Discretion is now optional?

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

I've been reading some distressing opinions lately on discretion in this business. Apparently for some it might be kind of a YMMV thing. Piss me off, act hypocritical, impact my livelihood and you just may find yourself outed!

 

I get the frustration you feel when a politician is being hypocritical, but it's not a crime. I understand that the way they vote could impact your livelihood, in a indirect way by potentially reducing customers and income. I get it, but discretion is the cornerstone of this business. Once it's gone you've got no credibility. What's next? No shows and you're outed? Give me a bad review and you're outed? You may think I'm being facetious but no shows/bad reviews, etc., can have an impact on your livelihood too. Where will you draw the line if it's OK to out a politician? Where does another SP draw the line?

 

Will a critical post do it? :)

Remember, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Ice4fun 78396]

I get the concern it's hard to think of discretion as a "sometimes" thing.

 

To be honest I don't really know what the answer is but I do see a difference between the issues around a bad review or a no show and the bigger issue of a person's long term ongoing safety.

 

I am not really concerned that the outing of a few politicians will cause a disintegration of all discretion and me being outed... but i do have a concern that this type of outing will have people questioning how safe they are and that might negatively impact everyone.

 

Just my opinion

[cinelli 22184]

You are either trustworthy or not trustworthy.

 

There's no such thing as "sort of" trustworthy. Same with discretion.

 

It is disturbing so many guys are ready to throw someone they don't like under the bus. This whole enterprise is based on trust and discretion on both sides.

[Midnite-Energies 110563]

No, discretion is not optional. This issue just has people passionate and frustrated looking at something that is out of their control and yes, impacts their business, but impacts safety more

 

No reputable provider would ever disclose information about anyone and hopefully won't be put in the position of LE trying to force the issue.

 

Any politician taking part in the business if this bill passes to law will be condemning themselves as it will then be illegal and you can bet for awhile, they will be scrutinized.

 

No, outing people will not help or be beneficial and will do nothing but makes things more difficult for everyone. TJB will see this in the end I'm sure.

[kmwq 5477]

I've been reading some distressing opinions lately on discretion in this business. Apparently for some it might be kind of a YMMV thing. Piss me off, act hypocritical, impact my livelihood and you just may find yourself outed!

 

I get the frustration you feel when a politician is being hypocritical, but it's not a crime. I understand that the way they vote could impact your livelihood, in a indirect way by potentially reducing customers and income. I get it, but discretion is the cornerstone of this business. Once it's gone you've got no credibility. What's next? No shows and you're outed? Give me a bad review and you're outed? You may think I'm being facetious but no shows/bad reviews, etc., can have an impact on your livelihood too. Where will you draw the line if it's OK to out a politician? Where does another SP draw the line?

 

Will a critical post do it? :)

Remember, too wrongs don't make a right.

 

That's a little over dramatic don't you think? Life is not that black and white.

[Guest Cr**gCa***ng]

No reputable provider will out anyone. However, if she has been the victim of some sort of criminal behavior she would likely cooperate with the authorities as need be. In my view, discretion is not optional on the part of anyone.

[mrrnice2 157005]

However, if she has been the victim of some sort of criminal behavior she would likely cooperate with the authorities as need be.

 

And THAT sir is the crux of the matter.

 

Certainly by Christmas every single sex worker will, under the law, BE a victim of criminal behavior with expectation that they cooperate with police. Otherwise they can be threatened with criminal prosecution (Look up the Canadian legal definition of conspiracy for which they are not exempted in Bill 36) or outed in public or referred to social services as unfit mothers, or referred to an evangelical group to be saved. Or, or or. If you believe that there no police officers that would ever do that then you have more faith than I.

 

So I will not be a client, certainly in part due to personal fear of criminalization, but equally I will not place a woman in a position of being under the pressure of making the choice of confidentiality over HER own personal well being.

 

The purely hypothetical issue that a few face now of naming politicians is nothing at all as compared to the issue that some of them will be facing on a personal level in the near future. Where will taking the moral high road be then? I would not blame them now for naming nor would I blame them in the future when they are threatened.

