legalities of mp's.
- Thread starter scrapper
- Start date
I'm no lawyer, but i think a good one would tell you that the happy ending is considered enough of a sexual act to get you in trouble... the other issue is if you ask for it, I'm pretty sure you're soliciting because in the case law, I don't think the back room of an MP qualifies as private space... i.e. it's public and you can't solicit in public... I'm pretty sure I'm right on this, but i stand to be corrected by anyone with LL.B after their name... lolscrapper said:
There is an expectation of privacy in the back room. It is considered a privaste place. A car on a public road is not a private place. The basic test-- is there an expectation of privacy. It does not have to be a private dwelling.
Communication issues aside, I think there is room for debate on legality if you look at the Bawdy House laws. It is illegal to run, work, or be found in a common bawdy house. If acts of prostitution (which can include hand jobs) or indecent acts (which are usually determined by 'community standards') are habitually occurring in an establishment, it could be considered a bawdy house by a judge.
I think the bottom line is, it would be hard to get a conviction over hand jobs but there is certainly grounds for a raid or charges, which could cause significant embarrassment to those involved.
I think the bottom line is, it would be hard to get a conviction over hand jobs but there is certainly grounds for a raid or charges, which could cause significant embarrassment to those involved.
That is why you go in for a massage. You lay there relax let the MA give you a nice relaxing or theraputic massage when she asks you to tun over you do so this way she can do your chest, font of the arms and legs. Should her hands wonder while she is doing the front is up to her and you if you choose to let it happen. You have payed for her to massage you nothing more, unless you asked for it.
I definitely agree on your second and third points. However, I disagree with your first point. If acts of prostitution are occurring (i.e. the exchange of money for sex acts), even if there is no negotiating, communication, or soliciting, it can still be considered a bawdy house. In fact, the bawdy house laws do not even mention negotiating, communication, or soliciting. They talk about prostitution, which is the exchange of sex acts for money. Here is where it gets really grey. Because of all-inclusive pricing, the massage parlour could argue that the primary service is the massage and not the hand job. The prosecution could counter with the argument that, since the hand job is a regular service included in the whole package, then the money exchanged is money exchanged, in part, for sex. That is prostitution and, while prosititution itself is not illegal, running, working in, or being found in an establishment where it regularly occurs is illegal, and could result in a charge or subsequent conviction based on the current bawdy house legislation. Again, I am talking about prostitution here and not communication for the purposes thereof.Jasmin_MA said:
Part VII of the Criminal Code, Section 197(1) defines a bawdy house as “a place that is kept or occupied, or resorted to by one or more persons, for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency.” Note that there is no mention of communication for the purposes of prostitution.
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec197.html
The best way around it is not to negotiate or solicit. Make an appointment, grab a shower and proceed to massage room and lie down bareassed. After a bit she'll ask you to turn over so she can do your other side. Should her hands wander, she is not breaking any laws as it is a muscle and it "needs work too". When you leave, an appropriate tip should be in order for the excellent service she provided. No soliciting has been done. Where MP's can get caught is presenting a menu before the flip.
Years ago at the old Natural Point on Somerset early in my hobbying, it was a hot summer night and they had no AC. Just before the flip Missy asked "It's pretty hot in here, do you mind if I take off my top?" I flipped over and there she was with those massive DD's hanging out. Didn't even have to ask. A subtle way to get around negotiating services.
That is for sure a pretty clever way to get around the negotiating aspect, and it could get you out of any "communication for the purposes of prostitution" charges. Too bad it wouldn't get you out of a "being found in a common bawdy house" charge though. That said, I agree that overall it is indeed best to have no negotiation of prices, and services should be all inclusive like at Jasmin's. It definitely keeps things lower profile and can decrease the risk of some of the legal hassles.yak2432 said:
riceking said:
I gotta say that I think Riceking's points here are most consistent with the law from what I know... I'm also still not convinced that a room in an MP's place is 100% private space... if you look at the statutory law and the case law that supplements it, public space is defined as "...any place to which the public have access as of by right or by invitation, express or implied..." So if you can walk off the street into an MP and wander into the back room.. that seems to me, at minimum, as an implied invitation...
again... not a lawyer.. just erring on the side of caution
now, what actually gets enforced is also another can of worms and your risk to take I suppose
The bawdy house laws don't even talk about whether a place is public or private either. There's wide room for charges. Like you say though, whether or not it gets enforced is another can of worms. It's all about what risks we are willing to take. Kind of like CBJ vs. BBBJottawadave said:
I think we can all agree that the LE's time, the courts' time, and the the taxpayers' money would all be better served if we got rid of these ridiculous antiquated bawdy house laws. A good massage w/hj is a healthy thing if it's done in a healthy environment and does more good than harm to society.
