scribbles

Seems like merb is the same situation.

I find feed quality can be pretty variable. Usually it's 720p or so, but I can't seem to get the 1080p sources to work well. I also haven't figured out how to stream live TV, which I would love to be able to do.

I have to side with Phaedrus here in that I think, as poorly articulated as the discussion was begun, there is nothing inherently wrong with discussing rates. Discussion isn't negotiation. Understanding the economics of this industry can be informative for those who haven't stopped to think about it, or haven't considered all aspects of the topic. Asking why rates are what they are does not *have* to imply that you are suggesting those rates should change. But, articulating the question crudely can do just that. Clients DO have the right to question what they are paying for. They are not guaranteed to be entitled to an answer, and that needs to be accepted. That's because the ladies DO have the right to charge as they see fit; anybody who doesn't think it's understandable that a woman is in charge of defining the price tag she places on sharing her most intimate self with someone else needs to reevaluate more than just what they are doing asking these questions. Simply put, anybody can charge whatever they want for whatever they want, whether it's an intimate encounter, a car, a cauliflower or a cup of pens. That doesn't mean that they should feel entitled to everyone accepting those prices either. If people do, then, by definition, the market has tolerated the price of their commodity. It's been said again and again, choose the provider that fits your budget. It sounds trite, but it's still the most direct answer you'll ever get. The rest is all details that won't change a single thing.

Wholeheartedly agree with everything that's already been said about this fine lady, and would add that the time passed far too quickly. Great conversation and great time spent.

Not sure what Web resources you've used, but if I have some names I can take a look for you, if you like. Feel free to PM.

I am disappointed by all of the anti-immigration and anti-refugee talk. Put it this way: if someone from Paris wanted to immigrate to Canada, claiming they felt unsafe in France, would we let them? We wouldn't be having this discussion, it would just happen. The only reason the Syrian refugees are looked at differently is because they are Muslim. It's racism, and that's not a claim I throw around lightly or often. I'm not saying everyone is a bigot, I'm just saying that when we're afraid of something we let our emotional lizard brain run with it's categorization and labelling, and in this case we are (admit it) looking at every Muslim as a potential terrorist until proven otherwise. It's disheartening. And, inevitable. But, we can choose to let our rational minds rule the day and override those emotional leanings. If we don't, we've let terrorism push the humanity out of our hearts that much more, and become more like them.

Why do we have a government? I'd argue it's to manage the needs, security and benefits of the many, which should mean that my needs, security and benefits are usually met as well. So, in principle, legislation should ensure that public safety is considered as more important than personal recreation. Otherwise, we live in a society where I do whatever the hell I want, and too bad if it screws you or anyone else over. Where that line is drawn is important. If I want to eat myself to death, that isn't directly putting your life in danger. It's costing the public more in terms of money and resources for our health care system to try and keep my indulgent ass alive, but that's several steps removed from someone getting high, jumping in the car and killing a family of 4 on the highway. Call it Big Brother, but we expect government to be there to keep us safe and prosperous. We just don't like it when, in seeking to do so, they stop us from doing things we like to do. And, to be clear, I stated that I am rationally in favor of legalization (not decriminalization). I may think it's retarded for people to feel the need to use drugs (let's not be so evasive as to call it an herb, or let's call cocaine an herb as well) or think it's not dangerous, but I also know that harm reduction starts with removing a system of punitive enforcement. I don't like heroin, either, but believe safe injection sites are logically a good thing. I just think legalization is a lot harder to accomplish than simple age limits and taxation. Flat out decriminalization would be irresponsible.

Should alcohol be prohibited? I enjoy my scotch, but, really, yes it should. Tobacco? I like my cigars, but, again, it should. Where I would actually argue, philosophically, that one vice is less deserving of prohibition than another is probably in that vice's likelihood of endangering the health and safety of others. From that perspective, tobacco is possibly less of a concern, since the biggest risk (outside of second hand smoke) is to the user. Alcohol and drugs, on the other hand, alter behavior, perception, and cognitive capacity. There are just too many ways where hat can lead to a risk of harm to people other than the user. The notion that people should be allowed their vices is fine in concept, but when those vices, practiced irresponsibly, endanger other people, the equation changes. And, time and again it's proven that expecting people to act responsibly is like trying to catch unicorn farts. :)

I'm actually well aware of how widespread pot use is. And, while your ability to use pot recreationally hasn't, by your estimation, impeded you in any way, I don't think the personal testimony of one person establishes the rule for everyone else. I've known just as many people who regularly used pot who literally couldn't remember the specifics of the beginning of a conversation in order to be able to participate in it 5 minutes later. As you say, not everyone should use it. My point was simply that defining who should, when, and why, is a pretty important aspect of this discussion that should be explored well before laws are erased from the books.

