on THIS thread. Try to tell us again how you are NOT stalking GaG?
If you're not stalking him, why not tell everyone here WHAT was nonsensical about his post? Crickets anyone?
https://twitter.com/ChelseaHarperx/status/1247164390492659712
Link to Chelsea Harper. She is positive and did not know it. She was still seeing clients.
Ladies stay home and quit seeing people. It affects all of us.
not that she *HAD* been seeing clients.
Steph
She claims she did not have symptoms for WEEKS but definitely had the virus before symptoms.
There is no test that can tell you *when *you got the virus.
Sorry, I don't believe everything I read on twitter. Great publicity for her.
No, I am not in favor of mongering at this time.
We're all exposed to it. But please remember there are MEN out there patronizing the business too.
Please and thank you.
Her whole Twitter thread was about that and asking ladies not to see people right now. So his post saying she's been seeing people just not true.
Steph XO
-- Modified on 4/7/2020 9:35:35 AM
...it also looks like after she announced that guys were still trying to risk it seeing her.
Also, you know your gifs are always amazing lol
I have an external hard drive just for them. It's bad (lol) ...
to the point of false assumptions ugh.
Xoxo Babe,
C
For every provider still taking appointments there still has to be clients booking with her, AND for every client still booking appointments there still has to be a provider with whom to book with.
It takes two to tango, It also takes two (or more. lol) to fuck. lol
Not every hooker has the luxury of "taking a break" I certainly don't judge anyone trying to put food on the table, and NEVER underestimate the power of pussy. Men have been known to do all sorts of stupid shit. (like marriage) in the name of getting laid. I guess we are just hard wired to "spread our seed" even if all our little swimmers are caught in a the end of a condom.
Right
Imagine if people had stopped reproducing in times of war, famine, pandemics and other problems.
We wouldn't be here.
You can call me whatever. But I defeated "the getting married to get it" idea. I never felt for it. Actually I never understood it, still don't.
You are right. Some don't have that luxury. Neither do people doing post mates and Grub Hub.
But to automatically assume while only getting upset w the woman, mentioning the woman... that's a thing. To many men, it's always the woman's fault. It's annoying.
Not every hooker has the luxury of "taking a break" I certainly don't judge anyone trying to put food on the table, and NEVER underestimate the power of pussy. Men have been known to do all sorts of stupid shit. (like marriage) in the name of getting laid. I guess we are just hard wired to "spread our seed" even if all our little swimmers are caught in a the end of a condom.
Yes, many of the guys ALWAYS blame the women, OTOH, many of the women ALWAYS blame the men, that's also a thing. To deny it happens both ways is rather disingenuous.
it is not her fault. Her post is about warning others. Dont blame it on her, she's giving her input and advice to others. why everything has to be taken so negatively when is about a girl?
C'mon,
Exactly
it is not her fault. Her post is about warning others. Dont blame it on her, she's giving her input and advice to others. why everything has to be taken so negatively when is about a girl?
C'mon,
-- Modified on 7/20/2020 9:23:32 PM
THANK YOU...THANK YOU...THANK YOU...
I gotta give the lady a lot of credit for being honest and trying to do the right thing. Seems rare nowadays. A little surprised, but in a good way. Now she just has to work on that donation a little bit. Once she gets better I wonder if she will give a little coronavirus discount? Then I might consider seeing her. Rates seem a little aspirational w/o any reviews? Or am I missing something?
-- Modified on 4/7/2020 11:30:10 PM
lower if she's going to aspirate on you, especially during these difficult times.
He wants to pay you for your "Coronavirus Discount" idea. He's been out of new ideas for years and the old cheapass needs new material.
I opted to not meet in person with clients a week before the Illinois Quarantine was even effective because I had read several articles about the a-symptomatic carriers (or those people that have the virus but no symptoms so they have no idea). Not only could a potential client give it to me (and anytime I get anything, it goes right to my lungs which is a weakness) or vise versa and I don't ever want to effect anyone else unknowingly.
But that doesn't mean every provider feels that way and many of the girls are hugely financially impacted by this virus that likely won't be under control until June at the earliest. If she didn't have symptom of COVAD-19, she didn't know that she was even putting another at risk so I can't say she was in the wrong. Also, consider this, what if she didn't give the virus to clients. What if he or they caught it at the grocery store or if they caught it touching a doorknob in an apartment building or hotel? She may not have given it to them at all.
It isn't always the escort/provider that is at fault. I hate to say it but if any gentlemen are thinking with their small heads and asking for dates, it definitely is a risk that they are undertaking and I feel they shouldn't blame anyone other than themselves if they get COVAD-19.