[roamingguy 300292]

Something else to consider. The donation the client gives to the companion is not just for time and services, it is also for confidentiality and discretion. If a companion breeches confidentiality and discretion by outing a client of hers, shouldn't she return at least a part of the donation the client paid. She violated the client's trust by breeching confidentiality and discretion. Something that the client expected in addition to time and services when he paid the lady her donation.

Just a off the cuff rambling off the top of my head, thrown in for what it's worth

 

RG

[Guest Cr**gCa***ng]

And THAT sir is the crux of the matter.

 

Certainly by Christmas every single sex worker will, under the law, BE a victim of criminal behavior with expectation that they cooperate with police. Otherwise they can be threatened with criminal prosecution (Look up the Canadian legal definition of conspiracy for which they are not exempted in Bill 36) or outed in public or referred to social services as unfit mothers, or referred to an evangelical group to be saved. Or, or or. If you believe that there no police officers that would ever do that then you have more faith than I.

 

So I will not be a client, certainly in part due to personal fear of criminalization, but equally I will not place a woman in a position of being under the pressure of making the choice of confidentiality over HER own personal well being.

 

The purely hypothetical issue that a few face now of naming politicians is nothing at all as compared to the issue that some of them will be facing on a personal level in the near future. Where will taking the moral high road be then? I would not blame them now for naming nor would I blame them in the future when they are threatened.

 

Now I understand where you are coming from on this. I was thinking in terms of the current laws of the land if she was the victim of assault and the like so I would support her providing the necessary details to the police. If and when the new legislation passes I will have to give this matter further thought but until then I stand by my original post.

[Gabriella Laurence 301887]

And THAT sir is the crux of the matter.

 

Certainly by Christmas every single sex worker will, under the law, BE a victim of criminal behavior with expectation that they cooperate with police. Otherwise they can be threatened with criminal prosecution (Look up the Canadian legal definition of conspiracy for which they are not exempted in Bill 36) or outed in public or referred to social services as unfit mothers, or referred to an evangelical group to be saved. Or, or or. If you believe that there no police officers that would ever do that then you have more faith than I.

With all due respect, Mrrnice2, how do you know these "tactics" have not been used in the past or are not currently being used without bill C-36 even being law yet?

 

Sex workers have always been put in a very delicate situation because of the existing laws (including prior to the Bedford decision) and bill C-36 (amended or not), when it actually becomes law, will still have potential nefarious consequences for us, no matter what.

... but equally I will not place a woman in a position of being under the pressure of making the choice of confidentiality over HER own personal well being.

And the government will be one step closer to its intended goal by having others making decisions for the ladies involved, thinking and rationalizing for them and taking away their own personal choice(s)!

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

I posted the thread while still worked up after reading other threads related to "outing" politicians. For the record, I was being facetious when using the analogy about no shows or bad reviews as grounds for "outing" a client. Also, before someone else brings it up, I'm not speaking of criminal behavior. In that situation of course you should go to the police and press charges. Sometimes I assume some things are obvious when maybe I shouldn't. My concern was/is that discretion can't be "sort of" a cornerstone. It IS black and white. You either decide to enforce it always, or not, but once you start to rationalize when it's OK to be indiscreet you have lost all credibility with me.

 

I can get other women to have sex with me without paying for it. I prefer to pay escorts because there is an unwritten rule that you will be professional and be discreet, always.

 

I do trust all the CERB women I have seen in the past to continue to be discreet. That's what drew me to them. Still, you all should be concerned about what some are proposing. Find another way to fight them. Don't get down in the gutter with them. It will change you.

[Ice4fun 78396]

Sex workers have operated in a world of serious legal ramifications for an eternity. To some how suggest that the world is about to end and that the wonderful ladies who we have trusted for years (and who have trusted us) will now be more likely to break our confidentiality just does not fly for me.

 

The bottom line on this issue is an unjust law is about to be imposed and some of the individuals who are taking public positions in favour of this law have in the past participated in the same industry that they are demonizing and this has caused some to want to public call them out on the difference between what they say and what they do. I am not sure I agree that this is a great idea or that it will have any impact on the issue but I understand their frustration.

