's on it :) http://www.cowboysdiary.info/wordpress/?p=9243

What on earth is wrong with sex workers getting together for a social event? IANAL, but I'm not aware of any legal issues with this under either the old legislation or the new.

Your mileage may vary, as they say. To return to the original point of this thread... quite apart from the money issue, remember that when you pay to see Alotta Fagina, what you're getting is... what you want (or at least, what she thinks you want). It's not that what you see is fake or unreal, necessarily, but... Alotta won't spend the first half-hour with you unloading about the horrible morning she had, even if she did. She won't say she's tired and she'd rather not, even if that's the case. She won't bring you her problems, because that's not what you're there for. So, when you're thinking about what you feel about her, remember that behind the Alotta Fagina you think of so fondly, there's another person who you've never met. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't maintain cordial relations outside scheduled appointments... but it's better not to trespass upon her time more than she's happy with (and how much that is may vary enormously) and it's unwise to assume that it'll lead to anything more, even if that may happen very occasionally.

Another thread on this topic, which some may find interesting in places: http://www.lyla.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=146550

The probationary period is based on post count, not time. Waiting won't help. Getting involved will :)

Just picking up a thrash metal band at the airport...

As long as you put a condom on the remote control you should be fine :)

They both have their pros and cons, which have been debated extensively in other threads. For me, what matters is the MA. If I want to see someone then it doesn't matter whether she's indy or at a spa. If I don't want to see her, then it still doesn't matter :)

Happy birthday, Mod... and thanks for all the hard work you put in to keeping this place running!

Well, I'm spectacularly late. Hope you had an awesome day, LS! In my defence, I was clearly out celebrating LS's birthday. Right?

Congratulations, Annessa!

Congratulations, Bianca!

I've never really seen the point of these machines, other than convenience... but the cost and the waste (especially the waste) really mean they aren't worth it for me. Between my ancient machine with papers and a pot and stuff, and an Aeropress for smaller batches (I love my Aeropress :) ) I don't need anything else. Bear in mind that all these 1-cup machines are sold at a loss, and the manufacturers make their profit when you buy the pods (kinda like printers, razors and electric toothbrushes). It's worth having a look for the refillable pods you can get, which eliminate all the plastic waste and save you a lot of money as you just use your own coffee in them... but they may be hard to find as the manufacturers hate them, for obvious reasons. Keurig in particular have tried to prevent their use in the their newer machines, although you can defeat this if you want to.

Boxing Week special? Sure. Hold on a second while I get the gloves... :)

itd131, I have to say I'm not really sure what your point is here. Your original point was that under the new laws, spas were just too risky... and certainly moreso than they were before. Your last post gives us a very good summary of how spas have evolved to become more widespread and to offer more varied and higher quality services, and how they've perhaps become a little less discreet in their advertizing... and how all this happened prior to the Bedford SCC ruling last year, when both MAs and clients risked being hit with the bawdy-house law, and the spa itself risked being hit with living off the avails too. So far, so good. What you haven't explained is how the new legal environment is any worse for us, as clients. Sure, paying for a sexual service is illegal... but I think that's no worse than the previous bawdy-house law, and it's a lot harder to prove. They'd have to demonstrate that you actually handed money over *and* received a sexual service, which is a lot harder than just proving you were in a particular place. And for the spas and MAs... sure, the new advertizing rules suck, but people seem to be working around that reasonably well, and the new laws aimed at pimping are a *lot* less restrictive than the old living-off-the-avails law was. So... why the panic? I know damn well that the new laws have been written to intimidate, but there isn't actually any rational reason to let them succeed. And quite apart from the law as it stands at any given time, the really significant factor in all this is local LE and what they may or may not choose to do. They had tools to persecute people under the old laws; they have tools to persecute people under the new ones. But their desire to actually do anything is generally driven by local factors, not by anything that happens in Parliament.

You aren't. It can. It's very difficult to work out where your own photos have got to, never mind one of you that's owned by somebody else.