I very much agree with you Anita.
I have been self isolating for going on almost 5 weeks now. At least 3 more to go (under WI rules)
I did NOT want to do this.
I chose my gf and family (all much older with high risk issues) over making money.
It is not something I wanted to do but I did what I felt best.
I will not blame anyone who must work.
If guys chose to see a girl, that's on them. That's their responsibility.
You can get it from anywhere.
I could have been extremely busy all this time, because most guys just plainly don't care if they get it.
This is not something we should blame on anyone.
If I get it from not being careful at a grocery store, it's on me.
Same for this.
Yes, I offer sexting, video clips, video sessions, and pictures. I am doing what makes me the most at peace for what is going on.
Evers looses his emergency executive powers on 5/12. I will leave my opinion on his performance to myself. It is chilling how we have had to abdicated our civil rights during this crises.
I'm with you! I stopped seeing any and everyone the second week in March. I even cancelled a date I had on the 13th, even though it was very early on in this pandemic. I have been getting non-stop requests for dates throughout this entire quarantine, even as recently as one day ago. It is very evident that there are A LOT of people still happily willing to put themselves, their loved ones and so many others at risk.... To each their own, but I am not wired like that. I just want this to end sooner than later and feel good about doing my part to be part of the solution and not the problem. Stay safe! xo
I went out the first two weeks. I didn't go out last weekend. I'll go this weekend. I can't hold it.
We have an agreement. Nobody blames anybody and that goes for the guys that went in before.
Even if they don't know, they are agreeing to agree.
Eventually everybody will get sick if not this time around. They will sometime in the future when it is not the big story.
It'll be like getting sick or dying of a cold or anything else. Once the curve is flatten as they say, you are on you're on.
Still there are not enough hospital spaces for all so try not to get sick. If not you will suffer and die a painful lonely dead like a dog in the street.
That's not how it works here I think.
The original post misinterpreted a tweet but did not seem to be actually blaming anyone. The tweet similarly didn't seem to be blaming anyone.
One poster corrected the misstated bit (no one was seeing anyone it seems).
There the blame game got started. I think all some here need to start pointing fingers is a random post to turn into a train to hop on.
It has been a bit entertaining though.
near the top of the thread. After that it was just a bunch of bored guys (me included) passing the time.
Wouldn't you then be immune? This goes for clients AND Providers. I personally would see it as an advertising point for a provider looking to resume business after recovery and a week or two of good health. The clients, showing proof of their "positive" test result from over 15 or 20 days ago would be good proof no? I'm not a doctor but seems like one way to resume SOME biz.
"Advertising point" means money -- and a huge incentive to lie. Nothing new there, just one more disease to lie about, for those who do. And one more bit of doubt and stigma for those who don't.
Seems there's a business opportunity about to open up, selling fake "proof".
Yeah, I'm grumpy just now. Wonder why?
You are definitely right about the lying thing. People lie to make a buck or get a fuck. For those clients who know they are immune though, it wouldn't matter if the gal lies right? It would matter to the girl if the guy lied definitely but only if she wasn't already immune. If the gal has not had it and accepts the danger then the immune client wouldnt care, he couldn't get it anyway. The only danger is to the provider who is not immune. So if you havent had it then don't see anybody. You'll be safe. Then there is the client who lies and the provider who lies. Then they both put each other at risk and continue the unchecked spread that is now happening in the world.
Maybe the new screening will include some app that will record your temperature X times a day and then you can share the past 2 week history. That probably works okay for both those that plan in advance and have their regular girls. Well, take that back, it doesn't work because right now I don't think there's an app for that but...
Unfortunately I don't think the medical community actually has an answer on that yet so for now everyone can do what make them feel the most comfortable. If it's confirming someone was infected and has recovered seems as good an approach as any for now.
She got a review that was indicated that she maintained social distancing throughout the session. 1500/2 hrs. of no kissing, covered everything, etc.
mail her the money and stay home. Lol
I have completely changed the way I operate, my menu of services, and am not interested in bringing Covid19 home to my children. Lucky for me I engage in kinky activities that do not put me at risk. Sending photos, flirty text messages, and naughty nude videos to a select few has help during Quarantine.
You can't point the finger at providers it takes 2. Not everyone can afford to not work, but I totally understand your frustration. If I was sick, or had a fever I would not be seeing clients. Professional courtesy. My prayers go out to everyone.
