Are we being discriminated against?

[Kya_Jean]

Still confusing disagreement with disrespect. One can disagree with someone's opinion without disliking them, you know.

Who said I said anything about disagreement and disrespect. Personally I completely agree with Bear and don't dislike him at all.

Please stop trying to me what I am doing and what I am not. I know what I am doing and I have feel fine with that, thanks.

As for discrimination against sex seekers/workers ...... to much opinion there to put into one post.

 

[Rockslinger]

Who is the governing authority now?

The key people who govern your life to-day are Blair, Miller, McGuinty and Harper (aka "The White Man").

But it still totally discredits your idea that ANY restriction constitutes discrimination, which was my point.

Ok, let me give you one more example of discrimination. Our gay friends said that restricting marriage to the union of a man and a woman was discriminatory. The Supreme Court agreed with them (Stephen Harper disagreed).

My point is that sex with a CONSENTING ADULT in PRIVATE is a basic human right (no ifs, ands or buts). If you disagree, that is fine. You are not alone, Stephen Harper also disgrees. But, even if you disagree or find it morally offensive doesn't mean it should be criminalized. For example, I don't agree with consensual adult anal sex but that doesn't mean it should be criminalized.

 

[GDLLover]

Geez...Maybe kissing between 2 people should be regulated as well after all people are morally disturbed by it in certain cases. If found in public a criminal offense.

See how silly it all sounds.

 

[The Options Menu]

What two adults do, assuming the is mutual consent and a reasonable expectation of privacy, and so long as both adults have the capacity for informed choice (both access to the pertinent information and the capacity for reasonable understanding), and can exercise their choice free of the risk of deprivation of the necessities of life or any undue duress or abuse, and so long as that choice doesn't place an undue burden on the rest of society or harm another member of society, they should be free to do as they please.

I'm also for consensual murder - suicide.

My rule for individuals is largely the same, but I'm too lazy to type that out again.

Mind you I do think discrimination is too harsh a word... It's more a combination of social taboos and moral judgements... Most social taboos and moral judgements exist for bad reasons. Often bad reasons, but what would many people think about a person who readily and freely admitted that they only ever payed for sex? At a minimum they would think 'not normally socialized' and that often translates to 'risky', if not 'amoral', or just plain 'wrong'.

I also don't think that 'too apply reason and judge' is a bad thing. We do it all of the time.

I love my nudie bar crawls, but that's not what I'd choose to take a principled stand for...

 

[genintoronto]

Obviously, the sex industry and people who engage in it (sex workers and consummers) are affected by the puritan and moralistic standards of our society, and by the state regulation of sexual activities.

But I think it is a travesty and an insult to the struggle of people of color, gays, and women to compare those social taboos and state regulation regarding prostitution to the institutionalized discrimination against those groups.

First, I think it is important to differenciate between the two main groups that engage in the sex industry: the sex workers and the consummers. While both are affected by our society's puritan attitute toward paid sex and by state regulation, the consequences and implications on their lives are quite different. Most johns' lives aren't put in danger by the criminalization of prostitution, whereas many sex workers are put in extremely vulnerable and dangerous position due to this criminalization. But the main difference I believe is that john can easily avoid the danger associated with the criminalization of prostitution, by simply NOT patronizing a sex worker. Most sex workers don't have that choice, since sex work is their only or main source of income. Lets remember that the majority of sex workers -- while maybe not forced at gun point to enter the sex industry -- cannot easily leave the sex industry without significant consequences on their lives, livelihood, and that of their family. A john will get blue balls at worse from not participating in prostitution. A sex worker will loose her income.

Second, there's a big difference between prejudice, social taboo and stigma, and social and institutionalized discrimination. Discrimination involves not only prejudice and social stigma: it also involves a social and institutionalized structure of exclusion and oppression that affect all aspects of the lives of those being discriminated against. Also, and importantly, the "membership" to the social group being discriminated against is not a choice for most of them: black people can't avoid discrimination by making a different choice. And while many gays have "chosen" to stay in the closet to avoid discrimination, hatred, and in many case, to stay alive, I don't believe that this "choice" can be compared to the choice of not using your disposable income to hire a hooker.

