Poll: Discriminatory practices of providers [Archive]

BigMadM

11-11-2003, 05:50 PM

we all want to live in a perfect society where nothing is wrong.
its obvious, after reading some threads lately, escorts do choose by race who they will or will not see.
I dont agree with this practice, and never will.
I have seen alot of escorts. Alot.
I am willing to bet, that when the girl gives her boss,(lets forget about indies for the moment)her card, 30% of those cards have certain groups or race, color, whatever, that the girl refuses to see.
Plenty of reasons, alot of them might seem silly to us.
Racism? I dont think these girls view it as that.
They make decisions based on the clients ability to afford the service, hygiene, age(Im told younger clients might work a girl harder)and other various factors that are implanted in a girls head, whether due to upbringing, or other outside influences.
Racism sucks, bottom line.

Slinky Bender

11-11-2003, 07:19 PM

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.... you have no idea how much racism goes on in this business. Notice how the girls all scurry out of the room when customers come into incall places most of the time? It's so that if it's some "ethnic" guy walks in the door, all the girls who won't see "that type" are simply "with customers" as opposed to "sorry, they don't see **** guys", and the place doesn't look racist. I'm sure plenty of black guys have "reserved" some girl only to find out "I'm so sorry, we must have double booked her" as soon as you walk in and they see what color you are.

jp1064

11-11-2003, 08:14 PM

Can you imagine what would happen if they turned away fat, bald, and ugly guys? Oh man!

FoxyMonica

11-11-2003, 11:42 PM

I must say very interesting results so far . and I only voted once .

FoxyMonica

11-12-2003, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Ny Vanessa
This poll is wrong.

The part stating:

I think it's deplorable, but a woman's right to choose is more important.

It should read:

I think it's deplorable, but a Providers, working girls, hookers, prostitutes (whatever you want to call us) right to choose is more important.

ok I will bite on this one , I DO say this in the nicest way but Vanessa has this line of work or some of the harshness of the people on this board brought down your self esteem that low that you do not concider your self a WOMAN too ? not just a whore , hooker , working girl , prostitute but a real live breathing woman with a heart in her chest and a mind of her own ? next line is just a question about how things go here ? "Is the only way to gain acceptance of the peers of this board is to concider your self nothing at all but a whore ? are they scared of real ladies on here ?, please tell me ," yes I do understand about the mod and how he shows his respects to the ladies , I know my first impression to the peanut gallery here was not good , but to the thousands of lurkers and non posters ,the ones I got to meet they made up for the hatefulness that was posted to me by showing me a good time on my visit I do understand that only a handful of persons that tune in to this soap post the rest just sit back and read and lol shame shame mostley girls lurk or have been banned for innocent mistakes of ad misplacement and the rest are scared as hell to post , I personaly only sell my pussy and lol to quote someone else I know " it is the only thing you can sell and still get to keep and is something no one can ever keep from you " , my mind would never be for sell and if it ever came to a brainwashing that I think I am nothing but a worthless whore then IMHO it would be time for me to RUN and get a reality check . and I do say that in a non-hateful or NOT nitpicking or NOT meanning to stir up shit with you kind of way .....

pswope

11-12-2003, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by FoxyMonica
ok I will bite on this one , I DO say this in the nicest way but Vanessa has this line of work or some of the harshness of the people on this board brought down your self esteem that low that you do not concider your self a WOMAN too ? not just a whore , hooker , working girl , prostitute but a real live breathing woman with a heart in her chest and a mind of her own ? next line is just a question about how things go here ? "Is the only way to gain acceptance of the peers of this board is to concider your self nothing at all but a whore ? are they scared of real ladies on here ?, please tell me ," yes I do understand about the mod and how he shows his respects to the ladies , I know my first impression to the peanut gallery here was not good , but to the thousands of lurkers and non posters ,the ones I got to meet they made up for the hatefulness that was posted to me by showing me a good time on my visit I do understand that only a handful of persons that tune in to this soap post the rest just sit back and read and lol shame shame mostley girls lurk or have been banned for innocent mistakes of ad misplacement and the rest are scared as hell to post , I personaly only sell my pussy and lol to quote someone else I know " it is the only thing you can sell and still get to keep and is something no one can ever keep from you " , my mind would never be for sell and if it ever came to a brainwashing that I think I am nothing but a worthless whore then IMHO it would be time for me to RUN and get a reality check . and I do say that in a non-hateful or NOT nitpicking or NOT meanning to stir up shit with you kind of way .....

Baby,with all due respect, don't think there's much demand for that.

not that NYV needs my defense,but her post shows more self-awareness and integrity than you have shown in your considerable verbiage here. She's simply not in denial about what she does and has made it amply clear that she has no problem with her chosen avocation. Thus,she genuinely clickswith her johns,where you admittedly treat them like tricks. So,who's the ho...ma?

occasionalhobbyist

11-12-2003, 04:57 AM

The poll questions have lots of flaws.

This is a classic case of what we in the survey profession like to call a "double barrel" question.

As a rule, if there's an "and" or a "but" in a poll question, rewrite the question. One question, one thought.

Still, interesting results.

justlooking

11-12-2003, 06:10 AM

Swope's post is so great that it seems almost like desacration to add to it. But NYVanessa's point was that when a woman is working as a prostitute, she gives up some of the right to choose that she enjoys as a woman. Otherwise, what is she getting paid for?

justlooking

11-12-2003, 06:12 AM

And that doesn't mean that "whores are cheap" or "whores are less than women" or any offensive nonsense like that. It means that we ALL have to associate with people in business that we wouldn't choose to associate with otherwise.

TuckernotSucker

11-12-2003, 06:13 AM

never mind

Ny Vanessa

11-12-2003, 07:19 AM

I am not going to bother to reply to the accusations about why I say what I say on this board.

Anyone that knows me, and has ever read any of my posts, as NYV, and as Kimmie, knows the deal..

But I will say this, and hopefully someone will understand my example:

I would be pretty pissed off if my OB/GYN did not take me as a patient because he doesn't find black, or bi- racial pussy to be appealing.

When he decided to be an OB/GYN he knew he was going to encounter all types of women. Fat, thin, young, old, black, white, asian, indian, latin.

If it would have been a problem for him to give a pap smear to someone of color, he should have chosen a profession.

Ny Vanessa

11-12-2003, 07:27 AM

Fucking three minute edit.. I meant to type, he should have chosen a different profession...

And to point out. I have a preference in the type of men I date ( when I get the time to date) That's me being a woman. I am not working.I am on my on personal time. I can be picky and choosy about who I see because this is about me, as a woman, not Vanessa the working girl.

I don't turn a client away because he isnt my type.( skin color, height, weight, or eye color)

If he is clean, shows me respect, and has the $$ that I require for an appointment, he is in.

justlooking

11-12-2003, 08:03 AM

Remind me, NYV:

Is this one of those situations where you'd think I was being patronizing if I said "great posts", or where you'd appreciate the support?

Wwanderer

11-12-2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
Is this one of those situations where you'd think I was being patronizing if I said "great posts", or where you'd appreciate the support?

Wow, that sets a record and establishes a whole new level of patronization!

-Ww

jseah

11-12-2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
Remind me, NYV:

Is this one of those situations where you'd think I was being patronizing if I said "great posts", or where you'd appreciate the support?

Ditto to jl's comment. I used to disagree with NYV about how being a professional doesn't exclude you from being able to have preferences, but after her last comment, I see her point.

LongRedClaws

11-12-2003, 11:05 AM

FoxyMonica is also ignoring the fact that some providers turn away people based on race who they would date. (I believe that this is most common in black women whose pimps don't let them sell their pussy to black guys, but who would date black guys as women--rather than providers. I know someone in this situation.)

Daddycool

11-12-2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Ny Vanessa

But I will say this, and hopefully someone will understand my example:

I would be pretty pissed off if my OB/GYN did not take me as a patient because he doesn't find black, or bi- racial pussy to be appealing.

What if he did turn you away. I guess you would just see another OB/Gyn.

People have the right and a business has the right to do business with whom ever they want to do business with.

justme

11-12-2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Daddycool
People have the right and a business has the right to do business with whom ever they want to do business with.

Define 'right' because if you mean 'legal right' you're wrong.

(If you mean 'ethical right', you're probably wrong, too, but let's start with the easy cases first)

justme

11-12-2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by justme
Define 'right' because if you mean 'legal right' you're wrong.

Weren't you claiming to be a lawyer in some other thread? Do you know what any Bar in the county would do to a firm that had a stated policy of not taking on Chinese clients?

Wwanderer

11-12-2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Daddycool
People have the right and a business has the right to do business with whom ever they want to do business with.

Huh? You must have been out the week they covered the Civil Rights movement (and Act) in US history.

However, as I said/asked in another thread, I believe that the relevant Fed laws only apply to businesses of more than some minimum size (defined in terms of number of employees?) because they otherwise cannot be presumed to be engaged in interstate commerce (hence no jurisdiction) or something along those lines. If I am right about this (and it is based on a slightly hazy memory, so a reality check from one of our attorney members would be good), an indie provider or a small enough MP could legally turn away clients based on race in at least some states.

-Ww

Cat_Ballou

11-12-2003, 12:25 PM

Wouldn't it be as much a matter of business classification? As a freelance writer, I am free to turn away any prospective client I wish, and I don't have to give a reason. If the KKK comes to me and offers me twenty times my standard fee to write their new propaganda campaign, I'm not required by any law (that I know of) to overcome my revulsion by everything they stand for, cash their check and start writing...

justme

11-12-2003, 12:29 PM

1. Independant contractors are handled a little differently under the law (and in ways that I don't really understand).

2. 'KKK' is not a race.

3. But if you had a 'Writing Business' and you had a policy of never working for Tuvans, and some Tuvan defense fund was able to legally prove you had such a policy regardless of whether you told the Tuvan's why you were rejecting their business you'd be subject to some legal woes.

Amber-NYC

11-12-2003, 12:30 PM

FoxxyMonica

If you talked like that where I come from girl, they'd put you in the oxtail stew. Take everybody one at a time. People from Trinidad are different than people from Brooklyn.

pjorourke

11-12-2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by justme
1. Independant contractors are handled a little differently under the law (and in ways that I don't really understand).

Isn't a prostitute an independent contractor?

Wwanderer

11-12-2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Cat_Ballou

1 - Wouldn't it be as much a matter of business classification? As a freelance writer, I am free to turn away any prospective client I wish, and I don't have to give a reason.

2 - If the KKK comes to me and offers me twenty times my standard fee to write their new propaganda campaign, I'm not required by any law (that I know of) to overcome my revulsion by everything they stand for, cash their check and start writing...

1 - My understanding (which I will keep posting in an attempt to get someone who is more expert to comment) is that it is not because of what you do (freelance writing) but because you are a "small business", not engaging in interstate commerce (necessarily). However, if you were a large firm that provided writing services, you would not be allowed to systematically turn away customers based on their race.

2 - However, I think you could turn away a KKK job for political reasons even if you were a big firm. The law does not require you to take all customers; it simply says that there are certain criteria (race, gender, age, disabbility, religious affiliation) which you are not allowed to consider. So, as far as I understand it, a national restaurant chain could refuse to serve registered Republicans or people wearing hats or even left handed people if it chose to do so because there is no specific law forbiding discrimination on those grounds.

-Ww

pjorourke

11-12-2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Wwanderer
or even left handed people

That might be a disability. But the Republicans are fair game. Democrats might be a mental disability.

justme

11-12-2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by pjorourke
Isn't a prostitute an independent contractor?

Most of the posts on this page are in response to Daddycool's post at the bottom of the previous page which only claimed 'businesses' could discriminate indiscrimantly.

jseah

11-12-2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by pjorourke
Isn't a prostitute an independent contractor?

No, agency girls are independent contractors. An indie is a sole proprietor.

Ny Vanessa

11-12-2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by justlooking
Remind me, NYV:

Is this one of those situations where you'd think I was being patronizing if I said "great posts", or where you'd appreciate the support?

JL, my ATFSBWNTLPMBP

As I told you the last time we spoke in person, I find that when you say "What a great post" after every single "great post" someone makes, it is not only ass kissing, but it takes away the validity of that persons post. AND... it makes you look like an ass kisser.

Anyway, enough of that.

Thank you for the "great post" props. However, I did not say what I said to gain any kind of acceptance, or pats on the back.

I said it because it's how I feel.

I am viewing this entire situation as a bi racial/ black person, not only as a woman, and a prostitute.

Most of the prejudices I have faced in my short life have been because of my skin color, then about me being a woman.

Any who.....

Since I know you on a sort of personal level, I know that when you say something to ME, you say it because you mean it.

Thank you.

Now give me a smily face.....

and add some colors...

popgunner

11-12-2003, 05:16 PM

to all human beings. Any escort has the right to turn away a
customer for ANY reason they choose. Isn't it wonderful
how these A-hole lawyers want to legislate control over
every facet of your life.
Many escorts,and i think it is great practice, will sit there
and talk to you for 10 mins to judge whether you are a
freakin idiot or whatever. If she decides it's no go, i have no
problem with it. And she doesn't have to give me a reason.
It' her inalienable right. Have you ever heard the term
"discriminating taste",it's a good thing, it'll keep you alive
and well. You discriminate in your life every day with every
purchase you make.
Of course the lawyers won't be satisfied until we are all
automatons. What did Shakespeare say about them?

FoxyMonica

11-12-2003, 05:38 PM

she genuinely clickswith her johns,where you admittedly treat them like tricks. So,who's the ho...ma?

