Steeles Royal
Toronto Escorts

Strip Clubs Post C-36?

shogun89

New member
Feb 18, 2013
873
2
0
What will they look like? Will We only get air dances again since a lap dance is considered a sexual service as guys can cream their pants?

Will undercover cops station themselves near the VIP and look for girls who sit on guys laps or guys with their cocks out of their pants and then arrest and charge them?

Or will it be more of the same?
 

waba

Active member
Jun 18, 2012
3,255
7
38
Will undercover cops station themselves near the VIP and look for girls who sit on guys laps or guys with their cocks out of their pants and then arrest and charge them?
Is this a joke? Are you 3 years old. I think you are too young for the strip clubs anyways...

I laughed so hard on this statement, will probably be good for a few days! Thanks a lot for the good laugh man.
 

chunderbot

Pervert Row
Jul 1, 2005
209
0
0
I can't imagine c36 having any tangible effect on stripclubs. The clubs seem to be withering on the vine anyway, so I'm not sure the police look at it as a priority.

C36 may well be struck down by the Supreme Court anyway, as was the previous legislation. But that's another discussion.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
What will they look like? Will We only get air dances again since a lap dance is considered a sexual service as guys can cream their pants?

Will undercover cops station themselves near the VIP and look for girls who sit on guys laps or guys with their cocks out of their pants and then arrest and charge them?

Or will it be more of the same?
If you consider a lap-dance to be a sexual service, that's a personal opinion which you're entitled to. But the only thing the rest of us need to be concerned with is the learned opinion of a presiding judge in a definitive case under the new law.

I'm unaware that the Bill defines 'sexual service' so broadly as to include an unintended creaming, or that any case under existing old law has either. But in either instance, the Crown would have to meet the defence that the sexual eruption wasn't purchased or even anticipated.

Quite a different matter, if they have evidence she provided and installed a condom—or perhaps even if you had—but you wouldn't be creaming your pants in either case then, would you?

Also essential is proving you and she were doing a deal for sex. As with the Massage Parlour judgement, the fact that you 'enjoyed' some sort of sex could be judged a personal freebie, if you bought and paid for dances at the set rate others also paid without 'getting any'.

Also consider the difficulty of real evidence collecting (not just wiping some euwwie DNA off your pants): Ruling out nekkid policewomen dancing, then propositioning you in the VIP, the guy in the next chair might be an undercover cop, but he'd have to hear your negociation, which of course you keep private between you and her already. Besides, why bust just one guy?

What C-36 will do is make it way easier for bouncers to control the VIP, if they or the dancers aren't happy with you.
 

legmann

Well-known member
Dec 2, 2001
8,823
1,395
113
T.O.
Even this society is not (yet) Draconian enough that not you're not allowed to cum in your own pants...
 

peepingtom

Member
Jul 20, 2012
941
2
16
What about clubs known for girls that offer extras and menus (we all know which clubs these are). Won't they be more susceptible to busts?
 

Indiana

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2010
3,621
1,406
113
Maybe the flashlight guy from the old Cannonball will be re-employed.
 

patwill

Well-known member
Oct 20, 2011
1,294
36
48
The act does NOT define sexual service, and the courts do have a history of including both lap dances and handjobs in massage parlours as sexual services. The law will be struck down by the courts, but that will take as much as a decade to happen. It won't happen in a few months, or even a few years. It will depend on how the police and cities want to enforce the law, as well as how clubs react to the uncertainty (some clubs may play it safe). We used to have a ban on lap dancing in Ontario. That could be returning. It isn't clear yet.



LOL Indeed. Didn't he make the move to Cafe Atlantis? I haven't gone there enough to know.
I haven't seen the flashlight guy at Atlantis (or any other in the chain) in years. A flashlight is not your friend up there.

PG and Sundowner have bouncers regularly patrolling the VIP. The Sundowner is a must see on a Friday night but security takes away from the VIP experience.
 

boodog

New member
Oct 28, 2009
3,063
0
0
The act does NOT define sexual service, and the courts do have a history of including both lap dances and handjobs in massage parlours as sexual services. The law will be struck down by the courts, but that will take as much as a decade to happen. It won't happen in a few months, or even a few years. It will depend on how the police and cities want to enforce the law, as well as how clubs react to the uncertainty (some clubs may play it safe). We used to have a ban on lap dancing in Ontario. That could be returning. It isn't clear yet.



