Printable View
[QUOTE=Candyman555;2310030]There is a hair salon and an accupuncture place next to the adult video store. Which one is the one mentioned for massage etc?? Thanks CM.
PM the name if possible.[/QUOTE][URL]http://losangeles.backpage.com/BodyRubs/december-special-and-g-o-o-d-5-min-from-lax/42188173[/URL]
[QUOTE=TheCamel;2310422][URL]http://losangeles.backpage.com/BodyRubs/december-special-and-g-o-o-d-5-min-from-lax/42188173[/URL][/QUOTE]Saw Carla. Worth the trip! Thanks CM.
Does anyone know how this new law will affect MP's?
We Discussed this last year and basically it will give counties and cities more power in regulating these establishments. Below are some of the particulars that seem ominous from my perspective. Say good bye to the skimpy outfits!
Baggens.
The bill would, notwithstanding any other law, prohibit a city, county, or city and county from enacting or enforcing an ordinance that conflicts with these provisions or other corresponding specified provisions. However, the bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to adopt or enforce local ordinances that govern zoning, business licensing, or reasonable health and safety requirements for establishments or businesses of a licensed or certified healing arts professional, including a certified massage therapist. The bill would also make clarifying and conforming changes regarding local regulation of massage establishments or businesses.
(b) Nothing contained in this chapter shall be a limitation on that existing power or on the existing authority of a city to license for revenue purposes. A city, county, or city and county shall not enact or enforce an ordinance that conflicts with the provisions of this section or Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code.
(c) Nothing contained in this chapter shall authorize a city, county, or city and county to do any of the following:
(1) Prohibit a person of one sex from engaging in the massage of a person of the other sex.
(2) Define a massage establishment as an adult entertainment business, or otherwise regulate a massage establishment as adult entertainment.
(3) Require a massage establishment to have windows or walls that do not extend from the floor to ceiling, or have other internal physical structures, including windows, that interfere with a client's reasonable expectation of privacy.
(4) Impose client draping requirements that extend beyond the covering of genitalia and female breasts, or otherwise mandate that the client wear special clothing.
(5) Prohibit a massage establishment from locking its external doors if the massage establishment is a business entity owned by one individual with one or no employees or independent contractors.
(6) Require a massage establishment to post any notice in an area that may be viewed by clients that contains explicit language describing sexual acts, mentions genitalia, or specific contraception devices.
(7) Impose a requirement that a person certified pursuant to Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code take any test, medical examination, or background check or comply with education requirements beyond what is required by Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code.
(8) Impose a requirement that an individual holding a certificate issued in accordance with Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, obtain any other license, permit, certificate, or other authorization to provide massage for compensation. However, this paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit a city, county, or city and county from requiring by ordinance that a massage business or establishment obtain a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization in order to operate lawfully within the jurisdiction.
(9) Impose a dress code requirement on a person certified pursuant to Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code in excess of those already imposed pursuant to paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 4609 of the Business and Professions Code.
(10) Prohibit a person certified pursuant to Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code from performing massage for compensation on the gluteal muscles, prohibit specific massage techniques recognized by the California Massage Therapy Council as legitimate, or impose any other specific restriction on professional practice beyond those set forth in subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 4609 of the Business and Professions Code, except as authorized by Section 460 of the Business and Professions Code.
[QUOTE=TopherLA;2317250]Does anyone know how this new law will affect MP's?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DildoBaggens;2317394]We Discussed this last year and basically it will give counties and cities more power in regulating these establishments. Below are some of the particulars that seem ominous from my perspective. Say good bye to the skimpy outfits!
Baggens.
The bill would, notwithstanding any other law, prohibit a city, county, or city and county from enacting or enforcing an ordinance that conflicts with these provisions or other corresponding specified provisions. However, the bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to adopt or enforce local ordinances that govern zoning, business licensing, or reasonable health and safety requirements for establishments or businesses of a licensed or certified healing arts professional, including a certified massage therapist. The bill would also make clarifying and conforming changes regarding local regulation of massage establishments or businesses.
(b) Nothing contained in this chapter shall be a limitation on that existing power or on the existing authority of a city to license for revenue purposes. A city, county, or city and county shall not enact or enforce an ordinance that conflicts with the provisions of this section or Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code.
