Miss Jessica Lee

oh it's most certainly the same product. The clerk told me the price was $99 ... just as I read on the tag, but when it scanned and she saw the $229 she checked and saw the sale had ended and the tags should have been removed. She told me that they had been too busy to remove the tags, and that the manager should have done it first thing this morning. This was at 445pm. I'm calling BAIT & SWITCH ... bait me with a low price and nail me at the till! you guys would not write a favourable review if I did that to you... am I right?

Went into a popular retailer today, was purchasing an item price tagged at $99... got to the till and they said it was $229. I showed them the price on the shelf that clearly reads $99 and they refused to honour it. She explained the sale ended yesterday they hadn't had time to change the shelf price tags. I said that's not my problem... wtf? lame. I asked for a manager, she had left for the day. The clerk said she would have a manager call me to discuss. I took a photo of the item and the shelf tag clearly beneath it that reads $99, and left. Super pissed!! Don't they have to honour the price tag? There is NO EXPIRY DATE on the tag!!

I just noticed there's some camel toe in this shot ... just a lil bit :p

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-mackay-s-prostitution-law-news-conference-sowed-confusion-1.2679800 in this article the Justice Department claims McKay was very wrong about some key parts of the bill, including the advertising. The parts of C-36 dealing with advertising have caused a lot of confusion. At the news conference, MacKay was asked if prostitutes who take out ads could be prosecuted. "If there is a direct connection to the selling of sex that does not present itself in a public way then it would be legal. But if it is done so in a way that is perceived as public or available to those under the age of 18 it would be illegal," he replied. Justice Department officials corrected the minister. They said prostitutes advertising their own services cannot be prosecuted under the new law.

If you're in the north you've got to try both Ripe and Tommy's Not Here.. both in Sudbury. Delicious... and I'm a picky foodie :D http://www.riperestaurant.ca/ http://tommysnothere.com/

another tip: If you have no followers (as a new account), and you follow hundreds of people in the first day they may suspend your account assuming you're a spammer. Moderate how many people you follow each day to maintain your account in good standing.

heading out for a morning paddle .... happy saturday everyone!

ok so how do you gents feel about adding yourselves to a mailing list? If ladies you like to see visit your area regularly, would you appreciate a heads up from them a few weeks prior to their visit? If you had an email coming in every week or so from various favourites you'd hardly have to look for advertising.... Discreet email addresses are probably something you already have in place. edit: I find I get a lot of "oh I just realized you were in town!" type emails ... thoughts?

angus reid poll shows a very different picture from what they claim: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/survey-results-should-selling-sex-be-illegal-or-legal/article19110479/?from=19110502 and it's already being discussed in the senate ..

still so much avoidance .. twice asked to refer bill to SCC and doesn't even acknowledge the request. And still no definition of sexual service. All done for today.

I'm writing a letter also, I better cut it back if 1200 words is considered 'long'! Thanks for the link, I had planned to send it to my MP but sending it to them all is better... here's a small sample: ... I like working out, spend hours at the gym, got interested in anatomy and the science behind fitness, so I studied it and left my admin position for a job in fitness and nutrition ... and that's very similar to my start in sex work ... I was involved in the swinging community, enjoyed it, had encounters with people, attended parties, and like it so much I did some investigating and educated myself ... realized I could very possibly make this hobby into a career too ... and started garnering an income from it. How, pray tell, is that a description of someone being forced into the sex trade? I get that not everyone has a 'happy hooker' story. I get that not everyone in the biz wants to or should remain in it. I spoke at length with someone yesterday who's a great example of that. Those are where the focus should be, those who are feeling trapped by poverty, addiction and mental health issues. Let's get them help to get out. I get that not everyone is as sexually liberated as some of us, nor do they want to be. I get there are people out there who turn off the lights before getting undressed, that close the bathroom door so their spouse doesn't hear or see them pee, that don't share bedrooms. I don't have a problem with that at all, that's their comfort level and nothing should be done to take someone out of their comfort level unwillingly. I would never suggest they change a thing. The problem is that they don't get me. They want to change me, they don't feel it's "right" or "morally just" .. so they think I should just be different. What hurts the most is that people like that refuse to see my point of view, and when they do listen they pat my arm and "there, there, dear" me because they think there's something fundamentally wrong with me. There must be, because how would someone in their "right mind" possibly enjoy sex work. They refuse to acknowledge that I might be ok, even loving life. When someone tell you that you're just not possibly able to make good decisions for yourself because you're a sex worker, and, well.... sex workers just don't know any better, that's what really stings.

the answer was posted in my last post :)

thank you, I'm aware of all that. I'm asking specifically about the Sex Offender Registry though... that's a major issue for someone who hobbies who might for example be a teacher.