ROTFLMAO , now that is funny for someone to say that has never had a session with me LOL LOL . Was that you peeking in my window ? and watching what I do with my dates ;)

DUHHHHHH lol that is why I am the best at what I do , I "click " VERY WELL with my clients that is why I choose whom I will see so I can "CLICK" lol too fucking funny !! thank you so much ! You made my day with that dumb founded post .......same ole peanut gallery playing the same tune LOL LOL LOL I can't stop LOL

Hi Amber :) yes you must be right as I see how some of the posters here are , guess what I sugested was such a bad thing ? , <hugs>

to MANY it is a huge turn on to throw some personality and good conversation and sometimes it is a huge turn on what is between the ears that makes the date the ultimate pleasure :) I am ROTFLMAO at some of the guys here that dont understand that some of us demand to be treated like ladies too, it always has worked wonders for me and I have had one hell of a great time and made lots of money and enjoy myself to the max at the same time wow what a concept lol I can't even throw a brick at some of you lol....hell you scream GIVE ME A GFE !! and when you get one do you act like a BFE to compleate the dream ? or do you just grudge fuck and go ? whats the point of a TRUE GFE ? , SOME GUYS DO UNDERSTAND THE TERM ... thank goodness :) again I do very well doing what I do and how I do it ,and I am having FUN at the same time :) I do undersatnd after how dare I list my prefrences and the same ole guys try to bash me over and over guess you will always have negitive things to say to me ....LOL so fucking what ? I dont care , it just makes me stronger lol and it just shows how it is here simple as that lol now after reading more of this board now I understand C9's cartoons and they are very cool , at that time I thought he was just picking on me alone ...my bad opps

nite nite all

the only posters that seem to ALWAYS dissagree is the same ole "CLICK" here that sit 24/7 in frount of this screen ....what a life am I jelious ? .....NOT lol

you guys are pretty fun and provide enertainment for me thanks xoxo
Foxybox

milkman

11-12-2003, 05:54 PM

my line of work makes me take many types of classes. a lot of these deal with sexual harrassment. the latest one i took was a diversity training class. i deal with all manners of the public every day, and my most important job function is to make the customer happy(if you can't tell i work in retail). however , escorts are involved in a highly personal industry and i cannot fault them if they turn away potential customers because of personal reasons. you may not agree with these reasons, but it is not your body. leagalization of prostitution may be a great idea but once the government starts regulating it, it may not be such a good idea after all.

milkman

11-12-2003, 06:00 PM

i also have trouble following foxy monica's posts.

milkman

11-12-2003, 06:11 PM

if any of you were following the hailey of ambiance thread ; yeah i'm buzzed up again.

Duckman

11-12-2003, 09:01 PM

[deleted]

Duckman

11-12-2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by eros701
Too bad we don't know the racial makeup of this board. I'm sure the white guys have less problem seeing a discriminating provider than anyone else. Except for those AMP's that only admit Asians. That's just wrong.
I am white and have no problems with Asians seeing only Asians or providers seeing who they are comfortable with. This is just too personal a business -- they aren't selling plumbing supplies (well, one could argue). And it's a luxury item. No guns or butter here.

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by justme
Most of the posts on this page are in response to Daddycool's post at the bottom of the previous page which only claimed 'businesses' could discriminate indiscrimantly.

A business with less than 15 and people are not held to any government regulation. You can hire all (15) men, all one race if you wish, a mix if you wish, all women. etc. Of course At+t or any fortune 100 or 500 company cannnot. But an escort is one person. Therefore would fall into this catagory. IMHO. Someone brought up civil rights, since when did we take away the right for a women to do what she wants with her body? We are not taking about not getting hired or fired because of race here. If she doesn't want to see someone whether it be to any race, color or creed, its her choice. She doesn't have to except your money just cause she is an escort.

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by justme
Define 'right' because if you mean 'legal right' you're wrong.

(If you mean 'ethical right', you're probably wrong, too, but let's start with the easy cases first)

And what ethical right are you referring to. I just want to be clear we would be talking on the same page here. Do you mean the treating of morals? Ethics in our gonernment or our business? Because of you wish to talk about Enron, Anderson consulting and any other business with those types of ethics be my guest. But if you wish to talk about why a business should be forced to hire a protected group we can do that to, but you might find we might agree on that.

Wwanderer

11-13-2003, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Daddycool
A business with less than 15 and people are not held to any government regulation.

Italics added.

I believe this applies only to Federal government regulations and only if the business is not explicitly engaged in some sort of interstate commerce. However, such small businesses are still subject to state and local regulations (for example, a small restaurant emplying less than 15 people is still subject to local Health Board regs), including antidiscriminatory ones in some places.

-Ww

justlooking

11-13-2003, 05:54 AM

Why is it that as soon as somebody mentions "ethics", some people start whining about people being "forced" to do something (or, God forbid, lawyers taking over everyone's life)?

Don't people ever just think about what's right and wrong? Don't they try in their lives to do what's right (as opposed to just what's legal)?

I mean, shit, when people disagree with manegerial decisions in the sports threads, nobody complains that anybody is trying to "force" the manager to do anything. They're just opining. Like here.

Wwanderer

11-13-2003, 05:57 AM

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
Why is it that as soon as somebody mentions "ethics", some people start whining about people being "forced" to do something (or, God forbid, lawyers taking over everyone's life)?

Don't people ever just think about what's right and wrong? Don't they try in their lives to do what's right (as opposed to just what's legal)?

I mean, shit, when people disagree with manegerial decisions in the sports threads, nobody complains that anybody is trying to "force" the manager to do anything. They're just opining. Like here.

Its because they are. I mean I am sure you know all about the hiring and firing process you have to go through so someone doesn't say they were fired because of race. God forbid it might be about them not doing their job.

justlooking

11-13-2003, 06:18 AM

What that says to me is that you don't see anything wrong with racism (no big deal -- that's your call). You can't even discuss it as an issue (again, no big deal).

Because what does your last post have to do with whether it's right or wrong (NOT WHETHER IT IS OR SHOULD BE LEGAL OR ILLEGAL) for prostitutes to discriminate according to race? Nothing.

jseah

11-13-2003, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Daddycool
Its because they are. I mean I am sure you know all about the hiring and firing process you have to go through so someone doesn't say they were fired because of race. God forbid it might be about them not doing their job.

A few months ago, my company went through a downsizing. They laid off this one lady (been with the company for many years and thus fairly highly compensated), but because of her age, the company was so afraid that it might get hit with an age discrimination suit, they covered themselves by laying off the entire department she worked in.

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
What that says to me is that you don't see anything wrong with racism (no big deal -- that's your call). You can't even discuss it as an issue (again, no big deal).

Because what does your last post have to do with whether it's right or wrong (NOT WHETHER IT IS OR SHOULD BE LEGAL OR ILLEGAL) for prostitutes to discriminate according to race? Nothing.

Let me be more clear. I was responding to the point of company's and the process they have to go through to fire someone or hire someone. They cannot just hire the best person for the job whoever that might be. (man women black white etc.)

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 06:38 AM

Because what does your last post have to do with whether it's right or wrong (NOT WHETHER IT IS OR SHOULD BE LEGAL OR ILLEGAL) for prostitutes to discriminate according to race? Nothing.

Now let me answer your question. I think a woman has the choice to see who ever she wants for whatever reasons. We choose who we want to see. Or do you pick the ugly fat chicks so you won't be called a person who doesn't see beautifully-challenged people.

You don't think the escort should be able to call off the date. Maybe the client smells, maybe he is 15 inches, maybe its becasue he is white,black,asian,korean or spanish, maybe its because he has a pimple the size of finger nail on his face, maybe he is packing a gun or knife or maybe she is just plain not attracted to him. There are Asian only place's and I don't make a big deal that they will only serivce Asians. DO I agree? no, I'd like to go to those places and see those women but it is their choice who they see.

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by jseah
A few months ago, my company went through a downsizing. They laid off this one lady (been with the company for many years and thus fairly highly compensated), but because of her age, the company was so afraid that it might get hit with an age discrimination suit, they covered themselves by laying off the entire department she worked in.

This is the exact point I was trying to make about company's and what they feel they need to do.

justme

11-13-2003, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by Daddycool
A business with less than 15 and people are not held to any government regulation.

You are telling me that a law firm, say, with fewer than 15 employees can openly and legally have a policy of not hiring African Americans? That if an African American applies for an advertised job as an associate, that the partners of the firm can tell him, "No, we aren't going to hire you because you are an African American," without any fear of recourse from regulatory bodies?

Is this truly what you are telling me?

justme

11-13-2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Daddycool
it is their choice who they see.

If I cheat on my wife because she'll only have sex with me twice a day, it is certainly my choice to do so. Moreover, it's not even illegal.

But is it so absurd for someone to tell me, hey, that's pretty unethical?

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by justme
If I cheat on my wife because she'll only have sex with me twice a day, it is certainly my choice to do so. Moreover, it's not even illegal.

But is it so absurd for someone to tell me, hey, that's pretty unethical?

You have the choice to do whatever you want but more importantly what you do is no one else's business. But are suggesting that cheating on you your wife IS ethical and has a moral stance?

justme

11-13-2003, 07:10 AM

No. I think every time I cheat on my wife it is completely unethical.

But if we extend the metaphor, all that any of the 'anti-discrimination' people are asking for is the right to say that my cheating on my wife is unethical.

justme

11-13-2003, 07:11 AM

But for some reason, our argument always gets represented as arguing in favor of legislation forbidding the cheating on spouses.

Which I certainly have never advocated (either literally or metaphorically).

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by justme
You are telling me that a law firm, say, with fewer than 15 employees can openly and legally have a policy of not hiring African Americans? That if an African American applies for an advertised job as an associate, that the partners of the firm can tell him, "No, we aren't going to hire you because you are an African American," without any fear of recourse from regulatory bodies?

Is this truly what you are telling me?

No body in this day and age of living in a litigious society would ever say that directly. You can sue anyone or anything, making it stick in court is another matter, but you'll find it really funny that there aren't any minorities working there. But the firm is under 15 people so they do qualify. I know companies that won't hire women. Do they have a big sign on thier door saying "we don't hire women, so fuck off? No, but every woman applicant never gets an interview. Their resume goes right in the trash. Now they have their reasons,suach as its a male industry and a woman won't work well.Is that right? No, I don't agree with it.

Wwanderer

11-13-2003, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by justme
You are telling me that a law firm, say, with fewer than 15 employees can openly and legally have a policy of not hiring African Americans? Is this truly what you are telling me?

I think it is a jurisdictional issue, but I still wish someone would post something more complete and clear or a link to some authoritative source. I am far from sure.

-Ww

justlooking

11-13-2003, 07:17 AM

Exactly. It's like if everytime you had a discussion of whether it's wrong to cheat on your spouse, it degenerated into a discussion of why it shouldn't be illegal to cheat on your spouse.

If you're deciding whether or not to cheat on your spouse, does whether or not it's legal even enter your mind?

If your friend came to you and asked, "What do you think? Should I cheat on my spouse?", you might answer "yes" or you might answer "no". But you wouldn't say, "Sure, because it's legal."

justme

11-13-2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Daddycool
No body in this day and age of living in a litigious society would ever say that directly. You can sue anyone or anything, making it stick in court is another matter, but you'll find it really funny that there aren't any minorities working there. But the firm is under 15 people so they do qualify.

You seem to be dodging the question, so I'll rephrase.

So your legal opinion, as a lawyer, is that such a policy would be completely legal (even if it were not ruled as such)?

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by justme
No. I think every time I cheat on my wife it is completely unethical.

But if we extend the metaphor, all that any of the 'anti-discrimination' people are asking for is the right to say that my cheating on my wife is unethical.

But you just admitted and said it is completely unethical.

justlooking

11-13-2003, 07:24 AM

Yeah. That's his point. It's unethical. You don't hear any nonsense about how he has a right to choose to cheat on his spouse. Of course he does. He's just wrong if he does it.

Just like racist prostitutes.

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 07:27 AM

Disability%20Discrimination / Disability%20Discrimination%20Act%201995%20%2F%20small%20employers
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995 s.7 Disability Discrimination (Exemption for Small Employers) Order 1998, SI 1998/2618 Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, SI 2003/1673...

justme

11-13-2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Daddycool
But you just admitted and said it is completely unethical.

Uh-huh?

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
Yeah. That's his point. It's unethical. You don't hear any nonsense about how he has a right to choose to cheat on his spouse. Of course he does. He's just wrong if he does it.

Just like racist prostitutes.

Please for give me here, but aren't we looking at this backwords? He, the husband, is looking for the service not providing the serivce. The escort is providing the service, thus being able to choose who she wants to serivce and why?

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
Yeah. That's his point. It's unethical. You don't hear any nonsense about how he has a right to choose to cheat on his spouse. Of course he does. He's just wrong if he does it.

Just like racist prostitutes.

I think we are missing each others point. I am not saying that the racist prostitute is right, I am just saying its her choice to be so. Like the Asian only places, or us just wanting to see 21 year old hard bodies.(or at least me) lol. Anytime we choose something over another we are discriminating. Why choose a German car over an American car? Maybe for whatever reason, but does that make me Anit-American? We are talking about my own preferrence, my choice.

justlooking

11-13-2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Daddycool
Please for give me here, but aren't we looking at this backwords? He, the husband, is looking for the service not providing the serivce. The escort is providing the service, thus being able to choose who she wants to serivce and why?

1. You're missing the point. The comparison is much more general than that. The point is that you can make a choice that's perfectly legal for you to make, and within a subject matter as to which you have a right to choose, and still be subject to criticism for choosing unethically. I would think that's kinda obvious.

2. In any event, I think a service provider has much LESS latitude in deciding who to service than a consumer does in deciding who to buy services from. A consumer can exercise whatever preferences he or she wants. But if a service provider advertises to the general public, I think there are limits to how picky they can be. (At least Foxy Monica is upfront about her exclusions.)

justlooking

11-13-2003, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Daddycool
I think we are missing each others point. I am not saying that the racist prostitute is right, I am just saying its her choice to be so. Like the Asian only places, or us just wanting to see 21 year old hard bodies.(or at least me) lol. Anytime we choose something over another we are discriminating. Why choose a German car over an American car? Maybe for whatever reason, but does that make me Anit-American? We are talking about my own preferrence, my choice.