People of color, gays, women were and continue to be not only the victim of prejudice, but they also were and continue to be excluded from participating on an equal footing in our political, economical, cultural, etc. institutions, on the basis of them not being white, straight, or male. I don't think the same can be said about the majority of johns, especially considering the social status and location of the majority of them.

People of color, gays, and women were and continue to be the victim of violence targeted at their group. Being gay or looking gay is enough to get you brutally beaten up and murdered by some random strangers on the street. Walking around with a pussy is enough to get you raped. This kind of violence happens on a daily basis against those social group. Not so for johns.

So yes, I'll definitely agree that there's a lot of prejudice against people who engage in paid sex between consentual adult. But discrimination comparable to that against people of color, gays, and women? Come on.

 

[Cycleguy007]

I would venture to say that Gen and many of our other Lady TERB's would likely put many of the clergy, "real" women, the "Harperites" to shame with their poise, intelligence and wit!

Obviously, the sex industry and people who engage in it (sex workers and consumers) are affected by the puritan and moralistic standards of our society, and by the state regulation of sexual activities.

But I think it is a travesty and an insult to the struggle of people of color, gays, and women to compare those social taboos and state regulation regarding prostitution to the institutionalized discrimination against those groups.

First, I think it is important to differentiate between the two main groups that engage in the sex industry: the sex workers and the consumers. While both are affected by our society's puritan attitude toward paid sex and by state regulation, the consequences and implications on their lives are quite different. Most johns' lives aren't put in danger by the criminalization of prostitution, whereas many sex workers are put in extremely vulnerable and dangerous position due to this criminalization. But the main difference I believe is that john can easily avoid the danger associated with the criminalization of prostitution, by simply NOT patronizing a sex worker. Most sex workers don't have that choice, since sex work is their only or main source of income. Lets remember that the majority of sex workers -- while maybe not forced at gun point to enter the sex industry -- cannot easily leave the sex industry without significant consequences on their lives, livelihood, and that of their family. A john will get blue balls at worse from not participating in prostitution. A sex worker will loose her income.

Second, there's a big difference between prejudice, social taboo and stigma, and social and institutionalized discrimination. Discrimination involves not only prejudice and social stigma: it also involves a social and institutionalized structure of exclusion and oppression that affect all aspects of the lives of those being discriminated against. Also, and importantly, the "membership" to the social group being discriminated against is not a choice for most of them: black people can't avoid discrimination by making a different choice. And while many gays have "chosen" to stay in the closet to avoid discrimination, hatred, and in many case, to stay alive, I don't believe that this "choice" can be compared to the choice of not using your disposable income to hire a hooker.

People of color, gays, women were and continue to be not only the victim of prejudice, but they also were and continue to be excluded from participating on an equal footing in our political, economical, cultural, etc. institutions, on the basis of them not being white, straight, or male. I don't think the same can be said about the majority of johns, especially considering the social status and location of the majority of them.

People of color, gays, and women were and continue to be the victim of violence targeted at their group. Being gay or looking gay is enough to get you brutally beaten up and murdered by some random strangers on the street. Walking around with a pussy is enough to get you raped. This kind of violence happens on a daily basis against those social group. Not so for johns.

So yes, I'll definitely agree that there's a lot of prejudice against people who engage in paid sex between consensual adult. But discrimination comparable to that against people of color, gays, and women? Come on.

I rest my case! Well said Gen!

 

[fuji]

Most johns' lives aren't put in danger by the criminalization of prostitution, whereas many sex workers are put in extremely vulnerable and dangerous position due to this criminalization.

You need to distinguish between low-end and high-end sex workers as well. I do not think that high end sex workers face significantly more risks than their customers do, as they have the resources and means to provide for their own safety. It is the low-end sex workers whose safety is in very real jeapardy.

