dread pirate roberts

I completely get why SPs would be reluctant to have an MMF where the genesis of that was two Ms asking to join her. My guess is that would be unusual, though. Of the MMFs I've had, either the female SP invited a friend (as I assume Red Headed Raven means) or the invitation came from a couple. Am I mistaken in thinking that two men contacting an SP together is unusual? I can't imagine saying to one of my male friends "so, I know this really exciting SP from Lyla - want to join me in seeing her?" Maybe my friendships are just too inhibited! Or maybe this observation belongs in the "double life" thread.

I replied earlier in this thread, but it seems to be only ladies replying this time, so let me repeat - yes I have, yes I would again, yes it was amazing! I can see how it could be particularly intense to be the F in the MMF, but if you are an M who doesn't mind some MM in the MMF (to which I say "mmmmmmmm!") then it adds a whole new dimension!

An SP on Lyla (from Ottawa, I think) had a line which I thought risque but clever: "there's a party in my mouth, who wants to come?"

Unless the rules have changed once again, there was a decision that members are allowed to make a simple statement to the effect of "based on my experience with so-and-so I am unable to recommend her".

Not to be a downer here, but if her ad is down, there could well be a reason for that, such as that she is not entertaining clients at the moment.

One of the pluses of living in Halifax is that it is relatively small: at least, the central core is. That means it is virtually impossible for me to go anywhere without driving past, and being reminded of, the scenes of many pleasant encounters. I leave my house in one direction and drive past Katherine, or go the other and pass Lilly or Tracie. I can't go to work without driving past Feisty Ferrari's former location, and from the Commons I am reminded of the sites of half a dozen happy memories. Is that true for others as well? Or is it a unique feature of smaller cities?

This IS still the initial topic, isn't it? Some version of "doubt about the other person" was one of the reasons offered by both companions and clients for preferring anonymity, if I recall.

I understand why companions want to know something about clients before meeting them for the first time. I understand why companions don't want to reveal their names, and why their reputation in this enterprise can be gleaned from other sources. But isn't the same true of clients who are here on CERB? That is to say, of the clients who are being told this? Googling a client's real name and discovering, I don't know, that he is a Toronto Maple Leafs fan or that he recently visited Denmark, is far less useful, I would have thought, than examining his posts here to decide whether he seems respectful and respectable in this forum, or like a jerk. If the goal is to know a client's relevant reputation or reliability, knowing his real name doesn't seem to achieve that. Why not request (as some companions do) a reference from another companion here on CERB? If the goal is to be able to track the client down in the case of rape or assault (a fear I do not minimize), a warrant to obtain the IP address for a post here on CERB or for the subscriber information of the cell phone used would be far more effective, and is in the ability of the police (who I am presuming would be called, otherwise what's the purpose in knowing the name?) If it's a trust exercise, well, that is always a companion's prerogative, as it is equally a client's prerogative to decline. Neither party in that case, I would think, is *wrong* - they just disagree.

It took me a moment to work this out. I read it as Big Al, not as Bi-Gal. :)

You know your own answer: you just have to reverse the order you've said things. It shouldn't be: "Because my rational side is telling me that from the MAs perspective it is a business transaction after all. But I just can't help but feel a genuine connection with some of these amazing girls I've met." Rather, think to yourself: "Because I just can't help but feel a genuine connection with some of these amazing girls I've met. But my rational side is telling me that from the MAs perspective it is a business transaction after all." There are several very pleasant and exciting women on this board (at least one of whom is reading this thread!) with whom I would happily chat regularly because I've enjoyed my time with them, and I don't take them to have been merely pretending in seeming to enjoy my time. But that has occurred in the context of a professional relationship. I see a physiotherapist frequently who is a very affable young woman, but I wouldn't expect her to carry on even casual non-romantic conversation with me on an ongoing basis by text or email. I think she likes me well enough, but as a *client*, not as a member of her social group. It is the same thing with anyone on this board, though they might provide companionship rather than physiotherapy. Personally I would feel like I was simply exploiting an MA's expectations if I carried on regular private social conversation but did not have relatively short-term plans to engage her professionally. I don't mean I wouldn't banter here on the Board or wish someone a happy new year privately, but trying to establish a social relationship is, I think, either misunderstanding the situation yourself (by thinking that's what they want) or misleading the other person (by creating the impression you are planning to seek professional services). (now to hit post and see whether I've inadvertently included banned words!)

Whenever I have been in England, one very noticeable thing has been business cards, slightly larger than the usual size, which are ads for escorts, sometimes fairly explicit. They are placed in phone booths, on tables, basically anywhere tourists are likely to see them, I assume. Although time-consuming, that would presumably be legal under the new law, since it would be an escort advertising her own services. It would also be MUCH more overt and noticeable to the general public than the websites and newspaper ads which have become difficult. In other words the new law would have the exact opposite of its intended effect. What a surprise.

Pun intended?

Katherine, I'm sure you can spell "up set", but unfortunately the site won't let you spell "u...t"! I wonder if MOD might mod the list so that acronyms are only censored when, say, there is a space before or after?

Broadly speaking those who plan to "carry on regardless" seem to offer one of two rationales: 1) what I do won't actually be breaking the new law or 2) law enforcement won't find it worthwhile to enforce the law, at least not in the circumstances in which I will be breaking it. My own view is that any hobbyist thinking the first thing is fooling himself, though as I understand it that will be true for SPs a lot of the time. The second one, I don't know, that could be right. It's true, what people have been doing has frequently been illegal under the current law and there hasn't tended to be much enforcement - other than in special circumstances, like a lot of media hype about underage prostitution, complaints about a particular location, or that sort of thing. I guess the question is whether "there's a new law" is in and of itself enough of a special circumstance that, at least for a while, there will be enforcement which otherwise wouldn't have taken place. Everyone's entitled to their own comfort level with that risk, and maybe it is accurately described as "vanishingly small", maybe not, but either way it's a mistake to pretend the risk doesn't exist.

