No restrictions

[April Dawn 12207]

What I meant was how would the nordic system make SP'S able to hire protection, or go to the LE more readily? The nordic system makes clients sex offenders and still has a very negative view of prostitutes

as victimized women.

It makes buying sex illegal, so it seems like it would be much worse for SP'S safety, well being and people would look down even more on sex workers and their clients.

Right now what I do is legal, I'd like to keep it that way.

Posted via Mobile Device

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Sex workers now are free to report crimes like assault, they can and they do. But, an sp victimized by a pimp is rarely going to be the one to do this. She isn't afraid of the clients, she's afraid of what he's going to do to her. And he will do something, make no mistake about it. She also isn't going to have the freedom to report the clients. Plus, whether the client participated or not, the Nordic model isn't going to differentiate between ones who do and do not. It assumes guilt of violence on all of them, in that prostitution is violence against women. Is being associated as a violent offender something that you would wish upon yourself or others? Because that is the assumption and stigma due to the Nordic setup.

 

 

The example is one where the sp is forced by a pimp. There are already laws to deal with this that are clearly ineffective. They aren't unused tho, as I do know of a recent case of a guy out East charged with, among other things, forcing an underage sp to work. She reported him as well for forcing her to do bbfs appts. Since she was 17 at the time of reporting, it made even more charges easy to be laid.

 

There are lots of laws already in place to deal with criminal activities, I don't see any reason to penalize the majority of law abiding citizens to deal with the minority of deviants.

 

Again off topic and I apologize to Gabriella for hijacking her thread temporarily.....

 

Now if she report a pimp she too will face prosecution and the pimp will go free soon to get back at her. We need laws to look at her as she is (a victim) to be looked at with sympathetic eyes and the pimp end up in jail for many years (so we need harsh laws for forced prosecution/trafficking as well). That is why we are building so many jails now.

 

No I don't wish prosecution of innocent clients who treat ladies as they are like ladies and as dates and without violence and the Nordic system wrongfully paints everyone with the same brush and as you said and also WIT said it so well, it is wrong (and extreme) and that is why in spite of everything I said, still I do NOT support Nordic system and I want it off our land.

 

I think status quo is best compromise without being extreme if it is relaxed (as I said sex workers able to hire and be in a bawdy house) but we need to add new laws to deal very harsly with forced pimping/trafficking and abusive clients and by harsh I don't mean slap on the wrisk but rather long sentences for many years.

 

April, sex workers can hire guards and report abuse to LE because they are not regarded as guilty before the law but rather as victims. Selling sex would be legal while buying it illegal (not just abusive sex but any sex and that is what is wrong with Nordic system as mentioned before). Not sure why you say they will be looked down because they won't be regarded as criminals anymore!!!. I agree with you that Swedish system may result in more dangers to sex workers (buying sex become criminal) and this is another reason I am opposed to it. I NEVER said I support Nordic system lol!!!!!.

 

WIT I agree the two studies are not conclusive and that was why I said it MAY result in more violence to sex workers NOT will result.

 

Now back to the thread topic please :-). Again my apology to Gabriella.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

I have to spread the joy around a bit more before I can give you rep points again, WiT. Thank you for pointing us to that paper. It's well-written and a truly valuable resource.

 

==========

 

I'd like to interject into this discussion that, in Canada, many prostitutes find they have positive interactions with the police when they need help. Even if we're working illegally--say, from home--contacting the police does not mean subjecting oneself to prosecution.

 

I say this because this has been my recent experience. I turned in a client who was harassing me. The police treated me beautifully and continue to look out for my safety. I'll post about that shortly and update this post with a link to the new thread.

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

The issue is that providers offering BBFS are putting both themselves and their clients at risk, and contributing to the harmful stereotypes that sex workers are vectors of disease and don't protect ourselves.

 

It's not about whether or not the provider is comfortable offering it, or what you do in your personal life. If you offer BBFS there is no way to guarantee that your client is STD/HIV free.

 

If you slept with boyfriends unprotected, and didn't catch anything, consider yourself lucky. It doesn't make you unclean, just careless.

I normally agree with you, Berlin, but I have to disagree with you here. What two consenting adults do in private is none of our business and not up to us to judge as a "problem." The only people they are putting at risk are themselves.

