I struggled with that aspect as well, but after reading the piece entirely, it becomes clear that massage parlour is used as an euphemism.
Also about being legal or not, it's probably work in the lite-grey zone (it's not Texas after all). The schedule looks something like, during a fixed period of time at night you just wait until you get scheduled/picked. That said, I don't think it is very important for the article.
I felt it was because just as soon as I realized she was talking about a rub and tug where she gives handjobs instead of massages, she then mentions a mutual shower that I have no idea what she’s talking about. Are they both naked in the shower and nothing happens? Are these massage parlors in Finch Alley awesome? Does all of Canada specify “parlor” to mean $80 late night showers with prostitutes as distinctive from spas where people might have a license?
This always happens to me when I read editorials from Commonwealth countries, the euphemisms are so deep and ingrained that I have no idea what they’re talking about.
I could empathize better with more context.
“I rubbed massage oil on a man’s chest at 1am and I was tired” that’s an entirely different article
Also about being legal or not, it's probably work in the lite-grey zone (it's not Texas after all). The schedule looks something like, during a fixed period of time at night you just wait until you get scheduled/picked. That said, I don't think it is very important for the article.