Re: The World Symposium On Castration

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:24:19 -0600, John Fleming <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:05:59 GMT, while chained to a desk in
the scriptorium peachy ashie passion
<exquisitepeach@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
$John Fleming wrote:
$> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:39:35 GMT, while chained to a desk in
$> the scriptorium peachy ashie passion
$> <exquisitepeach@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
$>>$John Fleming wrote:
$>
$>>$> Some escorts have some pretty tight restrictions on where
$>>$> they will meet a client. That is, hotels with public access
$>>$> to the floor or private residences where the door is
$>>$> accessible from the street. Won't do outcall services to
$>>$> apartments. Safety factor. Not only is it easier for help
$>>$> to reach her in the event of trouble, it is easier for her
$>>$> to get out.
$>>$
$>>$ Absolutely. It's a dangerous business, and only more dangerous by
$>>$being illegal. When you make people illegal, you take away their
$>>$ability to utilize the protections of the law.
$>>$
$>>$ It forces them to find protection outside the law.
$>
$> Except that it is legal in Canada.
$>
$> Under Canadian law, the offence is communicating in public
$> for the purposes of prostitution. That is, you can sell
$> sex, you just can' advertise it openly.
$
$ What an interesting twist. Sometimes the rationale of those sitting
$in judgment baffles me.

I believe part of the rationale might be that, under the
communicating law, it makes it possible to nail a
prostitute's clients as well as nailing the prostitute.

It would also acknowledge the fact that it would be
virtually impossible to prosecute if the arrangement were
made in private. No party could testify in a private
arrangement without self incrimination.

Communicating would also allow prosecution, even if no money
actually changed hands. That is, the police intervened
before the parties entered into a sex for money arrangement
and the customer paid the hooker for her services.

$> From a personal safety point of view, given the amount of
$> money some escorts charge for a couple of hours work, you
$> wouldn't want people other than your customers to know what
$> you look like. You are out and about by yourself with
$> potentially up to $1,000+ cash in your purse; having lots of
$> people know what you look like is inviting trouble.
$
$ There is also the fact that escorting someone outside a private
$space, to a show, or a party, a customer would be less likely to choose
$someone that could be so easily recognized as paid companionship.

That's a good point too.

Even more important if the person paying for the "date" were
fairly prominent and well known.

Also, the "ugly pragmatic side" might be as simple as "It's not
prostitution per se that we take issue with, but streetwalkers out
looking for custom on the street corners are unsightly"

.

Quantcast