 

It's not reasonable to say that sex workers can't engage in certain behaviours that civilians engage in because "we need to counter stigma." The responsibility of stigma is placed on the shoulders of those who perpetuate stigma. Would it be reasonable to say you can't smoke weed or any other drugs because you are perpetuating the stigma that all sex workers are junkies/druggies?

 

I don't want this post to be seen as promoting bbfs. What I believe in is education, and adults making decisions for themselves. We can and should educate people on the risks of bbfs, but we can't extend that to judge them when they don't behave as we think they should. To do so is paternalistic.

 

I've done my education and I'm personally not comfortable with cfs/cbj and definitely not bbbj with a stranger or many partners. I would be terrified of a condom breaking, and everytime I would give bbbj I would be afraid I caught something. I am comfortable with the low risk of a hand job. This is my personal comfort level and I don't judge others who have a different comfort level.

 

What you do with your body is your choice and not to be judged by others.

 

Additional Comments:

One more thing I'd like to say is that money does not transmit STDs or STIs. Sex workers shouldn't be held to a different standard than the general population.

Posted via Mobile Device

[VedaSloan 119179]

I normally agree with you' date=' Berlin, but I have to disagree with you here. What two consenting adults do in private is none of our business and not up to us to judge as a "problem." The only people they are putting at risk are themselves. [/quote']

 

Hence the "careless" comment. It's not my business what you do in private, but unless both of you are getting tested at the same time (which, generally, I doubt is happening), then you're just being careless.

 

It's not reasonable to say that sex workers can't engage in certain behaviours that civilians engage in because "we need to counter stigma." The responsibility of stigma is placed on the shoulders of those who perpetuate stigma. Would it be reasonable to say you can't smoke weed or any other drugs because you are perpetuating the stigma that all sex workers are junkies/druggies?

 

I didn't say they shouldn't engage in it, I said they shouldn't advertise it.

 

I don't want this post to be seen as promoting bbfs. What I believe in is education, and adults making decisions for themselves. We can and should educate people on the risks of bbfs, but we can't extend that to judge them when they don't behave as we think they should. To do so is paternalistic.

 

Unfortunately, most people do NOT educate themselves and sex workers offering BBFS do reflect poorly on sex workers and the industry.

 

I've done my education and I'm personally not comfortable with cfs/cbj and definitely not bbbj with a stranger or many partners. I would be terrified of a condom breaking, and everytime I would give bbbj I would be afraid I caught something. I am comfortable with the low risk of a hand job. This is my personal comfort level and I don't judge others who have a different comfort level.

 

What you do with your body is your choice and not to be judged by others.

 

Additional Comments:

One more thing I'd like to say is that money does not transmit STDs or STIs. Sex workers shouldn't be held to a different standard than the general population.

Posted via Mobile Device

 

 

That is true and I agree with you that sex workers should not be held to a different standard, but unfortunately, that's not how the rest of the world looks at it.

 

And I'm sorry, but offering bbfs (outside of the context of both partners agreeing beforehand and getting tested together) is unsafe, stupid and I'm going to judge you for that choice, whether you're a sex worker or not.

[Guest Hoot *****]

I only had BBFS offered to me once and I ran like hell from her so if "no restrictions" equals BBFS then I will again run like hell. It's only been in recent years I've come across terms like "few restrictions, open-minded, no restrictions" to name a few and I take it as nothing more than marketing hype. I am responsible for my own health and I act accordingly. Caveat emptor.

[fister456 252]

so what does no restrictioins mean, and if it is so vague, why do ladies state it in headlines? when if i call, text, email and they say no there is only a polite no thanks and click.

 

example of no restrictions, I have come across

sorry no I dont kiss

sorry no I dont do bbbj

sorry no wont do outcall

sorry I dont do incall

sorry no greek

sorry no french

GFE NO, PSE NO

I understand how they dont want to put to much in there ad, but then a picture is a thousand words.