Re.
Here is where I make a few comments and then have a 24 year old woman try to argue that her studio is 100% legit and we go around in circles and circles. So I'm not sure why I even bother.
I personally don't have a problem with the person we are discussing in this thread, I don't like her business tactics but it's her life and her business. But lets get a couple of things straight, not everything she does (as she says) is perfectly legal. I was arrested in 1994 over a studio I owned on the Danforth in Toronto. I was charged with the big 3 (procuring, exercising control and living off of the avails) after thousands of dollars in lawyers fees and other assorted bullshit I was aquitted. Thats when I left Toronto for a while to get away and never returned.
The reasons I was not found guilty were pretty simple. (A) I advertised in newspapers seeking ladies interested in giving massage, never did I approach anyone from another agency or anywhere else. If the girls come to you then you are not procurring because its something they have made thier mind up about and want to do. (B) I NEVER set prices, each girl had thier own rate and generally they were pretty close to each other or people would be going to the cheaper option. As soon as you tell a girl how much she has to charge for a massage, that is EXERCISING CONTROL. (C) To go with the last one, I never took a % of the massage rate. If you do that, then in essence you ARE living off of the avails. To get around that I would "rent" a massage room to the ladies for either a hour rate or a daily rate. If as an owner you make more or less money depending on how many clients you are booking for the day then you are on the wrong side of the law. Because my partner at the time was a lawyer I knew enough not to cross the line and even then I still got arrested and made the newspapers and so on.
One of the most overrated things people think is, if a girl is not fucking her clients then it's not prostitution. This is where too the person who used to own a studio crosses the line of legal again. You cannot tell the girls you are renting the rooms to, that they are not allowed to do anything. You are exercising control of thier actions which again is illegal. This is not McDonald's, where there are rules the employees have to follow. This is a VERY grey business that if you do it for long enough you will get arrested once or twice. As far as the bawdy house goes, meh. This law is used to make the neighbours happy. Noone wants to live next door to a whore house and if anything funny is going on and complaints are filed this is the way they usually start. You can best bet that after you get the bawdy house charge laid that the girls are going to roll over and the owner is going to get screwed.
The law sucks, we all know this. If it wasn't for the laws that have been around for about 4000 years we would have at least half the murders of girls who work in this field. We would not have sickos like the idiot from BC killing multiple ladies. The laws were not designed to protect any of the girls at all, they were installed to keep the general population happy. And it keeps them happy until thier daughter starts turning tricks and is found one night with her throat slashed. Any woman should be allowed to work from her own home with NO FEAR of ever being arrested. The law drives the lessor ladies to the streets where each time they get into a car could be thier last ride. The bawdy house laws drive actually bad assed pimps to send girls onto the streets. Back in 77 the shoeshine boy was killed and the brains in Toronto decided to shut down all the body rub places.....did any of the body rub places KILL anyone? No, it was a knee jerk reaction to clean up the downtown.
Instead of having these debates about what is right and what is wrong, it's about time we start pressing the politicians to actually do whats in the best intrest of society and start to repell some of the laws that are stupid and dangerious. What Jasmine does is illegal.....and it really shouldn't be in a civil, progressive society
Here is where I make a few comments and then have a 24 year old woman try to argue that her studio is 100% legit and we go around in circles and circles. So I'm not sure why I even bother.
I personally don't have a problem with the person we are discussing in this thread, I don't like her business tactics but it's her life and her business. But lets get a couple of things straight, not everything she does (as she says) is perfectly legal. I was arrested in 1994 over a studio I owned on the Danforth in Toronto. I was charged with the big 3 (procuring, exercising control and living off of the avails) after thousands of dollars in lawyers fees and other assorted bullshit I was aquitted. Thats when I left Toronto for a while to get away and never returned.
