User talk:Lumenos/Protect massage parlors

Why don't you just FUCK OFF? You're worse than MC. You've 16 20 sub pages in your user space, none of which are of an interest to any other editor here. GO BACK TO YOUR OWN WIKI FAFUXAKE. 00:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'd argue that this guy is completely harmless compared to MC. At least he doesn't hit on me and ask for blowjobs like MustardChew does. Conservative Punk (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, could you stop referring to yourself in the third person? It makes you look like an even bigger douche than you already are. P-Foster (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not regard this text entity, which you call "Lumenos", to be myself. Please place further off-topical arguments at Lumeniki (or disturb Recent Changes, if you must). ~ Lumenaid - (Wong's chattery) 23:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it interfering with your viewing of Recent Changes? Do you believe it is not good cause? I think I do good thing. Why you so mad? Let's give peace chance. Make law more scientific. You need read artickle. It right on! ~ Lumenos 18:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Disease
Letter says, "In the bordellos of Nevada, one finds 0 incidents of aids-infection in 30 years."
 * With anti-retroviral drugs, Hepatitis C may be almost as bad as HIV. Maybe it too is only in semen or other juices that can be avoided with condom? ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 02:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What about then, more contagious disease like herpes or carcinogenic HPV? From WP: "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that male "condom use may reduce the risk for genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection" but provide a lesser degree of protection compared with other sexual transmitted diseases "because HPV also may be transmitted by exposure to areas (e.g., infected skin or mucosal surfaces) that are not covered or protected by the condom.""~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 02:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I do not know. The American Government states that only about 3%‒5% of STI infection comes from prostitution:

“Lambert, Bruce, AIDS in Prostitutes, Not as Prevalent as Believed, Studies Find; (New York Times, September 20, 1988).Numerous sources in the U.S. confirm the fact that prostitutes do not spread AIDS. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 1993;5(no. 3):pp. 7, 11, 17. 123 of 202,665 adult and adolescent males diagnosed with AIDS since 1981 denied any risk factor but sex with a female prostitute, or 0.04% (that’s 4/100 of 1%) of adult/adolescent males diagnosed with AIDS.”

I shall take advantage of the blockquote to drop the indentation. It is those pesky kids who spread the plurality of STIs with 30%‒35%% of STIs. The figure cited is for all prostitution in America. I imagine that in a bawdyhouse, prostitutes with no known infections who have sex only with men who to the knowledge of the prostitute have neverhad an STI and have no lesions and require condoms are better at protecting themselves and their patrons against STIs than the average sexually active woman, but I have no statistics.

Walabio (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently it varies greatly by geography, socio-economic bla bla:


 * "Geographically, there are huge differences," said Dr. Darrow. The worst AIDS pocket was in northern New Jersey, including Newark, Jersey City and Paterson. Forty-nine percent of the 168 women tested there were infected, and most of the infected were intravenous drug users.

The lowest infection rate - zero in a sample of 37 - was recorded in southern Nevada, where prostitution is legal and regulated. Screening of prostitutes by health officials there yielded only about five AIDS infections out of more than a thousand tests, Dr. Darrow said.


 * I know this doesn't mean that closing brothel stops prostitution or sex, but since you are making this argument I will ask if we know any more about this community. Lumenos (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ¡Wow! your google-skills make mine look bad.  I know quote a bit about these massage-parlors from personal experience.  ;-)  These are indoor-prostitutes.  None of them use narcotics of any kind.


 * Walabio (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Influencing Cotati's city council
What would Cotati's city council people find convincing? Some possibilities:

Prostitution is bad word?
Although some may agree in secret maybe for public relations it is political suicide to blatantly support prostitution? In this case maybe the justification or mention of prostitution would be counter-productive. This would be frustrating because then most arguments could not be made. What do you know about the public opinion or the city council? Lumenos (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If I think of a better term, I can use find and replace. If you have any suggestions, I am all ears or you can be bold and do it yourself.


 * Walabio (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a ephemism but a different approach. Like, I might have said, "Why punish massage therapists just because their job is associated with prostitution? This ordinance effectively criminalizes inexpensive massage. To be a massage therapist, do you really need training in 20 different techniques?" Lumenos (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Go next door
What if they think, indoor prostitution is better than outdoor. Better yet is indoor prostitution in a different city! Could everyone simply relocate, or is this the only area nearby that allows extra massage? Lumenos (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The only place the courtesans can go is onto the streets.


 * Walabio (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What passed already?
"Nonetheless, the ordinance establishing regulations for massage practitioners and establishments in the city passed, 5-0, at the June 23 City Council meeting after debate on the finer points of some wording in the ordinance." http://www.thecommunityvoice.com/article.php?id=1492

What was passed already? Lumenos (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It did pass, but the city-council did not inform the public and railroaded it.


 * Walabio (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Certification racket
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100624/NEWS/100629768?p=all&tc=pgall

The city last considered a massage parlor ordinance in 1999, but it died for reasons related to the cost of certifying legal masseuses, as well opposition from the industry, Harris said.

The cost of becoming certified, then about $1,200, is now $240 for two years, Harris said. The process includes verification of a therapist's training and a federal background check.

“It's far from inconvenient or burdensome,” said Bernadette Murray, of Woodland, a member of the American Massage Therapy Association and one of several massage therapists who spoke in favor of the ordinance Wednesday.