(c) Nothing contained in this chapter shall authorize a city, county, or city and county to do any of the following:
(1) Prohibit a person of one sex from engaging in the massage of a person of the other sex.
(2) Define a massage establishment as an adult entertainment business, or otherwise regulate a massage establishment as adult entertainment.
(3) Require a massage establishment to have windows or walls that do not extend from the floor to ceiling, or have other internal physical structures, including windows, that interfere with a client's reasonable expectation of privacy.
(4) Impose client draping requirements that extend beyond the covering of genitalia and female breasts, or otherwise mandate that the client wear special clothing.
(5) Prohibit a massage establishment from locking its external doors if the massage establishment is a business entity owned by one individual with one or no employees or independent contractors.
(6) Require a massage establishment to post any notice in an area that may be viewed by clients that contains explicit language describing sexual acts, mentions genitalia, or specific contraception devices.
(7) Impose a requirement that a person certified pursuant to Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code take any test, medical examination, or background check or comply with education requirements beyond what is required by Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code.
(8) Impose a requirement that an individual holding a certificate issued in accordance with Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, obtain any other license, permit, certificate, or other authorization to provide massage for compensation. However, this paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit a city, county, or city and county from requiring by ordinance that a massage business or establishment obtain a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization in order to operate lawfully within the jurisdiction.
(9) Impose a dress code requirement on a person certified pursuant to Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code in excess of those already imposed pursuant to paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 4609 of the Business and Professions Code.
(10) Prohibit a person certified pursuant to Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code from performing massage for compensation on the gluteal muscles, prohibit specific massage techniques recognized by the California Massage Therapy Council as legitimate, or impose any other specific restriction on professional practice beyond those set forth in subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 4609 of the Business and Professions Code, except as authorized by Section 460 of the Business and Professions Code.[/QUOTE]I respectfully disagree on the skimpy outfits issue. The statute specifically says that local governments cannot impose restrictions on clothing worn by therapists. But there is no question that cities are going to be cracking down in any number of ways.
Damm anyone of these 10 requirements could break the MP business. Once implemented it will be interesting to see how the MP management reacts and do they go UTR (I. E. Private apartments, etc.) and just how quickly cities will adopt new ordinances and regulate it.
Time to find a different hobby, NO!
The Tall Man.
[QUOTE=DildoBaggens;2317394]We Discussed this last year and basically it will give counties and cities more power in regulating these establishments. Below are some of the particulars that seem ominous from my perspective. Say good bye to the skimpy outfits!
Baggens.
The bill would, notwithstanding any other law, prohibit a city, county, or city and county from enacting or enforcing an ordinance that conflicts with these provisions or other corresponding specified provisions. However, the bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to adopt or enforce local ordinances that govern zoning, business licensing, or reasonable health and safety requirements for establishments or businesses of a licensed or certified healing arts professional, including a certified massage therapist. The bill would also make clarifying and conforming changes regarding local regulation of massage establishments or businesses.
(b) Nothing contained in this chapter shall be a limitation on that existing power or on the existing authority of a city to license for revenue purposes. A city, county, or city and county shall not enact or enforce an ordinance that conflicts with the provisions of this section or Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code.
(c) Nothing contained in this chapter shall authorize a city, county, or city and county to do any of the following:
(1) Prohibit a person of one sex from engaging in the massage of a person of the other sex.
(2) Define a massage establishment as an adult entertainment business, or otherwise regulate a massage establishment as adult entertainment.
(3) Require a massage establishment to have windows or walls that do not extend from the floor to ceiling, or have other internal physical structures, including windows, that interfere with a client's reasonable expectation of privacy.
(4) Impose client draping requirements that extend beyond the covering of genitalia and female breasts, or otherwise mandate that the client wear special clothing.
(5) Prohibit a massage establishment from locking its external doors if the massage establishment is a business entity owned by one individual with one or no employees or independent contractors.
(6) Require a massage establishment to post any notice in an area that may be viewed by clients that contains explicit language describing sexual acts, mentions genitalia, or specific contraception devices.
(7) Impose a requirement that a person certified pursuant to Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code take any test, medical examination, or background check or comply with education requirements beyond what is required by Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code.
