C36 will give MPAs & SPs an upperhand in blackmailing 'clients'

[vwdub]

Lol. I personally think most casual people have no idea about any of this law. I would say if you ask a random girl in a club her thoughts on sex for money they will give a blanket statement "oh that's illegal".

I told a bunch of my buddies who go to mps or strip clubs about this and they looked like deers in headlights.

Most girls are not going to have a lightbulb go on, and turn from someone looking for genuine assistance to help with school or whatever to turn into extortion experts.

It's probably going to be business as usual as majority of people - guys and girls - already have a general view that sex and money has always been a "unknown area".

 

[MPAsquared]

I think that, while the OP's point is valid and is a real concern for TOFTT guys, the suggestion to only see well reviewed legit ladies can mitigate the risk.

But the risk is still there.

Ladies: we do truly appreciate everything that you have done in the past and currently to fight the new reality, but remember the client's perspective too. From a criminal record and prosecution perspective, it is the client that had a larger risk under the new lae, IMHO.

We are understandably trying to figure out the new reality as much as, if not more than the ladies.

We still love ya! Be patient with us though.

I feel this works against our fight. We aren't just fighting certain clauses, we're fighting the whole law. For those that don't realize, the criminalization of clients is one of the worst parts of the whole bill & directly affects workers safety. Safety is the main issue behind Bedford.

This post was not to express negativity but yet awareness. I don't doubt that you among the many others have good intentions. I am referring to the 'bad apples' that take advantage of their client even before C36. This bill shields their safety and puts them in powerful position should they choose to abuse it.

Actually, any sp that needs or wants to stay in business can't afford to be a bad apple.

Why are you so angry read his post its clear he says "some girls"
"Some girls that put themselves on the market only do so for the intent of finding a victim ie. sugar daddy example. I wouldn't be surprised if more girls found this law as an easy loop hole to make a quick buck. Thoughts? "

It's clear he is not talking about reliable providers wheter SP's or MP's. I suspect this would be happening too specially with some girls trying to make a quick buck, and girls who are in this industry for the wrong reasons. Even prior to these laws there have been cases where people were extorted and the way the new laws are set up are a way that makes it easier FOR THE BAD APPLES (SP'S, MP'S) to get away with this.

Unfortunately just like the girls have to be more discreet about how they book clients, gentleman have to be more discreet about booking providers too.
Some useful tips for guys are
-Never use your main number
-Never provide your real name
-Never provide your work info and if they do ask make something up
-Never ever ever provide your home address or do outcalls to home

I don't doubt that there are some. But there are more bad date clients than sp's. We don't post this stuff about you guys. Especially so broad a generalization.

Extortion is a crime, just like obtaining sex for a consideration. Invite her down to the cop shop to turn you in. Or pick smarter partners, or stay on the right side of the law.

God dearly loves stupidity, paranoia and foolishness doesn't she?

This!

One thing all parties (providers, clients, agency or massage parlour owners) have to understand is that with the new laws there is going to be a lot more bad apples in all parts of the industry.

Just as much as there are going to be more working girls trying to scam, there are also going to be more clients wasting providers time, and also there are going to be more unscrupulous agencies trying to make a quick buck.

All parties like this should be identified (wheter by reviews or PM) so all reliable providers, clients or agencies can distant themselves and not waste time or money on them. This will not be a sure way to get rid of the time wasters in all parts of the industry but is a way to make it more reliable in the long run.

This is it!!! Its just as harmful if not worse for the sp's. C-36 increases the risk takers, and reduces the good clients.

Lol. I personally think most casual people have no idea about any of this law. I would say if you ask a random girl in a club her thoughts on sex for money they will give a blanket statement "oh that's illegal".

I told a bunch of my buddies who go to mps or strip clubs about this and they looked like deers in headlights.

Most girls are not going to have a lightbulb go on, and turn from someone looking for genuine assistance to help with school or whatever to turn into extortion experts.

It's probably going to be business as usual as majority of people - guys and girls - already have a general view that sex and money has always been a "unknown area".

This is so true.

 

[TeasePlease]

No one is saying that C-36 is a good thing.

The risk of extortion is simply another downside to this poorly thought out set of laws.

