Racist "pls no black guys" bullshit ho

[wiltthestilt]

Anyone who runs a private business could be threatened by their clientele. And they have every right to use criteria directly related to the issue of safety to screen clients. What a lot of people don't accept is that African-American equals inherently dangerous or threatening.

The people who think that having an automatic screen for people of one race is unfair are not engaging in a lecture any more than you are. They just have some understanding of why racial litmus tests are unjust.

Legally run businesses aren't allowed to exclude people based on race....ones that operate in the black market can. That doesn't mean it's any different in principle.

What a lot of people don't accept is that African-American equals inherently dangerous or threatening.

No one said they were. Many ladies change their policy once they start screening. The point is that at some times and places it may be practical for a lady to screen based on race, and where and when that may be is a matter for her to decide, not you.

The people who think that having an automatic screen for people of one race is unfair are not engaging in a lecture any more than you are. They just have some understanding of why racial litmus tests are unjust.

Here is where you are way off. You are analogizing sex to other forms private business. A woman's body is not a place of public accommodation. You have no expectation, legal or otherwise, to someone else's body. It does not matter if she's ostensibly making herself available to everyone on the planet but you. Words like "unfair" and "unjust" in this context are bullshit. Meaningless. A woman's right to choose her sexual partners is absolute, and any objection thereof is premised on nothing more than your own subjective feelings of entitlement.

Oh, if you want to be technical, then an escort should be willing to "escort" clients regardless of race. But their is no--zilch, zero, none, nada--reason for you to expect sex apart from her telling you (verbally or otherwise) that she is willing to have sex with you. It is apropos that the title of this thread includes the phrase "bullshit ho" since it typifies the mindset that assumes the contrary.

[broncofan]

Hi Wilt,
I'm glad you decided to post. I saw yesterday that you had spent quite a long time formulating an answer and then abandoned it (the info is available in our user profile).

The primary reason people screen is for safety. At least that's what you indicated when you said that it was the screener's safety and livelihood that were at stake. For race to be an appropriate screen, it would have to relate to one of these two factors. If African-Americans are not inherently dangerous, there would be no reason to screen based on race. My objection to using race as a screen is that it's wholly irrational. It excludes people who may be decent and kind and lets through others who might actually be dangerous.

It is also clear to me that your attempts to frame the debate in terms of woman's rights are disingenuous. Insofar as money is being accepted for sex, sex is being commoditized. You might then argue that you think women are being exploited and you think prostitution is immoral. But your initial justification for supporting the exclusion of African-Americans had nothing to do with preference for partners and was based on safety.

Also disingenuous are your complaints about misogynistic terms being used. You could have started a thread about it but your intent was to dilute the charge of racism and not to actually discuss sexism. If you would like to discuss sexism, take it seriously as an issue in its own right and don't use it as a tool to trivialize racism.

[broncofan]

A woman's right to choose her sexual partners is absolute, and any objection thereof is premised on nothing more than your own subjective feelings of entitlement.

But their is no--zilch, zero, none, nada--reason for you to expect sex apart from her telling you (verbally or otherwise) that she is willing to have sex with you.

I love how you think I'm African-American and have feelings of entitlement. That actually makes the argument and your racism all the more laughably bearable.

[amberskyi]

Hi Wilt,
I'm glad you decided to post. I saw yesterday that you had spent quite a loninjury formulating an answer and then abandoned it (the info is available in our user profile).

The primary reason people screen is for safety. At least that's what you indicated when you said that it was the screener's safety and livelihood that were at stake. For race to be an appropriate screen, it would have to relate to one of these two factors. If African-Americans are not inherently dangerous, there would be no reason to screen based on race. My objection to using race as a screen is that it's wholly irrational. It excludes people who may be decent and kind and lets through others who might actually be dangerous.

It is also clear to me that your attempts to frame the debate in terms of woman's rights are disingenuous. Insofar as money is being accepted for sex, sex is being commoditized. You might then argue that you think women are being exploited and you think prostitution is immoral. But your initial justification for supporting the exclusion of African-Americans had nothing to do with preference for partners and was based on safety.

Also disingenuous are your complaints about misogynistic terms being used. You could have started a thread about it but your intent was to dilute the charge of racism and not to actually discuss sexism. If you would like to discuss sexism, take it seriously as an issue in its own right and don't use it as a tool to trivialize racism.

Even tho sex being commoditized its still a human being that your dealing with and not a thing.you break or cause injury to an object you can scrap it and get a knew one.it doesn't work so simply with people.
As an escort we have to put our safety and health before all else. For example, I don't like to be fingered by clients because most guys don't know how to engage in anal play safely and I have gotten hemorrhoids from anal strain.If I lose a client over it oh well, my anus is more important lol.
I imagine that the girls who screen based on race feel the same way.they could care less about the racial/political implications cause they feel safer.
money isn't an all access pass for everyone and everything.people who think that way are bad clientele.

[broncofan]

Even tho sex being commoditized its still a human being that your dealing with and not a thing.you break or cause injury to an object you can scrap it and get a knew one.it doesn't work so simply with people.
As an escort we have to put our safety and health before all else. For example, I don't like to be fingered by clients because most guys don't know how to engage in anal play safely and I have gotten hemorrhoids from anal strain.If I lose a client over it oh well, my anus is more important lol.
I imagine that the girls who screen based on race feel the same way.they could care less about the racial/political implications cause they feel safer.
money isn't an all access pass for everyone and everything.people who think that way are bad clientele.

Fair enough. But this is a good reason to exclude individuals but not entire races of people. Sex is a very personal thing. But I imagine that escorts are having sex with people they wouldn't have sex with unless the person paid. I understand how an escort can look at someone who doesn't take care of themselves or who treats a girl with disrespect and decide that they won't have sex with that person for any amount of money.