1. There's a difference between making a choice (i.e., deciding you like one particular thing, like a BMW, over another particular thing, like a Chevy) and acting according to a blanket prejudice (like, I won't sell sex to blacks, no matter who they are). If your blanket prejudice is based on race, it's racist. I'm not saying anybody can do anything to stop you. I'm just saying that's what it is.

2. As I said above, I think consumers have a much greater ethical latitude to act on preferences than service providers do. At least service providers who do mass advertising. (Do you think a movie theater can take out an ad in the Post and then pick and choose who they'll let in?)

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 07:48 AM

Okay. I am big enough of a man to admit and see and agree with your points.

justlooking

11-13-2003, 07:51 AM

Are you sure you're feeling OK?

justlooking

11-13-2003, 07:53 AM

(You can't REALLY be a lawyer.)

Wwanderer

11-13-2003, 07:56 AM

It occurs to me that there is a connection between this topic and the old, much discussed issue of whether a provider commodifies herself, her very person, when she engages in prostitution or only a service she provides, in principle not so different from the services an attorney or a carpenter etc. sells as though it were a good or commodity.

If you take the former point-of-view, that providers sell themselves rather than a service, then I think that all of the analogies to other types of businesses that might refuse to deal with certain customers on racial grounds are vastly weakened and mostly irrelevant. This point of view makes prostitution a relatively unique commercial activity (and an inherently immoral one in the views of some) and thus unique ethical standards might be argued to apply.

-Ww

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
Are you sure you're feeling OK?

What?? I admit that I changed my mind about my position because of our conversation and this is what you say? After our conversation I truely expected more than that kind or remark. I guess a person cannot change his mnd? I stated my arguement and you stated yours. I admitted that I converted and saw your line of thinking. Why should I continue to debate the point with you? Just to debate and play devils advocate?

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 08:00 AM

I enjoyed our conversation don't get me wrong. I do apoligize if I came across as crass. But why would I continue to debate after I saw your points and agreed with them.

justlooking

11-13-2003, 08:01 AM

I'm sorry. Really. I was only joking.

I guess if I were right more frequently I'd know how to be gracious about it.

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
(You can't REALLY be a lawyer.)

Why? Lawyers cannot change their minds or reverse thier opinions?

justlooking

11-13-2003, 08:03 AM

Again, just joking. Sorry.

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 08:04 AM

Dude, I am just having alittle fun with you. Just giving it back to you thats all. I am just kidding with you too.

justme

11-13-2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Daddycool
Okay. I am big enough of a man to admit and see and agree with your points.

And all it took was my shutting up.

(PJ would tell me there's a lesson here)

ODB

11-13-2003, 08:25 AM

Even after her LI fiasco I can't believe this stupid whore still doesn't have a clue.

SkellyChamp

11-13-2003, 08:30 AM

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=39&a=30

New York's Human Rights Law

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi

Scroll to bottom
NYC Administrative Code
Title 8 for NYC's law

Enjoy

rufus4aday

11-13-2003, 09:36 AM

Having been through this once in another time and at another place I am hesitant to get into this again...however...it seems to me that a significant point of view has been left out here. So I'll state it just to get it on the record.

JL and others seem to make the argument that...

(1) Racism is always wrong.
(2) Providers who refuse service based solely on race are, by definition, committing an act of racism.
(3) Therefore such providers are committing a wrong.

(Questions as to whether one has a legal right to commit a moral wrong, or questions as to whether one should be allowed to commit moral wrongs without sanction, are different questions. Important, perhaps, but we need to take care to not convolve those considerations with the basic argument above).

To attack the above one can first point out that proposition (1) is in fact problematic. For example, as has been pointed out, Doctors will take into consideration race where it is provably medically significant. So relative to (1) one can either say that doesn't count as racism (thus making the definition of racism much more complicated), or one can say that racism is sometimes not only allowable but right.

But is this relevant to sex work? I think it is.

I accept as axiomatic that a provider should be able to accept or reject clients on the basis of her personal sexual attraction or repulsion. If someone thinks that it is wrong for a provider to reject a client no matter, for example, how bad he smells, or how physically disfigured he is, or how unattractive his personal behavior is...well they will find the following rather unconvincing.

(And an aside...the word "repulsive" can sound rather loaded...I just mean here the opposite of "attractive" in a purely functional way. One persons sexual repulsion can be anothers attraction).

But I think most people understand that one of the things you are paying for is that the provider is having sex with you even though there is not enough attraction there to do so otherwise...that you are someone they, in at least a *functional* sense, find repulsive or at least not attractive enough. And I think most people understand that some clients are less attractive or more repulsive than others...and that some clients may be so repulsive that no amount of money would result in a deal being struck.

Now, getting back to racism. Often racism is seen as being wrong because it unfairly correlates race with some other negative attribute. e.g. Whites are uptight. Blacks can't be trusted. Hispanics are lazy. and so on...

Second, racism is often seen as being wrong because it doesn't treat people as individuals, but rather as stereotypes.

In the case of doctors using race as a basis for making medical judgements the first wrong doesn't apply, because while the correlations may be negative, they are not unfair...they are scientifically established. The second wrong also doesn't apply because, again based in science, the doctor isn't dealing in stereotypes but rather legitimate statistics.

(end of part 1)

rufus4aday

11-13-2003, 09:37 AM

(part 2)

Now we don't really know how sexual attraction and repulsion works. It seems likely that it is a very complex response. One thing that seems relatively certain is that it is beyond the conscious control of the individual feeling it. Perhaps pheromones are involved. Perhaps there are invariant physical aspects such as symmetry, various body part ratios, and so on that create instinctual preferences. Perhaps the appearance of one's mother is imprinted in the early child as a template for attractiveness. (There is scientific evidence for all of these, but the jury is still out). And there are, of course, all manner of later learned psychological behaviors and social influences.

But there is no reason to question the common sense notion that one can't help who they find attractive and repulsive. And given the depth of investment Nature makes in all things having to do with reproduction, the sexual attraction/repulsion mechanism is likely very strong and difficult to override. One might know that "brussel sprouts are good for you" and still find brussel sprouts repulsive. And so with people too. How many times have we heard someone say "well, he/she seems really nice and smart and funny...but I just don't find him/her attractive!"

So it may well be that a provider, for reasons she herself can't understand, simply doesn't find people of a given race attractive, but rather finds them repulsive. Maybe it has to childhood imprinting. Maybe it has to do with race specific differences in build or pheromones. Maybe it is learned.

Like the doctor's apparent racism, this form of racism is not like typical racism. It isn't a false correlation of race with some other defect...being lazy, or dishonest, or whatever. Attraction and repulsion is known directly and can't be mistaken in any meaningful sense.

And it isn't an unfair stereotype either. It is a subjective dispute immune to external contradiction. If someone finds all mullet haircuts repulsive, they will know that directly and personally, and will have no need to inspect every mullet individually regardless of what others might think of it.

And finally, it is well worth noting that because sex is such a deep and basic biological function, it's not uncommon for a person to not be racist in any other part of their life...but still have a strong sexual preference for only their own race. (And other obvious variations).

So, to sum up, at least for some providers race based sexual repulsion (1) may be unrelated to all other political considerations regarding race, (2) may be something they have no control over, and (3) may in fact have a deep biological basis.

*In this context*...and if we allow a sex worker *any choice at all* based on sexual attraction/repulsion... and especially if there is no racism exhibited in other parts of her life...it is hard for me to fault a provider for not seeing clients of a given race based on her personal preference.

To put this as starkly as possible...should sex workers have no choice as to the *gender* of their clients? Or should sex workers have no choice as to the sexual acts they provide? Because the sexual repulsion felt towards a given gender, or a given sex act, and the repulsion felt towards a given race, may come from the same or similar mechanisms. Deep biological mechanisms that the provider has no control over.

Cloud Nine

11-13-2003, 09:42 AM

whassamatter rufus, you running out of screen name ideas already?

justme

11-13-2003, 09:48 AM

Are you seriously arguing that there is any appreciable (I really shouldn't even give you appreciable) number of prostitutes with racist policies based on a genetically codified preference so strong that it makes having sex with a given race physically repulsive?

Or

I suppose we shouldn't condemn murderers with a genetic predisposition for the crime (which has certainly been scientifically established stronger than DNA bigots.)

justme

11-13-2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Cloud Nine
whassamatter rufus, you running out of screen name ideas already?

You know, I think one of the biggest reasons that I've never adopted an alternative userID (besides the fact that I think they're silly) is that I can't really think of one that I like nearly as much as justme.

alterego

11-13-2003, 10:22 AM

I'm curious what people think of racial preferences in non-commercial sex. I know quite a few women who have strong racial/ethnic preferences when it comes to men (but the guys I know all seem less picky about this kind of stuff). Do you think it's immoral to discriminate on the basis of race in the non-commercial case?

æ

rufus4aday

11-13-2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by justme
Are you seriously arguing that there is any appreciable (I really shouldn't even give you appreciable) number of prostitutes with racist policies based on a genetically codified preference so strong that it makes having sex with a given race physically repulsive?

Or

I suppose we shouldn't condemn murderers with a genetic predisposition for the crime (which has certainly been scientifically established stronger than DNA bigots.)

I don't want to get into a long back and forth on this, but these comments do not address what I said, but rather some lesser strawmen.

Part of what I am suggesting is that the notion that "all differential treatment based on race is wrong" is incomplete and thus flawed. Clearly doctors should consider race. Perhaps we need to understand *why* racism is wrong before we apply it to every possible situation.

The other thing I am suggesting is that human ethics isn't just a matter of abstract theory, but rather must be firmly rooted in the human condition. And part of the human condition is that we exist as biological animals, and part or much of our behavior is biologically determined.

If there is any aspect of life where biology might trump maxim-driven-one-size-fits-all ethics, it's reproduction and sex.

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 10:46 AM

Do you mean for example when the parents of a Jewish household tell their kids that they strongly recommend that they date and marry a jew. Same goes for the parents from Greece or Italy etc, wanting their child to marry another Greek or Italian etc?.

Daddycool

11-13-2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by rufus4aday
[B
The other thing I am suggesting is that human ethics isn't just a matter of abstract theory, but rather must be firmly rooted in the human condition. And part of the human condition is that we exist as biological animals, and part or much of our behavior is biologically determined.[/B]

So am I to read this as racial profiling? So that means from what YOU are telling me ,a Spanish person cannot over come himself from stealing hubcabs from my car. Or I need to lock my doors when I see a black person approach because its in his genetic code to car jack me? or white people cannot dance?

rufus4aday

11-13-2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Daddycool
So am I to read this as racial profiling? So that means from what YOU are telling me ,a Spanish person cannot over come himself from stealing hubcabs from my car. Or I need to lock my doors when I see a black person approach because its in his genetic code to car jack me? or white people cannot dance?

This is exactly why I hesitated to post here. This has exactly *nothing* to do with what I posted.

Please go back and try to understand what I said.

justlooking

11-13-2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by alterego
I'm curious what people think of racial preferences in non-commercial sex. I know quite a few women who have strong racial/ethnic preferences when it comes to men (but the guys I know all seem less picky about this kind of stuff). Do you think it's immoral to discriminate on the basis of race in the non-commercial case?

I think non-commercial is different from commercial. See NY Vanessa's great posts earlier in this thread (I'm such an asskisser).

I also think there's a difference between having a preference and an unbreakable rule (like "I wouldn't even sleep with Taye Diggs").

Ny Vanessa

11-13-2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by alterego
Do you think it's immoral to discriminate on the basis of race in the non-commercial case?

æ

No.

Doesn't anything I post around here get read?

alterego

11-13-2003, 11:37 AM

I bring this up partly because I think there's a bit of murky water between purely commercial and purely non-commercial. If a semi-pro discriminates, is that only semi-ethical?

æ

pjorourke

11-13-2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Ny Vanessa
No.

Doesn't anything I post around here get read?

jl reads it.

alterego

11-13-2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Ny Vanessa
Doesn't anything I post around here get read?

Honestly, I did read it. I just think the morality of the whole thing isn't quite so black and white as some people are making it out to be. (Not you particularly)

æ

justlooking

11-13-2003, 11:41 AM

Mainly because they don't mass advertise, I think Semi-Pros retain much more of their non-commercial right to be selective than Pros do.

alterego

11-13-2003, 11:44 AM

So it's O.K. to have a preference, as long as you don't advertise it?

æ

justlooking

11-13-2003, 11:46 AM

No. It's not a matter of advertising the preference. It's a matter of mass-advertising your services.

I think that if you put yourself on the mass market, as a matter of business ethics you lose a lot of your ability to be overly selective about who you'll sell your services to.

justme

11-13-2003, 11:50 AM

AE - I think there's a distinction between preference and brightline rule.

Still, I find it hard to imagine someone who wasn't racist in other ways having an absolute, "I won't sleep with Tuvans" rule.

I mean if someone found a Tuvan that looked like, say, Vivian Hsu, I'd be happy to have sex with her even if I didn't generally find Tuvans all that attractive.

I mean, I have preferences for certain physical traits that tend to be found in some races more frequently than others, but I can't think of a race of people where I haven't seen a stunning example of beauty.

BigMadM

11-13-2003, 11:51 AM

Everyone alive has some type of pre-conceived ideas about people.
We grow up in a society that constantly bombards us with their own ideas.
Our parents, the media, our peers, all influence us as we grow into free thinking adults.
It takes a responsible, and somewhat intelligent person to understand that discriminating against one type of person based solely on his skin color, is unacceptable behaviour, although tolerated by most people because of their own prejudices instilled in them by the same influences.

A pediatrician would never announce that he hates children.
A woman who advertises her sexual services should not announce she doesnt see a certain type of man.

A woman has the right to choose, although sometimes, I feel the choices are made out of ignorance. Nothing at all to do with attraction.
I am a just about 50 y/o man, overweight, balding, and Ive never been refused by a provider.
Im sure these 22 y/o providers I see would never in a million years fuck me if I wasnt a paying client. Attraction has nothing to do with it.(Im not a slob, or repulsive, but I think I get the bookings solely based on the reason that I have the money.)

But then again, what do I know.
I find any woman attractive. Size, color, shape.......

BigMadM

11-13-2003, 11:55 AM

edit rule, tolerated by some people, not most people.

alterego

11-13-2003, 12:03 PM

I don't agree with the idea that business ethics apply to commercial sex in the same way as they do with a grocery store or a cafeteria.

I'll admit that I've had sessions with girls who I suspect discriminated, and in one case that I can think of, with a girl who explicitly discriminated (in the sense that she stated racial preferences up front in her ad). My feeling about it is that I wouldn't go back to a provider with that policy. Not because I thought that girl was a horrible racist, but because I really just didn't click with her. I kind of got the feeling that other than the sex, that she was someone I probably wouldn't ever want to have much to do with. (And I don't usually get this feeling with providers) I suspect that her having racial preferences was part of that feeling. In retrospect, the up-front preference should have been a sign and I probably should have gone elsewhere. But I don't think she was being immoral.

æ

pjorourke

11-13-2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by justlooking
Mainly because they don't mass advertise, I think Semi-Pros retain much more of their non-commercial right to be selective than Pros do.

Is there a limit that if a woman sees less than say x guys a week, its okay for her to discriminate on race. But if she sees x or more, she is considered mass market and this activity then becomes unethical?

If so, whats x?

justlooking

11-13-2003, 12:11 PM

As I said, I think it's mainly a matter of how they advertise.

(I thought that was a great post by BMM, for the little it's worth.)

Wwanderer

11-13-2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by justlooking
I think that if you put yourself on the mass market, as a matter of business ethics you lose a lot of your ability to be overly selective about who you'll sell your services to.

Although I am a big fan of complexity and nuance, the problem I have with the above is that it seems to lead into quite vague, and worse yet, inherently arbitrary waters. While that is fine in some contexts, it seems to me a serious flaw for a standard of ethical conduct. In other words, the provider is still allowed to be somewhat selective just so she is not overly so, but the balance between ethically allowable and unallowable selectiveness depends in some unspecified way on the extent to which she is a "mass market" provider vs one catering to a more limited clientel. It seems to me that there are at least three sets of fuzzy notions/standards sliding around in there: 1) how does one determine/measure the degree of selectiveness being exercised, 2) how does one define/measure the degree of mass market availability, and 3) once you have overcome hurdles 1 and 2, how do you map/match one onto the other to determine what is and is not ethical? And, of course, we can easily throw in additional confusing factors/variables, like the time dimension (if she was "mass market" yesterday, is she required to also be so today, a week from now, next year, 10 years from now in a different city working under a different name...?) or the overall rate at which she sees customers or the characteristic about which she is being selective (hygeine, behavior, weight, sexual technique, race, age...). And so forth.

In that system, I guess anyone can sort of do an internal gestalt and make a personal judgement about whether or not a particular provider is being ethical in rejecting a particular potential client for whatever specific reason, but it seems to me to end one up in an "everyone is entitled to an opinion" situation with no reasonable means of deciding whose opinion is correct or makes more sense. (Obviously, hers is the most relevant one.) But it certainly seems pretty murky.

-Ww

PS - PJ makes the same point, I think, rather more succinctly.

justlooking

11-13-2003, 01:08 PM

I think I'm talking about two different things here, which is what's getting confused.

1. I think it's ALWAYS wrong to make racist determinations.

2. But there's a second issue, which is distinct from the first. (And which, I want to be clear, does NOT override the statement I made in "1" above.) Which is, to what extent a prostitute can turn away johns on the basis of her preferences. The subject of NY Vanessa's posts (which are NOT limited to issues of race).

My point here is that if you advertise to and sell your services on a mass market, I believe that as a matter of business ethics you lose most of your "right" to pick and choose among potential customers on the basis of your personal preferences. Whereas if you DON'T advertise to and sell your services on a mass market, you retain more of your "right" to pick and choose who you'll sell to. I want to emphasize that this does not justify racism even within the latter category. But it does, I believe, put the latter category in a better position to be extremely selective about who they'll sell to. This is an issue we've discussed before, so my views on this shouldn't come as a surprise to you. I do want to make sure (which is why I keep repeating it) that this has nothing to do with my views of the ethics of racism.

rufus4aday

11-13-2003, 01:08 PM

So JM seems to have the most straightforward position. Racism is wrong. If someone says "I won't sleep with race X" that's racism, and it's wrong, whether or not the sex is being charged for.

JL (and NY Vanessa) almost seem to be saying that it's not the racism that is immoral per se, but only the racism exhibited in a commercial context.

But that just sounds like a rhetorical posture to me.

Would they accept something like the following?

"It's not immoral to not want to have black neighbors...it's only immoral to not sell them a house if you are a real estate agent".

or

"It's not immoral to not want to share a seat on the bus with a black person...it's only immoral to force them to the back of the bus if you own the company".

and so on?

If you discard the kind of arguments I offered, why should racist choices in one's personal sexual life be any more ethical than racist choices in other parts of ones personal life?

justlooking

11-13-2003, 01:12 PM

I think there's a difference between public ethics and private ethics. I think it's wrong for a consumer to have racist criteria. But I think it's wrong in a different, more serious, way for a commercial entity to have racist criteria for customers. At this point in the discussion, I can't say why exactly I think this. Maybe because the "public" acts have wider impact. Maybe because I think you give up an amount of personal autonomy when you act in a public capacity.

rufus4aday

11-13-2003, 01:15 PM

I posted the above and then discovered JL's post above it.

I guess he is saying then that racist choices in one's personal life is always wrong...going commercial with it is a second offense.

Frankly I would think the former would be such a major flaw that the second would be a footnote...rather than the focus of so much attention...so I still have suspicions about the rhetoric.

But regarding the restricted commercial aspects...

Why then doesn't going commercial imply other kinds of choice being taken away?
Why isn't it immoral for a woman to turn away a female client? Or to only participate in some acts and not others?

rufus4aday

11-13-2003, 01:18 PM

Another one got wedged in there...I have to type faster or something...

justme

11-13-2003, 01:21 PM

To me (and this is where JL and I disagree, I think) whether or not the sex is commercial or not does not affect the ethics of the decision. For me, it is simply a matter of whether or not a person uses race as a brightline distinction for any decision. I don't think people should be selecting for race, but rather for traits.

Ultimately, 'race' is an imaginary categorization - a concept that scientists and anthropologists demonstrated a long time ago. However, as imaginary as it may be, it still can be used as an arbitrary cruel bias against people who are put in that group. It seems rather ridiculous, to me, to select based on an imaginary distinction. It seems unethical when doing so is based on ignorant overgeneralizations or misconceptions of entire groups of people. It seems evil when such selection is used en mass over a long period of time to deliberately subjegate an entire group of people regardless of their individual merits.

That said, it's impossible to make people not be racist. And in general I wouldn't support making people not act racist. But allowing people to act racist publically allows for extremely dangerous social pressures. When those actions prevent entire groups from particpating in something as socially necessary as commerce than I think these actions deserve seperate consideration from what people may act on in their own homes.

That said, I'm not so zealous that I believe that if some ignorant whore refuses service to a group based on race that this represents a significant obstacle to social equity for that group. In short, particpation in this commerce, the specific commerce of buying sex, is not really a social necessity. Perhaps my posts on this board point to a lack of perspective. But I would remind people that the ostensible purpose of discussion on this board is prostitution and therefore prostitution will naturally receive an unnatural degree of emphasis in the thoughts and words expressed here. I do not sit at home thinking of ways to ruin the commercial life of racist prostitutes. Largely, the only time I think about the subject is when someone broaches it on a PMB or when I am confronted with one in real life.

rufus4aday

11-13-2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by rufus4aday
Why then doesn't going commercial imply other kinds of choice being taken away?
Why isn't it immoral for a woman to turn away a female client? Or to only participate in some acts and not others?

So these are rhetorical questions. What I think is going on, and the only way I can make sense of it, is that the immorality of the public act and the immorality of the private act have to be rooted in the same moral considerations.

And so folks who want to claim racial discrimination is immoral in commercial (i.e. public) sex can only hold that position to the extent they also claim racial discrimination is immoral in private sex. And once you are in that territory you have to deal with all the evo-psych baggage I want to be considered.

Because, after all, casual inspection would seem to indicate that in the realm of personal sexuality the quantity of racism being practiced is *huge*. So one has to ask...is this rampant immorality, or is there something else going on there?

(Clearly I am saying it is "something else").

justme

11-13-2003, 01:35 PM

That post of mine above got stuck on my desktop and was supposed to go after Ww's.

Perhaps JL and I don't disagree.

justme

11-13-2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by rufus4aday
If you discard the kind of arguments I offered, why should racist choices in one's personal sexual life be any more ethical than racist choices in other parts of ones personal life?

The ethics of the situation does not change, but the importnace of public discourse on the subject does as because of the greater scope of consequences.

rufus4aday

11-13-2003, 02:32 PM

Well then you are stuck with a couple other questions I"ve asked....

(1) In the realm of private sex what you would label as racism is apparently huge...is this rampant immorality or is something else going on?

(2) Why is it that so many of these sexual racists show no other signs of racism?

justme

11-13-2003, 02:40 PM

Moreover, as JL alluded to, the 'rights' also change when the action is public even if the 'ethics' do not.

alterego

11-13-2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by rufus4aday
(1) In the realm of private sex what you would label as racism is apparently huge...is this rampant immorality or is something else going on?

(2) Why is it that so many of these sexual racists show no other signs of racism?

I tend to have the same questions.

Sexuality is SO tied up with preference (height, weight, gender, ethnicity, class, age, appearance, status, etc.) that I think that when it comes to sex you really have to dispense with traditional ideas of equality and discrimination.

There is NOBODY out there who has a truly equal sexual attraction to all the other 6 billion people on the planet. Nor should they. I believe that preference is an INHERENT part of sexuality.

Exactly how that plays out can depend on social factors and it's going to be different for different people in different circumstances. But having preferences is something very deep rooted.

There is nothing particularly fair about sexual attraction. And there is nothing particularly fair about commercial sex either. Sex just isn't fair, period. That's the nature of the thing.

æ

11-13-2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Ny Vanessa

I don't turn a client away because he isnt my type.( skin color, height, weight, or eye color)

If he is clean, shows me respect, and has the $$ that I require for an appointment, he is in.

No... But you'll turn them away if they aren't a certain age.

So in who's book is that not considered a form of discrimination.

OK all you hypocrites... line up and let me have it.

Wwanderer

11-13-2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by justme
Ultimately, 'race' is an imaginary categorization - a concept that scientists and anthropologists demonstrated a long time ago.

That definitely was the scientific conventional wisdom on the subject, but I believe (I am not an expert on the subject but have friends who are) that genome sequencing has somewhat altered the conclusions/picture in recent years. Roughly speaking, the non-African populations of the planet can be separated into a few large groups in terms of genomic divergence from African populations. These groups are believed to correspond to specific periods (and geographical directions) of mass migration out of Africa (where our species arose) and are roughly, but not very precisely, correlated with conventional notions of the races.

These same studies indicate that the average genetic differences between these migratory subdivisions of the speceis are extremely tiny/minor and very much less than the genetic variations among individuals within a single group.

-Ww

Slinky Bender

11-13-2003, 07:12 PM

On a somehwat different topic:

I've had sex with just about every race on the planet (still trying to get and eskim0... if anyone has any referneces... and don't try and tell me about Quinn on the UES). I've also seen what I thought were absolutely gorgeous women of every single race. I know there are guys out there who will acknowledge that these women are beautifiul, but still would have sex with them because of thier race. I don't see how anyone can make the argument that if a guy sees prositutes, and he thinks one is gorgeous, but he still won't see her due solely to her race, that's he's not engaging in racist behaviour. As such, I have to say the same goes vice-versa for hookers. now, since we basically remove the issue of a guy having to be good looking for a hooker to see him (unless that's her general criteria for all races), well..... I think you can see where this leads to.

Wwanderer

11-14-2003, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by slinkybender
I don't see how anyone can make the argument that if a guy sees prositutes, and he thinks one is gorgeous, but he still won't see her due solely to her race, that's he's not engaging in racist behaviour.

I certainly agree; it is almost racist by definition. However, I am not sure anyone has claimed differently in this or most similar threads. The interesting/complex questions are, imo:

1) Is this particular form of racism wrong or immoral? In other words, does morality require one to be perfectly race-blind in all matters, even the selection of sexual partners, or can it be regarded simply as a matter of morally neutral personal taste, like a preference for tall sexual partners, in this context?

2) Does it matter, one way or the other, if the circumstances are commercial or otherwise? And, if it matters, are the moral/ethical considerations different for "mass market" and "restricted market" providers?

-Ww

occasionalhobbyist

11-14-2003, 05:36 AM

1) Yes, it's wrong. And immoral. What's complex or nuanced about this?

2) Yes, it matters. It doesn't matter insofar as there's a distinction about racism, but it matters in terms of the legal ramifications of the action.

To explain:

First, all of this is moot. As we know, commercial sex is illegal in most states, so we're not really going to get anywhere discussing the legalities of behavior that is already illegal.

