Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 24 of 66

Thread: Ottawa Citizen story - brothel on Pretoria.

  1. #1

    Ottawa Citizen story - brothel on Pretoria.

    Residents of the Glebe are not amused:

    https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...-worlds-oldest

    I have no idea who's at that location, but I would avoid it while the press is covering this story - they mention a reporter going there to speak to a provider.

  2. #2
    This is not a good scenario at all. I would suspect it was indeed other spas playing games. They all do it, and have for years. Ottawa is a very dirty market.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    18
    What a damn shame!

  4. #4
    Relax people! If it is her place, she has no worries. She's not living off of the avails, she is just renting space and as long as she not getting a per client rate, she will be fine.

  5. #5
    I'm glad she won't get busted, but I would never under any circumstance visit a location written up in the Citizen, and I suspect I'm not the only one. I can just imagine some angry Glebite catching all the "pervs" going in and out on camera.

    Sad story, for sure.

  6. #6
    all posts are fictional
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,983
    Blog Entries
    221
    Once again the Glebe proves it’s got the highest concentration of douche bags in the city.

    This might even be a game changer for the industry in ottawa in a good way.
    #MTGA

  7. #7
    For sure you'll see some crazies filming every one going near...

    The Glebe, crazy place for crazy peoples. They don't even like when there is shows close to them. They complain to police it's too noisy etc. lol

  8. #8
    It appears that Hunter has publicly stated how humorous this situation is and appears genuinely pleased that this would happen to the space that appears to have been provided to "sensualists" as a safe place.

    This city has a contingent of providers who are jealous, vindictive and will go to any lengths to shut down other ladies. Sad, truly sad.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Robt85 View Post
    It appears that Hunter has publicly stated how humorous this situation is and appears genuinely pleased that this would happen to the space that appears to have been provided to "sensualists" as a safe place.

    This city has a contingent of providers who are jealous, vindictive and will go to any lengths to shut down other ladies. Sad, truly sad.
    She also posted that she's about to get married and that her fiance only wants her to see regulars from now on? Is this dude a cuck or something? I give this marriage 6 months ......tops. This woman is a headcase.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by BillReid451 View Post
    She also posted that she's about to get married and that her fiance only wants her to see regulars from now on? Is this dude a cuck or something? I give this marriage 6 months ......tops. This woman is a headcase.
    Staying as a regular to some girl who’s about to get married is something I wouldn’t personally recommend. I know each provider is different but you don’t know him nor do you know the type of relationship they have. There’s a very good chance that whatever info she has on you, he has and that could easily be a recipe for disaster. You’re marrying a SW ok that’s all cool. But you mean to tell me you wouldn’t wanna atleast know who she’s sleeping with? Clearly you do know if you are regulating who she sees. Anyway just not a risk I would wanna take.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by MidGuyy View Post
    Staying as a regular to some girl who’s about to get married is something I wouldn’t personally recommend. I know each provider is different but you don’t know him nor do you know the type of relationship they have. There’s a very good chance that whatever info she has on you, he has and that could easily be a recipe for disaster. You’re marrying a SW ok that’s all cool. But you mean to tell me you wouldn’t wanna atleast know who she’s sleeping with? Clearly you do know if you are regulating who she sees. Anyway just not a risk I would wanna take.
    Exactly!! As far as I am concerned, the fact that he has put on this restriction scares the shit out of me. The risk of info-sharing between the two in order to respect the boundaries of "regulars only" raises many, many red flags. Bye Bye Hunter, I will NEVER see you again and hope the hell you have destroyed any and all information and contact details you have for me.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NCR
    Posts
    2,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Robt85 View Post
    It appears that Hunter has publicly stated how humorous this situation is and appears genuinely pleased that this would happen to the space that appears to have been provided to "sensualists" as a safe place.

    This city has a contingent of providers who are jealous, vindictive and will go to any lengths to shut down other ladies. Sad, truly sad.
    Hunter had a major Twitter war with the owner of this place a few months back. Blocked a whole bunch of people who only expressed some opinion that she didn't like, no matter how mild.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by whiteman View Post
    Hunter had a major Twitter war with the owner of this place a few months back. Blocked a whole bunch of people who only expressed some opinion that she didn't like, no matter how mild.
    I just realized I am blocked on her Twitter feed. Never expressed an opinion on her. Wondering if anyone on Terb got blocked proactively.

  14. #14
    How does making it illegal to buy services protect the SW?

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NCR
    Posts
    2,834
    Quote Originally Posted by ChasingDaylight View Post
    How does making it illegal to buy services protect the SW?
    Ask the Norwegians, this is otherwise known as the "Nordic Model".