Calling all experts! I'm not one. According so some , the proposed legislation allows law enforcement to add the names of those charged and convicted to the National Sex Offender Registry. What value will that very important list have if hundreds of the names on it are simply not the names of sexual predators? What use will it be when the names on it are of consenting adults who simply paid for or sold sexual services? Can anyone confirm this is the case? And if so, are both clients and providers added to the list upon conviction? I realize it's not law yet. I'm trying to find the parts that we need to focus on changing. This would be one of them.

I appreciate the spirit behind your post and the time you took to write it. I certainly hope you all treat the people who serve your morning coffee, deliver your paper, clean your house, fix your car, cook your lunch, shine your shoes, serve your dinner, clean your teeth, wax your body hair, prepare your prescription, scrub your toilet, ring through your grocery purchases and dry clean your suits the exact same way. Sex work is real work and although we certainly deserve compassion, respect and consideration, we don't require it any more than any other working person you encounter during your day. It's the separation of us as "special" that often perpetuates the notion that we require "special" considerations, that we need "special" accommodations, that we simply aren't like everyone else. Well we are.

what an incredibly thought provoking perspective. http://www.gauntlet.ca/2014/06/how-bill-c-36-makes-things-worse-for.html How Bill C-36 Makes Things Worse for Prostitutes, And Why That Might Be Constitutional The Background The Supreme Court of Canada said that the prohibition on brothels and the prohibition against communicating for the purpose of prostitution, and the risks to the security of the prostitutes that arose from those provisions, were grossly disproportionate responses to the public nuisance of prostitution in public. The Supreme Court of Canada also said that prohibiting living off of the avails of prostitution was overbroad, in that it caught some people who were not exploiting prostitutes, like cab drivers and pharmacists. The Supreme Court ruled all three sections unconstitutional violations of prostitutes' section 7 Charter right to security of the person. The Supreme Court gave the government one year to re-write the laws. The News Yesterday, Justice Minister Peter McKay introduced Bill C-36. Here is what the legislation does with regard to protecting the safety of prostitutes while avoiding their exploitation and public nuisance. It will be illegal to purchase sexual services. It will be illegal to communicate for the purpose of purchasing sexual services. It will be illegal to communicate for the purpose of selling sexual services in a place that might have children nearby. It will be illegal to advertise sexual services other than your own. It will be illegal to profit exploitatively from the purchase of someone else's sexual services. This would mark the first time in Canada's history that the purchase or sale of sexual services will be criminalized. The government suggests that by this they will target the "perverts" (johns) and protect the "victims" (prostitutes). As long as they don't do it near kids, and as long as they do it alone, nothing that the prostitute does will be illegal. Therefore, the government logic goes, they should feel safe going to the police for help. Bill C-36 follows SCC on Living off the Avails The Supreme Court said that the "living off the avails" provision was overbroad. I think the government has narrowed it considerably, making exclusions for people who live with prostitutes, people who are providing services to prostitutes that they would provide to anyone else, people who are legally or morally obliged to provide services to prostitutes. Bodyguards, receptionists, these people are now not breaking the law if they know their client is a prostitute. It seems the intent of the SCC has been respected there. Bill C-36 Makes Things More Dangerous for Prostitutes, not Less The Supreme Court also said that the dangers associated with prohibiting prostitutes from communicating for the purpose of prostitution were not justified for the benefit of avoiding a public nuisance. The government has responded by making all communication near kids and all communication for the purchase (not the sale) illegal. So prostitutes are now legally permitted to communicate with johns, but those johns remain prohibited from communicating with them. The conversation, therefore, is still illegal. But only the john has any legal risk. This should work really well to protect prostitutes' safety, so long as the johns don't have any problem with going to jail. With regard to brothels, they are no longer prohibited. However, all of the conversations and transaction that would happen in the brothel are criminalized. And a brothel, by its nature, tells the police where these crimes are happening. Again, this should work really well to protect prostitutes' safety, so long as the johns don't have any problem with going to jail. If, as one might expect in the real world, johns are not interested in going to jail, then they will not be interested in communicating in places that are safe for the prostitutes, and they will not be interested in frequenting known establishments where they can be arrested at any time. Therefore, they will not allow the prostitutes to avail themselves of these new found protections, and prostitutes will be worse off. Why it Might Be Constitutional Can the government do that? Essentially turn around and make things worse for prostitutes? Maybe. You see, by criminalizing the purchase of sex, the government has changed the purpose of the laws. They are no longer merely to get rid of a public nuisance in the form of prostitution in public. They are now laws directed at ending the exploitation of prostitutes. That objective is much more serious, and can justify a great deal more infringements on the prostitutes' security of the person. Consider the analogy to drugs. Imagine that a drug user complained that making possessing and purchasing drugs illegal forced them into unsafe environments in order to purchase and use drugs. That person would be correct. But it is the very act of purchasing and consuming the drugs that the government has deemed morally repugnant. It is the drug use itself that is criminal. It is supposed to be dangerous to commit crime. Previously, the government had not said, through the criminal law, that there was anything wrong with prostitution itself. Now, prostitution is a crime, at least for the purchaser. The fact that it is not criminal for the prostitute is not a reflection of approval by the government of the prostitutes' actions, but comes from the belief that in the case of most prostitutes, they do not truly exercise free will in deciding whether to provide sexual services. I don't know if that belief is accurate, but it was reflected in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. So the fact is that prostitutes are doing something that has been deemed sufficiently morally repugnant to be criminalized, but have been exempted from prosecution out of concern for the exploitative nature of the relationship. The government will also undoubtedly argue that it is not possible to criminalize the acts of the purchasers without resulting in dangers for the prostitutes, and that the dangers arising from the criminalization of the act are justified in light of the dangers associated with the act itself. Will they win that argument? I don't know. But it is not the same argument that was made in Bedford, and so we can expect that there might be a different result. Posted by Jason Morris at 10:17 AM