If we were to make the analogy of an owner-operated deli, no one would dispute that if the owner made a decision not to serve sandwiches to Jews or Arabs, that would be discriminatory behavior. I can't believe there's not a law against it, but if there were no such law that owner would at least be subject to censure, protests, ostracization and hopefully a diminished capacity to do business. Whether this comes down to a matter of law or social norms, I don't particularly care.

Say I make sandwiches for my friends and a few neighbors. Say they pay me $5 a piece. Say this Jewish neighbor shows up at my door and asks me if he can get in on the action. I have every right to turn him down, don't I? And I don't have to give a reason. I could be doing it because I don't have enough time to make that one additional sandwich. I could be doing it because lifting the extra 1/4 lb of deli meat from the grocery store to home is sure to put out my back. Or I could be doing it because I'm a ruthless, vehement anti-Semite who believes that all Jews are unwashed devils that contribute to the moral decay of society.

The point, to me, is that in the latter case, the person being discriminated against has no reasonable expectation that the service I'm providing is available to him. In the former case, he very much has that expectation. This sort of falls in the category, to my mind, of a tree falling in the woods. If no one hears it, it may still be wrong, but the effect on one's hearing is nil.

That said, I think the racism in both cases is unquestionably wrong. But I think the impact in the former is egregious enough that society should condemn the action.

Using race as a factor in determining medical diagnosis is not racist. Using it as a determining factor of whether or not you'll treat someone is.

occasionalhobbyist

11-14-2003, 05:41 AM

To add a point (f'in 3 min edit rule): I do think the private stock sandwich maker is wrong. But we live in a society where we still believe (so far) that freedom of thought is a fundamental virtue. As long as it doesn't translate into action, we must tolerate it. It's one of the more challenging virtues of a tolerant society.

jseah

11-14-2003, 06:15 AM

I think in all this back and forth, some are confusing what is morally wrong with what is legally wrong (and this is the distinction that jl was making).

While a person's preference in real life may be morally wrong, adopting this same preference in commercial life can very well be legally wrong. Assume that I am a racist. If I own a restaurant, it would be morally (and legally) wrong for me to refuse to serve blacks. But in my own home, it would be morally wrong, but not legally wrong, for me to refuse to invite blacks over to my home for dinner. The brightline distinction comes in the commercial aspect of the business enterprise versus the personal life. I would hate to see the government try to step in to legislate our personal lives and impinge on our personal freedom of choice.

For example, in Singapore, the ethnic Chinese are in the minority, but politically, they are the majority and they control the country. So, they legislate that for the ethnic Chinese, the government will encourage population growth through bonuses for having children by a certain age, or government housing subsidies for children. However, for the non-ethnic Chinese, they try to restrict population growth by encouraging birth control (also through government subsidies). Are they morally wrong for doing this? Absolutely. Are they legally wrong for doing this? In Singapore, no, since they are the ones who legislate. However, in many other countries' legal system, probably, because this is an out and out racist policy.

On the other hand, China tries to control their population by imposing fines on large families (greater than one child). While this is intrusive into people's personal lives, this is neither morally nor legally wrong, because this is an across the board policy that applies to all ethnicities in China.

justme

11-14-2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Wwanderer
Roughly speaking, the non-African populations of the planet can be separated into a few large groups in terms of genomic divergence from African populations. These groups are believed to correspond to specific periods (and geographical directions) of mass migration out of Africa (where our species arose) and are roughly, but not very precisely, correlated with conventional notions of the races.

but not very precisely, correlated with conventional notions of the races.

Well, of course you're going to have selectivity of genetic variation, and of course if you have geographic isolation of a particular favorable gene you're going to end up with geographic variations over time, and of course that same geographic isolation precipitated social isolation creating differences in cultures the way it preserved differences in genetic varitaions.

The question, I think, is whether those differences are significant. The answer, scientifically, seems to be not really.

And certainly, as you note, the correlation with modern ideas of race are somewhat tennuous.

occasionalhobbyist

11-14-2003, 06:17 AM

The history of mankind is filled with examples of legislated immorality.

Hence the value of a discussion about ethics rather than law.

justme

11-14-2003, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by slinkybender
I don't see how anyone can make the argument that if a guy sees prositutes, and he thinks one is gorgeous, but he still won't see her due solely to her race, that's he's not engaging in racist behaviour. As such, I have to say the same goes vice-versa for hookers. now, since we basically remove the issue of a guy having to be good looking for a hooker to see him (unless that's her general criteria for all races), well..... I think you can see where this leads to.

Exactly!

justme

11-14-2003, 06:23 AM

Biggest possible ditto to all three of OH's extremely great, great posts that I should probably just link to whenever the topic comes up again.

jseah

11-14-2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by slinkybender
I don't see how anyone can make the argument that if a guy sees prositutes, and he thinks one is gorgeous, but he still won't see her due solely to her race, that's he's not engaging in racist behaviour. As such, I have to say the same goes vice-versa for hookers. now, since we basically remove the issue of a guy having to be good looking for a hooker to see him (unless that's her general criteria for all races), well..... I think you can see where this leads to.

I think where the racism/preferences more often comes into play is that due solely to her race, the guy may rate her lower on his attractiveness scale (i.e. Halle Berry may rank an 8 in the general public's eye, but the racist may say that she is only a 5).

occasionalhobbyist

11-14-2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by justme
but not very precisely, correlated with conventional notions of the races.

Well, of course you're going to have selectivity of genetic variation, and of course if you have geographic isolation of a particular favorable gene you're going to end up with geographic variations over time, and of course that same geographic isolation precipitated social isolation creating differences in cultures the way it preserved differences in genetic varitaions.

The question, I think, is whether those differences are significant. The answer, scientifically, seems to be not really.

And certainly, as you note, the correlation with modern ideas of race are somewhat tennuous.

The very concept of race is scientifically insignificant. It's a manifestation of our need, as humans, to separate ourselves into groups of "us" and "them". (In other words, I agree.)

jseah

11-14-2003, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by occasionalhobbyist
Say I make sandwiches for my friends and a few neighbors. Say they pay me $5 a piece. Say this Jewish neighbor shows up at my door and asks me if he can get in on the action. I have every right to turn him down, don't I? And I don't have to give a reason. I could be doing it because I don't have enough time to make that one additional sandwich. I could be doing it because lifting the extra 1/4 lb of deli meat from the grocery store to home is sure to put out my back. Or I could be doing it because I'm a ruthless, vehement anti-Semite who believes that all Jews are unwashed devils that contribute to the moral decay of society.

1. If you're such a ruthless, vehement anti-Semite, why are you using kosher deli-meat?

2. If the deli-meat is not kosher, why is your Jewish neighbor coming to you for sandwiches?

:)

pswope

11-14-2003, 06:32 AM

OH
Thank you for those unbelievably great posts.

occasionalhobbyist

11-14-2003, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by jseah
I think where the racism/preferences more often comes into play is that due solely to her race, the guy may rate her lower on his attractiveness scale (i.e. Halle Berry may rank an 8 in the general public's eye, but the racist may say that she is only a 5).

Yes, but what's Halle Berry's "race"?

It becomes much harder to maintain a racist point of view in the face of the blurring of the lines of race that have occurred throughout history, but increasingly so in America in the last three decades. (At least, publicly.)

Worth noting that blacks, whites and others produce viable offspring through sexual reproduction. That's what I meant when I said the distinction is scientifically insignificant.

occasionalhobbyist

11-14-2003, 06:34 AM

JM, PS: I'm blushing. Thanks.

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by jseah
2. If the deli-meat is not kosher, why is your Jewish neighbor coming to you for sandwiches?
He is not orthodox?

jseah

11-14-2003, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by occasionalhobbyist
Yes, but what's Halle Berry's "race"?

It becomes much harder to maintain a racist point of view in the face of the blurring of the lines of race that have occurred throughout history, but increasingly so in America in the last three decades. (At least, publicly.)

Worth noting that blacks, whites and others produce viable offspring through sexual reproduction. That's what I meant when I said the distinction is scientifically insignificant.

Maybe we should all learn from our dogs. There are many different breeds, but given a chance, a Chihuahua would try humping a Great Dane...........

the resulting mutts are generally healthier than their purebred cousins, without all the genetic defects and weaknesses that comes with keeping the "lines" pure.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by jseah
2. If the deli-meat is not kosher, why is your Jewish neighbor coming to you for sandwiches?

You're right. You never ever see a Jew eating in the Carnegie Deli.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 06:46 AM

I'll just bow out and let OH keep posting.

(NOT REALLY)

Thinking about it, I think I was wrong in some prior comments in a related thread where I said I thought the notion of "right to choose" is irrelevant.

Here's what I'm beginning to think I think instead.

In the private sphere, your "right to choose" is almost absolute. You don't want to hang out with black people, much less have sex with them, I can think you're wrong, I can think you're a moron, I can tell you so to your face -- but it's really none of my business.

In the public sphere, however, your "right to choose" (I'm talking ethics here, not law) is circumscribed. I have every right to criticize and if appropriate act against public racism (if I feel like it).

People have insisted that, because prostitution involves sex, it's in the private sphere rather than the public sphere, so a prostitute's "right to choose" is absolute. I have a three-word response to that: BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.

justme

11-14-2003, 06:46 AM

justme

11-14-2003, 07:00 AM

Last night I was eating dinner and watching the Rockets fold under their first real test as a legitimate playoff team. There is a cute, young, African American couple sitting to my right at the bar. At some point she apparently gets up to go to the bathroom and he tries to start a converstaion with me (unfortunately I'm engrossed in the game)

- Let me ask you a question. Yo, you.
- huh?
- Let me ask you a question.
- OK.
- So theres's this woman.
- Uh-huh.
- And she's a virgin.
- Whoah.
- But she'll let dudes do it up her butt.
- OK.
- Now is she really a virgin? I say no, but her best friend says yes. What is she?
- She's confused.
- Huh?
- Well, obviously her virginity is this really important thing to her. It's this thing she just has to preserve. She's probably been raised with all kinds of traditional notions about sexuality. But, she's come to realize that she wants sex to play a role in her life. So she gives herself this loophole (I congratulate myself on not using the phrase backdoor) to have sex while keeping her virginity. She's mixed up, though and is probably way too uptight about the virginity thing.
- Yeah, but do you think she's a virgin?
- It doesn't really matter does it?
- No, but what do you think?
- I mean, it really doesn't matter what I, you or anyone in the bar think. We could ask each person here...
- Oh, it's not her (pointing to the empty seat next to him), it's her best friend.
- Doesn't matter. I don't care who it is. Look, what does it mean whether or not she's a virgin? It doesn't mean much to me, it probably doesn't mean much to you. It does mean a lot to her which is why she goes through the logical loop.
- Yeah, but taking it up the butt is sex, right? So she's not a virgin.
- Well why is anal sex, sex?
- It's just a different hole, same thing.
- Well what if she just gave blow jobs.
- That's foreplay. That's different. Foreplay's not sex.
- But we're just talking about a word, right? What's important is the meaning. If someone has one black grandparent and three white, is that person black? Does it really matter?
- No.
- So what does it matter whether or not this girl is a virgin. I say let her delude herself for now but work on her strange notions about virginity.
- Uh-huh... But she's not a virgin, is she?
- No, of course not.
- Yeah.
- Yeah.

occasionalhobbyist

11-14-2003, 07:03 AM

(Chuckle.)

So, do you think she's a virgin?

occasionalhobbyist

11-14-2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
People have insisted that, because prostitution involves sex, it's in the private sphere rather than the public sphere, so a prostitute's "right to choose" is absolute. I have a three-word response to that: BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.

Exactly.

Cat_Ballou

11-14-2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by occasionalhobbyist
The very concept of race is scientifically insignificant. It's a manifestation of our need, as humans, to separate ourselves into groups of "us" and "them". It is perhaps worth noting that historically, perceived racial differences have also been the basis for slavery. All of the so-called "great" civilizations have had (and were primarily built by) large slave populations, and the enslavement of other races was a major objective of war and invasion. Sparta found its Achilles Heel (so shoot me) in its enslavement of a native people too similar to themselves: the ethical horror that lies at slavery's heart cannot be endured or permanently denied when the slave looks just like the master. The means of production in a slave economy requires the dehumanizing and demonizing of the entire group (and it never hurts to have some religious text conveniently interpreted to back you up, of course)...

I have two friends, both with white mothers and black fathers. She "looks black," and is treated as such; he "looks white" and is treated as such (he "passes" ). The differences in their life experiences are vast...

pswope

11-14-2003, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by occasionalhobbyist
(Chuckle.)

So, do you think she's a virgin?
If you define it as having your hymen perforated...yes

I met a real hottie on CL,who claims that n/w/standing her ex-boyfriends attempts at intercouse,her hymen is intact. She asked what I thought and after consultation with my whoreoard buds,I told her
"Technicalvirgin.

ps Halle is whiteman's vision of the perfect sista*

*I've been messing around w/ an amateur,who has a perfect centerfold body,w/ a fairly broad nose and full lips. she constnatly maintains that depsite her obvious assets and her decidedly African American features(her words),that white men are not as attracted to her as a more mixed race woc. The point is that there's alot of cultural bias within the definitions of racism

justlooking

11-14-2003, 07:31 AM

But of course whether you're more or less "attracted" to a particular set of features is a different issue than whether you're so repulsed by the thought of having sex with a member of a particular race that you'd refuse to do it under any circumstances.

And, of course (to make sure this particular dead horse stays beat), a (mass market) prostitute's relative "attraction" to prospective johns really shouldn't matter that much.

Wwanderer

11-14-2003, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by justme

1 - The question, I think, is whether those differences are significant. The answer, scientifically, seems to be not really.

2 - And certainly, as you note, the correlation with modern ideas of race are somewhat tennuous.

