C36 Merged thread, everything goes here
- Thread starter Banger77
- Start date
What is the incentive now? It is a sharing of knowledge to help everyone in their experiences (and for some, to massage their egos as well).
With the restrictions on advertising, the reviews and comments will be more important than either. As long as we are careful, the risk is very low.
We pay for a ladies time. And whatever happens during that time is an activity between two consenting adults... particularly if there are activities other than pure 'sexual' play involved. How do they prove we are paying for sexual activities? It becomes a lot more difficult. And are they going to put a lot of time and resources into something that is relatively minor on a criminal level, and is difficult for them to have sufficient evidence to prove or get a conviction.
I may not poon very often, but I know this isn't going to change what I do. I have generally done my research in the past, am careful, and I have a small list of well-reviewed providers who are next on my list for some playtime. Gentlemen, be careful, but don't be paranoid. The ladies who provide such an important service continue to need us if that service is going to continue to be available.
If everybody is going to do what you propose to do, then we might as well shut the servers down right now.
There are many jurisdictions around the world where all aspects of prostitution are illegal, and have been for a very long time. We read in papers and on forums about various types of sting operations that hobbyists and therapists endure, but I have never seen a story about someone being prosecuted for the contents of a review.
I suppose that these Nordic laws make a first time possible, but I think it unlikely.
My thoughts are that those police chiefs who don't support the law will essentially ignore it. And those that support it, won't want to lose it to an early challenge, and so will use it sparingly and on those unlikely to fight back.
I sure wouldn't want to be the first person charged though. The paparazzi will be a mob.
I suppose that these Nordic laws make a first time possible, but I think it unlikely.
My thoughts are that those police chiefs who don't support the law will essentially ignore it. And those that support it, won't want to lose it to an early challenge, and so will use it sparingly and on those unlikely to fight back.
I sure wouldn't want to be the first person charged though. The paparazzi will be a mob.
I enjoy the witty banter so keep the servers open. Fred Z. has dramatically changed the advertising rules for the ladies, I am curious as to any restrictions he may put on reviews. Again I am not the alarmist type so my response even surprises me to some extent and my approach may change if LE in Victoria states their position on enforcement.
I don't think they will go after anyone presumed to have had anal intercourse. Unless of course they are able to catch a pooner in the act.
My reason for saying this? Governments do not want to mess with the Gay Community. They are organized, motivated and know how to use media to get the public on side.
Especially after calling out Putin in Russia about his policies against Gays. This is just not happening.
The law is supposed to be blind to ones orientation so going after Gays and Pooners who are into Anal will not feel any heat IMHO.
this is very funny
Honestly, the cops already know almost all of the ladies involved in this industry, and probably most of the guys involved. Further paranoia is just going to lead you to the nuthouse, or straight into doing something stupid. So just relax, take a deep breath and don't be stupid
Remember when you were a teenager and your buddies wanted you to buy beer or get some pot from some random dude? You're looking over your shoulder, you think there are people looking at you no matter where you are, trying to look good but are freaking out. Now, how did you feel after you did it like 5 times more and got away with it because you knew what you were doing.
No more posting links to reviews in ads? Thoughts?
So, I just noticed a new sticky at the top of the advertising sections. Normally I am one to just discreetly PM a mod if I have a question about something that only a mod can really do anything about (and that's very rare), but since this is something that presumably affects pretty much everyone who uses this site, and I know the mods probably don't have a lot of spare time right now and might be getting a lot of PMs about various things, I really hope it's ok to bring it up here in the Lounge. I have PM'd Fred as well.
From a potential client's perspective, I imagine that it makes it much easier to quickly find reviews of a particular lady if she is able to provide the links in her ad.
I can't say I understand the reasoning behind this decision. I am concerned that if this rule remains in place I may have to have to spend more of my marketing budget elsewhere. I know a lot of people are getting paranoid about recent developments but presumably past reviews are not going to be deleted so I don't get the issue with linking to them.
Violet Skye
So, I just noticed a new sticky at the top of the advertising sections. Normally I am one to just discreetly PM a mod if I have a question about something that only a mod can really do anything about (and that's very rare), but since this is something that presumably affects pretty much everyone who uses this site, and I know the mods probably don't have a lot of spare time right now and might be getting a lot of PMs about various things, I really hope it's ok to bring it up here in the Lounge. I have PM'd Fred as well.