But, to disregard or downplay the risk is foolhardy. Notwithstanding the shining examples of selfless giving and integrity, the reality is that bad apples exist. Let's face it, some girls get into the biz because they aren't thinking about the long-term. Expedience is a preferred course for some who get into this line of work. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could lead to screwing guys over. And let's face it, it's not as though it didn't happen even before C-36.

(I know, I know, unheard of in Emily's personal experience of over 12 years in the industry....)

 

[doggystyle99]

Originally Posted by doggystyle1976
Why are you so angry read his post its clear he says "some girls"
"Some girls that put themselves on the market only do so for the intent of finding a victim ie. sugar daddy example. I wouldn't be surprised if more girls found this law as an easy loop hole to make a quick buck. Thoughts? "

It's clear he is not talking about reliable providers wheter SP's or MP's. I suspect this would be happening too specially with some girls trying to make a quick buck, and girls who are in this industry for the wrong reasons. Even prior to these laws there have been cases where people were extorted and the way the new laws are set up are a way that makes it easier FOR THE BAD APPLES (SP'S, MP'S) to get away with this.

Unfortunately just like the girls have to be more discreet about how they book clients, gentleman have to be more discreet about booking providers too.
Some useful tips for guys are
-Never use your main number
-Never provide your real name
-Never provide your work info and if they do ask make something up
-Never ever ever provide your home address or do outcalls to home

I don't doubt that there are some. But there are more bad date clients than sp's. We don't post this stuff about you guys. Especially so broad a generalization.

And there are a lot of clients in the GTA that do not post their bad experiences with SP's due to quite a few reasons.
-They either don't know about review boards (which I have quite a few friends that have no idea how to research)
-They don't even want to re live the experience or even be reminded about it and do not post

And actually there is a section on TERB "THE PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCENT" section where providers do post about clients.

Again my post was not a generalization nor was the OP's post but rather it specifies about bad providers, and in my reply I also specified about bad clients as well, so I don't see how thats a generalization, when it clearly stated about "the bad apples".

 

[doggystyle99]

This is it!!! Its just as harmful if not worse for the sp's. C-36 increases the risk takers, and reduces the good clients.

From what you keep posting you just want the clients to keep continuing what they were doing like nothing is different while the providers, and agencies have changed the way they are doing business. Which in reality does not make sense, not only in this industry but in any industry, nor will it work in the long run, as for every action there is always a reaction.
I understand that this is your business but that is a very selfish attitude and you think nothing should change from how the good clients are doing business as to serve your purpose.

 

[TeasePlease]

From what you keep posting you just want the clients to keep continuing what they were doing like nothing is different while the providers, and agencies have changed the way they are doing business. Which in reality does not make sense, not only in this industry but in any industry, nor will it work in the long run, as for every action there is always a reaction.
I understand that this is your business but that is a very selfish attitude and you think nothing should change from how the good clients are doing business as to serve your purpose.

I don't think that's an entirely fair characterization. Spas and agencies have to change their business models to (as best they can) fit within the new legal paradigm. They also purport to be changing their business practices to protect us (although I'm not aware of the specifics at this point). To the extent that we butter their bread, it's in their best interest to keep us safe. The question is begged tho - if only a very small minority of us will ever be put at risk, is that a gamble they (or we) are willing to take?

Clients are entitled to take whatever precautions they deem necessary, which I believe Emily has said elsewhere. I'm just not sure what clients can do, short of suspending our hobbying until the smoke clears.

As I recall, Emily has alluded to a cross-country coordinated defense group that is prepared to challenge C-36. I hope that this means if any of us are charged, we will have access to this network for legal strategy, counsel and funding?

 

[MPAsquared]

No one is saying that C-36 is a good thing.

The risk of extortion is simply another downside to this poorly thought out set of laws.

But, to disregard or downplay the risk is foolhardy. Notwithstanding the shining examples of selfless giving and integrity, the reality is that bad apples exist. Let's face it, some girls get into the biz because they aren't thinking about the long-term. Expedience is a preferred course for some who get into this line of work. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could lead to screwing guys over. And let's face it, it's not as though it didn't happen even before C-36.

(I know, I know, unheard of in Emily's personal experience of over 12 years in the industry....)