The reasons I was not found guilty were pretty simple. (A) I advertised in newspapers seeking ladies interested in giving massage, never did I approach anyone from another agency or anywhere else. If the girls come to you then you are not procurring because its something they have made thier mind up about and want to do. (B) I NEVER set prices, each girl had thier own rate and generally they were pretty close to each other or people would be going to the cheaper option. As soon as you tell a girl how much she has to charge for a massage, that is EXERCISING CONTROL. (C) To go with the last one, I never took a % of the massage rate. If you do that, then in essence you ARE living off of the avails. To get around that I would "rent" a massage room to the ladies for either a hour rate or a daily rate. If as an owner you make more or less money depending on how many clients you are booking for the day then you are on the wrong side of the law. Because my partner at the time was a lawyer I knew enough not to cross the line and even then I still got arrested and made the newspapers and so on.
One of the most overrated things people think is, if a girl is not fucking her clients then it's not prostitution. This is where too the person who used to own a studio crosses the line of legal again. You cannot tell the girls you are renting the rooms to, that they are not allowed to do anything. You are exercising control of thier actions which again is illegal. This is not McDonald's, where there are rules the employees have to follow. This is a VERY grey business that if you do it for long enough you will get arrested once or twice. As far as the bawdy house goes, meh. This law is used to make the neighbours happy. Noone wants to live next door to a whore house and if anything funny is going on and complaints are filed this is the way they usually start. You can best bet that after you get the bawdy house charge laid that the girls are going to roll over and the owner is going to get screwed.
The law sucks, we all know this. If it wasn't for the laws that have been around for about 4000 years we would have at least half the murders of girls who work in this field. We would not have sickos like the idiot from BC killing multiple ladies. The laws were not designed to protect any of the girls at all, they were installed to keep the general population happy. And it keeps them happy until thier daughter starts turning tricks and is found one night with her throat slashed. Any woman should be allowed to work from her own home with NO FEAR of ever being arrested. The law drives the lessor ladies to the streets where each time they get into a car could be thier last ride. The bawdy house laws drive actually bad assed pimps to send girls onto the streets. Back in 77 the shoeshine boy was killed and the brains in Toronto decided to shut down all the body rub places.....did any of the body rub places KILL anyone? No, it was a knee jerk reaction to clean up the downtown.
Instead of having these debates about what is right and what is wrong, it's about time we start pressing the politicians to actually do whats in the best intrest of society and start to repell some of the laws that are stupid and dangerious. What Jasmine does is illegal.....and it really shouldn't be in a civil, progressive society
tdeem3 said:
Its funny, different views from educated lawyers, educated individuals, yet no one here knows what real legal implications of a body rub parlour, owning, working or recieving is..
definition of anarchy;
4. confusion, chaos, disorder.
Sounds like the government/legal system is a bunch of anarchists lol.
No. Police can and do bust MPs that provide only HJs. They investigate the place, usually over a period of a few weeks, to get evidence that the MP is commonly used for prostitution. That means HJs or any other sex acts are provided to paying customers, regardless of whether or not they specifically negotiate a price for the act.scrapper said:
As a customer, the possible charge against you is being "found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house", under section 210.(2)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. If you are inside the place when the cops happen to raid it (unless you are something like a repairman called there to fix the shower), you can be charged, even if you are fully clothed and standing at the reception desk. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you are saying or doing at the time (although some municipalities could have bylaws that might apply to the actions of customers).
All the talk in this thread of communicating/negotiating is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with any law that applies to the inside of a room at a massage parlour.
All the talk about the level of service, that is whether or not a HJ may be okay and a BJ and FS may not, is not only irrelevant, but a harmful urban legend. Harmful because some guys have incorrectly assumed it's okay to tell cops they've been getting HJs, mistakenly thinking they're not telling them about anything illegal. There is no law at any level anywhere in Canada that specifies a HJ is okay in a massage parlour, and the idea of such a law existing is ridiculous. They may have a licence to provide massages, but no MP is licensed to provide HJs.
From The Post (Burlington, Ontario), Oct. 11, 2006:
Last edited:
