Phaedrus

Awesome, RG.... and well-deserved!

I'm a bit late to the party but... congratulations, Pete. And in particular, thanks for all the fantastic recos you've written; I've found that your recommendations are definitely worth a little extra consideration ;)

If you can go twice, then yes, I suspect most MAs would be OK with that. Just make it clear that you don't expect to go over your booking if round two takes longer than expected - I get the feeling that there are some guys out there who know damn well they can't manage MSOG, but they pretend they can... almost there... just a bit longer... et cetera. Or if you just want the massage with rather longer... let her know up front that you're sensitive and not likely to last long, and she'll be able to work around that and hopefully give you much longer before it's all over. Finally, when you've found someone you like, do consider repeating... once you're with someone who already knows which buttons to press (or not) for you, you'll probably find things continue to get better. Good luck!

Boat? I don't need a boat. We have a pool here at FB Lodge, you know! Only problem is that for some reason all the water keeps getting out. I can't imagine why... I've checked for leaks dozens of times.... In other news, I have a new tattoo. Classy, eh?

Not the first time I've heard this about Barb's. But I've heard the other Ottawa area SCs are far less strict about it; they're OK with ladies coming without a chaperone and don't announce patrons' names when they arrive (which is... yeah... weird as fuck).

I think that might be a very good idea. It's far too easy to send a lot of emails to a lot of people, and to do so from a lot of email addresses multiple times if you want to look like more people than you are. But sending a physical letter... that takes more effort, and will land in a much smaller pile, and is therefore more likely to get noticed.

Why has nobody posted to this thread for three days? I cannot believe that you're all just going to let this one go. It's too important. Piles of pet-vomit are at stake!

But if you never ask, you'll probably just carry on doing it wrong...

Congratulations, Conquistador!

I've been inspired by this bill the Government has produced, and by the amount of respect they've shown for sex workers and for the Supreme Court. I think it's only appropriate so respond in a manner that reflects equal respect for the Government and for their abolitionist cheerleaders. I think the best way to do this would be to find an old church, buy it, and convert it into a brothel... and to do all this in the blaze of as much publicity as possible. Who's in? (And really, I'm only half-joking. I don't actually have either the money or the balls to kick off that big a shitstorm, but I really wish I did.)

At least, the ones you're aware of. I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the average American commits three felonies every day. I have no idea whether or not this is true, but I think the point stands: there's an awful lot of laws that we may well break because we just don't know about them.

The only downside... it's in Australia. http://www.seek.com.au/job/26592775

This one's a giant "Meh" at the moment. First, as has been said, nothing is law yet. Second, even if the bill becomes law unchanged... I'm wondering how many folks who quit initially will get bored of the company of their own right hands after a week, or a month, or whatever, and drift back...

No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. MEDITATION XVII Devotions upon Emergent Occasions John Donne Sex workers are largely hidden too, and also frequently despised. And given how much the Nordic Model (and a lot of this bill) is aimed at clients, it may take a client as a plaintiff to have standing to get those bits struck down. That's going to involve a lot more than cheering from the sidelines. Thanks! But... I disagree, obviously :) I think Bedford can and will be a major step toward the result we're hoping for, but what this bill makes crystal-clear is that we're not there yet. Other major steps are yet to be taken, and opposition will remain for a long time to come. I don't think anyone, either on our side of the debate or the other, expected Bedford to be the last word. As I said in an earlier post: Look south. The situation you describe exists in almost all of the US, and neither the oldest profession nor the communities around it appear to have died just yet. I think there *is* research (although I'm too tired/lazy to look for it right now). The problem is that a lot of it seems to be done with the aim of producing a particular result, so you may be right about solid, worthwhile science. I vaguely remember reading somewhere (can't remember where so no link, sorry) that each American committed, on average, three felonies every day. I strongly suspect that most of us are criminals already, although we may not actually know it :) I suspect the omission is deliberate. Trying to define that would be just too much for their delicate sensibilities :) Yes, agreed - so if anyone has any suggestions (we've had a couple already) please post them.

As I understand it... an accusation has to have a time and a place. If LE reads your reco for someone, that's not sufficient evidence to convict; they'd have to provide evidence on where and when the supposed meeting took place, which most recos don't mention. And that, of course, is assuming they've discovered the identities of two people known here only by their handles, which may be more or less difficult depending on what precautions they may have taken. But I could be wrong. IANAL, after all.

Do you need someone to come and distract you? :)

So... reading stuff in this thread, and elsewhere on the interwebs, I've realized that there's another very important point that needs to be made. Yes, today's bill is a slap in the face, a kick in the balls, a punch to the gut, call it what you will. Not unexpected, perhaps... but it hurts, nevertheless. People are saying that the SCC decision in the Bedford case was a Pyrrhic victory; that the Bedford case was a mistake because it has just provoked the government into proposing more draconian legislation. These people are wrong. I'll say that again, because it's important: THESE PEOPLE ARE WRONG. It is never wrong to fight injustice. It is never wrong to fight for a fair deal for those marginalized by society (both sex workers and their clients, in this context). It is never wrong to fight to help those who are vulnerable to exploitation. It is never wrong to fight to give people a better chance at life. The Bedford case was launched many years ago; while it was obvious that it would take a long time for a final verdict, there was no way to predict which party would be in power by the time it was resolved. We've had at least two general elections since it was launched; it's not the fault of anyone who fought and won that battle that the rest of us left Harper et al in power for all that time. And so, yes... now we have a backlash. This is not unexpected. But was it ever reasonable to expect that the path to enlightenment would be free of potholes? That nobody would throw roadblocks in our way? That we could win the war without ever losing a battle or suffering a setback? There's a long way to go. We've seen the government's opening salvo; now it's up to us to return fire. And some version of this bill, be it more or less bad, will probably become law in the not-too-distant future... and that'll be the end of another battle, which we'll have fought on fundamentally unfavourable ground. But after that, there will be legal challenges, and the campaign will once again move to the courts. And once in the courts, the fight will be different. There will be a level playing-field. Each side will have to back up their rhetoric with evidence. Logic will matter. Reality will matter. What can be proven will count. Unverifiable dogma will be dispensed with. And the prohibitionists will do just as well as they did last time around. We'll win. Again. And perhaps by then we'll have a sensible government, or at least one that cares more about the well-being of Canadians than their religious fanatics. Or perhaps the SCC will take the decision from their hands. Who knows? In any event, we're on the right side of history, and we'll get there in the end.

Snarking away on Twitter. There is much to be snarky about.

Ya, OK, I'll give you that :) And we should also allow an exemption for genuine emergencies, obviously. And things may differ if you're on a long appointment, rather than just an hour or two. But for most appointments, and for just chatting to friends or arranging the next appointment... never.

But this is precisely where you need to be completely up to speed with the details of not just the proposed legislation, but all relevant existing legislation too. That sentence, taken out of context, is essentially meaningless. It may mean exactly what it says, or there may be enough exceptions elsewhere that it's completely neutralized. I don't know which, because I've read neither the bill nor the acts it updates. I strongly suspect that most people commenting on the bill, both amateurs like us and professional journalists, are in the same situation - whether or not they actually admit it. In the meantime, the folks who *really* understand this stuff are probably saying nothing right now, because they know it'll take them a few days to digest it all. I'd regard any commentary at this point as largely uninformed - and before you ask... yes, that includes mine :) (Although that doesn't stop me having a go at things that I consider obviously wrong.)

Okay, how has nobody mentioned today's epic turd from the government in this thread? If anything sucks, that does.