I didn't say that. Bad apples have always existed. I said if an sp wants to be in business she needs to ensure her clients are not outted or arrested. Which makes an already unsafe job more unsafe.

And it's 14yrs. 15 come Dec 21st

we don't post generalizations in the lounge bitching about 'some" clients, we post specifics in the PSA section about BAD CLIENTS.

Hardly worth clarifying but whatever... I've got time on my hands ...

This!

From what you keep posting you just want the clients to keep continuing what they were doing like nothing is different while the providers, and agencies have changed the way they are doing business. Which in reality does not make sense, not only in this industry but in any industry, nor will it work in the long run, as for every action there is always a reaction.
I understand that this is your business but that is a very selfish attitude and you think nothing should change from how the good clients are doing business as to serve your purpose.

You clearly haven't read my countless posts about c36. All of us are & have adjusted. Mostly to protect the clients. And in some respects sacrifice our own legal standing to do so.

I don't think that's an entirely fair characterization. Spas and agencies have to change their business models to (as best they can) fit within the new legal paradigm. They also purport to be changing their business practices to protect us (although I'm not aware of the specifics at this point). To the extent that we butter their bread, it's in their best interest to keep us safe. The question is begged tho - if only a very small minority of us will ever be put at risk, is that a gamble they (or we) are willing to take?

Clients are entitled to take whatever precautions they deem necessary, which I believe Emily has said elsewhere. I'm just not sure what clients can do, short of suspending our hobbying until the smoke clears.

As I recall, Emily has alluded to a cross-country coordinated defense group that is prepared to challenge C-36. I hope that this means if any of us are charged, we will have access to this network for legal strategy, counsel and funding?

I've said this before, will you cover our costs? Strategy & resources, sure. But funding? If you will cover mine, i'll cover yours.

One of the most harmful aspects of c36 (and directly against the scc's instructions) is criminalizing the customer.

You all have this false impression that those of us actively pursuing (and spending our own $$$) to get this law removed is only directed at self-serving clauses. That is 100% false.

Spend some $$$ yourself before you lay such false assumptions!

 

[DB123]

BLACKMAIL?!?!?!

 

[Goober Mcfly]

A housr divided against itself will surely fall. Lets.stop the infighting and fix our resolve on fixing the problem, giving support where we are comfortable and able.

 

[Goober Mcfly]

God, my spelling sucks.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Not with an SP, lest she destroys her reputation and lose all business with just one review. Alternatively, SPs can face equal risk of false, blackmail accusations by unknown persons on a board.

However, there might be added risk with malicious sugar-babies or wannabees, but they aren't SPs or MPAs/professional.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I've said this before, will you cover our costs? Strategy & resources, sure. But funding? If you will cover mine, i'll cover yours.

Johns can send anonymous donations to that fund. However, since they fund the industry by patronizing establishments (MPs or agencies, etc.), there might be some merit to assist a john whose arrest is the basis of a constitutional challenge.

 

[wangbang]

God, my spelling sucks.

It's heredity.

 

[vwdub]

Not with an SP, lest she destroys her reputation and lose all business with just one review. Alternatively, SPs can face equal risk of false, blackmail accusations by unknown persons on a board.

However, there might be added risk with malicious sugar-babies or wannabees, but they aren't SPs or MPAs/professional.

The added risk of a sugar babe or just random girl comes at THEIR risk of crossing over into the realm of extortion.

People here seem to think that this law will easily absolve the girl from any behavior simply because selling sex isn't illegal. The latter may be the case, but it doesn't remove them from NOT being charged for committing other crimes.

Is this girl able to just continue on afterwards seeking funds only to turn around and constantly threaten that she will go to the police?

Sounds like an amazing business plan! Constantly seek out guys, threaten them, and then either get money from them or put them in jail and still be able to wipe their hands clean, forever and ever. It just won't work that way.

 

[GPIDEAL]

The added risk of a sugar babe or just random girl comes at THEIR risk of crossing over into the realm of extortion.

People here seem to think that this law will easily absolve the girl from any behavior simply because selling sex isn't illegal. The latter may be the case, but it doesn't remove them from NOT being charged for committing other crimes.