 

so be brief but dont over state how willing your are

[roger dodger 2160]

I do agree that sp's providing bbfs is a very dangerous and careless behaviour. It's not only the lives of the two people involved that it afffects, but every other persons that both of you will encounter in the future. I have come a few ladies that offer "no restrictions" and after talking to them and asking questions, found out that it was merely a way to get more people to call them. I have told these ladies that it's not fair or right to false advertise, and that they may be putting themselves at risk. When the client comes to their place and finds out that the ladie has lied to him, some may get very angry, and who knows what can happen. Some sp's also offer "pse", which again some times may be very misleading. The best way is to dicuss thouroughly your intentions and wants to the sp, and then decide from there if she is what you want. But the problem exists that, and this has happened to me a couple of times, where you have both agreed on the services provided, but once you get there, and give the donation envellope, all of a sudden the services have changed. I have been offered bbfs 3 times, and have declined. Twice i left, and gave half of donation, before even anything was started, and once, where i could not finish, even though no fault of the sp. After she noticed i was having a hard time to finish, she offered that i could finish bbfs. I politely declined, told her it was in no way her fault, told her i had a great time. She was sad i couldn't finish, but i told her i would come back the next day. All was great the next day, and she even offered me her session at no charge, to which i declined.

[roamingguy 300292]

I do agree that sp's providing bbfs is a very dangerous and careless behaviour. It's not only the lives of the two people involved that it afffects, but every other persons that both of you will encounter in the future.

 

I agree with you that sp's providing bbfs is dangerous, for the reasons you cited. But to add, it is equally dangerous for a client to accept bbfs. Even if the lady offers it, doesn't stop the man from putting on protection (although in my case, I'd put on my clothes and walk, nay, run away)

Both ladies and gentlemen are responsible when it comes to BBFS, it's not just the ladies. She isn't going to offer it if there were no takers.

Yes, ladies shouldn't provide it, but equally true, the guys shouldn't accept it

A quick two cents worth

RG

[Seaniew3 340]

Is it considered generally safer by some providers to offer bbbj's? I see that offered more and more often lately and as someone who avoids any providers who offer any bb services whatsoever, I feel that my options are getting more and more limited.

Any thoughts?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TorontoMelanieJolliet 4458]

Is it considered generally safer by some providers to offer bbbj's?

 

No. Unless she is completely uneducated. I, at one time, found a chart that outlined risks associated with oral sex.

 

Note that the risk of passing infection is it being passed to you, not the chance of it being passed to the 'giver'. The heading on the chart is:

Chance of infection being passed to you, IF your partner has the infection at that site

 

Oral sex - with a condom. Chart says 'Not passed (or possible only in theory)'

Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, HIV

 

Oral sex - without a barrier. 'Not passed (or possible only in theory)' HIV (Receiver) -- 'Not commonly passed' Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, HIV (Giver) -- 'Easily Passed' HPV Herpes Syphilis

 

This is chart I refer can be accessed by here:

smartsexresource.com 'know your chances' page

A service provided by the BC Centre for Disease Control

 

The page cannot be linked here, you have do some searching

[capitalCforcougar 16766]

easiest thing... be smart... be safe...

 

It isn't *just* the parties involved in the act.. it is anyone they may come in contact with before/after.... unaware wives, boyfriends/husbands being the most prevalent ....common sense should prevail here :)

 

I once had a partner who was rather insistent about me going down on them... but absolutely refused (as in vehemently and almost rude!) ... until *I* got tested... LOL seriously? if it's ok to have my mouth on you... (now, stay with me here folks).... it's the same thing as if your mouth was on me.. for the most part...(and yes, I am fully aware there are things that may/not be transferred orally...but..)... so.. if it's not something you would be willing to do.. there should not be an expectation for things to work differently if spun around <ha! see what I did there...?>

 

,,and for the record, I sent him home immediately... ignored his messages for a few days, until I calmed down... then I answered his message with questioning when *he* was going for tests... haha he asked why would *he* get tested...?? HA! ...did I bother to explain...? hehe no....... buh-bye!!

 

I think, this twit is a fine example of why over the years, I think I preferrrr hobbiests .. they aren't your 'garden-variety @sshole ;)

[fortunateone 156618]

Is it considered generally safer by some providers to offer bbbj's? I see that offered more and more often lately and as someone who avoids any providers who offer any bb services whatsoever, I feel that my options are getting more and more limited.

Any thoughts?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

just get the bjs using condoms. I think it is only the reverse that guys might have trouble getting, as in someone only provides cbjs is going to get asked to give a bbbj, or pressured to do. If someone is doing the bbbj and you don't want one, just put a cover on it.

 

Not many sps will refuse to give you that option considering it is much safer for them, and you. if your concern is you like to do other things (kissing, etc) and don't want to do that with a bbbj provider, then another suggestiion is when you find the cbj only provider, that you continue to repeat with her, which is also a way to reward the cbj providers by repeating with them, :)