Sending you peace, love & positive vibes! xoxo
Rivers Casino near Rosemont, IL opened up lat week on 7/1 and I've been there twice thus far. You need a mask to enter and they take your temperature at the door. First time I visited the place was maybe 50% full, which was pretty impressive I thought considering all the leftist media scare tactics. I went there again yesterday (Sunday) and the casino was even more crowded...maybe 70% full. The casino has done a real nice job with the plexiglass at all table games and slots. Craps was the only game w/o plexiglass but they did enforce the 6ft distance rule. My point with all this IS...if people are scared please stay home, but let the rest of us try get on with as much of a normal life that we can.
Hello. I have lost two loved ones to this pandemic. The idea that anybody's reaction to this situation should be a matter of personal opinion like, "I'm scared" or, "I want to get on with my normal life", is a sign of either, a lack of even the most basic understanding of virology or how pandemics function, or a complete willful ignorance of the facts. Based upon your "leftist media scare tactics" comment, I'm going to guess the latter. The concept that there exists an "us/them" dynamic in this situation is simply not true. Everyone is at risk to one degree or another. To suggest that, because Person A feels less at risk and is therefore ready to resume their normal life, and not recognize the increase in risk that Person A's actions then create for Person B, who happens to be in an already increased risk group, is again, willful ignorance. Also, the idea of, "scared people stay at home, while the rest of us get on with things" does not account for the ongoing, relentless, risk that is a daily reality for our health care professionals. I suppose my point with all this IS... everyone is in this together. Recognize it or not, that is the reality. It's no wonder America is leading the world in Covid-19 deaths, considering how concerned with "personal" liberties it purports to be... When the one thing we could have used this whole time was a bit of collective concern; the ability to see our individual selves, as well as our actions, as part of and responsible to a larger system.
As you were...
sorry for your loss, but the fact that you're here posting on a fuckboard would indicate that you have finished your grieving, so I will shoot straight. Suggesting Person A stay home because they might infect Person B is just asinine. If person B is worried, they should stay home and not be out where they can come into contact with Person A. Person B is not the responsibility of Person A. Bathtubgin got it right. HE will not have his movements controlled because of the hysteria of others. He will live his own life and I'm doing the same as him. I'm in a so-called "high-risk" group (age 61), and yet I saw roughly 40 providers (some more than once --- I was trying to spread my money around to the ladies who's businesses were slow) from February through May with nary a cough or a wheeze. I was tested once a month during those months and never had Covid-19. I didn't join the "mask brigade" until I HAD to, because they stopped letting you into stores without one. I've had a lot of business meetings the last few months, and after everyone sits down, someone will always say, "Does anyone mind if I take off my mask", and I'm one of the first to say, "I was hoping someone would ask, so why don't we all take them off?" Maskless meetings make you feel almost normal again until you jump on the Interstate and there's no traffic. Lol
-- Modified on 7/18/2020 7:18:04 PM
I don't get your argument about the stay home because X being asinine. That is basically the way ALL our laws work. Certain action are limited based on the potential for causing harm to some other person. Law's tend to address negative externalities. It's really not much different from the your right ends at the end of my fist except it is implemented through a public policy mechanism.
the rights of everyone, but going out in public during Covid-19 is not irresponsible or against the law. Driving a car into a group of people is, because its reasonably foreseeable that someone will be injured or killed. Your suggestion that its my responsibility to stay at home because I might endanger someone who SHOULD be staying at home because they are in poor health is overreach. That's like saying women wearing certain perfumes should not go out in public because it may have a negative effect on people with allergies. Its up to the people with allergies to stay home if they feel endangered by women's perfumes. Otherwise, you are trampling on the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, like free association, the right to assemble, and a woman's right to wear the perfume of her choice. (I could be wrong about the last one being in the Constitution. Lol)
http://reason.com/2020/03/18/police-powers-during-a-pandemic-constitutional-but-not-unlimited/
Clearly shows your claim is not correct. So the question is really to what extent is a reasonable limitation on individual freedoms. It might be worth noting that for the most part everyone is bitching about commercial interactions (free to eat at a restaurant or go to a casino) or simply not have to wear a mask when in public, with many then claiming the mask requirement is limiting their freedom of movement.
The argument that the person who might be harmed must bear all the cost of avoiding is analogous to a person causing an auto accident saying they should not be charged with anything because the other person should have stayed off the road if they were worried about getting into an accident.
Legal scholars have all sorts of opinions, just because you can find one, or even a hundred so called experts with one "opinion" hardly end the conversation. I am not going to bore the rest of the board with a "debate" that could last for months or years on the constitutionality of shelter in place orders, but if your link "Clearly shows" CDL's claim is NOT correct than this link "Clearly shows" CDL is indeed correct.