Personally, I'm a little torn. I don't use the stuff, never have, and never will. I value my cognitive abilities and don't feel the need to muddy my brain with drugs. By that token, I don't like the idea of a drug being made legally legitimate for recreational use. There is no good reason to recreationally use pot, and certainly none that make up for the actual harms and risks it presents. "Just cause I like to" isn't a valid reason. Rationally, I think there is more *potential* for risk management if pot is decriminalized, but this is dependent on how it will (and it should) be regulated. For all those people spouting about how weed is perfectly safe and non-addictive and innocent, there are reams of studies and neuroscientific investigations that show otherwise. Nobody should go to jail for smoking a joint, but that doesn't mean its use shouldn't be regulated. Not the least of the worries, there are no reliable and practical ways to establish intoxication from pot use at roadside, which means there is an immediate problem with people getting high and driving. Or, how about professions where being high could lead to personal liability or risk the safety of others? This isn't a simple nut to crack, and I really hope we don't simply wipe out all criminal law without consideration for these things.

I believe I saw her at the Fax.

I agree the F35 was never the machine we needed, but suggesting the 150 will be made up for in "savings" from going with a less expensive alternative isn't quite right either. You don't save money by purchasing something less expensive. You just avoid spending as much. It's cost avoidance, not savings. The reality is the 150 million needs to be tacked on to the ticket price of whatever option we choose to go with, as part of the total cost of equipment obsolescence. That still might not be cheap, but I'd like to think it will leave us with a fighter better suited to our purposes.

Oh , Marty Klein... That amused me. There is no consensus on diagnostic criteria, nor is there consensus on nosology (what to call it). Correct. However, to claim there are *no* diagnostic criteria is incorrect. There are lots, many of them overlapping or similar, and differing in complexity and actual measurable practicality. Check out Kenneth Blum's Reward Deficiency Syndrome. It isn't hard to find a few papers by him on it, though the 2000 paper is detailed, if epically long. Rather than approach the subject from a pithy and purely cultural perspective, Blum gives a good and exhaustive analysis of the neuroscience behind addiction. By demonstrating the changes that occur in the dopamine system, specifically the mesolimbic structures, and by demonstrating the effect of the Taq A1 allele genetic variant to regulation of this system, you can start to see that addiction is real. And, yes, behavior can be addictive if it activated the mesolimbic system. Sex definitely does, as this is one of the ways we are built, to have sex reinforced neurobiologically, to ensure that we want to continue the species. Is everyone who *says* they are a sex addict addicted? No. But, saying *nobody* is because of the ones who aren't is pretty short sighted. Certainly, just saying they're all immature and narcissistic is useless and wrong.

The key difference you are looking for, Brad, is the *object* of the activity; hunting for food makes the food the object of the activity, where in sport hunting the object is simply enjoyment of taking a life. That's why I have no problem saying that sport hunting is barbaric and disgusting, and absolutely should be banned. As an apex predator, humans have an ethical responsibility to exercise judgment and care for those lower on the food chain than us. As for this asshat, he has been caught breaking hunting regulations before, so his claims of ignorance are pretty weak. Besides, however you slice it, he paid a ton of money to kill something simply for whatever sick enjoyment he got from taking a life, and whatever boost to his ego it gave him. That's pretty pathetic, in my books.

And here I was looking forward to meeting her!

Saw him at the NAC a few years ago, and it was an honor to hear him play. When so few can even aspire to the label "artist" in today's music industry, King is still one of my favourite artists.

Not surprising. Wonder which locations were targeted.

The creepy thing is when you learn about how a behavioural addiction can actually alter the brain and gene expression... As Conquistador said, women can be sex addicts as well. I would venture a guess (and it really is a guess) that it's more commonly men because testosterone plays a pretty big role in sex drive, both for men as well as women. Ir stands to reason men, having more testosterone, would be more prone to issues.

I don't think it's a companion's job to diagnose or warn anyone about sex addiction. Again, the bar doesn't refuse repeat business. I also don't think it's reasonable to expect a potential addict to responsibly seek help, spontaneously. The human capacity to rationalize and justify things that don't line up with your view of yourself is pretty astounding. More than likely, an addict would just think they are a responsible, consenting adult pursuing natural urges. Therein lies the problem with all this talk about personal responsibility and consenting adults. I just think it would be interesting to see whether a logically assumed higher rate of sex addiction among male clients was in fact true or not. After all, a certain Justice Minister proclaimed male clients to all be deviant perverts with impulse control issues, right? It would be interesting to see if there's any kind of actual support for that claim.

