scribbles

Not to sound blitheringly ignorant, but how could Benny Wolfe have known? The original post says to be careful to check ages, but I'm not sure how a client is supposed to do that. It's not like they can card the SP. Appearance is terribly difficult to use as an accurate measure; there are an insane number of women under the age of 18 who can pass for 5 years older than they really are. It's actually scary and kinda shocking. And, anyone can tell you anything. I'm sure she didn't tell Benny she was 17. So, how does a client know?

Great minds and all that... I posted it here: http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=63868 And commented on it here: http://sexinthesnow.com/?p=46

Correction: According to the RCMP website, there have been 7 convictions under the current human trafficking (note: not specifically sex trafficking) laws. Under their FAQ section, it also states that assessing the prevalence or scope of human trafficking is "difficult;" no assessments of numbers are given. However, looking through some of the links in Joy Smith's online arsenal, "End Modern Slavery" states that the same thing (interestingly, blaming it on how "lucrative" the criminal enterprise is,) but also notes that the RCMP "estimated" in 2004 that 800 people are exploited in Canada each year through human trafficking (600 of which are involved in the sex trade, apparently). So, a grand total of 0.0025% of the Canadian population is at risk through human trafficking. Only 0.00188% are at risk for being trafficked for sexual exploitation. Conclusion: Existing laws have resulted in a miniscule number of convictions for a crime that involves a ridiculously tiny fraction of a percentage of the population. Joy Smith is crafting legislation aimed at an illusory crisis, which means she's likely really aiming her guns at a completely different target for a different reason: "mainstream" prostitution. However, even if she criminalizes the clients in the equation, the problem will still boil down to an issue of enforcement; the existing laws on prostitution and human trafficking are under-enforced, so beefing them up without changing the enforcement strategy and resources won't change the landscape any at all. My thought: if the government uses this as an end run around Himel, basically saying "sure, we'll drop those provisions in the code and not criminalize the providers," and shift the focus to the consumer, they bypass the appeals decision entirely. I'm sure such a thing would be up for challenge as well in the courts, but it would be a whole new argument (with some of the same words) being brought before all new courts. Either way, I would be far more concerned if her National Action Plan involved budgeting for and creating specific enforcement resources dedicated to enforcing the existing laws. She could say "clients will be shot on sight" and it wouldn't matter, since the guns are all being pointed at other kinds of criminals right now. Just my opinion, anyways.

I'd be very interested in knowing how the studies were conducted and whether there were identical studies conducted before decriminalization to define a baseline. The problem with studies is they often aren't carried out in a manner that describes change, so the change they *imply* is always negative. This all looks like an increase, and looks terrible, but could in fact be unchanged by decriminalization or even decreased. Too little information here to know. I also read on the RCMP that there have been less than 10 trafficking convictions over the years. Does this mean an ineffective justice process, or grossly overstated trafficking statistics? Not that a single case of trafficking should ever happen, but the numbers compared to the population are statistically insignificant. There's a greater scourge of people being hit by cars while crossing the street. Perhaps joy Smith should craft a National Action Plan for crosswalks.

Who knew I was such an anti-establishment revolutionary? I just thought I was colder in bed at night. ;)

I think he meant right then and there in the moment, reflexively. Frankly, I think that would be the first question out of a lot of guys and ladies mouths in a bar pickup or relatively-new-relationship situation as well.

Fair point. Maybe trust is a poor choice of word anyways. "Faith"? I mean, it's all about risk vs reward. And, if you don't have enough reason to believe you are not critically at risk, you won't do it for the reward.

I just meant that covering for a BJ is done because the SP or client is taking the precaution against possible infection. This wouldn't be necessary if there was 100% trust that the SP/client is clean (which is what I meant by lack of trust). The same lack of trust is why some people would ask the question.

I find these questions and people's responses to it fascinating. Any sexual interaction involves an element of risk and a concurrent amount of trust. The higher the risk, the more trust is required. Only the individual can decide how much risk or how little trust they can tolerate. I think it's misleading to say an SP is likely safer than someone you pick up in a bar. That depends on the SP and the bar chick. A very promiscuous woman you pick up in a bar still reasonably has far less sex and far fewer partners than an average SP. The SP is far more likely to always use protection, but that doesn't mean the bar chick doesn't. The SP quite likely gets tested regularly, but this is neither guaranteed nor does it completely discount the possibility that bar chick does too. So, do your own calculus, but based on degree of "promiscuity" the SP is the greater risk, though this is mitigated more than bar chick by the fact that self interest suggests greater responsibility with protection and testing. Figure out if you have enough trust and can accept this much risk, same as you would with bar chick. To the OP, I don't think it's any more rude than an SP or client insisting on a CBJ. In both cases, it implies that trust is lacking, which isn't entirely unreasonable. But, don't be surprised if proof cannot be provided, or if you are asked as well. What would you do if proof was not made available? If you would still go through with it, why bother asking in the first place? To the ladies, I can understand how questions like this can be perceived as insulting, but it's a result of a cultural over-awareness of sexual health issues and unfortunate stereotyping of sex workers. Putting a condom on one of us is a sign that you value your health, and asking questions simply signifies the same of us. It's ignorant, but not malicious, that a client would require greater assurances from you than from a one night stand. Until the industry is brought into more mainstream acceptance, ignorance is going to be very difficult to overcome.