1 - They are measurable (now, using genomic sequencing, whereas they previously were not as you noted). Whether or not they are significant depends on what you consider significant, which is not a scientific question. They are, in any case, very small in a relative sense.

2 - Yes, but it is well to keep in mind that this is a field still very much in the making. New and novel data pouring in, only preliminary analysis (if any) of most of it, new analysis techniques being developed and tested. Etc. But here is one fact of which I am fond (and with which you can confound your neighborhood racist if you wish): Some present day European peoples we would call Caucasian are much more closely related to some groups of African Blacks than the latter are to other groups of African Blacks! This is an example of what I meant by "not very precisely correlated".

Fwiiw, while I find this topic (the genetic reality or otherwise of race) interesting, I do not think it is particularly important for the moral/ethical issues being discussed in this thread.

-Ww

justme

11-14-2003, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Wwanderer
1. - Whether or not they are significant depends on what you consider significant, which is not a scientific question. They are, in any case, very small in a relative sense.

2. - Fwiiw, while I find this topic (the genetic reality or otherwise of race) interesting, I do not think it is particularly important for the moral/ethical issues being discussed in this thread.

2 has a great deal to do with 1.

(And it's pretty easy to make significant a scientific question)

Wwanderer

11-14-2003, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by justlooking

1 - In the private sphere, your "right to choose" is almost absolute.

2 - In the public sphere, however, your "right to choose" (I'm talking ethics here, not law) is circumscribed.

3 - People have insisted that, because prostitution involves sex, it's in the private sphere rather than the public sphere, so a prostitute's "right to choose" is absolute. I have a three-word response to that: BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.

1 & 2 were such a nice precise start that I felt let down by the somewhat less than clear and fully explicit explanation of your thinking conveyed by that "three-word response".

In other words, why is that BS?

Btw, in other contexts, you have repeatedlly argued that sex is special and cannot or should not be commidified in the same way as other services which are bought and sold. Here you seem to be taking the opposite point of view and claiming that sex is, in this respect at least, no different from other services which may be offerred commercially. I'm not arguing that these are inconsistent positions since sex could be special in some ways/contexts but not others. However, it does suggest that the issue (of deciding what special features the sexual nature of the service does and does not entail) is a bit too subtle and nuanced to simply declare an argument along those lines BS, neh?

-Ww

alterego

11-14-2003, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
And, of course (to make sure this particular dead horse stays beat), a (mass market) prostitute's relative "attraction" to prospective johns really shouldn't matter that much.

Personally, I don't think ANY of this matters that much. With all the actual and serious racism in America, I can't imagine why some (mass market) hookers refusing to take certain clients is really much of an issue for anyone. I think it's all pretty irrelevant.

But since I seem to be the only person here arguing the other side I figure I might as well continue, otherwise the rest of you will just be agreeing with yourselves and congratulating each other on your wonderful positions. Better you should actaully be arguing with someone.

I still think that normal notions of discrimination don't really apply to anything sexual, even prostitution. A prostitute may have a policy that says that she will only see guys over 30, or only men (no couples or single women). If a restaurant ever set policies like that (only men over 30 may eat here) then everyone would be up in arms. But a hooker is not a restaurant. She ought to be able to set whatever ridiculous policies she wants, no matter how stupid they are. She may say she only wants to see Asian men. I may think that policy is strange or stupid, but I don't really think it's immoral.

æ

Wwanderer

11-14-2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by justme
(And it's pretty easy to make significant a scientific question)

If you mean that one can determine/measure significance scientifically (or hope to do so) once one has adopted a definition or standard of what is meant by what sort of difference is significant, I agree. Else I am not sure what you mean.

-Ww

justme

11-14-2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Wwanderer
If you mean that one can determine/measure significance scientifically (or hope to do so) once one has adopted a definition or standard of what is meant by what sort of difference is significant, I agree. Else I am not sure what you mean.

That's preciesly what I mean.

justme

11-14-2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by alterego
If a restaurant ever set policies like that (only men over 30 may eat here) then everyone would be up in arms.

Imagine if someone set an age limit on something important like being President or running for Congress. People would be really pissed then.

Age discrimination is a fundamentally different thing than racial discrimination. Although I largely believe that age discrimination is (often?) unethical, I don't place it in the same category is racial discrimination do to several very real factors.

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by justme
Imagine if someone set an age limit on something important like being President or running for Congress. People would be really pissed then.

There is an age limit -- you must be 35. And native born.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 08:27 AM

I have this odd feeling justme knows that.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 08:29 AM

There's at least one club in New York with an age limit of 30 (or maybe even higher), and believe me, nobody gives a shit.

alterego

11-14-2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by justme
Age discrimination is a fundamentally different thing than racial discrimination. Although I largely believe that age discrimination is (often?) unethical, I don't place it in the same category is racial discrimination do to several very real factors.

Fine, age discrimination isn't exactly the same as racial discrimination which isn't exactly the same as gender discrimination which isn't exactly the same as discrimination by sexuality which isn't exactly the same as discrimination by class. But who cares? We're not talking about college admissions boards here, or rates of incarceration by the criminal justice system, or getting a mortgage to buy a home. We're talking about getting a blow job. There's no merit system for getting a blow job. If a girl wants to give you a blow job because you're in a sexual relationship with you, hey, that's great. If another girl agrees to give you a blow job because you're paying her, hey, got for it. If another girl says she doesn't want to give you a blow job and gives one to someone else, oh well. Maybe she had a stupid reason for doing that, but there you go. I'm happy to agree that access to housing, education, and equal treatment by the state are such important matters that individuals should actively work to end discrimination. But getting a blowjob is not some kind of inherent right (much as I might sometimes wish it were). It's just not. It makes no sense to me to make a political or moral issue out of who people do or don't choose to go down on.

æ

justlooking

11-14-2003, 08:37 AM

It does if they sell and advertise on the mass market.

(Can't you see we're talking about commerce, not blow jobs? What the particular service is really doesn't make that much difference.)

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
Thinking about it, I think I was wrong in some prior comments in a related thread where I said I thought the notion of "right to choose" is irrelevant.

Here's what I'm beginning to think I think instead.

In the private sphere, your "right to choose" is almost absolute. You don't want to hang out with black people, much less have sex with them, I can think you're wrong, I can think you're a moron, I can tell you so to your face -- but it's really none of my business.

In the public sphere, however, your "right to choose" (I'm talking ethics here, not law) is circumscribed. I have every right to criticize and if appropriate act against public racism (if I feel like it).

People have insisted that, because prostitution involves sex, it's in the private sphere rather than the public sphere, so a prostitute's "right to choose" is absolute. I have a three-word response to that: BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.

Well the problem here is that you have defined two bright line states -- public and private. However, as we know from the lengthy pro vs. semi-pro (or whatever the hell we decided to call it) thread, these states are in fact a continuum.

Using your logic and the conslusions of the semi-pro thread 9such as they are), if a semi-pro only saw one guy for money, she would be free to choose who she wants to see – no Tuvans allowed. You could think she is a moron, but it’s really not your business.

At the opposite end of the continuum, you have the “public utility” version of sex work, where a sign has been hung out to the “mass market” – cum one, cum all. Here, the lady’s ethical right to choose you say is more circumscribed.

Okay, say for the sake of argument that I agree with you. Is it okay for a woman that sees two guys professionally to choose? What about three? To quote slinky, you see where this is heading.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 08:41 AM

I actually agree completely with your analysis, and think that's exactly where I'm heading.

What's wrong with nuance?

(Remember, the issue I'm addressing isn't when and whether racism is "wrong". It's when it's validly a subject of public discourse and maybe even action. If there's a little uncertainty at the edges, what's the big deal?)

(Although I'm gonna repeat for I think the third time that, to me, the main determinant is probably how the girl advertises, not how many men she sees.)

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
(Can't you see we're talking about commerce, not blow jobs? What the particular service is really doesn't make that much difference.)

Well done ae! Actually, jl Ithink that is his whole point that the service is so trivial, why get all upset by it.

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
What's wrong with nuance?

I love nuances. Almost as much as bj's

rufus4aday

11-14-2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by slinkybender
...I know there are guys out there who will acknowledge that these women are beautifiul, but still would have sex with them because of thier race. I don't see how anyone can make the argument that if a guy sees prositutes, and he thinks one is gorgeous, but he still won't see her due solely to her race, that's he's not engaging in racist behaviour.

If you cast it this way (and there are other ways it could be cast) then the question is no longer "is it racist" but rather "is it immoral". Troting out the example again, if you want to be a strict constructionist about it, then Doctors are racists. But under this rigid definition not all racism is immoral.

I think there is a strong case for saying, under this strict system, racist sexual selection is not immoral. Why? Because you generally only hold people morally responsible for those things they have at least some degree of control over. People can be taken to task for racist thinking...making stupid eugenic arguments, or citing false histories, etc...but sexual attraction is being held out here as a special case...a pre-rational limbic impulse that cannot be rationally veto'ed.

Sexual attraction *can* be controlled through social pressure but that's not the same as saying it is a question appropriately viewed through a moralistic lens.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by pjorourke
Well done ae! Actually, jl Ithink that is his whole point that the service is so trivial, why get all upset by it.

Because I would say that can't be determinant. The point is what people should be able to expect from commerce, not how important the service at issue is. Because you can't judge for others how trivial or important any particular good or service is.

rufus4aday

11-14-2003, 08:45 AM

oops...see next post...

jseah

11-14-2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by rufus4aday
snip.....People can be taken to task for racist thinking...making stupid eugenic arguments, or citing false histories, etc...but sexual attraction is being held out here as a special case...a pre-rational limbic impulse that cannot be rationally veto'ed.....snip

I think adopting this premise would be a dangerous thing. This would give cr****ce to the argument that sexual deviants (i.e. rapists, child molesters, Ted Bundy) cannot be held accountable for their actions because they cannot control what attracts them and would therefore be better served being coddled by the psychiatric community than being punished for their crimes.

rufus4aday

11-14-2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by justme
but not very precisely, correlated with conventional notions of the races.

Well, of course you're going to have selectivity of genetic variation...

The question, I think, is whether those differences are significant. The answer, scientifically, seems to be not really.

I agree with you here more than you could possibly know. In most other contexts if I find myself forced to use the word "race" I will often say the first time "so called race".

BUT...

What some of us are saying here is that sex may be an exceptional aspect.

From a pure game theory point of view there can be big advantages to controlling mating behavior and restricting genetic exchange on a territorial basis. In nature we know that pheromones are absolutely critical in marking territory and triggering sexual behavior. There are some human studies showing that the highly correlated pheromones of direct family members have a sexually inhibiting effect on behavior. (Incest prevention).

Or, again, it could be childhood patterning or a number of other kinds of cues.

But in short nature has the history, motive, and opportunity to give us involuntary urges such that we tend to sexually select on a so called racial basis.
I know of no direct experimental evidence showing this, but I've already mentioned similar mechanisms under study.

alterego

11-14-2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
It does if they sell and advertise on the mass market.

I really question how "mass market" any hooker really is. Mass market, in my mind, means selling millions of products to millions of people. McDonalds is mass market. A hooker, even a very prolific one, is not "mass market". The smallest mom-and-pop chewing-tobacco-and-bait shop in Stalewater, Arkansas is STILL going to have more customers than the busiest hooker, if they're going to stay in business.

It's not like girls are taking out Superbowl halftime ads. "Mass market" means (at most) a website, and a couple of ads/links on escort related websites, maybe a print ad in the adult classified in an alternative paper. It's just not mass market.

æ

rufus4aday

11-14-2003, 09:01 AM

Wwanderer

11-14-2003, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
Can't you see we're talking about commerce, not blow jobs? What the particular service is really doesn't make that much difference.

Unless the question is whether or not the commercial aspect commidifies the person (which would make it wrong) or only the service they provide?

(I realize, by now, that you are probably not inclined to address this point, but it was put so starkly in the above quote that I cannot resist pointing it out again.)

-Ww

occasionalhobbyist

11-14-2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by pswope
Halle is whiteman's vision of the perfect sista*

*I've been messing around w/ an amateur,who has a perfect centerfold body,w/ a fairly broad nose and full lips. she constnatly maintains that depsite her obvious assets and her decidedly African American features(her words),that white men are not as attracted to her as a more mixed race woc. The point is that there's alot of cultural bias within the definitions of racism

That's why I asked that question.

I do think Halle's gorgeous. I don't think she's a great indicator of one's racial preferences, because her features are so "white". I guess in a way, that makes her a great measure of racism, since you'd have to be solely turned off by her skin color to kick her out of bed. But, I can see someone bedding her but being repulsed by someone with "decidedly African American features." I'm not 100% certain that would mean they weren't racist. (You're really training the electron microscope on intent here; comes down to a fine-line matter of principles I don't really understand.)

alterego

11-14-2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by jseah
I think adopting this premise would be a dangerous thing. This would give cr****ce to the argument that sexual deviants (i.e. rapists, child molesters, Ted Bundy) cannot be held accountable for their actions because they cannot control what attracts them and would therefore be better served being coddled by the psychiatric community than being punished for their crimes.

I don't think those people necessarily can control their actions. It doesn't mean that I think they should be coddled by psychiatrists. It more likely means that they should be permanently locked up.

In any case, I hardly think that a prostitute with racial preferences is equivalent to Ted Bundy, anymore than a john with preferences towards skinny women is equivalent to Ted Bundy.

æ

Wwanderer

11-14-2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by rufus4aday
So why does a provider lose the right to say "no sex with blacks" but retain the right to say "no kissing"?

The latter is what she sells; the former is who she sells it to. Your restaurant, say, is obligated to serve people regardless of race, but it is not obligated to serve any food they might want.

