Kathryn Bardot

There is a difference between adding narratives that highlight how sex work has been a positive employment choice, and comparing one tier to the other as saying they are "less than". I'm not against adding more voices to the experience of being in the sex industry. By all means, let's hear from as many different experiences as we can. I don't agree with comparing or differentiating ourselves, or having to legitimize our work by declaring ourselves as "happy" or "high class" or implying that mental health issues are a "class" issue.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said: Again, we don't put other workers on a hierarchy or validate their employment based on whether they are doing it to "survive" or not, or whether they are happy or not (because let's face it, I've hated a number of my jobs previously)... End of the day, we are ALL working to pay the bills.

Sorry, it still doesn't, to me. An MP is supposed to represent his/her constituency, so for them to vote pro-choice is giving a voice to ALL of their constituents. Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. Pro-choice encompasses ALL of those options, including parenting and adoption. Anti-choice seems to forget that part. And really... if the MP wants to govern the female body that badly, they should probably be representing the Conservatives ;)

Sorry, Jess. I don't believe in advocating that one type of work is "awful" compared to another. There are "high-end" escorts who have mental health or addiction issues, just as there are street-based workers who freely choose their work. We don't look down upon someone working at McDonalds or bartending to get their next fix. We don't assume everyone who is a server is a drug user. Why continue to uphold these stereotypes? Yes, social issues such as affordable housing, accessible education, health care, etc. should be addressed but not at the expense of a group of people. We can tell our stories of how sex work has benefitted us, how this is a legitimate enployment for many, but we don't need to do so while comparing "us" to "them ".

RG, being pro-choice can also be choosing not to have an abortion, personally. It can be not believing in it yourself, but recognizing that we are all individuals from different backgrounds that have different life events, and we should have the ability to make our own choices. I would love for there never to be a reason for abortion, but that is not realistic. Being anti-choice (or anti-abortion) is taking a choice away from someone. Being pro-choice means giving people the tools and information they need to make an informed decision that is best for them.

Trudeau did not say they must be pro-abortion. He said pro-choice. There is a difference.

Sex work is legal in Canada. It is certain provisions around sex work that were part of the criminal code, and which were struck down by the SCC this summer. http://owjn.org/owjn_2009/legal-information/aboriginal-law/121

I have scars, some with funny stories and some without. Not one person I've met intimately has commented on them negatively. Some don't ask at all. Some ask. Those who would mind... well, I doubt they'd pass your screening requirements anyway ;)

The only reason there is a page like that now is because society's views on homosexuality have changed. Were it fifty years ago, when homosexuality was still in psychiatry's DSM and laws still portrayed homosexual men as sex offenders, then no, there wouldn't be a wiki page like that. Which is what we are facing if Bill C-36 passes. Yes, I agree that it is clumsy to compare what is not a choice with what is a choice, but there are valid comparisons in the government's reaction to both.

Well, it would be even LESS helpful if all the replies were useless to the OP (eg. they were all suggesting providers that were in another city/province)...

A white tanktop and bright pink undies. I'm lounging! ;)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISinfo/Faq....E&Mode=1#ID0EQ

The bill needs to pass through several steps in the House of Commons, then again more steps in the Senate. No need for disaster planning just yet ;)

I'm sorry, but I am really tired of hearing the "I told you so"s and "the laws shouldn't have been challenged", etc etc etc. Yes, the proposed laws are scary. Am I happy about clients facing criminalization? Absolutely not. And I don't think that they will go through the House of Commons and the Senate intact, as they are, because they are recreating some of the same problematic laws. This is not going to be an easy road. However, I am fully supportive of - and incredibly grateful to - Bedford, Scott, and Lebovitch. They outed themselves and challenged laws that made the likes of Pickton possible. Laws which made the most disadvantaged and marginalized workers bear >90% of criminal charges. Laws which made it difficult for us to screen and work safely. "We" may have had it "good", but not everyone did. And not everyone has access to an indoor location, a laptop, a cellphone, and a reliable internet connection. Not everyone has the ability to work under the radar as "we" do. So, yes, I understand that some people are upset because this has the potential to impact their status quo. Sorry. No, not sorry. I'm willing to bear with this bullshit if it means that the people who are the most at risk might have a better ending. I'm not a happy camper, either, but I recognize why this had to happen, and I am very glad that it did. I manage to make an impact in small ways, which work for me and which do not involve outing myself. Part of that is going to be raising funds for the upcoming fight - I have a pig bank that is being put to good use (also, ironically) ;) It's already been mentioned in this thread and across the forum and social media, but consider donating to a sex workers' rights organization. If you don't want to donate directly, I'm sure a lovely provider or fellow hobbyist can help make it happen.

Many of us already do pay income tax. This is not what these laws seek to do. The government clearly stated their intent was to end prostitution; it says so right in the bill itself.

Here is a great breakdown from Pivot Legal: http://www.pivotlegal.org/the_new_se...tion_explained This is a PROPOSED bill. It still needs to pass through several readings and stages before it can become law. http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISinfo/Faq....E&Mode=1#ID0EQ

As will you, apparently. I can't speak to pimping; I have not directly experienced or witnessed such a thing. However, I did know a provider who preferred not to see blue (because really, what does the specific race matter?) male clients, because she had once been assaulted by a blue man. It wasn't explicitly advertised that she wouldn't see blue men, but she could often ascertain a client's race via screening methods. She knew that she didn't want to take the risk of having a client who would remind her of her assailant. I also knew a provider who came from a small, close-knit community, and preferred not to see clients from that same community, because she didn't want to risk encountering someone who might know her in "real" life. So, let's not jump to conclusions. There are a myriad of reasons why someone might choose to exclude certain clients.

I have a dog, I am quite active, I'm fair-skinned, and I bruise easily - so, I often have bruises or scrapes. I would never cancel an appointment for a little bruise or two! That's going a little far, to call it an imperfection, IMO...

You're making the assumption that the client or the provider are smoking in the room. Stating 420-friendly does not necessarily imply that the provider is in contact with someone smoking pot; it may be that if someone shows up under the influence of marijuana, that is okay with her. I don't know this lady. I am not going to make assumptions or pass judgment. Whether I agree with her personal choices or not, it's not my place to make those comments publicly.

Can we please stop with the insults and assumptions? As fortunateone pointed out, stating "420 friendly" does not necessarily mean that the provider herself partakes. Personally, I find it inappropriate that one provider is commenting on another provider's ad. Whether you agree with this woman's choice or not, publicly deriding another worker on a public forum is in bad taste and comes across as trying to cut out competition. Focus on yourself, and stop with the judgmental comments.

There will be a current and former sex-worker only social tomorrow evening, Wednesday May 7th, in Ottawa. It is open to sex-workers from any sector of the industry including erotic massage, escorts, cam workers, erotic dancers, people who offer BDSM services, phone workers, agency workers, and independents, etc. It is also open to any person of any gender and sexual orientation. There will be vegan, vegetarian, and gluten-free snacks available. Please feel free to drop by for 15 minutes and then leave, or stay for the entirety of the two hours. Please PM me for the location, or if you have any questions. Again, this is for workers only (current and former). Hope to see you there! xo, Kathryn.

Another recommendation for Trish Ferguson, she is truly invaluable.

This might help you in your search... http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=316

Really, it's not. You're talking about regulating a mandatory minimum based on indoor work, which we'll say is at $200-250hr. Street-based work we'll say is $40-60. Which is roughly x500%. So a number of $1000, which I agree is ridiculous, fits into that. You're advocating for a minimum fee which would be 500% more than what street-based workers charge, which is ridiculous and akin to asking indoor workers who charge $200/hr to agree to a minimum charge of $1000/hr. Just putting it into perspective.

There is a difference between having a voice, and dictating decisions without realizing how they may affect people differently. What if all the higher-priced providers got together and decided the industry minimum should be $1000/hr? So, again, who gets to decide what the minimum would be, and who would it affect?