(8) Impose a requirement that an individual holding a certificate issued in accordance with Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, obtain any other license, permit, certificate, or other authorization to provide massage for compensation. However, this paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit a city, county, or city and county from requiring by ordinance that a massage business or establishment obtain a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization in order to operate lawfully within the jurisdiction.
(9) Impose a dress code requirement on a person certified pursuant to Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code in excess of those already imposed pursuant to paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 4609 of the Business and Professions Code.
(10) Prohibit a person certified pursuant to Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code from performing massage for compensation on the gluteal muscles, prohibit specific massage techniques recognized by the California Massage Therapy Council as legitimate, or impose any other specific restriction on professional practice beyond those set forth in subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 4609 of the Business and Professions Code, except as authorized by Section 460 of the Business and Professions Code.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=TheTallMan;2317746]Damm anyone of these 10 requirements could break the MP business. Once implemented it will be interesting to see how the MP management reacts and do they go UTR (I. E. Private apartments, etc.) and just how quickly cities will adopt new ordinances and regulate it.
Time to find a different hobby, NO!
The Tall Man.[/QUOTE]Tall Man & Baggens, either you guys or I are missing the major point here. My reading of these 10 items under subsection (c) is that this is the part of the bill that is NOT ominous. This is the section of the bill that protects MPs against overreaching local regulation. Notice subsection (c) states that a locality is NOT AUTHORIZED to pass any regulation regarding those 10 specific subject areas ("Nothing contained in this chapter shall authorize a city, county, or city and county to do any of the following. " In other words, localities do not have the power to pass regulations as to these 10 specifics. Though the new law generally gives localities power to regulate MPs that they didn't have before this new law was passed, the statute specifically says localities may NOT pass a local ordinance saying for instance that a masseuse is prohibited from performing therapeutic butt massage, or that MPs must have a window or short walls for massage rooms that would limit customer privacy, et al.
I did not realize this kind of protection to MPs and customers was in the new law and thanks to Baggens for posting it. That is not to say that the new law doesn't have the potential to change the MP landscape as localities should find it easier to regulate and bust MPs in ways they could not for the last 5 years or however long the now expired law was in effect. I expect there will be more regulation and more busts and a good number of us will be looking to other options, but the local power is limited by this subsection (c) as the state legislature was clearly concerned that they'd go overboard in ways that would leave legit MPs vulnerable to prosecution. We'll have to see how it plays out but you can bet that some city governments that were ready to go whole hog nuts with new local MP restrictions are very disappointed that the state is still tying their hands as to these 10 specifics which would be perfect fodder to obliterate the MP business as Tall Man stated.
Camel, Thanks for clearing things up. I was a bit in a hurry and tried to speed read through all the legalize and my dyslexic brain got the worst of me. It seems Law is right up your ally and if you have the time and inclination to perhaps enlighten us on what you think will probably come to pass, that would be helpful for all us mongers who like to frequent the MP scene.
Ill do my best to reread the text, this time with my old reliable Mormon Seer stones, accurately placed on my eyeballs.
Baggens.
[QUOTE=TheCamel;2317849]Tall Man & Baggens, either you guys or I are missing the major point here. My reading of these 10 items under subsection (c) is that this is the part of the bill that is NOT ominous. This is the section of the bill that protects MPs against overreaching local regulation. Notice subsection (c) states that a locality is NOT AUTHORIZED to pass any regulation regarding those 10 specific subject areas ("Nothing contained in this chapter shall authorize a city, county, or city and county to do any of the following. " In other words, localities do not have the power to pass regulations as to these 10 specifics. Though the new law generally gives localities power to regulate MPs that they didn't have before this new law was passed, the statute specifically says localities may NOT pass a local ordinance saying for instance that a masseuse is prohibited from performing therapeutic butt massage, or that MPs must have a window or short walls for massage rooms that would limit customer privacy, et al.