Is this girl able to just continue on afterwards seeking funds only to turn around and constantly threaten that she will go to the police?

Sounds like an amazing business plan! Constantly seek out guys, threaten them, and then either get money from them or put them in jail and still be able to wipe their hands clean, forever and ever. It just won't work that way.

I did comment in another thread that extortion is a double-edged sword, however, for most guys, they may not even want to bother challenging her, so they pay up, due to the hassle or ignorance of the law or rules of evidence (are you going to record every phone call? It might be smart to learn how to do just in case of such threats).

So conceivably, they cry to the police and say they changed their mind, blah blah blah, and lodge a verbal complaint. Most married guys won't risk any kind of that confrontation.

Remember, this is only with non-professionals who don't rely on repeat business and a distant possibility.

 

[vwdub]

I did comment in another thread that extortion is a double-edged sword, however, for most guys, they may not even want to bother challenging her, so they pay up, due to the hassle or ignorance of the law or rules of evidence (are you going to record every phone call? It might be smart to learn how to do just in case of such threats).

So conceivably, they cry to the police and say they changed their mind, blah blah blah, and lodge a verbal complaint. Most married guys won't risk any kind of that confrontation.

Remember, this is only with non-professionals who don't rely on repeat business and a distant possibility.

I agree with you that it is a distant possibility but totally a hassle to deal with. It will happen - it already DOES happen I am quite sure of it, but its more about a hassle factor. But the point of this thread is somehow that now because of the new law, blackmailing will automatically ensue. I don't think that's the case. It'll be a similar dynamic going forward as it's been so far - a guy will get unlucky with some chick who has a bit of a beef and is just a bit unstable and will do a threat like this for whatever reason. This bill isn't going to usher in a brand new wave of girls blackmailing guys though.

The bill, again, is meant to protect victims and NOT to enable 'pretend victims' to victimize others.

 

[pablice]

Great idea!!!!!

I would do that...I'd easily hand deliver my cash funds to MPA2 or muse to help the first poster John who gets busted...I'd feel more comfortable giving it directly to them then some online thing. MPA2 you have my word I will support if a John gets busted and you are willing to organize the fund thing donate to them to fight it. I'd hope the rest of the clients and workers would do the same...whatever is surplus donate it to fight violence against women. I guess whatever we can...maybe set up an appreciated amount like $200 however anything more or less would also work. Sometime it helps to know what is the average that would make a difference. Not saying 200 would be the magic number but it could be a start...

who else is in?

Johns can send anonymous donations to that fund. However, since they fund the industry by patronizing establishments (MPs or agencies, etc.), there might be some merit to assist a john whose arrest is the basis of a constitutional challenge.

 

[elusion]

Great idea!!!!!

I would do that...I'd easily hand deliver my cash funds to MPA2 or muse to help the first poster John who gets busted...I'd feel more comfortable giving it directly to them then some online thing. MPA2 you have my word I will support if a John gets busted and you are willing to organize the fund thing donate to them to fight it. I'd hope the rest of the clients and workers would do the same...whatever is surplus donate it to fight violence against women. I guess whatever we can...maybe set up an appreciated amount like $200 however anything more or less would also work. Sometime it helps to know what is the average that would make a difference. Not saying 200 would be the magic number but it could be a start...

who else is in?

Pably, good idea. Count me in. What do you say, MPA2?

 

[elusion]

Let's get back to the basic and remind ourselves that: participating in this hobby is a risky business!!: risk of catching diseases, of social exposure, of run in with the law, etc, With or without C36!. But if C36 gives you greater concern than before, then stay home and take care of business thyself. For those who need to stay in this hobby, and I emphasize the word "need", they just soldier on. But as always, stay with the reputable establishments and well known independents, it'll be a much safer undertaking. If one chooses to wander into venturesome venues, then one will likely take on additional risks like blackmail, robbery, scamming, etc., again with or without C36.

 

[d_jedi]

Discretion is a two way street. Most of the girls in this industry don't want to be exposed any more than we do. Extortion of this kind is mutual assured destruction.

I don't see this becoming more prevalent under C-36 than before. It might up the ante a bit, given the potential for criminal charges, but I very highly doubt there's anything to worry about here.