Customers Protecting Themselves When Visiting an Escort

[falkon]

As far as entrapment goes,
My understanding is police can lie to you all they want with no repercussions.
If you are involved in illegal activity, you forfeit any rights you may think you have.

There are more restrictions on entrapment in the US than in Canada.
Here is for a good summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment#United_States

In Canada, it's basically as you say.

[falkon]

The answer to your question has nothing to do with point of view or reason. It has to do with the difference in these two questions you asked. Money. The government doesn't care about the reason behind it. Here is what the government sees. The government sees a business transaction where no taxes were collected and the only way to get a sales report is on her word. There is no inventory, no employee and now they have to figure out a way to get their cut. Until they figure out a way to get more money from legalization than they do from arrests, fines, bail, etc it will remain illegal in your region.

the same argument could be done for a construction worker working alone as a businees. Many restaurants have cheated the government by 'zapping' their cash bills. The government trust a person to make a faithtful declaration, up to a certain point... that is where they become creative. They will evaluate your lifestyle, and determine if you declared all of your income sources. If you drive a brand new BMW while you're declaring 30 000$ total income, you will have problems.

I think the legality argument is driven by morals. Bible says it's immoral, so does the Coran and other religious texts, and as such, it became illegal, and making something legal again is much, much, much more difficult than making it illegal.

It seems easier to remove rights than to give some. Like taxes. Easier to raise them than to really lower them.

[lookingforlove]

I don?t know much about whether the Mafia would have that much affect on or after the legalization of the sex trade but the real reason for all of the many restrictions in our law on each and every thing of a sexual nature that dom r is concerned about, is that hundreds of years ago the CHURCH had great influence over the governments of the day in many countries. Therefore governments then wrote such legislation as forbid its citizens to entertain any kind of behaviour that was in opposition to the teachings of the Church and the Bible.

Since both our Canadian and American law is derived from ancient English law both countries are stuck with those stupid Church-pleasing regulations involving such as adultery, fornication, buggery, prostitution, gambling etc., etc. that tend to take all the fun out of life if we follow them as our laws demand we do.

Among those ancient British laws we have still retained in Canadian law is that crazy old Bawdy House law dating back even before Shakespearean times in England. To give you an idea of how irrelevant some of our laws are I've added some historical quotes below that are relative to this particular law:


bawdy-house - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)
BAWDY-HOUSE, crim. law. A house of ill-fame, (q. v.) kept for the resort and unlawful commerce of lewd people of both sexes.
2. Such a house is a common nuisance, as it endangers the public peace by drawing together dissolute and debauched persons; and tends to corrupt both sexes by an open profession of lewdness. 1 Russ. on Cr.; 299: Bac. Ab.
Nuisances, A; Hawk. B. 1, c. 74, Sec. 1-5.
3. The keeper of such a house may be indicted for the nuisance; and a
married woman, because such houses are generally kept by the female sex, may
be indicted with her husband for keeping such a house. 1 Salk. 383; vide
Dane's Ab. Index, h. t. One who assists in establishing a bawdyhouse is
guilty of a misdemeanor. 2 B. Monroe, 417.

---------------------------

In R. v. Rogier, - - - - - - For example, in R. v. Higginson , it was held that a house is disorderly if persons resort there for such illegal practices as "fighting of cocks, boxing, playing at cudgels and misbehaving themselves ... ".

---------------------------

The keeping of a bawdy?house comes under the cognizance of the temporallaw as a common nuisance. not only in respect of itsendangering the publicpeace by drawing together dissolute and debauched person and promotingquarrels, but also in respect of its tendency to corrupt the manners of thepeople. by an open profession of lewdness. '

----------------------------

According to Coke's Institutes. the keeping of such a house ?is against
the law of God, on which the common law of England in that case is
Grounded? Such an act was a common nuisance punishable by the
common law, as it was "the cause of many mischiefs, not only to the
overthrow of the bodies, and wasting of their livelyhoods, but to the
indangering of their soules'

In the event anybody should be interested in more of the same here is the URL for the above quotes:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rdo-olr.uottawa.ca%2Findex2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_sobi2%26sobi2Task%3Ddd_download%26fid%3D678%26Itemid%3D842&ei=0yp0UNiQI6jTyAGCm4CIAw&usg=AFQjCNGEKGm7KGZXaQV6El6CH8rjnjoakA&sig2=caMv3JzoTZHOI33ZGw-nbw

You hit the nail on the head. Every government is influenced by religious dictates. Even countries in the Far East have some religious influence over their governments although it is not as pervasive as it is in the Christian dominated countries. Also, it is how a religion views the act of sex. Christianity has always viewed any type of sex, outside of marriage, as a sin. Original sin or guilt is the cornerstone of Christianity. Most Asian religions do not have original sin or guilt in their makeup. Thus Asian people don't seem to have a great deal of aversion to sex outside of marriage or sex for pure pleasure alone.