 

Just my opinion

[Kathryn Bardot 99339]

The donation the client gives to the companion is not just for time and services, it is also for confidentiality and discretion.

 

There is a lot of speculation and fear mongering going on about c36, and honestly, I think a lot of people are putting far too much energy into worrying about it now. We don't know what's going to happen. We don't know if the bill will pass, and if it does, how they are going to enforce it.

Incalls have been illegal all this time, and people have not worried about it nearly as much as the fear I'm noticing now.

 

Discretion goes two ways, folks. I, like many other companions, do not wish to draw attention to myself that might end badly. And, if this bill passes, I will be taking measures to protect my privacy, which may include more in-depth screening so that I can assure my current guests of their privacy as well.

 

Let's not needlessly panic and throw accusations at people. I don't agree with the threat of outing clients, as much as I can understand that it comes from a place of well-deserved anger at the hypocrisy of some lawmakers and politicians.

[O'Cahla 4352]

Even if the Bill DOES pass, there is still the chance that it STILL might be struck down by the Supreme court, just like it's predecessor. Just a thought. And yes I am also of the opinion that discretion must remain absolute, unless it involves a danger to life or safety.

[cinelli 22184]

It will be years before it goes before the Supreme Court. Two or three at least.

 

C36 will be the law for some time, probably a few years, whether we all like it or not.

 

Only possible way out is if a new Parliament rewrites it. But there are a lot of other things besides our hobby that the Government of the day needs to pay attention to. So don't count on that happening anytime soon either.

[roamingguy 300292]

There is a lot of speculation and fear mongering going on about c36, and honestly, I think a lot of people are putting far too much energy into worrying about it now. We don't know what's going to happen. We don't know if the bill will pass, and if it does, how they are going to enforce it.

Incalls have been illegal all this time, and people have not worried about it nearly as much as the fear I'm noticing now.

 

Discretion goes two ways, folks. I, like many other companions, do not wish to draw attention to myself that might end badly. And, if this bill passes, I will be taking measures to protect my privacy, which may include more in-depth screening so that I can assure my current guests of their privacy as well.

 

Let's not needlessly panic and throw accusations at people. I don't agree with the threat of outing clients, as much as I can understand that it comes from a place of well-deserved anger at the hypocrisy of some lawmakers and politicians.

 

I agree there is a lot of fear mongering over C36. I don't believe for one second the police are even going to beef up enforcement on prostitution. For the police it will be business as usual, just using C36 instead of current prostitution laws, but that's my opinion

Companions and their clients operating discretely are not going to find an increased police prescence, again my opinion only. The police will focus on what they always have focused on, street prostitution, they will just use C36 as the enforcement tool. And there isn't a quasi religious fervor by police over C36 the same as there is amongst MacKay et al. C36 is a political ideological based law. My guess the police just view it as a new law to enforce, that's it. And it will be enforced within the budgetary constraints they have

As for my other comments, they were just quick off the top of my head

based on a news report that Terri Jean Bedford mulling over whether to out

politicians. I personally do not support outing, (well unless Harper and MacKay LOL...yes tongue in cheek here) but was pointing out one other aspect of the SP/Client relationship, and that the donation is not just for time and services, but discretion and confidentiality too. And if a client, yes even if a politician, is outed, after he has paid the donation, doesn't the companion who has outed him owe the former client a partial refund. After all discretion and confidentiality is part of what a client pays a companion a donation for.

