So how are we supposed to see what you look like if have to be VIP or CIA or whatever...I don't get , its advertising...what if Louis Vuitton wouldn't let you see there bags before buying..is it an ego thing or what am I missing????
Sites with password protected galleries...what am I missing
- Thread starter blackjackshelac
- Start date
It's not C-36 unrelated (can someone please come up with a clever pun that I can use instead of "C-36"?).
There are some images women don't feel comfortable sharing with the public/search engines: more explicit, maybe face shots. If it's an American site, it could be just details of service.
There are some images women don't feel comfortable sharing with the public/search engines: more explicit, maybe face shots. If it's an American site, it could be just details of service.
C-36 does not bar a lady from advertising sex services.
She is reluctant to do so, however, because of the danger, with such advertising, that a customer might have a hard time convincing the court that he was not paying for sex.
To get round that, the lady might have two sections side-by-side on her web-site. One can be headed "sexual services", with explicit information about what she offers.
The second section would be headed, "platonic companionship", here again with explicit information about what she offers -- being things connected with companionship -- dinner dates, companion for functions, etc, and nothing that could be classed as "sexual services".
Her website would have a third section, in which she set out the incall/outcall info, dates & times, availablity, cost per hour, per overnight, etc -- the same $$ for her time under both headings.
Then, when the dude is stopped and questioned on the way in or out, and is faced with evidence that money changed hands, he says he's only there for the companionship side.
Who's to prove otherwise? What does the beyond-reasonable-doubt-proof look like, that he was there to pay for the sex side?
She is reluctant to do so, however, because of the danger, with such advertising, that a customer might have a hard time convincing the court that he was not paying for sex.
To get round that, the lady might have two sections side-by-side on her web-site. One can be headed "sexual services", with explicit information about what she offers.
The second section would be headed, "platonic companionship", here again with explicit information about what she offers -- being things connected with companionship -- dinner dates, companion for functions, etc, and nothing that could be classed as "sexual services".
Her website would have a third section, in which she set out the incall/outcall info, dates & times, availablity, cost per hour, per overnight, etc -- the same $$ for her time under both headings.
Then, when the dude is stopped and questioned on the way in or out, and is faced with evidence that money changed hands, he says he's only there for the companionship side.
Who's to prove otherwise? What does the beyond-reasonable-doubt-proof look like, that he was there to pay for the sex side?
