scribbles

I'm pretty sure he was wondering whether the experience was worthwhile, how it compares to an SP, etc. You know, something informative.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to imply I actually believe this stuff happens because of the industry. Rather, I was trying to say it will be used as an example to wave around as to why the industry needs to be constrained. The media will feast on this and cast all sorts of aspersions.

That really helps dispel the stereotypes about the industry.

The US still has one dollar bills. That's a significant difference. One song would often earn a dancer $30 or more. I don't think dudes want to walk around with a pocket full of loonies here.

I was married to a woman who became a dancer when I was living in the US, and it was very different there. For one thing, contact was forbidden. My lizard brain doesn't like that, but the more evolved parts of me know that it's also a reason why the stage show was so much more successful. There, dancers I was friends with would easily make several hundred dollars a night off of stage tips. There were a few who were simply outstanding. I remember one who called herself Sin; very goth with the tatts and piercings, and danced to Marilyn Manson. But, man was she acrobatic and athletic. She was simply amazing to watch, as well as stunning. That's why feature performers are still common in the states. Jenna Haze travels extensively as a feature dancer, as well as others. When's the last time you saw someone tip well at the stage? Not often, I'd say. And, until it becomes more common, the ladies will treat the stage show as an unfortunate necessity instead of a staple of their business. Don't get me wrong I (lizard brain) love the contact of the CR, but miss the class of the stage performance.

Wow. Reading everyone else's I feel a little sheepish at simply saying a threesome. I actually had the opportunity when I was married; my wife and another of the dancers she worked with. Never ended up happening though, and that's been a big regret. Gotta start with a threesome before I can graduate to a moresome. Walk before you run and all that, right? ;)

I believe it inhibits chafing (sp?).

I'm less concerned about the content of the debate and more bothered by the manner in which it's delivered, and that goes for a post or two I've seen by the ladies as well. I don't agree with Erin's position, but I respect her right to have and express it and am happy to discuss/debate the ideas. The tone took a pretty nasty turn from Berlin's post, through Pete's contribution and SAs and it go pretty out of control. I think that's worth apologizing for, whether the ideas they were trying to express were valid or not.

It's really unfortunate that this exchange is likely going to change people's opinion of one another, on both sides. It already has for me. Ladies, on behalf of the men, I'd just like to apologize for the display in this thread. I thought we were all more rational and adult than this.

I'm a little ambivalent here. To begin with, I'm a lurker. Not because I have little to say or little activity in my mind, moreso because I am of the habit to sit back and drink things in and roll them around in my mind. So, I don't write recommendations. This isn't because I disliked the experience, but rather because it's between me and the woman I was with. It's not a test drive of a Volvo. However, I respect that this is a review board, so when in Rome, dudes do like the Inca. I'm uncomfortable with a number of terms. "Hobby," for instance, would probably offend me more as an SP than most other words being debated here. We're sharing an intimate moment with a woman, not collecting stamps or Hummels. I refuse to refer to myself as a hobbyist for this reason. I'm not a fan of publicly describing a woman's anatomy in graphic detail, but accept that this is a review board, so dudes will do as the Inca. It's why this is here. I can think of worse things to call a vagina than a kitty. In fact, I'd say "pussy" is even worse. Apparently in earlier times, a person could insult a woman by calling them a sausage wallet. Kitty is downright Puritan by comparison. But, maybe graphic questions are better left to private messages. Tone is always lost in text. So, it's hard to say that someone did or didn't say something with ill intent. The only thing we can all assume until proven otherwise is that things are written with good intention here. As a parting thought, one could argue that it's as much a matter of safety for the SP that expectations are spelled out a little here. What's worse? A guy asking how big your nether lips are, or a guy getting aggressive in person because you aren't what they expected? And no, I'm not condoning the latter in excusing the former.

It strikes me that everyone is talking about a purely physical exchange, which is a little sad. I mean, it might be the mellowness induced by the cognac and cigar I've enjoyed, but it seems to me that men are looking for more than just that. I've never been a woman, so I have to take a guess here, but my guess is that women tend to get emotional intimacy from woman friends more than guys do from guy friends. So maybe it's easier for women to be satisfied in that part of their lives through friendships. Men, on the other hand, have the same physical drive but without an emotional surrogate. Why else do most guys in the hobby want those emotional aspects of the GFE? I like to think that sex itself is about more than just the orgasm. It's a little depressing to think Megan is right and women are better served by an oscillating rod of rubber than by flesh and blood. Maybe she's right, as disappointing as that is. Spoken as a guy who is single and would gladly deal with the "messiness" of a relationship buy isn't particularly gifted at getting into one, I can attest that women have far less trouble finding men than men do finding women. Supply and demand I suppose. There isn't enough demand by women for men who will provide paid companionship, but there is a ton of male demand because we're missing that connection. Fascinating. I'm usually the cynical bastard and here I am talking about emotional needs!