  16. #16

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by ChasingDaylight View Post
    How does making it illegal to buy services protect the SW?
    The argument is it limits market potential. By shrinking the market (less buyers, since it is now illegal), there is no market for the potential SW to sell her services to, which would incentive her to find other sources of income other than SW.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Meaning View Post
    The argument is it limits market potential. By shrinking the market (less buyers, since it is now illegal), there is no market for the potential SW to sell her services to, which would incentive her to find other sources of income other than SW.
    And it ends up forcing SW to work more in the shadow, thus further unregulating this industry. Imo, this law is actually detrimental to both customers (obviously) and to SW.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by RockNRollMachin View Post
    And it ends up forcing SW to work more in the shadow, thus further unregulating this industry. Imo, this law is actually detrimental to both customers (obviously) and to SW.
    I'm not in disagreement with you - was simply explaining the logic the courts hold behind the ruling to OP.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by RockNRollMachin View Post
    And it ends up forcing SW to work more in the shadow, thus further unregulating this industry. Imo, this law is actually detrimental to both customers (obviously) and to SW.
    It’s not just your opinion. It’s a fact and SW’s will tell you that themselves.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Meaning View Post
    The argument is it limits market potential. By shrinking the market (less buyers, since it is now illegal), there is no market for the potential SW to sell her services to, which would incentive her to find other sources of income other than SW.
    I thought I read somewhere that making it legal to sell services but illegal to purchase them, gives providers more protection when it comes to legal cases.

    For example, if an SP meets with a client and the client rapes/assaults her, she can go report this to police and can safely disclose her line of work without the risk of being arrested. Whereas if selling services was illegal as well, an SP that has been assaulted cannot go to the police because she would just be incriminating herself by reporting an incident.

    I have no citation for this info so correct me if I'm wrong.

  22. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NCR
    Posts
    2,834
    Quote Originally Posted by RockNRollMachin View Post
    And it ends up forcing SW to work more in the shadow, thus further unregulating this industry. Imo, this law is actually detrimental to both customers (obviously) and to SW.
    The new laws actually permit SW's to pool their resources together and get a common workplace from which they can operate. The only way that the residents can get the place removed is if there are any municipal zoning laws against operating places of business inside residential areas, or some such thing. There are no longer any "common bawdy house" or "living off the avails" laws anymore, they've all been struck down.

    A common workplace is why massage spas have become so popular, the law recognizes that SW's banding together makes it safer for each other. Now, in the case of "living off the avails", it could be argued that spa owners would fit this definition. But the interpretation of "living off the avails" when it existed, were so broad you could argue that a SW's child or spouse could be charged, because they are benefiting from the SW's income. Even advertisers who took SW ads could've been charged with living off the avails. But obviously, the living off the avails laws were intended to keep pimping under control, now the pimping is taken care of by human trafficking laws. Also SW's can hire body guards now too, so that function of pimping is out the window.

    In a lot of ways, the new laws are pretty progressive towards SW's. However, they are downright regressive towards clients. And the laws are schizophrenic. How can something be legal to sell, but illegal to buy?

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by whiteman View Post
    The new laws actually permit SW's to pool their resources together and get a common workplace from which they can operate. The only way that the residents can get the place removed is if there are any municipal zoning laws against operating places of business inside residential areas, or some such thing. There are no longer any "common bawdy house" or "living off the avails" laws anymore, they've all been struck down.

    A common workplace is why massage spas have become so popular, the law recognizes that SW's banding together makes it safer for each other. Now, in the case of "living off the avails", it could be argued that spa owners would fit this definition. But the interpretation of "living off the avails" when it existed, were so broad you could argue that a SW's child or spouse could be charged, because they are benefiting from the SW's income. Even advertisers who took SW ads could've been charged with living off the avails. But obviously, the living off the avails laws were intended to keep pimping under control, now the pimping is taken care of by human trafficking laws. Also SW's can hire body guards now too, so that function of pimping is out the window.

    In a lot of ways, the new laws are pretty progressive towards SW's. However, they are downright regressive towards clients. And the laws are schizophrenic. How can something be legal to sell, but illegal to buy?
    Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think about these better aspects regarding the legal ability for escorts to share common workplace for instance.

    But yea, as you said, this law is pretty schizophrenic. It all make sense though ; we live in a clown world after all.

  24. #24
    Legal semantics aside, this is about exposure. The last thing any potential client wants is a press story and the NIMBY crowd looking to keep the sex trade out of their neighborhood. I can't imagine how that location could ever be viable now, for any of the providers working there.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •