Sweet Emily J

I've always thought having sex on a beach is way overrated. It sounds way better than it is. Have you ever gotten sand in your pussy? :( It ruins everything. Or woken up with sand in your teeth the next day? Ew.

I think it's a great idea. Part of the proceeds may go to charities too! It's not just the picture alone that gives people the fine... The picture is simply sent to the authorities in real-time and a parking officer who is on-call at the time is dispatched to go verify and actually physically give out the ticket. I have no issue with the city (of who the vast majority are law abiding citizens) profiting off people who are breaking the law and inconveniencing handicapped drivers, or potentially endangering people and property by parking in front of a fire hydrant. Better to make extra cash off them, than the law-abiding taxpayers, IMO. Unless someone is parking illegally and being inconsiderate to others, then no one is taking their money.

Chocolate.

I really enjoy doggy for the naughty, raw animalistic feel of it. I find it best when it is slow too. Better to savour and enjoy the sensations with slow, long, deep strides. Faster jackhammer pumping is not always better, contrary to some popular belief (occasionally it is!). Sometimes I am a bad girl and just need to be bent over and showed who is boss. Doggy is also a perfect position to allow easy access for me to play with my clit while enjoying the cock! Double the pleasure! :D Cowgirl is also lots of fun, to be able to control the rhythm and pleasure. This is actually something that I have learned to really enjoy over the last couple years, and I continue to get better at it. I love to alternate between grinding forward and back, and then bouncing up and down. If I feel so inclined, it is also another good position to play with my clit simultaneously, or press it against his pelvic bone. Cowgirl is fun because sometimes I just want to use guys as my personal sex toy! hehe! Yee haw! ;)

So, that's what the difference is then. General Member (<100 Posts) = 200 SERVICE PROVIDER/Paid Advertiser = 500 Senior Member (100+ Posts) = 1000 Elite Member (500+ Posts) = 2500

My limit is 500, so what I hypothesize is that you noticed the change because you recently were switched from "Senior Member" to the official "SERVICE PROVIDER" user category. It looks like "Senior Members" (and maybe "Paid Advertisers"?) have a limit of 1000, and we have 500. Can anyone else confirm?

Having balls and being rude and ignorant are not the same thing.

I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who's "first time" was all they had hoped for, and everything they expected it would be. It rarely is. It is almost always imperfect, usually awkward, often lacking in everything you hoped it would be full of, no matter how young or old you are, whether it's with your high school sweetheart or a hooker. Thankfully, it gets better! Set the bar low, and be happy that it's out of the way and you can move on with your life as a sexually active individual, with this "monkey off your back". No harm in enjoying it if you can, but don't pressure yourself or feel discouraged when it ends up being lacklustre. Don't over think it, and don't expect fireworks in the background. The earth won't move, but maybe if you are lucky you will get a funny story out of it. ;) It is what it is.

This idiot is the G&M's "Sex Columnist" and admittedly knows nothing about this subject she is talking about in the article and says she has never even to a strip club. Oy. I am actually quite surprised and impressed with many of the user comments. The last article about prostitution in a mainstream newspaper that I read was that stupid CBC NFLD one about a month ago, and the user comments were nearly all anti-prostitution. Seems the opposite with this article, and some great feedback, in fact. "Strippers make more money than you do, they don't need to pick up extra cash walking your dog, they don't need or want your charity or your sympathy. But thanks for looking down on them" "This article is even less helpful than the original one. Most journalists don't go looking for someone to agree with them and then write up an article. They look for both sides of the debate. Perhaps the author should heed the advice that the thing to do when you find that you have dug yourself a hole is to stop digging." "This is embarrassingly sheltered, classist, and naive all rolled into a condescending prude ball. Seek out the PoV's of a few sex workers. It will also make you a better reporter and you'll learn a few things about life." "The man who wrote the letter asked for responsible, non-judgmental guidance. What he got was an idiotic, sanctimonious diatribe. If Amberly McAteer wishes to make a fool of herself with moronic tales from the ivory tower, that is her prerogative. That the G&M decides to print her nonsense under the guise of "advice" displays a paucity of judgement and respect for its readers."

Walk your dog for a nominal fee? C---.

