kerrixoxo

Basically it is any sex worker who is under 21 (some 25 years), any sex worker who may look "young" (whatever that means), any non-white sex worker, any sex worker not from the area, any sex worker who can't prove they are from the area, any sex worker without legitimate ID (you need ID to book a hotel room mostly so that means someone else booked the hotel room or you paid cash and the hotel accepted, which happens like never nowadays), any sex worker who works with other sex workers or travels with other sex workers, any sex worker who acts in an aggressive manner towards the police, any sex worker who may be in a location that has substances (drugs/alcohol) in the room that they find while searching the room. Once the police are in your room/work location they are free to check almost anything (except a locked cellphone, password protected computer, thumb drives). This is also why it is good to answer the door fully clothed.

If you want notifications sent directly to your email (not that this is ever a good idea unless you are working on a project or something else), try setting up google notifications.

If you have heard about the SP only area of this site, then that either means 1) you know a sex worker or 2) you know a client which then contradicts that you are either 1) new or 2) you don't have ads. I suggest asking whoever told you about the SP only area site about safety precautions. Also, google is your friend :) To the point of meeting a client in public to confirm as a safety precaution, that is never a good idea.

Happy Birthday Jolie, I hope it is a great day for you.

Hope your new journey is filled with plenty of adventures! Take care and be well. Xo

Happy birthday CK! Hope your day is a good one!

This! Is fantastic!

That is good to know about your good working relationship with the police (for obvious reasons). I mean this in a good way. This just highlights the problems with the Bill: if this is the threshold to determine who is a prostitute (someone who touches another person for sexual gratification), then it will almost be difficult to police. Just my thoughts. Thank you for your assistance in ensuring this site is a positive place for providers and clients alike.

We have to remember, America didn't abolish prostitution. It is still thriving. So on one hand it isn't a bad thing. In the states, clients do abide by the reference/screening process. I recommend clients join verification sites ASAP. I like preferred 411. On the other hand, it does create a huge hassle for providers and clients alike. As per your comments regarding full service providers, the definition of a prostitute isn't someone who offers full service sex for money. In fact, the Bill doesn't even define who a prostitute is. The latest interpretation is in the DOJ's technical paper (http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p1.html). I understand where you are coming from with having to protect CERB's interests and everyone's interests. The Bill refers to the "selling of sexual services" which isn't necessarily full-service. It could mean fetish, clubs/dancers. The DOJ paper also refers to strip clubs, escort agencies, etc as participating in creating the demand for sexual services which the Bill seeks to abolish; hence, the end demand approach. So even if you discuss clubs/dancers and all other sexual services that are provided by others, then that could also be interpreted as criminal. I don't want to disagree with CERB's policies because CERB is free to choose how they operate. However, I wanted to make the above points in light of this policy change. I think that providers should be encouraged to remove all explicit materials from their websites and should seek to encourage reference/screening/verification processes.

https://www.change.org/p/stephen-harper-do-not-endanger-the-lives-of-sex-workers

I re-installed this app last night. Every time I open it, there is only ever one car on. Going to try to use it this weekend.

Oh, a perfect day. Sign me up :)

All I know is that the street I live on runs east and west. Anything beyond that is new to me. I like exploring new things! ;) The cost of the ticket is fine with me too.

You may not be a debater but you are a master-debater ;) Sorry had to bring some humour to this thread. I don't agree with outing anyone. Ever. The way the abolitionists are treating Terri Jean right now (check out the twitter @PassBillC36) is horrid. They are saying that is how the sex workers who testified are treating the "victims" who testified. But at the same time they are saying they agree with her and that the "johns" should be outed. They really don't understand the harms in outing either a sex worker or a john which is clear with their support of Bill C-36. These are people's lives they are messing with. Now where is my wine! lol

I'm a little late to this thread but yes, thank you! I am sorry I couldn't stay longer. It was great to see some familiar faces. Xo

Meeting new people who always smile and laugh! Just like me. Lol. Waking up early and going for a run. Laying outside under the sun. Sleeping under the stars. Being on the water (kayaking). Basically anything to do with nature or being outside.