I did not realize this kind of protection to MPs and customers was in the new law and thanks to Baggens for posting it. That is not to say that the new law doesn't have the potential to change the MP landscape as localities should find it easier to regulate and bust MPs in ways they could not for the last 5 years or however long the now expired law was in effect. I expect there will be more regulation and more busts and a good number of us will be looking to other options, but the local power is limited by this subsection (c) as the state legislature was clearly concerned that they'd go overboard in ways that would leave legit MPs vulnerable to prosecution. We'll have to see how it plays out but you can bet that some city governments that were ready to go whole hog nuts with new local MP restrictions are very disappointed that the state is still tying their hands as to these 10 specifics which would be perfect fodder to obliterate the MP business as Tall Man stated.[/QUOTE]
New California Law. AB 1147.
Found some more details. [URL]http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml;jsessionid=126d373fff9b7d819f88ee16ec54[/URL].
Open "Bill Analysis" tab
Read assembly floor analysis which include the does and don't s.
[QUOTE=DildoBaggens;2318502]Camel, Thanks for clearing things up. I was a bit in a hurry and tried to speed read through all the legalize and my dyslexic brain got the worst of me. It seems Law is right up your ally and if you have the time and inclination to perhaps enlighten us on what you think will probably come to pass, that would be helpful for all us mongers who like to frequent the MP scene.
Ill do my best to reread the text, this time with my old reliable Mormon Seer stones, accurately placed on my eyeballs.
Baggens.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Adm888;2301318]Went to check out Lily Care. It's close to work so I was anxious to try.
Parking is tough here. They said they have a lot but I wasn't sure which lot so I took a street space.
Went in and Korean MMS took my 60/ hour and took me to a nice big room. This place seems very clean.
Waited a few minutes and my Chinese therapist walks in. She was a 40 ish MILF and she looked good to me.
Got a nice oil massage with hot towel cleanup then the flip came. I was hoping for CBJ but it wasn't offered. Instead I got a nice HE with as much tasting as I wanted of some nice be cups. Her pants didn't come down though. I said I wanted DATY next time and she didn't say no.
Tipped a little more than standard because she had a good attitude and I had fun. I'd return here.[/QUOTE]I used to visit Lily Care years ago and it was a great FS operation. I stopped going because I think the owners changed as they often do, or they took FS off the table. Anyways, after all these recent posts I thought I would go check it out again. Went in on a weekend afternoon and it seemed busy as all the stalls were full. Talked to the MAMA who immediately started giving me the 3rd degree. Who you? I nevah seen you before. I been here 8 years. Blah blah blah. I politely told her that in fact, I had been a customer there, but it had been many years since I'd been by. Anyway, she basically straight up called me a liar. Whatever. So, then I asked who was working today? You don't know anyone working here!-she yelled to me. OK, so I can I see a lineup? No, she says, I never do that. Get out of here and go somewhere else. I don't want to deal with people like you. I was told.
Soooo fuck this place. You may wind up with a decent MILF here, but if you get stuck with an ugly chick, tough shit. I never patronize places that don't let me pick, or at least let me change the girl if I don't like her. This mama had the worst attitude I've ever seen. A complete total *****. And I've learned how to deal nicely with paranoid mamas before, but this lady was off the charts mean. She just doesn't care about getting business. So maybe this is an indication that they are so busy that she doesn't give a shit about losing customers. That's fine, but seriously, there is so much pussy out there that I refuse to support places like this that have such a piss poor attitude towards customer service. They are eventually going to fuck you over in the end. It's not worth the drama.
I frequent the Berlin scene, and I'm not often in LA. But visited Momo two times a couple of months ago. Never got to see any lineup. Greeted robot-like by mamasan and paid the house fee. Got sent into a room and asked to wait for the girl. Couldn't remember the names, but both girls were asian. I'll describe both encounters as one, as it seems like the girls graduated from the same class of whoring. Mediocre massage before I got asked how much I wanted to pay her. No discussion on service at all. I said I'd pay 100 roses. Got asked to flip over. I did, and she started rubbing her suddenly naked body all over me. Played with and kissed my balls for a while before putting on rubber with her mouth. Gave a nice CBJ for 6 or 7 minutes, before cow girl. Did some mish before I came in K9. Almost identical experiences, exept for the one who was too tight to do it doggy. Tried, but gave up and got cowgirl until cum. Got cleaned up and got a bottle of water on my way out the door. A nice unrushed experience.
Facilities - 8 (no shower unfortunately).
Looks on providers - 8 and 7.
CBJ. A solid 7.
FS - 8.