-Ww

rufus4aday

11-14-2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by jseah
I think adopting this premise would be a dangerous thing. This would give cr****ce to the argument that sexual deviants (i.e. rapists, child molesters, Ted Bundy) cannot be held accountable for their actions because they cannot control what attracts them and would therefore be better served being coddled by the psychiatric community than being punished for their crimes.

You are ignoring my point about something being a matter for social control not being the same as something being a matter for moral consideration.

If a killer is truly incapable of any self-control then it really isn't a matter calling for moral inspection. Anymore than we would want to make a moral analysis of a flood or an earthquake. Nevertheless we definitely want to *control* psychopathic killers.

But this is an unfair analogy. I am not saying racial sexual selection is a pathological behavior, but rather it *might* be a deep seated unconcious stimulus response mechanism from a time when it optimized the forward transfer of genetic information. (Which is decidedly *not* "survival of the fittest").

alterego

11-14-2003, 09:14 AM

How about turning the question on it's head, because this is so focused on the SELLER of a commercial product being the discriminator.

Why can't the PURCHASER be a racist?

Imagine that I own an axe manufacturing company and I need to buy axe handles. But I only choose to buy from white-owned axe handle makers. That's as racist as the restaurant owner who refuses to serve black customers.

But what happens if I apply that logic to commercial sex? That means that the john with a preference for asian girls is denying contracts to perfectly capable girls of other ethnicities on the basis of race. Why is that not the same as the axe maker? Both are refusing to purchase services based on race.

For that matter, if the axe handle maker refused to buy axe handles from a company because he thought the people that worked there were fat, then they probably have been discriminated against. So why should a john be able to morally discriminate against fat hookers?

BECAUSE IT'S SEXUAL. So all bets are off when it comes to the normal rules of behavior, including the rules of commerce. I think when it comes to sex you just have to say that as long as it involves consenting adults, everything they will or won't do is completely their choice. Period.

æ

justme

11-14-2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by rufus4aday
So why does a provider lose the right to say "no sex with blacks" but retain the right to say "no kissing"?

Are you serious?

The same reason I can turn down all prospects with overleveraged balance sheets but not all clients that are black.

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by alterego
But what happens if I apply that logic to commercial sex? That means that the john with a preference for asian girls is denying contracts to perfectly capable girls of other ethnicities on the basis of race. Why is that not the same as the axe maker? Both are refusing to purchase services based on race.

So what you are saying is that pswope is a racist because he doesn't like to fuck white women?

jseah

11-14-2003, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by alterego
How about turning the question on it's head, because this is so focused on the SELLER of a commercial product being the discriminator.

Why can't the PURCHASER be a racist?

Imagine that I own an axe manufacturing company and I need to buy axe handles. But I only choose to buy from white-owned axe handle makers. That's as racist as the restaurant owner who refuses to serve black customers.

But what happens if I apply that logic to commercial sex? That means that the john with a preference for asian girls is denying contracts to perfectly capable girls of other ethnicities on the basis of race. Why is that not the same as the axe maker? Both are refusing to purchase services based on race.

For that matter, if the axe handle maker refused to buy axe handles from a company because he thought the people that worked there were fat, then they probably have been discriminated against. So why should a john be able to morally discriminate against fat hookers?

BECAUSE IT'S SEXUAL. So all bets are off when it comes to the normal rules of behavior, including the rules of commerce. I think when it comes to sex you just have to say that as long as it involves consenting adults, everything they will or won't do is completely their choice. Period.

æ

That absolutely is racist. However, the government can only mandate the seller to provide equal access. The government has no right (as it should be) to mandate who the buyer should purchase from. They can't (and shouldn't) having any say in you choosing to shop from A&P versus Shop Rite, or in joining the Communist or Nazi Party, the KKK or Black Panthers.

jseah

11-14-2003, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by pjorourke
So what you are saying is that pswope is a racist because he doesn't like to fuck white women?

The Fair Employment Act will require that for every 5 WOC's he sees, he will be required to get blowjobs from one white girl, two Asians, and two Latinas.

justme

11-14-2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by rufus4aday
Sexual attraction *can* be controlled through social pressure but that's not the same as saying it is a question appropriately viewed through a moralistic lens.

rufus - we're not talking about attraction which would manifest itself in preference for traits, not the admittedly arbitrary notions of race. We're talking about brightline rules.

I already said that I don't have a problem with preference that skews someone's mating pool towards a particular demographic.

This all goes back to the Halle Barry argument.

justme

11-14-2003, 09:30 AM

AE - That point was already addressed. And I do believe it is unethical for johns to have brightline distinctions about what races they'll sleep with. I think it's really stupid, too.

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by justme
This all goes back to the Halle Barry argument.

If Halle's luscious ass didn't exist, we would have to invent her for this argument.

alterego

11-14-2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by pjorourke
So what you are saying is that pswope is a racist because he doesn't like to fuck white women?

NO! That's my whole point. Pswope isn't a racist, and my female friends who have racial preferences with who they will date aren't racists, and a girl who works at an AMP that only allows Asian men isn't a racist. When it comes to sexuality, racial preference is no more or less legitimate than age preference, gender preference, weight preference, etc. ALL of which would be discrimination in other circumstances. I personally could care less what 'race' my sexual partners are, but if somebody DOES have a preference, I'm not going to tell them they don't have a moral right to have that preference. Even if they're a hooker.

æ

rufus4aday

11-14-2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by rufus4aday

So why does a provider lose the right to say "no sex with blacks" but retain the right to say "no kissing"?

Originally posted by justme
Are you serious?

The same reason I can turn down all prospects with overleveraged balance sheets but not all clients that are black.

I asked this question within the context that JL was speaking. His argument is that when a girl goes pro her wishes must take a back seat to the interests of consumers. Why is the interest of blacks who want to be served more important than the interest of kissers who want to be served?

The likely response is to make an appeal beyond the realm of business ethics, and go back to root ethics regarding social equality.

Which makes my actual point...that when JL tries to split hairs between social justice and business ethics when it comes to racism in prostitution it is a meaningless exercise. The business ethics case can only be held high when it is on the shoulders of a social justice case. So we should more or less ignore it and concentrate on the real case, the social justice one.

alterego

11-14-2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by justme
AE - That point was already addressed. And I do believe it is unethical for johns to have brightline distinctions about what races they'll sleep with. I think it's really stupid, too.

I also think it's stupid. I think people with racial preferences are missing out on some great experiences. But I don't think it's unethical, anymore than I think it's unethical for guys not to sleep with fat chicks, or women not to sleep with short men, or whatever.

æ

rufus4aday

11-14-2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Wwanderer
The latter is what she sells; the former is who she sells it to. Your restaurant, say, is obligated to serve people regardless of race, but it is not obligated to serve any food they might want.

-Ww

This takes it out of context...see my post above.

rufus4aday

11-14-2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by justme
rufus - we're not talking about attraction which would manifest itself in preference for traits, not the admittedly arbitrary notions of race. We're talking about brightline rules.

I already said that I don't have a problem with preference that skews someone's mating pool towards a particular demographic.

This all goes back to the Halle Barry argument.

I've gotta run, but this makes lots of assumptions about the way behavior works...not that I am not making other kinds of assumptions too...

It may be that people "learn" a general behavior of shutting down sexually with people of a different race because of a history of cue mismatches in the past. It may be that the brightline rule in the person's head is created by previous conscious observation of their own instinct driven behavior.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by pjorourke
So what you are saying is that pswope is a racist because he doesn't like to fuck white women?

I think the most you can say about pswope is that he doesn't like to PAY to fuck white women.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by alterego
Why can't the PURCHASER be a racist?

To me, that goes back to the "public/private" distinction.

I'd say a consumer's choices are matters of personal preference. So if he's racist in his choices, he's wrong, but again it's not particularly any of my business.

OTOH, a seller is acting publicly. If she's racist, it's a matter of (this is going to sound a lot more pompous than I want it to) public interest.

alterego

11-14-2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
OTOH, a seller is acting publicly. If she's racist, it's a matter of (this is going to sound a lot more pompous than I want it to) public interest.

I really question whether putting an ad on Eros with racial preferences is a matter of 'public interest'.

I've placed personal ads seeking casual sex. They're 'public' ads, in the sense that any shmuck with internet access can probably read them. But I doubt they constitute a matter of 'public interest'. I was happy if they generated any interest at all.

æ

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
If she's racist, it's a matter of public interest.
As noted above, its just a blowjob. Hard to see the public interest in that.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 10:33 AM

And as I said before, I think that's EXACTLY what you're not entitled to decide for the consumer.

I think it's like a basic moral tenet that open markets be open.*

It doesn't matter what's being sold and bought. The morality (or ethics: I always get that distinction confused) is the same.

I don't see how you have the right to decide for the frozen-out consumer that the good or service he's being frozen out of isn't important enough to bother with his exclusion.

What are you going to say, Duane Reade** can properly refuse to sell candy to Croations, but not prescription drugs?

______________________________________________
* Obviously, there can be appropriate reasonable-basis restrictions like age limits for buying cigarettes, alcohol, and sex.

** A New York City drug-store chain, as most people who count know.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 10:38 AM

I also don't think that argument makes any sense in the context of this board.

It may be that in the scheme of things, blow jobs aren't that important (which is why I wouldn't put any social or political capital into working to legalize prostitution).

But in the context of this board -- where this discussion is taking place -- blow jobs are INCREDIBLY important. They have to be at least a third of what we talk about here. (Sometimes it even distracts us from audio equipment.)

It strikes me as ridiculous that someone can devote significant time and energy to talking about something, and then say, in a forum where it's a major topic, that it isn't important enough to bother about.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 10:39 AM

(And by the way, what are you gonna say next: that it's OK for audio salons to exclude black customers? Because if I remember your posts right, you seem to think audio equipment is even less important than blow jobs.)

alterego

11-14-2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
It doesn't matter what's being sold and bought.

Do you really believe that there's no difference in the ethics of selling soda and selling sex?

æ

justlooking

11-14-2003, 10:42 AM

Too general a question to respond to.

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 10:43 AM

I understand and accept your point that discrimination in the giving of blowjobs is immoral. My point was more related to the joke someone posted on the thread about number of ladies seen - The old bull says to the young bull: "Lets walk down there and fuck them all". If you guys are gonna get this worked up about the morality of someone discriminating in the context of commercial sex (itself an arguably immoral practice), are you going to have any energy left to object to important areas of discrimination. In short, we are looking at a Chicken Little syndrome here.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by alterego
I really question how "mass market" any hooker really is. Mass market, in my mind, means selling millions of products to millions of people. McDonalds is mass market. A hooker, even a very prolific one, is not "mass market". The smallest mom-and-pop chewing-tobacco-and-bait shop in Stalewater, Arkansas is STILL going to have more customers than the busiest hooker, if they're going to stay in business.

It's not like girls are taking out Superbowl halftime ads. "Mass market" means (at most) a website, and a couple of ads/links on escort related websites, maybe a print ad in the adult classified in an alternative paper. It's just not mass market.

I mean "mass market" as in advertising in broad-based media with no barriers to readership, with no limits to readership, and not targeted to any particular audience (beyond that interested in prostitution in general). And also with no limits on responses (i.e., the ads say, in effect, "Here I am. Call me and use me").

justlooking

11-14-2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by pjorourke
I understand and accept your point that discrimination in the giving of blowjobs is immoral. My point was more related to the joke someone posted on the thread about number of ladies seen - The old bull says to the young bull: "Lets walk down there and fuck them all". If you guys are gonna get this worked up about the morality of someone discriminating in the context of commercial sex (itself an arguably immoral practice), are you going to have any energy left to object to important areas of discrimination. In short, we are looking at a Chicken Little syndrome here.

The thing is that the only conclusion I can draw from that reasoning is that commercial sex isn't worth discussing at all. Because if it is worth discussing (which to us swarthy types leads ineluctibly to getting worked up about it), then surely this is.

Maybe commercial sex isn't worth getting worked up about -- but then, what are we doing here?

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
(And by the way, what are you gonna say next: that it's OK for audio salons to exclude black customers? Because if I remember your posts right, you seem to think audio equipment is even less important than blow jobs.)

I would never question the value of audio equipment. I know how serious you and justme are about that stuff. My previous comments just acknowledged that my own hearing is too shot from listening to load rock and roll to distinquish the subtle differences between high-end systems. I'm happy for you that you can still hear the differences.

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
swarthy types?

Hmm, can we discriminate against swarthy types?

btw, what exactly do you mean by swarthy types?

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
The thing is that the only conclusion I can draw from that reasoning is that commercial sex isn't worth discussing at all.

Of course not! Then we'd have to go back to work.

Okay jl, you win. Next time I see a hooker adverting in the mass media (or who sees more than 3 commercial sex partners a week) that she doesn't see black guys, I will be offended and will retaliate by going out and fucking a chink or a wop. Is that better?

JackT

11-14-2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
And also with no limits on responses (i.e., the ads say, in effect, "Here I am. Call me and use me").

This part surprises me.

Just so I understand.... You wouldn't say that a "mass market" prostitute whose ads were upfront about her discriminatory policies is on higher MORAL ground than a "mass market" prostitute that doesn't disclose her discriminatory policy, right?

... I'm trying to draw a distinction between pure "business ethics" (false advertising) vs. "social injustice" (racist policy). Aren't they really two separate and distinct wrongs?

alterego

11-14-2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by pjorourke
In short, we are looking at a Chicken Little syndrome here.

I think I take it further than you. I definitely don't think that it's a worthwhile fight to pick, if you're trying to take on racism in society. But if you're going to start politicizing other people's sexual choices, then you'd better be prepared for a whole lot of muck to be thrown back at you. I just don't buy the argument that everyone is exempt from people morally challenging all their sexual choices except hookers with internet ads.

Because if we're going to pick out a minority of hookers and make moral judgements based on their exclusions, I've got news for you, most johns are much bigger exclusionary racists (and sexists) than those hookers are.