Agree with this 100%. If someone doesn't take the time to read anything on my page or ads and my auto response to their email, I assume they aren't serious and I don't take their requests seriously. It's just blatant ignorance and disrespect. I can't stand either.

The stereotype is that sex workers are victims and need to be save. What Bedford did was the exact opposite of that stereotype. But her title as dominatrix, this may be the only time a non-sex worker sees a dominatrix in the media act this way and it may leave that impression they are people who don't play by the rules: those rules being, "act like a lady" (as per Plett's comments). Even she said it herself, "I told myself I would act like a woman and not a dominatrix." That's the message being sent: there are women and then there are whores. This Bill, the politicians and the abolitionists re-enforce that message. Not Terri Jean--she is defying normative standards of what it means to "act like a lady" and CPCers don't like that.

This is her. This is what she does. What she said was important: she talked about Bedford and how the evidence that the CPCers are now "parading" through these meetings was REJECTED by the courts, and how she wasn't being asked important questions. No sex worker was being asked important questions or even asked ANY, at all! Some were even cut off at the JUST meetings. And yup, she will continue to work and she will be back. Sorry but no sex worker will have influence on the committee. It's a game to them and it's even more obvious now. If she wanted to say something that needed to be said which obviously wasn't being said, she said it.

Agreed 100%. When Valerie Scott testified, she was calm and cool. Plett STILL told her that sex workers need to "act like a lady." Translation? Don't act like a whore. The only good whore is a repentant whore...at least in their eyes.

The DOJ's technical paper says it should not be interpreted that way by the courts. But how it actually plays out in reality as opposed to theory, two different things. I recommend clients establishing themselves on boards with their handles or become familiar with the reference process (asking if a provider uses them or how she verifies clients) and also using references. References aren't used by all providers though. Joining a verification is another option. I see some clients use twitter--make that private ASAP! Don't tweet using the Bill c-36 hashtag. I know you want to engage in the discussion but how the abolitionists use that hashtag is brutal! Just avoid using the hashtag at all costs. You can tweet about the Bill but the way I see the antis use the hashtag--just don't use it. Scanning the hashtag and seeing the antis makes me sick to my stomach each time. :(

This is a tricky subject to discuss. Clients' anonymity and discretion is always sex workers Number 1 priority in their lives...it's their livelihood! But this whole debate is NOT about clients. Yes, clients experience bad things too sometimes. Bedford isn't about clients though. It's about sex workers' safety. I think her reacting like this is very reasonable for how politicians are treating not only her but *all* sex workers/allies/orgs at these meetings. Bedford isn't about clients though and if a Bill is to respond to Bedford, it also needs to shift it's focus. This isn't about clients: the politicians are making it about clients, the abolitionists are making it about clients and the Bill is about the clients. Politicians are not playing nice. The abolitionists are not playing nice. The Bill and everything that comes with it just makes me angry. Grrr. :whip: Note: I don't agree with outing anyone. Like ever. But her anger? Very reasonable for how sex workers are being treated and the Bill isn't even law.

Hmmmm... lol At the top of the list: People who don't answer the question asked. Well, they give an answer but they don't answer the question (lol) which then leads to an irritation with people who don't read or listen to what is being asked (just in general conversation in any setting). People who use question period at events for mini speeches, "So what was the question you wanted answered?" Also, bad grammar and horrible spelling. I don't mind spelling mistakes (it happens--I do appreciate a good auto-correct though lol). But the outright laziness in trying to construct a basic sentence: Grrrrr :vf: lol

First rule of the fight club: don't read the comments in mainstream media. Did I say fight club? I meant Canadian mainstream media. These sections are often (read: always) lacking critical thinking and intelligence. Thank you for at least trying to engage in a debate. Sometimes it is fruitless in those sections though.

For me it isn't about the senses, it is my thoughts and my imagination. My mind has to be turned on or my body won't follow ;)