I, for one, am not trying to make this personal SA. And, I actually feel that this debate is very much on topic with the subject of this thread. We are, after all, debating aspects of the Bill the Joy Smith plans on introducing. I personally have a bit of an issue with the notion of coordinated and public action. I'm not saying it's wrong, I just think it can backfire. Canadians are fairly reserved people, unlike Americans. Loud demonstrations and protest don't tend to favor the cause being represented. We have strong opinions, buy we tend to look unfavorably on noisy protest groups. Add to that the fact that the topic is something considered relatively "taboo," and that recent history shows that protest involves certain elements trying to shock by coming out in leather and dominatrix gear... I worry about what coordinated and public action would actually do. Given the 53% of Canadians you cite that support decriminalization (and no, I don't put much stock in polls), I'm surprised that nobody more from the center or left has put together and proposed legislation that contradicts Joy Smith's. I think that would be the most interesting and possibly helpful action that could be taken. Joy Smith is an elected official who clearly is supported by her constituents. If more than half of Canada supports decriminalization (which I doubt), another MP should have tremendous support for legislation that works more along those lines. We might be better served demanding action from our MPs in the opposition than trying to change Conservative minds.

Law enforcement agencies are part of the justice system. Otherwise, what are they a part of? And you can't have it both ways. Either people speak their conscience and the gov't listens and acts in accordance with their constituents, or they exercise a legal right because they can, whether 53% of their constituents want them to or not. Yes, people within Mulroney's party voted against him. I again reference Garth Turner and the many other examples of Harper's strong-arming to say his MPs vote his way or suffer the consequences. This guy isn't Mulroney. And if we go back to the beginning, I believe I said that I wouldn't be surprised if this supposed new law was challenged on the basis of Charter Rights and constitutionality. A Bill is not ready made legislation and policy, and framing the policy for implementing this measure would be a difficult task. I'm advocating that people don't panic and cry that the sky is falling. If the gov't wants this Bill to pass, it will. We should be more afraid of what will be in the omnibus bill Harper plans on launching than Joy Smith's delusional crusading.

No worries, WIT, it's not a lack of belief. Part of this stems from the fact that I remember the content of something I read but not the source, and, at any rate, it dealt with an arrest on an outcall where LE was claiming that because the client had seen more than one SP in his hotel room the hotel room was deemed a bawdy house. Wish I could remember where I read that, but it escapes me. Anyways, as I said, I'm not lawyer. Point was there are ways the laws can be twisted if the motivation is there, and the existing laws are scary enough.

I admire your optimism SA. It's good that some people still have enough faith in the decency of politicians to believe that they will follow the will of the people. And, I'm not being sarcastic here. As a cynical bastard often rewarded with examples of how dirty and deaf our leaders have become, it's refreshing to see optimists who still think things can change. Slim, massive. Whatever. When the ruling party has 63 more seats than the official opposition, I call that fairly strong. You're assuming that all opposition parties would vote against Joy Smith's bill. That's a dangerous assumption, and unlikely. Even so, you would need 25 Cons to turn coat, and if anything we have seen how Harper controls his people. They vote the way HE wants them to, not their conscience. Just ask Garth Turner how well going against Harper's wishes works out for Conservative MPs. Faith in the judicial system? Have you seen what the Ottawa police are getting in trouble for recently? Our judicial system has a pretty shady history too, don't fool yourself. People are led by what leaders want them to think. I'd like to believe that collective reason wins out, but there are too many cases where this is shown to be false. Case in point: the majority of Canadians think that crime is on the rise and penalties are too lenient, despite years of data showing the opposite. Hence Harper's jails. Other case in point: this moral majority you speak of who want prostitution decriminalized certainly didn't rise up and keep the gov't from mounting an appeal to Himel, did it? If so many Canadians are against the status quo, that appeal should never have happened. How do you figure anything different would happen in the Joy Smith scenario?

I wasn't proposing banging heads against the pavement SA, just suggesting that trying to change the minds of a Conservative MP on a religious/moral/ethical issue is kind of akin to that. Slim majority? The Conservatives were elected with a pretty massive majority, actually. I agree there should be action, but I think the time for action is when we can vote these far-right loonies out of office. Given that we've given Harper a majority in his third election, do you really think Canadians are against him in the majority? That doesn't add up. I may be wrong about the bawdy house laws. I'm certainly no lawyer. However, defining it as a place where one or more persons resort to for the purpose of prostitution sounds open to abuse. As in, if you are shown to have three escorts over for the purpose of prostitution in one weekend, the definition could be argued to fit. Hell, if you have a regular SP over more than once, how does that not make your home the same as her operating out of a hotel? I know, maybe sketchy, and I may be wrong, but the point is that the current laws are far from foolproof and could be used to ruin the hobby if LE bothered to apply them. We don't need the Swedish model to make a mess of things, nor will it make any bigger mess than what we could already have.