I was just curious. Wasn't tryjng to attack. What I see, though, is a couple of assumptions: 1) that a sex addict, definitively, would seek sexual services daily, and 2) that they wouldn't be able to affors to do so, so they wouldn't be clients in this industry. I'd probably argue that, 1) really depends how far the addiction has progressed, as well as whether commercial sex is the only outlet that the individual used to get their "fix," which is unlikely. As for 2), well, the person could be wealthy enough to support their habit, but it's irrelevant; there are plenty of drug addicts with a habit that far outpaces their finances. Why does whether a label could be used as an excuse make any difference on whether a disorder actually exists? There seems to be a lot of moralizing on both sides of this discussion, from the OP to the respondents. *If* it is accepted that sex addiction exists, it would be ridiculous to claim that the sex industry is solely at fault, just as it's ridiculous to claim that because we say we aren't addicts that addiction isn't part of the demographic in the indutry.

To indulge the use of the alcoholic comparison, a bar is obliged to cut off a patron if they seem obviously intoxicated. Whether that happens or not, and at what point a specific bartender will determine a person to be drunk, are up for debate. What isn't up for debate is that a bar will not refuse entry to someone who comes to the bar every day of the week, as an alcoholic might. Since sex addiction wouldn't, in our current frame of discussion, mean the client is having sex with a provider dozens of times in one day, the only way you could argue that the provider would guess a possible addiction is if the client comes back day after day. In this industry, that's considered a "regular", and doesn't particularly indicate pathology. Going with the bartender theme, if one won't refuse a repeat customer, why would a sex worker? @RG, I find your assertions that there might only be a "few" sex addicts in the mix, and probably fewer here, in this industry, than elsewhere, interesting. Why would you, or what are your reasons for thinking that? Sex workers are not therapists. They aren't here to diagnose or treat disorders, particularly one this complex. Addicts also are, by their nature, not likely to readily recognize that they have an issue and self-seek help. Assuming either of those things is a pretty big mistake.

I'm currently studying psychology and neuroscience, though I'm by no means an authority, and am actually academically interested in exactly this topic. It's a complicated topic! First off, to address RG's question, a "normal" behaviour can be the focus of an addiction if it has certain characteristics. Addictions involve biological, neurochemical and behavioural components that can all be observed and measured to some extent, and involve specific structures in the brain that are generally termed the "reward centre." Behavioural addictions can activate and affect the reward centre of the brain in very similar ways to substance addictions. That's why gambling addiction is a recognized disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5). Sex addiction is a lot more controversial, and it has been classified in previous DSM versions, but removed from the DSM 5. Escalation of the type of sex a person seeks isn't necessarily a sure-fire sign if addiction on its own, as there are a lot of other criteria that need to be met for a diagnosis to be confirmed. One study I just finished reading actually found very little correlation between the level of "deviance" of a person's sexual interests and their level of compulsive behaviour. Most people investigating the sex industry are interested in the motivation that drives the ladies to work in that field. I would bet that there are as many variations of motivation that drive clients to be consumers of their services. I'm sure addiction is a part of the demographic. An abnormally high percentage of the demographic? I dunno. I'm not there yet, but I'd love to research it. If we believe our illustrious leaders in government (I'm unconvinced), it would almost definitely have to be the case. And, if it were, how does criminalizing clients address what is essentially a mental health issue, then? As RG would say, just some ramblings.

Not arguing *for* the bill in any shape or form, but this kind of obviously biased article doesn't help the situation, in my opinion. It's kinda like "calling out" those jurisdictions, isn't it? I'd rather see a more evidence based and (at least superficially) balanced approach. For instance, I wonder if the number of human trafficking arrests has gone up or stayed the same since St. Harper's benevolent protectionism went into effect? How much money has been spent on exit strategy programs? What has been the effect on sexual assault and violence towards sex workers? Saying we don't like the new rules is obvious. Saying nobody is enforcing them just draws the ire and pressure of those they are accountable to. That can't be good.

There is a Rosie posting an ad in the Ottawa escort section today. Also, ebony. Not sure if this is the same lady. Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk 2

Scribbles' Rule of Thumb: don't grow hair where you'd like a lady to place her mouth, because nobody appreciates a mouthful of hair. Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk 2