It gets just as much "public viewing" when a guy gets on a PMB and posts on and on about how he only fucks asian chicks as it does if a girl puts up an ad specifying white guys only. But I still don't think either of them is acting immoraly against the public interest. They're just idiots with sexual hangups about race.

But if you're going to open it up about race, there's alot of other hangups I could call 'immoral' and challenge people on.

æ

justlooking

11-14-2003, 10:57 AM

YOU BETCHA!

JackT

11-14-2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by pjorourke
I will be offended and will retaliate by going out and fucking a chink or a wop. Is that better?

happy hour starts early in Florida?

justlooking

11-14-2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by JackT
This part surprises me.

Just so I understand.... You wouldn't say that a "mass market" prostitute whose ads were upfront about her discriminatory policies is on higher MORAL ground than a "mass market" prostitute that doesn't disclose her discriminatory policy, right?

... I'm trying to draw a distinction between pure "business ethics" (false advertising) vs. "social injustice" (racist policy). Aren't they really two separate and distinct wrongs?

When I said "no limits in ads", I meant it's not like she's presenting herself as someone who is selective at all. She just advertises herself as a service provider to the general market.

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by JackT
happy hour starts early in Florida?

At 5pm in Bermuda.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by alterego
I think I take it further than you. I definitely don't think that it's a worthwhile fight to pick, if you're trying to take on racism in society. But if you're going to start politicizing other people's sexual choices, then you'd better be prepared for a whole lot of muck to be thrown back at you. I just don't buy the argument that everyone is exempt from people morally challenging all their sexual choices except hookers with internet ads.

Because if we're going to pick out a minority of hookers and make moral judgements based on their exclusions, I've got news for you, most johns are much bigger exclusionary racists (and sexists) than those hookers are.

It gets just as much "public viewing" when a guy gets on a PMB and posts on and on about how he only fucks asian chicks as it does if a girl puts up an ad specifying white guys only. But I still don't think either of them is acting immoraly against the public interest. They're just idiots with sexual hangups about race.

But if you're going to open it up about race, there's alot of other hangups I could call 'immoral' and challenge people on.

Either you're missing my point about consumer preferences being personal private matters (even if publicly expressed), or I'm not stating it well, or it isn't cogent so there's nothing I can do to express it.

I'll just say again that while I don't condone johns being exclusionary racists, I don't think it's my business. When someone is selling on an open market (especially one that I participate in) and is racist, that is my business.

JackT

11-14-2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
When I said "no limits in ads", I meant it's not like she's presenting herself as someone who is selective at all. She just advertises herself as a service provider to the general market.

But that is my question.... what moral difference is it if a provider advertises her racial selectiveness?
(I don't understand why it should matter, except of course in a "business ethics" (false advertising) sense)

justlooking

11-14-2003, 11:08 AM

No, Jack, I'm talking about selectiveness in general. I'm saying that if you advertise yourself as seeing all comers, as opposed to someone who has limited time and so a limited clientele and sees only certain selected people,* it's less right for you to go ahead and then be selective based on your own criteria.
______________________________________________
* To see what I mean, look at any ad on Eros and then look at most "non-pro" ads on CL. The Eros ads just ask you to call and set up and appointment. The CL ads ask you to ***** the advertiser so you can start a long process of getting to know each other at the end of which she'll decide if she'll proceed with you.

JackT

11-14-2003, 11:13 AM

JL, I understand what you are talking about when you say "selectiveness in general" -- but am still having a hard time understanding why, from a MORAL perspective, it is worse to discriminate if your ads are less selective.

(again, that seems to be a pure "business ethics" issue)

jseah

11-14-2003, 11:16 AM

jl, I would like to pose a question to you. What about a person who places an ad on any of the myriad of dating websites (and I am not talking about a pro or an agency masquerading as a single). Would the mere fact that they have placed an ad on a public forum preclude them from including a "only whites need apply" caveat on their ad, or is it ok since they are not doing it for compensation and it is their private life?

justlooking

11-14-2003, 11:16 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JackT
JL, I understand what you are talking about when you say "selectiveness in general" -- but am still having a hard time understanding why, from a MORAL perspective, it is worse to discriminate if your ads are less selective.

(again, that seems to be a pure "business ethics" issue) [/QUOTE

To me, it's part of how I decide whether she's on the "open market". It's why I think I'm firmer ground criticizing Eros advertisers for discriminating than "non-pro" CL girls (even though CL has a pretty "mass" readership).

alterego

11-14-2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
I'll just say again that while I don't condone johns being exclusionary racists, I don't think it's my business. When someone is selling on an open market (especially one that I participate in) and is racist, that is my business.

I think your point is cogent; I just don't agree with it.

I don't think that buying on the 'open market' is different from selling on the 'open market'.

Let's say you see the following exchange on a board:

Mr_I_Love_Asians (86 zillion posts): Damn I sure love them Asians! I sure would like to get me some Asian pussy tonight! Looking for outcall in the Upper West Idiotville area. Any takers?

Dragon_Lady_4_U (42 trillion posts): I can travel anywhere in Idiotville, but I only see Caucasians.

I really don't see why she's morally much different from him. They're both equally 'public'.

æ

justlooking

11-14-2003, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by jseah
jl, I would like to pose a question to you. What about a person who places an ad on any of the myriad of dating websites (and I am not talking about a pro or an agency masquerading as a single). Would the mere fact that they have placed an ad on a public forum preclude them from including a "only whites need apply" caveat on their ad, or is it ok since they are not doing it for compensation and it is their private life?

I'd say "private life".

But again, I'm not saying it's right. Just none of my business.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by alterego
I think your point is cogent; I just don't agree with it.

I don't think that buying on the 'open market' is different from selling on the 'open market'.

Let's say you see the following exchange on a board:

Mr_I_Love_Asians (86 zillion posts): Damn I sure love them Asians! I sure would like to get me some Asian pussy tonight! Looking for outcall in the Upper West Idiotville area. Any takers?

Dragon_Lady_4_U (42 trillion posts): I can travel anywhere in Idiotville, but I only see Caucasians.

I really don't see why she's morally much different from him. They're both equally 'public'.

æ

She's different from him because service providers are (IMO) in an entirely different position ethically from consumers. A consumer has no obligation to buy anything at all, and can buy totally according to his whims. But sellers have an obligation to sell to qualified buyers. I know I keep saying that ethics and law are separate, but don't you think it's curious that there are plenty of laws against discrimination in selling and hiring, but (in the private rather than the governmental context) none in buying or deciding where to work?

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by alterego
Mr_I_Love_Asians (86 zillion posts): Damn I sure love them Asians! I sure would like to get me some Asian pussy tonight! Looking for outcall in the Upper West Idiotville area. Any takers?

Dragon_Lady_4_U (42 trillion posts): I can travel anywhere in Idiotville, but I only see Caucasians.

I really don't see why she's morally much different from him. They're both equally 'public'.

æ

I just love nuances.

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
I know I keep saying that ethics and law are separate, but don't you think it's curious that there are plenty of laws against discrimination in selling and hiring, but (in the private rather than the governmental context) none in buying or deciding where to work?

Thats just because the social engineers in washington haven't figured out any way to enforce such laws yet.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 11:26 AM

Let me try it again.

Deciding what to buy is a purely personal, private decision (even if you talk about it in public).

Deciding who to sell to is a public decision, since you sell to the public.

alterego

11-14-2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
there are plenty of laws against discrimination in selling and hiring, but (in the private rather than the governmental context) none in buying or deciding where to work?

But I could make just as much an argument that he's HIRING her as that she's SELLING to him.

æ

justlooking

11-14-2003, 11:27 AM

I don't think you could make any GOOD arguments that he is.

alterego

11-14-2003, 11:32 AM

He has a job he wants done. He is willing to pay someone to do that job. He is HIRING.

She needs money. She is willing to do that job. She is being HIRED.

I think commercial sex is MORE like that than the model that she's out there mass marketing cookies or soda.

æ

justlooking

11-14-2003, 11:34 AM

She puts an ad on Eros saying "call me and I'll come over".

She gets five to twelve calls a day and comes over.

That sounds to me more like a sale of services to a consumer than getting hired by a principal.

jseah

11-14-2003, 11:36 AM

If you use that argument, then you could say that an employee cannot discriminate against an employer because the employee is selling his services as an employee (i.e. Mr. White Man cannot opt to accept employment with White Supremacists R Us versus Black Power Inc).

justlooking

11-14-2003, 11:39 AM

I mean, just look at Eros and tell me those people aren't selling.

alterego

11-14-2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by jseah
If you use that argument, then you could say that an employee cannot discriminate against an employer because the employee is selling his services as an employee (i.e. Mr. White Man cannot opt to accept employment with White Supremacists R Us versus Black Power Inc).

Selling your labor IS different from selling any other commodity. Mr. White Man or Ms. Black Woman can refuse to work for whoever they want to. They may be foolish to do so, but they can always choose to withhold their labor.

æ

rufus4aday

11-14-2003, 11:41 AM

I guess we have to bring in another consideration that I've been avoiding....but I think it's an even stronger argument for sex as a business to be a special case when it comes to race (or just about anything else)...

In just about every other business you are talking about the exchange of goods and services. And even where you are talking about services, you are talking about activities that are non-invasive. The service provider may be using their body, but they are not opening up their body for physical intrusion by other people.

If there is a public interest in keeping markets level, there is also a public interest in treating living human bodies as something different than any other kind of commercial object. (Slavery is, in fact, the limiting but natural outcome of trying to treat human bodies as undifferentiated commercial objects in a free market).

The ability of an individual to protect the autonomy of their body is a biological imperative and a basic social justice priority. If that runs up against a much more general principle of open markets, it seems to me that the general open market principle needs to make way for the specific exception of respecting the unique autonomy of human bodies.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 11:44 AM

If that's true, then prostitution is immoral and should remain illegal.

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
If that's true, then prostitution is immoral and should remain illegal.

Its late in the afternoon, and my bloodsugar is getting low. That and jl is starting to make sense.

rufus4aday

11-14-2003, 11:48 AM

No...the point I am making is that a person's right to bodily autonomy is a very basic right. If that consideration isn't constrained by others the conclusion would be that a person should be allowed to sell access to their body to as many or few people as they see fit.

alterego

11-14-2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by justlooking
I mean, just look at Eros and tell me those people aren't selling.

Sure they're selling. And the guys are also hiring.

Labor is funny because it's both seller/consumer and employer/employee. When you're talking about discrimination in labor then you're really talking about who has power (or is perceived to have power).

Joe Shmo the white dishwasher can refuse to work at a black restaurant if he chooses and people will say, it's his stupid choice.

But Dr. Joe Shmo the heart surgeon who refuses to take black patients is certainly being discriminatory.

What's the difference? They're both refusing to sell their labor to a black buyer. They're both equally idiots. But the heart surgeon is in a position of relative power and the dishwasher is not.

My feeling about commercial sex is that it's so murky that you're better off focusing on the sex aspect and just shrugging off exclusion as part of people's wierd sexual hangups. Because if you focus on it as a business I'd say it's the JOHNS who are more in a position of power and should be called to task for discrimination.

æ

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 11:50 AM

If one of the characteristics of a good litigator is dogged persistence, jl must be one of the best.

alterego

11-14-2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by rufus4aday
No...the point I am making is that a person's right to bodily autonomy is a very basic right. If that consideration isn't constrained by others the conclusion would be that a person should be allowed to sell access to their body to as many or few people as they see fit.

FWIW I completely agree with this. That's why I think it's more useful to view commercial sex as sex first rather than as commerce first.

æ

justlooking

11-14-2003, 11:52 AM

This is NOTHING compared to when I get PAID to do it.

rufus4aday

11-14-2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by alterego
FWIW I completely agree with this. That's why I think it's more useful to view commercial sex as sex first rather than as commerce first.

æ

In a way, this is all I am saying. I mean evolution has been programming us for sex for millions of years. Nature doesn't give a hoot about open markets when it comes to homo sapien.

justlooking

11-14-2003, 12:01 PM

There are people who just can't bring themselves to do what must be done to do certain jobs competently.

Those people should avoid those jobs. Not try to redefine the jobs as something other than commerce in order to justify their not doing them competently.

alterego

11-14-2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by justlooking
There are people who just can't bring themselves to do what must be done to do certain jobs competently.

Those people should avoid those jobs. Not try to redefine the jobs as something other than commerce in order to justify their not doing them competently.

Most people are incompetent at some aspects of their jobs. Many are incompetent at the whole job. Some people are just incompetent idiots period. That doesn't mean they shouldn't look for work. Presumably the 'market' will punish them for their incompetence. But incompetence is not immorality.

æ

pjorourke

11-14-2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by justlooking
There are people who just can't bring themselves to do what must be done to do certain jobs competently.

Those people should avoid those jobs. Not try to redefine the jobs as something other than commerce in order to justify their not doing them competently.

So someone with a back disorder that prevented them from bending over to pick things up should not get a job as a floor sweeper and then go around telling people that the little piles of dirt were their way of expressing themselves.

alterego

11-14-2003, 12:10 PM

I would agree that it's generally STUPID for hookers and johns to have racial preferences, and that it's a incompetent strategy both for procuring or selling commercial sex. It IS incompetent. I just don't think it's immoral.

æ

justlooking

11-14-2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by alterego
But incompetence is not immorality.

Of course, you're right. (And so is your market analysis.)

Which means I have to fall back on paraphrasing justme's assertion that people who, for whatever personal reasons, are unable to do a job ethically* should just not do the job.

The problem being, of course, that it assumes my premise and so contributes nothing to this conversation.
________________________________________
* Like, I would say, a person who gets so wrapped personally in his arguments that he can only advance them when he thinks they're right shouldn't become a lawyer, because he can't fulfill his ethical obligations to his clients.