I am not stating that these laws/orders are indeed unconstitutional, but the discussion is clearly NOT over, nor is it as clearcut as you are suggesting. Even your own link concedes a "reasonable limitation" Your automobile analogy is clearly specious, but nice try. lol
Don't worry, I have ZERO intention of arguing this topic to death here on GD. I already have a stalker trying to drag every topic from P&R to this board, I have less than zero intentions of doing the same.
But CDL was claiming it is a clear case. So the link does clearly show that is not the case.
I agree there are lots of arguments that can be made on either side, and that really was the point. Simply calling restrictions that have been put in place asinine was what I was challenging and the Constitutional claim in response did not really allow support of that prior claim.
My link speaks directly to CDL's claims, and actually includes quotes from a SC Chief Justice:
'The U.S. Supreme Court has long agreed that the states have police powers of this sort. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall observed that the police powers, that "immense mass of legislation," as he put it, "which embraces every thing within the territory of a State, not surrendered to the federal government," includes "quarantine laws" and "health laws of every description."'
In other words, the SC has discussed this in the past and has come down on the side saying such actions are not unconstitutional as a blanket statement. So I think the burden here is to show how various limitations some are up in arms about are in fact in violation of the Constitution and on what specific grounds they are in violation.
Reason has a fairly good level of quality in its research and policy papers. I have no idea who CCN or the author of the Op-Ed so don't have much basis for assessing the quality of either. Same for the legal expert the author references, he's from a 67th ranked law school. Though I will grant he seems to at least have a specialization in Constitutional Law.
First off I don't see anywhere where CDL used the words that it was a "clear case" if you can show me where he did, I will agree he was/is as wrong as you for using them. The matter is hardly CLEAR.
I am not going to get in a battle over who's experts make the best case, my point was that quite to the contrary of what YOU said, the case law is hardly "clear"
Now please fucking drop it already. We already have enough posts on GD that rightfully belong on P&R lets not you and I clutter up a board meant to discuss pussy in order to discuss constitutional law which is something we will NEVER agree upon.
"Otherwise, you are trampling on the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, like free association, the right to assemble,..."
Is CDL equivocating between limitation on activities due to risks of infection spread with free association and right to assemble? What is really the connection here to the situation of people possibly infecting others they generally don't know or even really intend to have any association with and which action(s) either or both of those parties have to take to avoid a harm occurring?
If he is not specifically claiming the rules about limiting social interaction in public or taking precautions not to cause damage unintentionally to others is either freedom of association or right to assemble (and keep in mind right to assemble is really about protesting, or at least some form of political assembly, and not merely gathering) then just what Constitutional right are these policing powers trampling?
I am unaware of any agreement. You said you were not going to argue -- and you don't have to if you don't want. That is your choice but not something you should or can (unless you plan on having the moderators/admins delete my posts) force on me.
Also, let's make clear, SIP does not appear to have required never leaving one's house regardless of the term. To my knowledge even during some of the worst periods in NYC people were still able to go take care of any number of things. I know that where I am we had the same SIP policy but never once was I locked in my house nor did I, as was and is the case in other countries, did I ever need to present any authorization to be out of my house or off my property. To the extent that some have taken that approach it is a voluntary choice and not imposed by some authoritarian State.
-- Modified on 7/20/2020 8:44:48 PM
So in parting, let me just say GFY and goodnight.
I live in California and Nevada. I’ve been a lawyer in California for 40 years. We can debate these issues all we want, but many, many cases were recently filed in California challenging government regulations during the COVID-19 crisis. If the restrictions were unconstitutional they would have been immediately enjoined by the Courts. They were not. Citizens challenged beach closures, business closures and restrictions, and other restrictions related to the stay at home orders. In one case an OC city challenged the State’s beach closure. The restrictions were upheld in every case that I’m aware of. The reason is that even the most important Constitutional rights are subject to restrictions. Don’t believe me? When the movie theaters re-open go to a movie and yell “FIRE’’ in the middle of the movie. When you do so just make sure you bring bail money because you’ll discover that even the freedom of speech can be limited by government regulations. Still don’t believe me? At your first court appearance tell the Judge he/she is a fucking idiot because you have freedom of speech. That won’t work out very well for you either. All Constitutional rights can be limited where there is a valid public purpose. Thus far the Courts even in liberal California have determined that COVID-19 is a valid public purpose for restrictions on assembly and free movement. I doubt we’ll see that change.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.