There have been cases of violent crimes committed against John's, for example, being lured to a location by someone posing as an SP only to be violently robbed at gunpoint on arrival. I think that's similar to the risk faced by high end SP's.

But the main difference I believe is that john can easily avoid the danger associated with the criminalization of prostitution, by simply NOT patronizing a sex worker. Most sex workers don't have that choice, since sex work is their only or main source of income.

Well not quite, in Canada we have welfare, and while that might not provide for the expensive tastes of a high end SP a that point we are talking about comfort, not survival. At the low end welfare probably does provide enough (or should) to provide for the needs of a low end SP.

So this is not a question of survival, not in Canada. It probably is a different story in third world countries which lack social safety nets.

Second, there's a big difference between prejudice, social taboo and stigma, and social and institutionalized discrimination.

Here's an example of institutionalized discrimination:

If you are convicted of a prostitution related offense, either as a prostitute or as a john, you are permanently inadmissible to the United States.

Moreover there are many lines of work where even a single criminal conviction of any kind is enough to permanently exclude you from your occupation, causing that loss of income that you were mentioning above--this is a larger risk for John's than it is for SP's because an SP can return to work again after serving whatever criminal sanction the court metes out.

Even if the john gets a suspended sentance he may be permanently unemployable in his occupation.

And while many gays have "chosen" to stay in the closet to avoid discrimination, hatred, and in many case, to stay alive, I don't believe that this "choice" can be compared to the choice of not using your disposable income to hire a hooker.

Why not? Gays could choose not to have sex, while remaining gay. Is that a choice? If a man chooses to stay in a marriage where there is no sex for the sake of his children you are saying he could choose not to have sex, meaning, not hire a hooker.

How is that different than saying that a gay man can choose not to have sex?

People of color, gays, women were and continue to be not only the victim of prejudice, but they also were and continue to be excluded from participating on an equal footing in our political, economical, cultural, etc. institutions, on the basis of them not being white, straight, or male. I don't think the same can be said about the majority of johns, especially considering the social status and location of the majority of them.

Again, I disagree; I would not be able to hold down the job I have today if I had a conviction for a prostitution related offense. I would be out of a career. What you are missing is that the criminal penalty would eliminate that social status and position you claim protects them.

So I disagree quite strongly with your claim.

P.S. - For clarity, I am not trying to diminish the problems that criminalization causes for SP's, I am just pointing out that I think you are too dismisivve in diminishing the very real problems that criminalization causes for their customers.

 

[Rockslinger]

So yes, I'll definitely agree that there's a lot of prejudice against people who engage in paid sex between consentual adult. But discrimination comparable to that against people of color, gays, and women? Come on.

I "hear" what you are saying but I don't think that any discrimination/persecution or whatever one wants to call it is too small to ignore or trivialize.

Let say a "purple colour" person is denied entry to a restaurant in Yorkville but the manager says that is ok because there are 99 other restaurants in Toronto that admit purple colour people. Therefore, purple colour people have a choice of the other 99 restaurants.

 

[The Options Menu]

A sex worker will loose her income.

The only quibble I have with what you said is right there, in the case where there is the potential for a living, if not good, wage. Permanent part time for 35 hours a week at $10 an hour is barley survivable in Toronto, but it survivable for a single person. (Ignoring the single mother phenomenon, the lack of affordable daycare, and the male female wage gap, etc...) So in that case there is still 'choice'.

That's different than being trafficked under false pretences, or having no reasonable economic prospects of meeting the basic necessities of life, or having a chronic drug addiction to feed and no capacity for other work, or lacking the mental capacity to make an informed choice and / or otherwise gather the basic necessities of life, or of being too young to exercises adult choice, or being pimped / forced / threatened, etc.

