Kathryn Bardot

Some of my most valued friendships are with other providers. Partly it is due to the stigma of being a sex worker -- very few of my civilian friends know what I do, so it has been invaluable to have those friendships where I can vent about frustrating situations and ask for opinions from others in the industry. And, it's not a secret that I offer duos with one of my best friends. It makes the chemistry that much better, that we connect on a level where we are comfortable with each other (and, lesbihonest ;) I think she's hot) and I think it shows in our sessions together.

Gender does not make one person more trustworthy than another.

If 150 women are being trafficked here in Ottawa (and note, it is always "women", or more specifically "girls" used by the abolitionist groups and police; I suppose men can't be trafficked?), then where is the research to back this claim and more importantly, why did Ottawa police not find one single non-consensual worker in the "Northern Spotlight" visits? Just a thought.

NOPE. Me? Porn? Not ever. ;) Oh yes. Yes yes yes. And Stoya.

I am not sure where this idea of uniformed officers going to incalls is coming from. Every story I have heard of independents getting visits, it has been from officers in plainclothes.

I think you should follow the thread, there is a lot of discussion going on there :) http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=165246

First, they "fucked with" providers when they booked under false pretenses. They are claiming that they sat down with a number of organizations to discuss tactics before this operation, yet conveniently left out the ACTUAL voices of sex workers. Not one sex worker rights organization was contacted. Secondly, no, the workers did not have to let the police in. However, if you were at an incall and had the police at your door announcing themselves as OPS, I can guarantee you'd let them in to avoid having your neighbours hearing. Once inside, the stories differ. One worker said they asked before looking into apartment rooms, she gave permission and that's all they did -- look. No doors opened. Another worker told them they did not have permission to search her location, yet they did, going so far as to open closet doors. When she got between them and the door, they told her that if she touched them it could be considered assault against an officer. The only grain of salt I am taking in regards to what is being portrayed in the media is what is being said by Ottawa police. They issued a press release today that is just so factually incorrect: http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/MediaRoom/NewsReleases/14-01-28/8c3172c6-7799-4b38-a93e-bd5ab9f0f4cf.aspx "Over 330 women, some as young as 15 years of age, were interviewed. Police found some were being forced to perform sexual acts, multiple times a day, for paying male customers." ONE person under the age of 15 was found, in Halton. ONE. That is not "some". http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/ontario-woman-arrested-in-trafficking-of-teen-sex-worker-1.2509823 "In Ottawa, 16 officers from Central, West and East District participated in this initiative and a total of 29 women were interviewed, some as young as 19 years of age. Officers utilized the internet to identify individuals involved in the sex trade and through investigation found their locations. Officers attended the locations and conducted interviews to determine the level of control, if any, being exercised." Last I checked, 19 was legal. This is pure fear mongering. And were there any individuals being coerced? Who knows! They didn't say! (Hint: none. Johnston is quoted as saying so.) They end the press release by commenting on a trafficking arrest that happened LAST YEAR. No sting required to catch that one! But hey, it makes us look good, and if we throw a blurb in about the individual being charged in 2014 maybe John Q. Public won't notice.

I don't know why the CBC is reporting the officers as being in uniform, but from what I understand they were in plain clothes. Still, announcing themselves as OPS at the door is not being very discreet.

I think it's great that some people who received visits felt at ease with the police. However, there are reports from some workers who felt intimidated. From what I hear, the police who visited spas came with a female officer and left business cards. Some of the independent providers who received a visit received four male officers and a number written on a scrap of paper. That's a big difference in how the visits were conducted. Also, a spa is a space that is publicly known, and there is usually more than one attendant present. Most incall locations are not -- that's why independent providers do not list their addresses in their ads. The police booked with independents as a guest, meaning that provider was expecting a client, not four police officers. Think about the power dynamics when you have a single, usually female provider, who may be dressed in lingerie, alone with four men. Nat and I were discussing this and she gave me the perfect comparison: what if the police went around knocking on all the doors of married people to find victims of domestic violence? I doubt that would be very well received. I would also be curious as to whether any male providers were visited. Or do the police think that only female providers can be victims of trafficking?

I never know what to call mine -- a tuft? A patch? A triangle? I shave the bikini line and the undercarriage but keep a nice piece over the mons.

I think the problem is that we're taking personal experience and extrapolating that into the norm. Valerie and Cristy, your experience has been that clients are looking for underage women, so you assume that this is the case across the board. On the opposite spectrum, Nat and I have not personally experienced this, so we question how this could be the norm. I would be interested to see some real figures on this. Of course, any tracking/studies on sex work, and especially underage exploitation, is going to be difficult in terms of generalization.

The government requires that all income is declared and that you pay your taxes accordingly. Does that mean everyone declares all of their income? No. There are people who evade paying or claim lesser amounts all across the board. But there seems to be a common assumption that escorts don't pay taxes, when we (the public) don't make that assumption of all other cash-based businesses.

Sex work is legal. It is certain provisions around it that are not, such as hiring security or communicating in public. I pay taxes on my income like any other small business. Revenue Canada has a job code for escorting. Why is there always the assumption that we do not report our incomes, just because this is a cash-based income? It would be incredibly difficult to do things like sign a lease or a mortgage, get a credit card, buy a car and car insurance, etc if we were not claiming income.

Two articles, same paper, completely different spin. I was much happier to read this article, which took into consideration the viewpoints and experiences of the workers, not just the police spokespeople: http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=164955

Thank you for sharing your article, Valerie. I think if people want to speak to the media, we should be careful about comparing ourselves to other workers in negative ways. We don't need to be looking down on "hookers" and giving the media and the public more sensationalism. I don't agree that there is a "large and illegal demand for underage escorts", either. Discussing the difference in working/the experience is fine, I would just like to suggest that we try to keep it neutral -- so, "street-based worker" instead of "street-based hooker", and try not to compare ourselves by saying something like "well I'm not a prostitute because I do XYZ". It's fine to say, "I don't like the term hooker/prostitute/sex monkey". It's another thing to say "I'm not one of them", IMO.

I get tested regularly, however, I do not tell them that I am a paid companion, because the effects it may have further down the line. There are some jobs/life events that require certain background checks, and having the title of "sex worker" on your medical record can get you denied from some things, including future employment and medical/life insurance. (Also, isn't that funny? It's perfectly okay for my medical record to contain STI testings due to "multiple partners" (slut stigma). It's not okay once that happens with money exchanging hands. Oh, stigma.)

Boo. I have class this term on Wednesdays from 7pm-10pm :(

Doctors, nurses, and other front line workers aren't required to undergo mandatory HIV/STI testing, even though there is the risk of needlestick injury and/or exposure to fluids. A surgeon takes precaution to avoid exposure to/from their patients, but there is still the risk of cutting themselves on the scalpel or puncturing themselves with a needle, thus exposing the patient. A sex worker takes precautions via use of safer sex methods, but there is still the risk of the condom breaking. So why is one chance of exposure deemed suitable for mandatory testing, and the other not? (I know, not the same factor of bodily fluid exchange, but you get my point.)

If you walk into a session with the expectation that achieving an erection is the only indicator of a worthwhile encounter, then you are also putting pressure on yourself -- and combined with the amount of stress you are in with your job, and the effect it has had on your physical health and level of exercise, I wouldn't be surprised if the mister isn't willing to perform. There have already been some useful suggestions made in this thread, but I'm also going to suggest that you re-evaluate what qualifies as "wasting" your money. You may want to contact a provider and explain your situation, and have the encounter focus on sensuality rather than performance. Taking away the pressure of achieving an erection may help. Also, if you're stressed about performance, prescription medication may not help. And finally, it IS possible to achieve an orgasm without an erection!

Ghost pepper is delicious! Mucho Burrito has a ghost pepper burrito with infused bacon... om nom nom. I don't have ketchup in my fridge... Sriracha goes on everything instead!

Also, please be sure to wash your hands when you arrive, if you are not hopping in the shower. You may have showered at home, but the route to get you to me has taken you through many public venues -- door handles, elevator buttons, even handling money or your keys.

Noooooo thank you. Harsh chemicals do not go near my nethers. It is absolutely normal and natural to have darker pigmentation near the anus - much like the labia, testicles, and nipples can be a darker colour - and has nothing to do with cleanliness.