I know I feel like someone who was asked what the speed limit is, answered, then got jumped on by people saying "how dare you tell me how fast to drive!!!"

"I happen to think that assuming an sp is racist because she has any such policy is prejudging her without having the knowledge or understanding of why she has the policy." Let me clarify: I did not say I assume any SP with such a policy is racist, nor that any policy about race is racist. I suggested that it would violate the Human Rights Act, which is a different thing. Some people think "I hate Blacks and think they are all inferior, so I won't let them in my bar" - those people are racist. Other people might think "personally I don't have any problem with Blacks but I will lose other customers in my bar if I let Blacks in" - those people are not racist. But from the point of view of someone Black, it doesn't make any difference whether we can or should attach the label "racist" or not - they aren't allowed in the bar either way, so they are denied the service. Either one of those bar owners would be violating the Human Rights Act. So, yes, certainly, someone who thinks "I won't take clients from my ethnic group because that makes it too likely I will meet someone I know" - absolutely NOT a racist attitude. Other examples have been offered where people are acting on criteria which should not be described as racist. But if they result in refusing to provide service because of race or religion or whatever, it would violate the Human Rights Act. Will anyone complain? No, of course not, as I said - but not because they couldn't. If someone did complain, would the Human Rights Commission say "you must have sex with this person"? Again, no, of course not, but they could order something else, like paying money to the person who complained, or apologizing, or something like that. And someone who, as in the ad I quoted, says "I don't like drama so no Arabs or Indians" - well, that does to me sound like saying "I am making negative assumptions about what you will be like based only on your race", and so that particular policy, yes, that's racist.

I can sense my opinion will be unpopular. What if a restaurant says "we won't serve Black people"? What if a bank says "we don't accept Aboriginal clients"? What if a movie theatre says "we don't sell tickets to Jews"? In none of those cases would we say "that's just personal preference, they can deal with who they want". In fact we have specifically passed laws called Human Rights Act which prohibit anyone providing a service from claiming to provide those services based on a personal preference where it relates to race, or colour, or ethnic origin, and so on. I'm perfectly willing to agree that the services a "service provider" in this business provides are different from most, but not so different that this general rule does not apply. And sure, there are exceptions - a church is entitled to insist that its priest be Catholic, its ok to have both boys and girls soccer teams - but I don't see why there would be an exception here. It's true, a person who is simply choosing sexual partners is absolutely free to indulge whatever private opinions they might have. If CERB were a dating site, there'd be no issue whatsoever. But when someone has entered into a business, rather than personally seeking pleasure, well, then yes, different rules apply - the ones that apply to anyone engaged in business. It is extraordinarily unlikely anyone would ever make a Human Rights Act complaint about this, but that doesn't mean it isn't wrong. I have seen ads which say things like "I don't want any drama, so no Arabs or Indians". Personally I cross those SPs off my list, though I'm neither Arab nor Indian, just as I would refuse to frequent any other business which discriminates unlawfully.

That's true for the communication part for SPs. But the "purchasing" part, and the communication part applying to customers, does apply anywhere. It says: 286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence...

I don't want to "pile on", because you've already admirably acknowledged that your wording wasn't ideal. But a really useful piece of advice, I think, is to recognise that CERB is not a place for the "guys" to talk about the SPs: it's a place for hobbyists and SPs together to interact. Any question which forgets half the audience, or implicitly assumes they don't exist in the conversation, is going to be seen as wrong-footed. But welcome to CERB :) Mostly you will find it a pretty friendly place.

There's no 100% reliable test for answering "is it cheating?", but here's a pretty good one: would you be willing to tell the person you are wondering whether you are cheating on? If the answer is no, then yes, you are cheating!

@ Phaedrus "I see no reason to stop seeing well-known providers with good reputations. I consider this to be like doing 110 on the highway: technically illegal, but nobody cares." True - unless its a road where they just changed the limit and the police have a new type of speed gun they are itching to try out. I suspect you are right that in the long run things will settle down to a status quo that is probably not much different from now. The new law might also end up being gotten rid of by the supreme court - in the long run. But my guess is that in the short run police will feel a renewed sense of vigour once the new law passes, and it will only reach the Supreme Court again after people get prosecuted under it. I don't want to be one of those people.

I've had this experience three times - twice with female SPs who knew a male SP to invite, once with a couple I met through a personal ad. In each case it was as completely interactive as it was possible for it to be (if there is some potential combination of bodily parts we didn't try, I can't think what it was), and it was amazing! I understand the attitude of those who prefer to shy away from MM contact (and I can see how it might not be the point at all if the primary purpose is to fulfill the fantasies of the female participant) but I don't personally share that view. The MM contact was not the sole point of course, but the complete freedom of intimate exchanges was, well, really something! I'd happily do it again, and have given thought to the possibility of a female SP entertaining two of her clients at the same time. For the reasons offered by others it seems to me the SP would have to be something of a matchmaker in that situation. Of greatest importance, she would have to feel comfortable with both clients for the obvious reasons, but she would also need to assess how likely the clients were to be compatible, since only she would know them in advance.

Perhaps I am hearing a critical tone where you do not intend one, in which case my apologies, but my common sense told me "do as the SP requests", and that "no explicit talk" means "no explicit talk", not "explicit talk later".

Ok, that's the funniest thing I have read today!