I saw that yesterday as well. I think the renewed debate will be on the heated side for a while yet, which is maybe a good thing.

Happy berfday!

There's nothing the matter with being single. There's nothing the matter with being in a monogamous relationship. Or a polyamorous one. It's all about what you are comfortable with. That said, I agree that there is a cultural tendency to regard singles as married-people-to-be. The taint of failure for those who have left a relationship is 10x worse for those of us who are divorced, and even moreso for the men. Yes, that sounds sexist, but I've noted that generally a man more than a woman is regarded as having done something wrong to result in the failure of a marriage when the "D" word pops out. The reality is humans are social creatures. We fundamentally require companionship. If you disagree, reference the studies (completely unethical) that were done with babies where human interaction was denied. Whether that companionship comes in the form of a wife/husband, a friend, or a polyamorous companion are individual ways of fulfilling this primal human need. I, for one, have been single far longer than I would care to be. Unfortunately, I'm not very good at rectifying the problem.

http://juneauempire.com/local/2011-09-01/alaska-ag-signs-anti-prostitution-letter Again, confusing the issue of consensual prostitution and human trafficking.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but doesn't the fact that they are advertising very openly that they are an escort establishment, including the sign on the premises, smell a little too much like a ripe target for LE? I mean, they're kinda taking even the pretence of legality out of the equation, no?

The pictures on the website for the place look pretty scuzzy as well. Although, it's interesting to note that there is still an ad banner on CERB for them. So, closed?

First time since the Derrick Burts situation, I think: http://jezebel.com/5835646/adult-performer-tests-positive-for-hiv-shuts-down-la-porn-industry

There is an interesting dichotomy here. I can understand (notice I don't say 'agree') that there would be mistrust of activism from someone who did not "like" the business. After all, the most obvious question would be "why would you advocate for the rights of someone doing something you yourself do not like, instead of advocating for its abolition?" I have had an interest in the industry long before becoming a patron of it. I would really like to research and possibly write about it. However, that kind of interest is usually confronted with suspicion. I've been asked "what could *you* have to say about it?", when, really, it's someone else's story that I want to be a part of telling. And, that's what you're trying to do as well, only informed by first hand experience. You're telling other people's stories and speaking on their behalf for their betterment. I don't think there's anything the matter with that. As a matter of fact, worker or no, like it or not, I think activism could use all the intelligent and articulate voices available.

See, that's just what I was looking to understand better. I know in some clubs they don't cut songs, or don't cut them the same way. So, if we assume 1 hour is possibly 20 songs ($400), does the dancer risk that she offers an hour for $200 where the time actually spent in the CR might have earned her more? It's guaranteed in her pocket if it's paid up front, but possibly a "loss." For a guy, I'd gladly pay the $200 an hour because I generally spend that for less time, overall, between talk and CR.

A question on the math, though: is this to the advantage of either side? In other words, is it more financially feasible to spend a pre-booked hour with a lady than pay for an hour of dances (I'd assume that's in the realm of 20 dances in many clubs)? Is it to the lady's advantage to know it is a sure $x for the time? How does someone price something like that?

I agree with Megan and Malika. I find it hard to believe that the word "fucking" is so abusive to sensitive eyes that it's presence in a title should keep anyone from reading other posts. So, if the subject matter is unpleasant to you (and I'm not big on something that aggressive either), just don't read the thread. I also agree there is a considerable amount of trust the SP would need to have. The standing or seniority of the OP is irrelevant. In fact, isn't it best that this question be voiced and answered by all involved here, in a forum, instead of in person without warning? Sounds safer to me.

Google iDeepthroat. That is truly insane, and defies rational explanation. 8o

I agree and disagree. I was married to a dancer in the US (west coast) and knew a lot of people in the industry like family. In a country where concealed guns are legal, a city where meth was such a serious problem they had billboards up everywhere warning people of the danger, I never saw or heard of a single shooting or stabbing at a SC. Sure, the bouncers and managers were on the lookout for that kinda crap once, and I even saw a guy with a 9mm tucked in the back of his waistband and warned then of him, buy the worst violence I ever saw was once or twice a drunken scrap with security. It's definitely not the industry's fault, but I don't know if it's a statement on our society in general.

I probably saw both of you ladies and didn't even know it! Red dress shirt, black pants, glasses... Sound familiar? I left before the police got there. It would be nice of they caught the bastard, but I don't even know if those cameras record anything, and I wonder how hard they'll look. Did anyone go back to work?

There was nothing visible, but the whole area felt like breathing glass shards. No skin or eye burning, just the breathing. If that's what indirect exposure feels like, I'd hate to get nailed directly with a blast.

Wow. Just got back from my first visit to the Mate in a while, and it didn't end as well as it started. Some jackass let off what I can only assume is pepper spray by the front door to the club. People started coughing and sneezing as it slowly seeped into the club. Within a few minutes people were making the dash up the stairs and out to get away from the cloud. The stuff was pretty noxious. I got a bit of a dose as I went up the stairs, and an hour later I still feel a tickle at the back of my throat. What kind of flaming moron does something like this? Someone with asthma could have been in real trouble. >:(