All due respect intended, SA, but what precisely are you proposing? Let's all panic. Let's take up signs and bull-horns and take to the streets to shout our displeasure at this legislation-that-isn't-yet. As you rightly point out, there is a Conservative majority. Unless you think we'd be able to change the minds of Conservative MPs in substantial numbers, which brings to my mind an image of hundreds of happy hobbyists bashing their heads against the pavement. And, what you're talking about *is* panic. LE would have to go through the same degree of effort to enforce the new law as they would now. In fact, if they simply enforced the laws we currently have, hobbying would be decimated. Don't think that because you hobby at home the current laws protect you, because there could be a case presented if they took the time to declare a private residence or hotel room a bawdy house. None of this happens because of the time and resources it would take to lay the foundation of an arrest. The Swedish Model won't be any different. This is why it's the street workers that are at risk. Now just as then, they are the most exposed to view and ripe for arrest. And they're the ones taking the most risk and most in need of harm reduction measures.

I can't believe I read this whooooole thread... And on a Friday night, even! That's probably saying a lot about my lifestyle I'm not comfortable with. :s I think the only aspect of the industry that would be noticeably impacted by Joy Smith's Bill would be street trade, simply because it would be manageable to enforce. LE targeting outcall or incall indoor work would be just as difficult and costly, hence as rare, as it is today. Realistically, they could use existing laws just as effectively now as they would any new law. But, the street workers are easier to pick off, from a LE standpoint. Another question that should be asked is the practicality of legislating the Bill. As the Himel case has shown, legislation regarding sex work is extremely difficult because of the intricacies of Charter/Constitutional implications. The Swedish Model would be exceedingly difficult to introduce because it would be so open to challenges by opponents based on Charter Rights. Not that it isn't worrying, but for me it's more worrying because it is taking the discussion away from the direction it should be going. None of this addresses safety and harm reduction, which should be the key concern.

I'd be really interested in knowing as well. I know they still/used to film a bunch in Rigaud, but I don't know about Ottawa. I'd swear I walked past someone filming at one point; in Cumberland, some tall, slender and hot young lady in a terribly short pleated skirt walking her dog down the sidewalk with a guy in tow filming with a small camera, and the another guy pulls up in a convertible and they leave. Anyways... If anyone knows, let me know.

Not into: spitting, drooling, slapping, choking, gaping. foot-on-head-in-doggie, excessive roughness, or pretty much anything else that looks more like violence than good raunch. I don't entirely agree that prolonged penetration is unrealistic, because I've had some mutually enjoyable marathon sessions. And, I know that these people are being paid for this, but I truly am looking for as genuine a scene as can be expected. I mean, if it's obvious she's just not into it, it really ruins it.

I've heard ads for the Playmate, too, though it's been a while. I think the competition amongst clubs is impacting business, so some clubs are hunting for new ways to increase traffic. When I lived in Portland (Oregon) it was similar, and there was a tremendous number of clubs there. I wonder how effective it truly is.

I'd be curious to know as well. Not much out here in the east end...

I'd be very cautious about what you read. The Sun, besides being a terrible rag not far from a tabloid, is also exceptionally conservative-bent. There are other laws that could easily deal with pimping. Decriminalization does not mean legalizing pimping.

The problem I have with Quebec separatism is simple, really. Any people who have been conquered in war are likely to lament the loss of their sovereignty. The French lost to the English. And, ever since, the French have wanted their country back. It's understandable. However, efforts to being that about have done more harm than good to Quebec. The 93 referendum, before a single vote was cast, resulted in a mass exodus of many corporations who had housed headquarters there up until that point of uncertainty. That alone was a huge setback to their economy. Trying to legislate the survival of their language and culture has dissuaded many other businesses from dealing extensively with Quebec. Sign laws are, plainly, a headache that many people don't want to have to deal with. I am not anti-Quebec or anti-French. What I dislike is that a minority in one province is constantly causing strife for a majority in that province and in the country in a losing effort that would not result in a stable country anyways. I mean, in 93 the goal was to separate but keep the Canadian Forces personnel stationed there, not take their portion of the federal debt with them, keep our currency and have an exclusive deal with us for natural resources. Seriously? If they want to go, go. But, under any circumstances than those listed above, they would fail from the outset because they would be bankrupt. All in order to protect a culture and language, beautiful as it is, from illusory predations and oppression by the federalists. Find better ways of working as part of Canada and keeping making your culture attractive to people, instead of trying to dig a moat when nothing on your side of it can stand on it's own.

I'm pretty sure those are the ones. All bluster and no impact; it's the American way. ;)