A rambling

 

RG

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

I agree there is a lot of fear mongering over C36. I don't believe for one second the police are even going to beef up enforcement on prostitution. For the police it will be business as usual, just using C36 instead of current prostitution laws, but that's my opinion

Companions and their clients operating discretely are not going to find an increased police prescence, again my opinion only. The police will focus on what they always have focused on, street prostitution, they will just use C36 as the enforcement tool. And there isn't a quasi religious fervor by police over C36 the same as there is amongst MacKay et al. C36 is a political ideological based law. My guess the police just view it as a new law to enforce, that's it. And it will be enforced within the budgetary constraints they have

As for my other comments, they were just quick off the top of my head

based on a news report that Terri Jean Bedford mulling over whether to out

politicians. I personally do not support outing, (well unless Harper and MacKay LOL...yes tongue in cheek here) but was pointing out one other aspect of the SP/Client relationship, and that "the donation is not just for time and services, but discretion and confidentiality too". And if a client, yes even if a politician, is outed, after he has paid the donation, doesn't the companion who has outed him owe the former client a partial refund. After all discretion and confidentiality is part of what a client pays a companion a donation for.

A rambling

 

RG

I liked your comment about the donation being for discretion as well as services. It was clever, but don't tell your virtual wife I said that. :)

[fortunateone 156618]

Sex workers have operated in a world of serious legal ramifications for an eternity. To some how suggest that the world is about to end and that the wonderful ladies who we have trusted for years (and who have trusted us) will now be more likely to break our confidentiality just does not fly for me.

 

 

 

People have become so comfortable with the way business has been run over the past couple of decades that they don`t even realize that the bulk of these services are done under illegal conditions already. Every single time you are in an incall, regardless of where it is (hotel/condo/house/car) you are breaking the law. Every time you pay the front desk of a massage parlour before seeing the person providing the services, you are assisting someone in breaking the law (living off the avails, procuring). Every time you met an sp in public first, and have any sort of discussion about the time to come, and at the same time exchange the $$ (discreetly) in a public place, you are breaking the public solicitation laws.

 

People who aren't contacting indy sps for outcalls only have been breaking the law every single time, but we are complacent and comfortable doing this because LE doesn't investigate or charge these things. It doesn't make them different from the proposed C36, and sps and clients will adapt to these new conditions under which they have to proceed.

 

When i started it was under the impression that what i was doing was illegal. It took some research before i realized that prostitution is legal in Canada, and more that the discussion of rates and services in phone calls was also legal. I continue to get new clients who believe it is completely illegal, based on current laws, and the idea that solicitation charges have to do with sex work itself, and not simply the fact it is public communication that is the criminal act.

 

So i'm in the 'stop the fear mongering' camp. I find it pointless to assume that any indy sp is going to be harassed by LE to give up the names and contact info of any client. The whole C36 is useless due to the fact that it's most important premise is that no sps are allowed to be touched by or threatened with criminal charges or threats by LE. All it takes is one overreaching LE to try, and the civil rights folks are all over them.

 

For any guy who wants to proceed with fighting charges, I think it is obvious that Alan Young plans to take on the case, and do it pro bono.

[Nicolette Vaughn 294340]

I agree with the sentiments of others here. Fear mongering will manifest negativity and possibly a bad outcome. It is NOT an official law yet so lets try and not speculate something that hasn't even happened. Where there are laws, there will ALWAYS be loopholes. We will all adapt and adjust. Things will just be done a little bit differently.

 

Despite what the government is proposing, we have all it had it very easy for a long, long time in comparison to other countries such as the USA. I look back and consider myself lucky that I've been able to the work the way I have. Instead of worrisome fear, why not discuss solutions if and when they do come into effect? I have many ideas that I plan to implement for myself and to ease clients fear of booking and much more of a higher need for discretion than ever.

 

At least when and if it happens, we will be more prepared than feeling like deer caught in the headlights when it could become official. Embrace it instead of fearing it. While we can't control the outcome, we can control how we think and feel.

Posted via Mobile Device

[peacectryguy 12532]

I agree that discretion is the cornerstone of our relationships in this business and I do hope cooler heads prevail in that thought as far as outing these hypocrites. I also understand the frustration of it all but I agree with fortunateone that fear of the unknown doesn't help us. Right now, everything is speculation as to how all of this will play out. I refuse to live in a state of fear over an unknown but I do understand that fear is a strong human emotion that is hard for people to overcome. We all tend to get irrational to some degree when fear clouds our judgement. So let's just wait and see how this plays out. Like it's been said, I've been committing illegal acts the whole time I've been in this lifestyle and I will continue to do so but I will keep my wits about me and be intelligent about what I am doing, just as I always have been. I doubt anyone will be "outing" my sorry ass anyway. Nothing to gain by it.:grin:

[mrgreen760 37785]

It will be what it will be......