Reduced income for more hours of work with the not-unreasonable expectation of being able to gather the necessities of life is a choice that many women make and that pretty much all men don't have. Albeit, daycare on the Quebec model, a sincere commitment to eliminating child poverty, affordable post secondary education, accurate information about drugs (and a focus on harm reduction, rehab, and recover) are all very important for allowing 'choice' so there is a long way to go there... But the single woman AND income reduction case is a different kettle of fish, IMHO.

 

[Brill]

People choose to see prostitutes, it isn't an addiction and there are other ways to get a release or thrill. It's still healthier for a marriage than an affair though.
It's the deception part that will make others think you might not be entirely honest in other areas of your life, it's a stereotype that might be wrong but it's sometimes correct.

 

[Kya_Jean]

You need to distinguish between low-end and high-end sex workers as well. I do not think that high end sex workers face significantly more risks than their customers do, as they have the resources and means to provide for their own safety. It is the low-end sex workers whose safety is in very real jeapardy.

There have been cases of violent crimes committed against John's, for example, being lured to a location by someone posing as an SP only to be violently robbed at gunpoint on arrival. I think that's similar to the risk faced by high end SP's.

Low end sex workers put themselves at risk based on the reason they are low end. Sorry, but there is more risk involved with drugs AND sex work. It is not just sex work that is the issue with low end escorts. There is almost always a reason she is low end and it is the driving force for that escort to stay in the business for the money.

As for the risks to the John. It is not an escort that is luring them. It is a criminal. Same thing with home invaders. Different category all together.

Well not quite, in Canada we have welfare, and while that might not provide for the expensive tastes of a high end SP a that point we are talking about comfort, not survival. At the low end welfare probably does provide enough (or should) to provide for the needs of a low end SP.

So this is not a question of survival, not in Canada. It probably is a different story in third world countries which lack social safety nets.

Do you know how much a single person on Welfare gets? It is like $550 a month or less. That is it. Can you find a place to live for less then $400 a month? Tell me how that little money is surviving?

Here's an example of institutionalized discrimination:

If you are convicted of a prostitution related offense, either as a prostitute or as a john, you are permanently inadmissible to the United States.

Moreover there are many lines of work where even a single criminal conviction of any kind is enough to permanently exclude you from your occupation, causing that loss of income that you were mentioning above--this is a larger risk for John's than it is for SP's because an SP can return to work again after serving whatever criminal sanction the court metes out.

Even if the john gets a suspended sentance he may be permanently unemployable in his occupation.

We are in Canada. Canadian examples would be nice. Also, please explain who a man and woman who are in the same field can have different affects on their occupation. You assume the SP will just go back to hooking.

Why not? Gays could choose not to have sex, while remaining gay. Is that a choice? If a man chooses to stay in a marriage where there is no sex for the sake of his children you are saying he could choose not to have sex, meaning, not hire a hooker.

How is that different than saying that a gay man can choose not to have sex?

The choice should be acceptable on both sides of the equation. He/She should be able to choose to have sex or to not have sex with acceptance both ways

 

[fnog9]

Bottom line, like it or not, prostitution is illegal. I know. I know. People say that outcalls are not illegal but I think that's just a loophole. I mean, would you be comfortable telling an officer that you're going to rent a hotel room, you're going to invite a woman who is not your wife to come to the room, you're going to have sex and she's going to leave with some money. Oh sure, the money wasn't for sex but for her time. I'm not.

What's wrong with you? Outcall is LEGAL!! Get over it, and accept it. You talk as if outcall is just a coverup, it's still illegal, but LE turns a blind eye. It is 100% legal. There's about 20 pages of escort ads in your government approved local phonebook.

I would have no problem telling the police about seeing an escort. I wouldn't be afraid of being busted for prostitution. The only reason I wouldn't want to tell LE about seeing an escort is bc he might get suspicious that I am drunk or on drugs or up to some OTHER suspicious activity. Basically anyone who goes out to party or is with a group is at risk of being hassled by police.