But why would someone have this rule of exclusion based only on heritage? They must be connecting up that background with some very unsavory characteristics. I accept that maybe the employment example is bad because even if people are having sex for money it is very personal. But why does personal choice always come down to saying no people with this coloring or that religion?

[amberskyi]

Fair enough. But this is a good reason to exclude individuals but not entire races of people. Sex is a very personal thing. in the couut I imagine that escorts are having sex with people they wouldn't have sex with unless the person paid. I understand how an escort can look at someone who doesn't take care of themselves or who treats a girl with disrespect and decide that they won't have sex with that person for any amount of money.

But why would someone have this rule of exclusion based only on heritage? They must be connecting up that background with some very unsavory characteristics. I accept that maybe the employment example is bad because even if people are having sex for money it is very personal. But why does personal choice always come down to saying no people with this coloring or that religion?

To play devils advocate (i personally don't screen based on race) but a girl who did could feel vindicated considering the majority of violent crime in this country is committed by African Americans.let me know if you need statistical proof

[broncofan]

To play devils advocate (i personally don't screen based on race) but a girl who did could feel vindicated considering the majority of violent crime in this country is committed by African Americans.let me know if you need statistical proof

And if Jewish people were engaged in more than their share of financial crime would that justify barring them wholesale from any professional accreditation associated with finance? The point is not that I think every group has a proportional representation for every type of crime, but that there are better proxies than race. Even screening based on subjective factors such as whether they were polite would be more likely effective.

[deepfix]

To play devils advocate (i personally don't screen based on race) but a girl who did could feel vindicated considering the majority of violent crime in this country is committed by African Americans.let me know if you need statistical proof

I'm curious about this proof. Because maybe I was misled into believing that the incarceration rate of minorites was SIGNIFICANTLY higher due to erroneous charges,drugs and three strikes. I was always saw more documentation on white violent offenders than any other cultural backdrop in the states though hispanics are on the rise.

[wiltthestilt]

Hi Wilt,
I'm glad you decided to post. I saw yesterday that you had spent quite a long time formulating an answer and then abandoned it (the info is available in our user profile).

The primary reason people screen is for safety. At least that's what you indicated when you said that it was the screener's safety and livelihood that were at stake. For race to be an appropriate screen, it would have to relate to one of these two factors. If African-Americans are not inherently dangerous, there would be no reason to screen based on race. My objection to using race as a screen is that it's wholly irrational. It excludes people who may be decent and kind and lets through others who might actually be dangerous.

It is also clear to me that your attempts to frame the debate in terms of woman's rights are disingenuous. Insofar as money is being accepted for sex, sex is being commoditized. You might then argue that you think women are being exploited and you think prostitution is immoral. But your initial justification for supporting the exclusion of African-Americans had nothing to do with preference for partners and was based on safety.

Also disingenuous are your complaints about misogynistic terms being used. You could have started a thread about it but your intent was to dilute the charge of racism and not to actually discuss sexism. If you would like to discuss sexism, take it seriously as an issue in its own right and don't use it as a tool to trivialize racism.

If African-Americans are not inherently dangerous, there would be no reason to screen based on race.

African Americans don't have to be "inherently dangerous" in order for it be appropriate to screen. If, for whatever reason, the escort is under the impression that Black men are more likely to be dangerous, or a nuisance, or what-have-you, then it is appropriate for them to screen.

My objection to using race as a screen is that it's wholly irrational.

You have no clue if this is true. You are assuming this. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. Maybe it is true in some places and not others. I would leave it to person who is in the room waiting for a stranger to make that decision.

It excludes people who may be decent and kind and lets through others who might actually be dangerous.

Which still doesn't make it irrational.

It is also clear to me that your attempts to frame the debate in terms of woman's rights are disingenuous.

Bullshit. I was knocking down the facile argument you alluded to that sex can be analogized to serving someone at a lunch counter or some other example.

Insofar as money is being accepted for sex, sex is being commoditized. You might then argue that you think women are being exploited and you think prostitution is immoral

Women can have sex for whatever reason they want. Just because they sell it to Jeff across the street doesn't mean they have to sell you it to you. I never said prostitution is immoral and I can't imagine why you would assume that I would. Because a women chooses to be a prostitute doesn't make her an object or her body a place of public accommodation.

But your initial justification for supporting the exclusion of African-Americans had nothing to do with preference for partners and was based on safety.

You are talking about two different things. (1) what may be a rational reason that an escort would screen based on race. (2) whether it is "unjust" for an escort to exclude any person for even an irrational reason. Even if the escort's reason is wholly irrational, it doesn't make her actions "unjust" as there is no reasonable expectation, ever, that a woman will have sex with you, and her working as an escort does not create one. Sex can't be wholly commoditized as it is not severable from the individual offering the service. This is what you don't seem (or want to) get.

Also disingenuous are your complaints about misogynistic terms being used. You could have started a thread about it but your intent was to dilute the charge of racism and not to actually discuss sexism. If you would like to discuss sexism, take it seriously as an issue in its own right and don't use it as a tool to trivialize racism.

I'm not going to start a separate thread as it is directly relevant to this thread. Because the underlying purpose of threads like this one (which appear frequently on boards which discuss escorting) is to bully and embarrass women into doing what you want. And often, smear words like racism are used liberally. And yes, the denigrating language used toward women on this thread and underlying premise of the thread are not an accident. They spring from the same mindset.

[wiltthestilt]

I love how you think I'm African-American and have feelings of entitlement. That actually makes the argument and your racism all the more laughably bearable.

You find it laughable because it went right over your head. I said those who expect an escort to service them based on fairness (not necessarily AA's and many AA's don't feel as such) are premising this notion wholly on a sense of entitlement. Yes.