My thoughts, after "growing up", are that religions are patently absurd. All intelligent people are curious to know "what's it all about" regarding our lives, being born, and dying. We are all wholly inadequate in even guessing what the meaning of life is and how we fit into the structure of the universe. To even think that anyone knows the answer (ie, God) is as arrogant and ignorant as one can possibly get. Also, to think that evolution got us here is even more ignorant. It's downright stupid. There is an answer but we don't know it. We can only guess. My own philosophical guess is that something built the universe and everything in and out of it. It's hard to imagine what that entity is or was. The intelligence required to even contemplate creating such a place is beyond imagination. Whether we get any answers when we eventually die is and always has been unknown. However, I would seriously doubt that death will bring any more enlightenment than what life brings. I have always been of the philosophy that "what is the reason to live life when you don't even know what the meaning of life is"? I guess it's the fear of death (the unknown) that keeps many of us still living.

We don't have any intelligent people in our governments that are making and enforcing laws based upon religious relics. We have cowards in our governments. Too afraid to speak up or challenge the status quo. How fearful these little men and women must be. Living a lie.

[Shyla Wild]

the same argument could be done for a construction worker working alone as a businees. Many restaurants have cheated the government by 'zapping' their cash bills. The government trust a person to make a faithtful declaration, up to a certain point... that is where they become creative. They will evaluate your lifestyle, and determine if you declared all of your income sources. If you drive a brand new BMW while you're declaring 30 000$ total income, you will have problems.

I think the legality argument is driven by morals. Bible says it's immoral, so does the Coran and other religious texts, and as such, it became illegal, and making something legal again is much, much, much more difficult than making it illegal.

It seems easier to remove rights than to give some. Like taxes. Easier to raise them than to really lower them.

Both industries your mentioned have inventory and can be audited very easily. There is only so much you can write off as loss. Due to inventory, both industries you mentioned probably pay more in taxes then they could steal. The opposite is true of prostitution.

[dom r]

hundreds of years ago the CHURCH had great influence over the governments of the day in many countries. Therefore governments then wrote such legislation as forbid its citizens to entertain any kind of behaviour that was in opposition to the teachings of the Church and the Bible.

Since both our Canadian and American law is derived from ancient English law both countries are stuck with those stupid Church-pleasing regulations involving such as adultery, fornication, buggery, prostitution, gambling etc., etc. that tend to take all the fun out of life if we follow them as our laws demand we do.

Among those ancient British laws we have still retained in Canadian law is that crazy old Bawdy House law dating back even before Shakespearean times in England. To give you an idea of how irrelevant some of our laws are I've added some historical quotes below that are relative to this particular law:


bawdy-house - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)
BAWDY-HOUSE, crim. law. A house of ill-fame, (q. v.) kept for the resort and unlawful commerce of lewd people of both sexes.
2. Such a house is a common nuisance, as it endangers the public peace by drawing together dissolute and debauched persons; and tends to corrupt both sexes by an open profession of lewdness. 1 Russ. on Cr.; 299: Bac. Ab.
Nuisances, A; Hawk. B. 1, c. 74, Sec. 1-5.
3. The keeper of such a house may be indicted for the nuisance; and a
married woman, because such houses are generally kept by the female sex, may
be indicted with her husband for keeping such a house. 1 Salk. 383; vide
Dane's Ab. Index, h. t. One who assists in establishing a bawdyhouse is
guilty of a misdemeanor. 2 B. Monroe, 417.

---------------------------

In R. v. Rogier, - - - - - - For example, in R. v. Higginson , it was held that a house is disorderly if persons resort there for such illegal practices as "fighting of cocks, boxing, playing at cudgels and misbehaving themselves ... ".

---------------------------

The keeping of a bawdy?house comes under the cognizance of the temporallaw as a common nuisance. not only in respect of itsendangering the publicpeace by drawing together dissolute and debauched person and promotingquarrels, but also in respect of its tendency to corrupt the manners of thepeople. by an open profession of lewdness. '

----------------------------

According to Coke's Institutes. the keeping of such a house “is against
the law of God, on which the common law of England in that case is
Grounded” Such an act was a common nuisance punishable by the
common law, as it was "the cause of many mischiefs, not only to the
overthrow of the bodies, and wasting of their livelyhoods, but to the
indangering of their soules'

That law certainly needs to be updated. Talk about discrimination as they claim "Such bawdy houses endangers the public peace by drawing together dissolute and debauched persons". So people who pay for a sexual service will endanger the public peace? BS. WHO ARE THEY to claim that paying for a sexual service is immoral and a sin? These law makers cannot infringe and force their personal beliefs apon everybody. It should be up to the individual to pay or get paid for this service. If paying for a sexual service is a sin or a lewd act then what about all the billions of people who still have sex outside their marriage? This is legal so therefore paying or receiving money for it should also be legal. So its legal for a woman to pay for a vibrating massage but if this leads to an orgasm all of a sudden its illegal? And this actually happens especially as the massager gets closer or stays on her crotch,butt or tits.

[bleh123]

Rule #1 - Only make arrangements by appointment with reputable providers
Rule #2 - Never discuss compensation, know the rates before the encounter and bring the proper amount
Rule #3 - If the provider starts discussing compensation for specific sex acts or starts any sort of dialogue about sex for money, shut up and leave immediately.

If you follow these, you will never have to worry really. #1 should really take care of any worries, the others are just if you're extra careful about such dealings and really want to be cautious. The risk is largely on the provider and they have to practice a much higher level of due diligence to avoid problems. You get jammed up when you screw around trying to pick girls up off the street or try to skimp on expenses generally. Give it the respect it deserves and you'll be fine.