 

[The Options Menu]

Do you know how much a single person on Welfare gets? It is like $550 a month or less. That is it. Can you find a place to live for less then $400 a month?

First, I think that's bee raised somewhat (and let's not pretend there are no other social supports there)... And you chose the smallest payout possible, and the one that is the most generally applicable to men. For single people, of sound mind, and body, and barring any raging addictions there should be a reasonable expectation of work. Permanent part time for 35 hrs a week @ $10 pans out to $1400 month. For a single person that is fine. I lived on less than that for a period of years here (Go go student poverty)...

Of course provisions should be made for those who are physically infirm, lacking mental capacity, for those with additions, and for single parents targeted at child poverty and access to post secondary education. To be honest there is a lot of work needed on all of those areas.

But 'single person' = 'work' not 'welfare' in the general case. And the general case for a single person in Ontario is survivable.

Not to agree with Fugi or anything.

 

[Kya_Jean]

I remember being pulled over once on my way to a call.

It was an incall, but the cop asked "why are your speeding?"

I said "I am late for a date."

He looked a little puzzled as it was 1pm, so he said "where is this date?"

I told him "A hotel down the street."

He then looked more puzzled and asked "what kind of date is this?"

I said "A paid one"

He kinda laughed until saw that I was serious. He then asked "Your place or his?"

I said "His, of course"

He did the look up and down on me, handed me my stuff back and said, " He wouldn't mind you being late, so slow down please." As he walked away, I heard him say luck guy.

Outcalls are not a problem.

First, I think that's bee raised somewhat (and let's not pretend there are no other social supports there)... And you chose the smallest payout possible, and the one that is the most generally applicable to men. For single people, of sound mind, and body, and barring any raging addictions there should be a reasonable expectation of work. Permanent part time for 35 hrs a week @ $10 pans out to $1400 month. For a single person that is fine. I lived on less than that for a period of years here (Go go student poverty)...

Of course provisions should be made for those who are physically infirm, lacking mental capacity, for those with additions, and for single parents targeted at child poverty and access to post secondary education. To be honest there is a lot of work needed on all of those areas.

But 'single person' = 'work' not 'welfare' in the general case. And the general case for a single person in Ontario is survivable.

Not to agree with Fugi or anything.

Sorry, but the single welfare rate has not been raised. It was alot higher before Harris went in a cut the shit out of it. For a mother with a child it is just over $900.00, plus the child tax benefit of course. Single person only gets his/her GST quarterly.

Only programs out there are for food which is in short supply since no one on welfare can really afford food after paying rent.

Not that I support people being on welfare, but trust me when I say it is not surviving at all when on that system.

 

[genintoronto]

You need to distinguish between low-end and high-end sex workers as well. I do not think that high end sex workers face significantly more risks than their customers do, as they have the resources and means to provide for their own safety. It is the low-end sex workers whose safety is in very real jeapardy.

There have been cases of violent crimes committed against John's, for example, being lured to a location by someone posing as an SP only to be violently robbed at gunpoint on arrival. I think that's similar to the risk faced by high end SP's.

I agree with you there. For the purpose of concision and the argument, I only distinguished between the two main group -- workers and clients -- but yes, there are certainly significant differences and implications for someone like me who is in a relative position of privilege (both socially and within the sex industry in particular) and what I think are the majority of sex workers. If for no other reasons that it would be relatively easy for me to leave the sex industry without unbearable consequences on my life.

Well not quite, in Canada we have welfare, and while that might not provide for the expensive tastes of a high end SP a that point we are talking about comfort, not survival. At the low end welfare probably does provide enough (or should) to provide for the needs of a low end SP.

So this is not a question of survival, not in Canada. It probably is a different story in third world countries which lack social safety nets.

Again, while I could (and have) survived and provided an income for myself outside of the sex industry, I don't think that my experience (or that of the majority of escorts found on Terb) is representative of the majority of sex workers. Also, there wouldn't be that many women engaging in prostitution and other form of sex work -- especially not at the lower price range -- if welfare was enough to provide for their needs and their family.