 

Peace

MG

[LisbethNova 5627]

No, discretion is not optional. This issue just has people passionate and frustrated looking at something that is out of their control and yes, impacts their business, but impacts safety more

 

No reputable provider would ever disclose information about anyone and hopefully won't be put in the position of LE trying to force the issue.

 

Any politician taking part in the business if this bill passes to law will be condemning themselves as it will then be illegal and you can bet for awhile, they will be scrutinized.

 

No, outing people will not help or be beneficial and will do nothing but makes things more difficult for everyone. TJB will see this in the end I'm sure.

 

I completely agree with this statement. I am having a difficult time getting any information out of clients and I understand their concern and fear, but it's only for my own safety. Some don't even want to give references from other providers because they don't want the providers to know that they are seeing someone else.. I think that's a tad ridiculous.

[VedaSloan 119179]

Privacy is a privilege, not a right.

 

Although I do not support TJB outing clients, I get where she's coming from.

 

That being said, outing clients only makes things worse for sex workers. And honestly, does anyone really think that outing Con clients will stop Bill C36 from becoming law?

 

NOPE. So quit adding fuel to the fire TJB.

[Phaedrus 209521]

The more I think about this, the more I'm thinking that it's thoroughly objectionable.

 

This is what's crystallized it for me:

 

Privacy is a privilege, not a right.

 

It's not just Berlin saying this. I've seen it in quite a few places over the last few days - I may even have linked to one or two myself - and every time I see it, it makes me want to scream. Privacy IS a right.

 

To be sure, there are those who disagree. Companies want to know everything about you so that they can sell you stuff more effectively. Some groups and organizations just don't give a damn - look at the periodic pictures of celebrities in various states of undress that periodically go flying around the Internet (and the more mainstream press, sometimes). But the worst of all are the governments and various other organizations who want to strip away your privacy to enhance their ability to control what you do and don't do.

 

Oh, to be sure, they have their good excuses. It's to protect us against the terrorists under the bed. It's to find criminals. To find drug dealers, pedophiles, traffickers (think of the children!). It's to punish those hypocrites who want the rest of us to do as they vote, not as they do. It's to catch those who do bad things, say bad things, think bad things.

 

No.

 

Yes, I know, this is where libertarianism gets hard. If you want to stand up for rights, you have to stand up for those rights for everyone. For the terrorists, for the child-rapists, for the MPs who voted for C36 while seeing sex workers themselves. Everyone. Because as soon as a right is removed for one reviled group in society, it becomes that much easier to remove it from a slightly less reviled group, and the next, and then all of us. That's why laws that remove people's rights are *always* officially aimed at Public Enemy No. 1, whoever that may be (it seems that terrorists are the current favourite). Well, you'd be amazed who's a suspected terrorist, when someone really wants to see what you're up to or put you back in your place. Yes, YOU.

 

I'd have thought sex workers and their clients should be among the last people to advocate the removal of privacy as a right, both because many of us have much to lose as a result, and because we're pretty high up on the list of people from whom that privilege will be stripped once that becomes a common thing.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

[Ice4fun 78396]

In my opinion Blanket privacy is not a right... the child molester who abuses children does not have a right to privacy ... the "rights" issue in this debate should be the right of sex workers to operate in a safe environment yet we are here debating if TJB should name name... the anti sex work groups must love this ... there is no ground swell of sex workers moving to name names or out people why because they understand it will not be in their interest... yes people are sympathetic to TJB's frustration but let's be honest she is a retired sex worker fighting for a cultural change to happen in our society she has put years into this fight... let's not be so quick to condemn her.

 

Instead let's galvanize our fight on the issues... sex workers don't need to be saved.... they need their right to safety respected by their government.

 

This is a fight about rights... we are just distracted from the real rights that are at stake.

Just my opinion