Singing while massage - 2.
Total damage 150.
Will repeat!
I was in Berlin for the marathon this past fall and tried out Liberty while there and it was a pretty good time (I posted my review in the international Berlin thread). Nothing beats legal pussy. The encounter you got is what I always got at AMPs- sometimes cute, sometimes older, but the ones in that area all seem to follow a basic script. There's an AMP across the street that I frequented that I am spacing the name (I reviewed it here) but based on my research the two are almost identical in terms of service, I just liked the other place better because it was slightly more under the radar. I did the place about a half dozen times and got burnt out on the AMP scene and moved on. One thing I'd suggest is not discuss $ when the time comes. I just leave the money hanging out of my pant pocket so it's visible and when they ask what you want just say everything and it's on. The $ is assumed for that area as standard rate.
[QUOTE=RandomTraveler;2322004]I frequent the Berlin scene, and I'm not often in LA. But visited Momo two times a couple of months ago. Never got to see any lineup. Greeted robot-like by mamasan and paid the house fee. Got sent into a room and asked to wait for the girl. Couldn't remember the names, but both girls were asian. I'll describe both encounters as one, as it seems like the girls graduated from the same class of whoring. Mediocre massage before I got asked how much I wanted to pay her. No discussion on service at all. I said I'd pay 100 roses. Got asked to flip over. I did, and she started rubbing her suddenly naked body all over me. Played with and kissed my balls for a while before putting on rubber with her mouth. Gave a nice CBJ for 6 or 7 minutes, before cow girl. Did some mish before I came in K9. Almost identical experiences, exept for the one who was too tight to do it doggy. Tried, but gave up and got cowgirl until cum. Got cleaned up and got a bottle of water on my way out the door. A nice unrushed experience.
Facilities - 8 (no shower unfortunately).
Looks on providers - 8 and 7.
CBJ. A solid 7.
FS - 8.
Singing while massage - 2.
Total damage 150.
Will repeat![/QUOTE]
Lily just lowered their half hour price from 50 to 40 so I went back. I got your basic 40's Milfy gal but I thought she was cute.
The sheet stayed on during the entire massage though. Flipped and she had no problems with my roaming hands. I got her pants down but she didn't allow DATY. What I enjoyed was that she liked to kiss. I think she enjoyed it too. Nice HE too. Tipped a little more than standard.
[QUOTE=CumberlandBlue;2323916]I was in Berlin for the marathon this past fall and tried out Liberty while there and it was a pretty good time ....There's an AMP across the street that I frequented that I am spacing the name (I reviewed it here) but based on my research the two are almost identical in terms of service, I just liked the other place better because it was slightly more under the radar. [/QUOTE]Yeah, Berlin has a something for every taste I think. There are cheaper places in that region, but it's still good. Tried Liberty my self, and was far from dissappointed.
I'm not that familiar with the streets or the buildings and so on, in L. A, and I tried searching your username to find reviews, but I couldn't for the life of me find out which AMP you where talking about. Is mentioning it by name a no-no in this forum? Just asking here.
I'm sorry if I act like a forum newb, but for all intents and purposes, I am. You have to start somewhere, right?
I was staying near LAX for a long layover and wanted to visit an AMP that gave quality massages after a very long flight. I'd been to Lala on a previous visit and thought the massage was just ok. Although, the ending did hit the spot.
I'd done some homework on Super Spa and read the massages were good, but the ending can be hit or miss. I decided to take a chance, mainly to try something different and out of convenience.
Paid the $65/ hour fee. I was not offered the option of a TS and I thought that was not a good sign. I put on the giant boxers, but I read not to get discouraged by those. I did not catch my providers name, she was early 30's and very cute. Asked if I had been there before and, of course, I said yes, but with different girl.
The massage was great. She performed it mostly using her feat while grasping two bars on the ceiling. She finished the a hot oil massage on my back. And then she left the room. There was no flip or front massage.
When she came back into the room, I had flipped and had the shorts pulled down a little with my hand on my junk. I asked if I could get a front massage and she said no, time is up. I told I would provide a tip and she still said no. Oh well, I got dressed and walked back to my hotel and gave myself a happy ending while watch massage room porn on tube galore!
For future layovers, I will stick with Lala.