If you are convicted of a prostitution related offense, either as a prostitute or as a john, you are permanently inadmissible to the United States.

Moreover there are many lines of work where even a single criminal conviction of any kind is enough to permanently exclude you from your occupation, causing that loss of income that you were mentioning above--this is a larger risk for John's than it is for SP's because an SP can return to work again after serving whatever criminal sanction the court metes out.

Even if the john gets a suspended sentance he may be permanently unemployable in his occupation.

Obviously, since (aspects of) prostitution is criminalized, being convicted of a prostitution related crime will have consequence on the convicted person. But the same can be said about people who smoke weed. Their right to do as they please with their own body, without endangering anyone else is also being denied and their choice criminalized. If they are found smoking, carrying, selling, or buying weed, they can be convicted and will suffer the consequences of such conviction. Would you say that this is comparable to the discrimination against gay people, people of color, or women?

Why not? Gays could choose not to have sex, while remaining gay. Is that a choice? If a man chooses to stay in a marriage where there is no sex for the sake of his children you are saying he could choose not to have sex, meaning, not hire a hooker.

How is that different than saying that a gay man can choose not to have sex?

Discrimination against gays goes beyond their sexuality and whether or not they are having sex, and with whom. In many instance, "looking" gay is enough to get you brutally beaten up, raped, and murdered. In many states, being suspected of being gay is enough to have you imprisoned and/or killed by the state. In most states, gay people don't have the civil right to marry (and all the associated rights and privileges) that straight people do.

As a john, your choice to hire a hooker may be frown upon and criminalized (like it is for gay people), but your right to unpaid consentual sex isn't frown upon (like it is for gay people), and looking like a john won't get you beaten up and ran over by a SUV on the street.

P.S. - For clarity, I am not trying to diminish the problems that criminalization causes for SP's, I am just pointing out that I think you are too dismisivve in diminishing the very real problems that criminalization causes for their customers.

And for clarity, I am not trying to suggest that the criminalization of prostitution doesn't have very real and serious implications on the lives of those who participate in prostitution, whether clients or sex workers. But I don't think that this is comparable in any ways to the social and institutionalized discrimination against people of color, gays, and women.

 

[Rockslinger]

john can easily avoid the danger associated with the criminalization of prostitution, by simply NOT patronizing a sex worker.

This is the heart of the issue. In a free and tolerant society that respects all human rights, why is prostitution criminal? Why must we sacrifice some of our human rights to satisfy the "White Man"?

When homos were illegal, they were told they could choose NOT to be homos. When sodomy was illegal, they were told they could choose NOT to engage in anal sex? When baring breasts in a park was illegal, they were told they could choose NOT to bare their breasts. When breastfeeding your baby at a Wal-Mart was illegal, they were told that they could choose NOT to breastfeed at Wal-Mart.

 

[fuji]

Also, there wouldn't be that many women engaging in prostitution and other form of sex work -- especially not at the lower price range -- if welfare was enough to provide for their needs and their family.

I think this will turn into a debate about the difference between "need" and "want".

If I quit my job and lived on welfare I would be able to pay for everything that I "need" but I would not be able to afford hardly any of the things that I "want".

My claim is that sex workers do not have more expensive needs than I do, and that they engage in the trade to pay for their wants, just the same as I go to work to pay for my wants.

Obviously, since (aspects of) prostitution is criminalized, being convicted of a prostitution related crime will have consequence on the convicted person. But the same can be said about people who smoke weed. Their right to do as they please with their own body, without endangering anyone else is also being denied and their choice criminalized. If they are found smoking, carrying, selling, or buying weed, they can be convicted and will suffer the consequences of such conviction. Would you say that this is comparable to the discrimination against gay people, people of color, or women?

The criminal penalties for being a drug user (specifically) or for committing a sex crime (specifically) are much, much worse than the criminal penalties for being gay, female, or black.