Numbers 1 and 2 are totally understandable. However I was very surprised by #3. My own ad is almost entirely comprised of links to reviews, as I feel that reviews speak much louder than me just going on egotistically about myself - this is a review site after all. In addition, reviews of me can be quite difficult to find by searching since almost all of them are under just "Violet" - I only very recently added the last name Skye. (There are a now number of other Violets or posts that mention the word violet).Fred Zed said:
From a potential client's perspective, I imagine that it makes it much easier to quickly find reviews of a particular lady if she is able to provide the links in her ad.
I can't say I understand the reasoning behind this decision. I am concerned that if this rule remains in place I may have to have to spend more of my marketing budget elsewhere. I know a lot of people are getting paranoid about recent developments but presumably past reviews are not going to be deleted so I don't get the issue with linking to them.
Violet Skye
It doesn't matter if the reviews are collected or not, it would still be exceeding difficult to prove that a particular individual posted a particular review, which would be absolutely required for it to be used as evidence. I doubt that any police force would go to all that trouble, no matter how enthusiastic they might be. It would be a huge expenditure of money and time for a crime that would typically result in a relatively small fine.
Unless you make a habit of seeing under aged girls or sex slaves, they would not bother, and if you are that sort of client you belong in jail anyway.
Unless you make a habit of seeing under aged girls or sex slaves, they would not bother, and if you are that sort of client you belong in jail anyway.
I think that's rediculous... I mean maybe no more posting all those acronyms to your reviews from now on... but past reviews I think should be let go... I don't get it either.
I wonder if kissing counts as a sexual service? People kiss in public without much problem. If the term DFK is problematic, you could always say that you enjoy very soulful kissing.
Did I mention that I love kissing?
Did I mention that I love kissing?
New Rules for Reviews?
Fred has implemented new rules for ladies advertising:
1- No explicit offer of sexual services
2- No menu ( such as BBJ, CIM, etc)
3-Don't post links to reviews in your ad
What does this mean in terms of what you are allowed to post in a review?
Fred has implemented new rules for ladies advertising:
1- No explicit offer of sexual services
2- No menu ( such as BBJ, CIM, etc)
3-Don't post links to reviews in your ad
What does this mean in terms of what you are allowed to post in a review?
I am guessing it's all about moving the newly illegal activity off this site.
It basically puts the onus on the advertiser to point their ad to their website where the donation, services, reviews and pictures can be hosted. The ads here could merely make mention of companionship and suggest they view the website for more details.
It basically puts the onus on the advertiser to point their ad to their website where the donation, services, reviews and pictures can be hosted. The ads here could merely make mention of companionship and suggest they view the website for more details.
Nothing. Either rules for reviews will be announced later, or it will be up to the reviewer to decide where to set the boundaries. I expect there will be at least some guidelines.
Reviews part is of less priority, as until Dec 6 reviews won't be an indication of any wrongdoing (if not breaking pre-existing laws). In contrast, C-36 advertising rules are already in effect since Nov 6 2014, and breaking those may affect the board as a whole.
Reviews part is of less priority, as until Dec 6 reviews won't be an indication of any wrongdoing (if not breaking pre-existing laws). In contrast, C-36 advertising rules are already in effect since Nov 6 2014, and breaking those may affect the board as a whole.
This may sound incredibly naive, but how could a review be used as proof of any so-called "wrong doing"? The review does not offer proof that an actual encounter took place, nor does it prove that there was communication to procure sexual services for money. Realistically, these reviews are no more than Penthouse Forum letters, fleshed out with additional information regarding rates, contact info, locations etc. that is already posted in adverts. Follow up discourse and dissection by other members can only be construed as hearsay. The review only proves that someone took the time to write a contribution to a forum on reviewing service providers- in theory the review could be complete BS and merely an entertaining fantasy.
I don't believe that this part is true. C-36 advertising rules do NOT come into effect until the bill itself becomes law on Dec 6th. Otherwise, Fred Zed would already have deleted all the old ads.