The RCMP just requested via twitter that everyone turn on their outside lights please. Stay safe out there peeps.

I should have been more clear ... if you find her profile it should tell you the last time she logged on, so you would know how active she is on this site. She might have a website, or some contact info posted on her profile. You could then send her a message directly and ask her what you need to know.

http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/memberlist.php this might be a good place to start looking :) best of luck!

I think it's preposterous to think there is funding available to run sting operations on the thousands of active sex workers currently in Canada. But just in case, I made it all up too :D

its impossible to say as every individual will consider the risks differently, just as they do now. The chance of contracting antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is slim at this stage as there's never been a case reported in either Canada or the US. If someone is working or hobbying overseas, I hope they would take these types of facts into consideration when assessing risk.

I try to find someone who's smoking a wonderfully aromatic cigar ... bugs hate that smell and I simply adore it ;)

ok well let's then compare it to something that we can relate to ... that currently happens right now. If a gent receives a service from a lady that's not advertised, or not usually part of her offering, he doesn't say much to anyone. For example, cim/swallow by a lady who doesn't usually offer. He realizes it's part of a bonus he's received and mum is the word. He knows full well that by disclosing this to anyone, another gent, another lady, anyone, that he risks losing that privilege and maybe the future company of that lady. I only know this because I ran a poll a while back and the results were overwhelmingly in favour of keeping it quiet. I'm not sure anything would change in that regard, just because there was a regulation. The gent wants to look after his service, and his lady. He's not going to jeopardize that. Gents? thoughts?

thanks to everyone for their input and sympathy! Signs went up last year ... damn things disappeared. I can't imagine where they went LoL but I did get some more. I have delivered a letter and I anticipate their full cooperation. Will keep you posted! RG: Can I rent that dog? See you on the dock Kay! :)

if you call me I can talk you through it Kay :) there should be a link "upload pictures" on the left side of your new album... no? when you upload others might not see them immediately as they require moderation... but you should see that they are there and in queue.