Or it could have something to do with the fact that you weren't actually breaking any laws... and you won't be ... until AFTER December 6th ...
C36 Merged thread, everything goes here
- Thread starter Banger77
- Start date
even after Dec 6th still won't matter. He went in for a massage right?! Unless cops have a video camera and microphone in the room and see/hear purchase of sex, then they have no proof more than a massage took place. And maybe he/we just paid for a massage and between the girl and the guy the mutually decided to have sex afterwards
And do you guys realize how many crackhouses cops know about but they can't do shit. Only thing they can do is watch the house and pull people over and hope they catch them with drugs. So unless you go to an MP and bring the girl outside negotiate purchase of sexual services and do a car date and they see that they really can't do shit
Your all waaaaaay to paranoid.
I disagree with the bolded statement. I suppose it depends upon what you consider most important in a review. Based on my experiences before review boards existed (or I discovered them anyway), I have always considered that the most important questions a review answers are as follows - order of importance:
1. Is the advertiser a real SP or a police sting or a con artist?
2. If you patonize this SP or MP, are you likely to get robbed or knifed by the SP you are seeing or by an accomplice?
3. Even if you don't get robbed or knifed, are you likely to have your wallet rifled while you are otherwise occupied?
4. Alternatively, does this SP take the money and run (related to being a con artist)?
5. Now that we have gotten the physical safety questions out of the way, if this person makes an appointment, does she keep it?
6. Is she drunk or high or an obvious druggie looking for her next fix?
7. Personal hygiene? And if visiting an incall, general cleanliness of same?
Then, after all that:
8. Are any pictures real and is the physical description accurate?
9. Is she a clockwatcher or short-timer?
10. Does she deliver the services promised or is she an upseller?
11. Safe services? What are they?
12. How much?
13. What is she like as a person? Friendly, good conversation and relaxing time or mechanical, rushed and uninterested?
Numbers 11 to 13 are the ones where you get into "details of the encounter" - the part that would most likely be self-incriminating if anything was. And frankly, they are the least critical as far as I am concerned, because so much of it all is YMMV anyway. And the part of 13 that WOULDN'T be self-incriminating even in a review posted with your real name and address and a signature is again probably the most important bit of it: was she friendly and kind and appeared genuinely happy to be seeing you and talking to you (as well as "talking" to you) ... or did you get the impression that if you dropped dead in mid-session she would just want to roll you out the door so you weren't messing up her apartment anymore and otherwise wouldn't care?
Is it OK for a girl to bang a guy with a strap-on? Not a place I would go :fear:, but it's a somewhat serious question.
Interesting question, I don't think the law goes to that level of detail. It's a bit of unlikely to happen in public too. Maybe during some BDSM party or when shooting porn. Police don't go after Canadian porn producers who obviously break this law on record, government have to support our economy
Mind you when done in privacy 1-on-1, this law does not apply.
My point was, Canada has some outdated meaningless laws, and people don't really care as long as it's not enforced.
Last edited:
i think reviews post c-36 implimentation will read a lot like this:
'i had a wet dream the other night, in which i contacted x (name escort), and she was real, and was not accompanied by anybody that presented a danger to me. etc. etc.'
or conversely:
'i had a nightmare the other night...'
i think you can see that they will read like pure fantasy, or like a real depiction of a dream, and won't provide anything that could be used against you in a court of law
'i had a wet dream the other night, in which i contacted x (name escort), and she was real, and was not accompanied by anybody that presented a danger to me. etc. etc.'
or conversely:
'i had a nightmare the other night...'
i think you can see that they will read like pure fantasy, or like a real depiction of a dream, and won't provide anything that could be used against you in a court of law
so since election time is fast approaching. Decided to take a peek on the 3 parties websites to see what they have to say. I have read here that a vote for
VISION is the way to go. So was surprised to see what COPE had to say. to quote:
"Endorsing the 2007 Living in Community plan to support sex workers right to form unions, live and work free of violence, and have access to supports on their own terms, COPE advocates a decriminalization and harm reduction approach to sex work and opposes Bill C-36 in its entirety. "
So not too sure about who to vote for now. Liking alot of what COPE is saying they will do. hmmm
VISION is the way to go. So was surprised to see what COPE had to say. to quote:
"Endorsing the 2007 Living in Community plan to support sex workers right to form unions, live and work free of violence, and have access to supports on their own terms, COPE advocates a decriminalization and harm reduction approach to sex work and opposes Bill C-36 in its entirety. "
So not too sure about who to vote for now. Liking alot of what COPE is saying they will do. hmmm
My thread on self-incriminating reviews was more a joke. Didn't feel right add to existing thread where people were paranoid for real.
I'd vote for a separate sub forum for all things related to C 36. There is a ton of clutter with numerous similar topic threads.
Yes, Cope candidate is Meena Wong. The negatives i am reading is COPE have no chance at being voted in and a vote for cope is just splitting vote with Vision and giving
NPA a sure win. The other thing i did not like about Meena was she was an assistant to Olivia Chow.
NPA a sure win. The other thing i did not like about Meena was she was an assistant to Olivia Chow.
I can't remember where but I have heard of sodomy being against the law.
I believe it is one of the list of crimes they charge you with for rape, interference with a minor or sexual interference with a minor, sexual misconduct, etc, not sure if rape is even a legal term.
Only really against the law, if someone protests.
Like sexual harassment not really a crime until someone says no or stop and they don't.
I believe it is one of the list of crimes they charge you with for rape, interference with a minor or sexual interference with a minor, sexual misconduct, etc, not sure if rape is even a legal term.
Only really against the law, if someone protests.
Like sexual harassment not really a crime until someone says no or stop and they don't.
There is already a glut of lurker-knobs that simply use this board for info, without ever becoming members. Add to that another glut of trolls and egotists that generally just chime in to threads without ever actually contributing any substantial intel or first hand reviews of their own experiences. If you believe all the current paranoia there will soon be very few to no reviews at all. Sad, really.
C'mon, you sack-less bastards, get your heads out of your holes and don't be so fucking chicken-shit and self-serving. Put out a review once in a blue-fucking-moon. Contribute to the community or F-off. Rant over.
C'mon, you sack-less bastards, get your heads out of your holes and don't be so fucking chicken-shit and self-serving. Put out a review once in a blue-fucking-moon. Contribute to the community or F-off. Rant over.
"The only thing to fear, is fear itself" - FDR.
The gov't wants you to change. If you change, they win. I'm not changing anything. You guys talking about wet dreams and vivid imaginations, haha, what is this, highschool?. Bill C-36 changes nothing. Did prohibition work in the 20's? I mean nobody in their right minds would actually think in 2014 outlawing the purchase of sex will actually deter anyone? Haha. At best, I think for the first week they'll be so swamped in paper work it'll be the reality check they needed and it's back to business as usual.
Now back to that joint...
The gov't wants you to change. If you change, they win. I'm not changing anything. You guys talking about wet dreams and vivid imaginations, haha, what is this, highschool?. Bill C-36 changes nothing. Did prohibition work in the 20's? I mean nobody in their right minds would actually think in 2014 outlawing the purchase of sex will actually deter anyone? Haha. At best, I think for the first week they'll be so swamped in paper work it'll be the reality check they needed and it's back to business as usual.
Now back to that joint...
fred can not control what is being posted on other site and that is why he does not want links posted
Most erotic service site have not made the change to the new law
I have at vancityads
Most erotic service site have not made the change to the new law
I have at vancityads