LOL Indeed. Didn't he make the move to Cafe Atlantis? I haven't gone there enough to know.
Can you give us the links?
 

shogun89

New member
Feb 18, 2013
873
2
0
So they may be striker about extras, and now that it's passed the senate what about lap dances? The way the build reads they seem determined to not let us get our cocks touched at all.
 

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,591
1,194
113
So they may be striker about extras, and now that it's passed the senate what about lap dances? The way the build reads they seem determined to not let us get our cocks touched at all.
Well yeah, of course that's what they want. This is the Conservatives we're talking about. Any cock touching outside of wedlock is a criminal offense, don't you know?
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
10,851
2,082
113
I can't imagine c36 having any tangible effect on stripclubs.
I'm a little foggy on how it would be enforced. Just my understanding based on no particular references: Prior to C-36 other than customers being found in a 'bawdy house', I thought the 'evil' act was perpetrated by the girl who would solicit her services. An undercover male cop would go into the club and bust the girl making the proposal.

Under C-36 .. the girls are innocent victims and the law goes after the customers who are corrupting/exploiting these innocent girls. If this is the case here - then male undercover cops are useless since you need to get the customer offering/giving money to the girl. It seems only a hot female undercover cop is going to catch me. The handcuffs would even take the experience to a new level.

So what am I missing ?
 

Anynym

Just a bit to the right
Dec 28, 2005
2,961
6
38
So what am I missing ?
That it doesn't apply? Or that it only applies to the extent that there may be prostitution taking place in the same venue?
There is a difference under the law between services catering to sexual appetites, and sexual services.
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
10,851
2,082
113
That it doesn't apply? Or that it only applies to the extent that there may be prostitution taking place in the same venue?
There is a difference under the law between services catering to sexual appetites, and sexual services.
Don't sexual services cater to sexual appetites ?
 

Hard Idle

Active member
Jan 15, 2005
4,959
23
38
North York
"...have been found to constitute a sexual service or an act of prostitution, if provided in return for some form of consideration: lap-dancing, which involves sitting in the client’s lap and simulating sexual intercourse;"
Apparently this phrase mentions lap dancing and gives one definition of it's behaviour. Interestingly it makes no mention of other things like heavy petting, HJ ( itemized for MP only), BJ or other possible variations, so there's a built in defense right there. New precedents will need to be set for each act as well as anything alleged to be sexual in nature.

Maybe the flashlight guy from the old Cannonball will be re-employed.
Absolutely not. Just the opposite, if C36 criminalizes ONLY the purchaser and does away with collateral responsibility, the SC or any other place merely "hosting' the activity should now be completely off the hook for federal charges.

If it's true that the old "living off the avails" & bawdy house provisions were specifically the elements to be found unconstitutional, what are the chances od ever obtaining a conviction against the club merely for having it take place on their place of business and profiting indirectly. They would need to be advertising the sexual service, or involved in some other procurement activity covered by other laws, wouldn't they??

So the way I see it, the club remains concerned only with their local ordinances and licensing issues, C36 should not affect their legal universe in any way.
 
Last edited:

legmann

Well-known member
Dec 2, 2001
8,823
1,395
113
T.O.
if C36 criminalizes ONLY the purchaser and does away with collateral responsibility, the SC or any other place merely "hosting' the activity should now be completely off the hook for federal charges.

If it's true that the old "living off the avails" & bawdy house provisions were specifically the elements to be found unconstitutional, what are the chances od ever obtaining a conviction against the club merely for having it take place on their place of business and profiting indirectly. They would need to be advertising the sexual service, or involved in some other procurement activity covered by other laws, wouldn't they??

So the way I see it, the club remains concerned only with their local ordinances and licensing issues, C36 should not affect their legal universe in any way.
Interesting.
 

MPAsquared

www.musemassagespa.com
The club is liable for profiteering & being a commercial enterprise. C-36 affects us all.

Certainly doesn't help that sc's spent their 10mins in front of the HoC asking to get brothel licenses.
 
Toronto Escorts