Did you know... ...BP censors the word DATY but not cunnilingus? lol, silly people! :)

Funny, but true. I did an outcall once to visit a man at the house he shared with his wife, while she was at work, and it was the most uncomfortable hour of my life. I will never do it again. I don't understand why men try this, and I think it is just asking for trouble. It's almost like sub-consciously they want to get caught. Maybe if she is out of town for the weekend or something, then there's a bit more leeway, but even then, a long blonde hair, the tiny corner of a condom wrapper, a lingering scent, or any number of things could be an easy giveaway. One can dig his own grave, but imagine the awkward and potentially dangerous situation the SP would be put in if wifey comes home early. As cautious as one is, why not just eliminate the possibility altogether and either rent a hotel room, or just do an incall. Playing it safe could also alleviate a lot of unnecessary stress for both parties too. :) To each their own, but in my own life, I try to stay as drama-free as possible and avoid situations when possible that have a high potential for being troublesome.

Mike Stobbe, The Associated Press Published Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:53PM EDT http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/hpv-vaccine-cuts-infections-in-teen-girls-by-half-u-s-study-1.1332578 ATLANTA -- A vaccine against a cervical cancer virus has cut infections in teen girls by half, according to a study released Wednesday. The study confirms research done before the HPV vaccine came on the market in 2006. But this is the first evidence of how well it works now that it is in general use. "These are striking results and I think they should be a wake-up call that we need to increase vaccination rates," said Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only about half of teen girls in the US have gotten at least one dose, and just a third of teen girls have had all three shots, according to the latest CDC figures. HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection. The vaccine protects against certain types of the human papillomavirus that cause most cases of cervical cancer. The shots work best if given before someone is sexually active so the emphasis has been on giving the shots to 11- and 12-year olds. The CDC study compared infection rates in girls before and after the vaccine became available. In girls ages 14 to 19, the proportion infected with the targeted strains of HPV fell from about 12 per cent to 5 per cent, a reduction of 56 per cent. Among girls who had gotten the vaccine, the drop in HPV infections was higher -- 88 per cent. There are two vaccines against HPV, but the study mainly reflects the impact of Gardasil, the Merck & Co. vaccine that came on the market in 2006. A second vaccine approved in 2009 -- GlaxoSmithKline's Cervarix -- probably had relatively little bearing on the results, said the CDC's Dr. Lauri Markowitz, the study's lead author. Both vaccines are approved for use in males and females -- in ages 9 to 26 for females, and 9 to 21 in males. The vaccine was only recommended for boys in late 2011, and the CDC has not yet reported data on how many boys have gotten the shot since then. HPV vaccination requires three shots over 6 months. An estimated 75 to 80 per cent of men and women are infected with HPV during their lifetime. Most don't develop symptoms and clear it on their own. But some infections lead to genital warts, cervical cancer and other cancers. The study didn't look at cervical cancer rates. It can take many years for such cancers to develop, and not enough time has passed to know the vaccine's impact on cancer rates, CDC officials said. The study involved interviews and physical examinations of nearly 1,400 teen girls in 2003 through 2006 and of 740 girls in 2007 through 2010. The vaccine's impact was seen even though only 34 per cent of the teens in the second group had received any vaccine, and only about 20 per cent got all three doses. That result will likely feed an ongoing discussion about whether all three doses are necessary, Markowitz said. Overall, the study found no significant change over time in the proportion of teens who'd ever had sex and in those who had multiple sex partners. However, it did find that a higher percentage of vaccinated teens said they'd had three or more sex partners. That could have driven down infection rates, Markowitz noted, if the teens who got vaccinated were the ones at highest risk of getting an infection and spreading it. The research was released online by the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

Every prescription medication out there has side effects for some people. Even things considered to be as relatively harmless as birth control pills have a list of possible side effects that long, too. I'm not a huge supporter of the pharma world, and don't know much about this drug aside from this and a few other articles, but it sounds like it could possibly be a pretty decent medical breakthrough in the fight against AIDS.

Thankfully in real political democracy, the general public does not usually vote specifically on the issues that directly affect the whole population. We vote to elect someone who we trust is actually fully educated about all the issues, knows all of the details about proposed laws and changes, weighs pros/cons and recognizes possible outcomes and how they will affect the entire population. They will then vote on the specific issues how they best see fit to serve the people.