That is true today, at any rate. Things were different 100 years ago so if you want to talk about the *historic* struggle of those groups sure--but in terms of the here and now there is no longer anywhere near as much discrimination against, say, women, as there is against people who engage in the sex industry (and are found out).

Women are no longer wholesale denied careers just based on their status as women, whereas that is in fact the case for people who are caught hiring a prostitute and convicted.

To be fair most people who are caught are not convicted, they are diverted to "john school", but if they are caught a second time then they are indeed convicted, and some are convicted the first time around.

So it isn't as clear cut as all that--but when the criminal penalties are brought down they are much, much more severe than the penalties for other crimes with similar length sentences.

There are specific laws enacted, specific regulations, to iimpose extra penalties on those engaged in the sex trade above and beyond mere time in jail, criminal record, etc., both in Canada and especially in the United States.

For example being convicted of fraud or theft, even quite serious cases of fraud or theft, does not make you inadmissible to the United States, but being convicted of a *lesser* crime (in sentencing terms) of prostitution renders you inadmissible to the United States for life.

You mentioned drug use--I don't know if you picked that one intentionally, as that is the other category where a single conviction of even a minor charge renders you permanently inadmissible to the United States.

As a john, your choice to hire a hooker may be frown upon and criminalized (like it is for gay people), but your right to unpaid consentual sex isn't frown upon (like it is for gay people), and looking like a john won't get you beaten up and ran over by a SUV on the street.

Unpaid sex by definition isn't what we are talking about here. You seem to be broadening this to "gay vs. straight" whereas I am sticking to the topic of paid sex--which is subject to more severe sanctions whether gay or straight.

 

[Rockslinger]

our society's puritan attitute toward paid sex

Our society's "puritan" attitude towards sex is very selective. A David Letterman can go on national TV and joke about screwing female subordinates and he gets loud applause. But, if he went to a house of "ill repute" to satify his urges with another consenting adult, he is a criminal. Ridiculous.

 

[Rockslinger]

To be fair most people who are caught are not convicted, they are diverted to "john school", but if they are caught a second time then they are indeed convicted, and some are convicted the first time around.

Whether you are charged or not is strictly at the discretion (or whim) of the "White Man" and his enforcers. That is why the law itself needs to be changed to stop making criminals of people engaged in consensual adult sex.

 

[The Options Menu]

I remember being pulled over once on my way to a call.

It was an incall, but the cop asked "why are your speeding?"

I said "I am late for a date."

He looked a little puzzled as it was 1pm, so he said "where is this date?"

I told him "A hotel down the street."

He then looked more puzzled and asked "what kind of date is this?"

I said "A paid one"

He kinda laughed until saw that I was serious. He then asked "Your place or his?"

I said "His, of course"

He did the look up and down on me, handed me my stuff back and said, " He wouldn't mind you being late, so slow down please." As he walked away, I heard him say luck guy.

Outcalls are not a problem.



Sorry, but the single welfare rate has not been raised. It was alot higher before Harris went in a cut the shit out of it. For a mother with a child it is just over $900.00, plus the child tax benefit of course. Single person only gets his/her GST quarterly.

Only programs out there are for food which is in short supply since no one on welfare can really afford food after paying rent.

Not that I support people being on welfare, but trust me when I say it is not surviving at all when on that system.

Yes, but find a single person, factor out those with physical / mental health / addiction issues, then try to find one who can't find access to the necessities of life without 'resorting to' prostitution. That would be a very small % of people. And that's very much believing that there are a whole host of reforms (not in the Harris sense) that could be made to welfare.

To a (modest) degree you and Gen have argued, "Some women must resort to prostitution because of their low tolerance for discomfort." As my depression era grandmother says, "Buck up." Or as I'd say, "That's exercising actual choice." There's a big gap between that and otherwise being denied the necessities of life. Not that I thing clinging on by your nails is an acceptable state to be in...