Who will collect the profit from these certifications? Schools that are, in turn, licensed by the American Massage Therapy Association? So you can't have a massage business unless you pay this bureaucracy hundreds of dollars? This isn't surgery we are talking about here. Is massage so dangerous that it requires special training to be done safely? No. They are using prostitution as an excuse to set up a racket. They are trying to package some prostitution legislation, with requirements that happen to enrich them. Lumenos (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You bring up an interesting point. I shall have to add it to the notes for the meeting.  Unfortunately, it will not be in the handouts because I went to Kinkos today and printed the handouts today before work.  I spent 60 of mine own dollars on the printouts.


 * Walabio (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be worth mentioning because the article said that is one reason the ordinance died before. I might have said something like, "There are other ways to close down brothels, if that is the purpose. Why infringe on the liberty of legitimate massage businesses? If they want to stop prostitution why don't they enforce the laws against prostitution?" I don't really know much about the situation to say if that is true or if it would be more convincing to the city council. Lumenos (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Public opposition
"Nonetheless, the ordinance establishing regulations for massage practitioners and establishments in the city passed, 5-0, at the June 23 City Council meeting after debate on the finer points of some wording in the ordinance."

"The city last considered a massage parlor ordinance in 1999, but it died for reasons related to the cost of certifying legal masseuses, as well opposition from the industry, Harris said." http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100624/NEWS/100629768?p=all&tc=pgall

"A similar ordinance was rejected in 1999 by the Cotati Council due to public opposition." http://www.thecommunityvoice.com/article.php?id=1492

It looks like they already want to pass this. It seems that the only thing stopping them is "public opposition". They may fear being voted out of office, or being hated by this community. A show of numbers would seem to be the most important thing. Lumenos (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is interesting that you mention this, because after work, I talked for 4 hours on the telephone for 4 hour with people in the message-parlors. I just got off of the telephone.  I believe that I can get a decent turnout to the meeting.


 * Walabio (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to work on the document some more, but I was too nervous.
After work tomorrowI shall hit the phone and try to get more stragglers to the meeting. Then I shall take a shower and put on my nicest clothes. I shall hit the phones on last time and then go to the meeting.

Walabio (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't do a lot of work on it myself. After you told me you were writing a speech instead of a letter, and with this being so long, I thought I would just post as talk page comments for you to consider. Lumenos (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You helped much. I really appreciated it.  This is what happened.:


 * Many massage-parlor-owners showed up complaining that they got no notice last time. The city-council responded that it cannot contact everyone.  The massage parlor-owners responded that a notice in the local paper would have been sufficient.


 * Many citizens spoke against the ordinance. They pointed out that the claims of Fetrow and Houts were unbelievable and the city does not need more bureaucracy.  They pointed to the implied racism.


 * Unfortunately, only 1 masseuse was brave enough to attend. I understand their fear as marginalized people, but it would really help to put an human face on the problem to see the people the ordinance would effect.


 * As you know, on Monday, I called all of the massage-parlors and talked as long as people would listen about the importance of showing to the meeting. 1 of the people whom I contacted was the owner of Joy Spa.  The owner, on Monday said that he will not attend and that I should fuck-off.  Not going to the council meeting is an act against his own interests and the way he said it was just plain rude.  Today, I i called all of the massage-parlors again to politely ask  them to attend.  The longest of these conversations was less than a minute.  I almost did not call him, but I figured that maybe he just had a bad day on Monday and called him anyway.  He was as polite as before.  If the city-council tables this ordinance, I plan to walk into his Spa and tell him to his face that I, and others, saved his ass and then tell him what he can shove into his, and then leave and never return.


 * At every public meeting, a kook has to show. This was no exception:  A man showed and basically insulted the mayor until thrown out over crazy accusations like mindcontrolrasys.


 * I managed to give the facts to the reporter Jeremy Hay outside the meeting, but I had to wait a long time because the kook ranted to the reporter about the evil machinations of the mayor to contaminate our precious bodily fluids or some such craziness. I gave the  the reporter a packet of documents (I also gave identical packets to the councilmembers and to the department of records for the archive).  I suggested that he not just print what others say, but go into the massage-parlors and see for himself that the trash is not stuffed with condoms and that all of the masseuses and here legally and willingly work in the massage-parlors.  I doubt that he will because he did not show enough initiative to investigate before, so ¿why should he start now?


 * The results were that the city-council rammed the ordinance down the throats of the people. I hope that the first place shutdown is Joy Spa.


 * Walabio (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Humm okay I'm glad I helped. That is too bad, I guess. You brave soldier. I'm not exactly sure what it means, other then that they can't call it "massage". Why can't they call them "personal trainers", "escorts", "Reiki practitioners" ummm "waitresses" or something? "She is waitress. She takes sandwich to the training room." They could use any massage equipment for some sort of fitness activity: martial arts, weight training, stretching, leg lifts. Ooow I know, a sperm bank! They were wasting all that sperm before. :-) If law enforcement wanted to prevent prostitution they could send cops to pose as clients and ask for special service. They could do that before this ordinance. I don't see how the situation has changed for a brothel, other then they have to change the name or description of the business. If they were having sex before "illegally" they could do both massage and sex "illegally". The only people who would seem to be hurt by this are ones who wanted to be legal massage therapists but now can't advertise this way or have to pay for ridiculous certification. Lumenos (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)