Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[dystopian]

Everything you've said has been in direct contradiction to what I've found on the Dutch government sites

Except that it hasn't. You just ascribe your own interpretation to what you've found and seem unwilling to accept that the information on those sites is condensed information meant to give general information rather than a comprehensive understanding of the intricacies of the actual law.

and you haven't backed them up with anything but vague assertions because you think that finding support for your positions would be too hard, so either you don't know what the laws and regulations are there or the Dutch government doesn't. If you don't, then it's pointless to continue and if the Dutch government doesn't then it's pointless to continue. Either way, we can end our exchange.

So you're telling me you didn't actually read government sources at all. If you had you would know about the opting-in option. You would also know that even if they're registered with the CoC they are not automatically considered to be legally self-employed. You say you think that I haven't backed them up because I think that finding support for my positions would be too hard. That simply isn't the case. The reason I haven't backed them up with more links to government material is because the truly comprehensive material is all in DUTCH; which I assume you don't speak. Anything you find in English is just going to be public awareness information and will not be comprehensive enough for our purposes.

Take the following government-PDF for instance: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rijksoverheid.nl%2Fbestanden%2Fdocumenten-en-publicaties%2Frapporten%2F2011%2F12%2F20%2Fwerken-in-de-prostitutie-in-nederland-wie-mag-wat-wanneer%2Fbijlage-bij-verzamelbrief-factsheet-prostitutie.pdf&ei=-16sU8T9OIub1AWm6IDgDQ&usg=AFQjCNGjKgitqqMBe40lZX438FY3ZSutXA&sig2=9oEm69eiZLzPgpVwxnYwXA&bvm=bv.69837884,d.bGQ

This PDF addresses (among other things) the status of self-employment within the prostitution industry in a way I very much doubt your english-language sources do (since they're just for general public awareness purposes).

Take the following excerpt for instance:

"De Inspectie SZW beoordeelt of er sprake is van zelfstandigheid of schijnzelfstandigheid op grond van de feiten en omstandigheden waaronder wordt gewerkt. Daarbij kijkt de Inspectie onder meer naar de gezagsverhouding, het ondernemersrisico en de loonbetaling. Dit betekent dat inschrijving bij de Kamer van Koophandel, het hebben van een VAR-verklaring, inschrijving in het GBA en het al dan niet voldoen aan het voorwaardenpakket, op zichzelf of in combinatie nog geen redenen zijn om iemand als zelfstandige te beschouwen."

You've been consistently arguing that someone who makes money on their own is legally considered a business (ie; zelfstandige or self-employed under Dutch legal terminology) even without being registered with the chamber of commerce. However, this paragraph right here establishes that when it comes to prostitution, even a prostitute who has been registered with the coc DOES NOT automatically qualify as a zelfstandige.

Then there's this paragraph in regards to Opting In:

"Wordt echter volledig aan het voorwaardenpakket voldaan, dan is er wat de fiscale en sociale zekerheidsaspecten betreft, geen sprake van loondienst. Bij het voorwaardenpakket werkt een prostituee voor een exploitant maar is de prostituee niet in loondienst van deze exploitant. Dat wil niet zeggen dat de prostituee zich kan presenteren als zelfstandige. Het voorwaardenpakket is een fictieve dienstbetrekking en geldt als een derde mogelijkheid naast loondienst (echte dienstbetrekking) en het zelfstandig ondernemerschap."

The bolded part is the only thing I'll bother translating for you since it's the most relevant.

"The conditional package (of the Opting In arrangement -dystopian) is a fictitious form of employment and serves as a third possibility beside wage labor (real employment) and self-employed entrepeneurship."

Any questions? Or do you still want to maintain you know Dutch government policy better than someone who can actually *read* said policy in its proper form instead of the condensed public information for expats?

Or do you expect me to translate everything for you?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Except that it hasn't. You just ascribe your own interpretation to what you've found.

and you haven't backed them up with anything but vague assertions because you think that finding support for your positions would be too hard, so either you don't know what the laws and regulations are there or the Dutch government doesn't. If you don't, then it's pointless to continue and if the Dutch government doesn't then it's pointless to continue. Either way, we can end our exchange.

So you're telling me you didn't actually read government sources at all. If you had you would know about the opting-in option. You would also know that even if they're registered with the CoC they are not automatically considered to be legally self-employed. You say you think that I haven't backed them up because I think that finding support for my positions would be too hard. That simply isn't the case. The reason I haven't backed them up with more links to government material is because the truly comprehensive material is all in DUTCH; which I assume you don't speak. Anything you find in English is just going to be public awareness information and will not be comprehensive enough for our purposes.

Take the following government-PDF for instance: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rijksoverheid.nl%2Fbestanden%2Fdocumenten-en-publicaties%2Frapporten%2F2011%2F12%2F20%2Fwerken-in-de-prostitutie-in-nederland-wie-mag-wat-wanneer%2Fbijlage-bij-verzamelbrief-factsheet-prostitutie.pdf&ei=-16sU8T9OIub1AWm6IDgDQ&usg=AFQjCNGjKgitqqMBe40lZX438FY3ZSutXA&sig2=9oEm69eiZLzPgpVwxnYwXA&bvm=bv.69837884,d.bGQ

This PDF addresses (among other things) the status of self-employment within the prostitution industry in a way I very much doubt your english-language sources do (since they're just for general public awareness purposes).

Take the following excerpt for instance:

"De Inspectie SZW beoordeelt of er sprake is van zelfstandigheid of schijnzelfstandigheid op grond van de feiten en omstandigheden waaronder wordt gewerkt. Daarbij kijkt de Inspectie onder meer naar de gezagsverhouding, het ondernemersrisico en de loonbetaling. Dit betekent dat inschrijving bij de Kamer van Koophandel, het hebben van een VAR-verklaring, inschrijving in het GBA en het al dan niet voldoen aan het voorwaardenpakket, op zichzelf of in combinatie nog geen redenen zijn om iemand als zelfstandige te beschouwen."

You've been consistently arguing that someone who makes money on their own is legally considered a business (ie; zelfstandige or self-employed under Dutch legal terminology) even without being registered with the chamber of commerce. However, this paragraph right here establishes that when it comes to prostitution, even a prostitute who has been registered with the coc DOES NOT automatically qualify as a zelfstandige.

Then there's this paragraph in regards to Opting In:

"Wordt echter volledig aan het voorwaardenpakket voldaan, dan is er wat de fiscale en sociale zekerheidsaspecten betreft, geen sprake van loondienst. Bij het voorwaardenpakket werkt een prostituee voor een exploitant maar is de prostituee niet in loondienst van deze exploitant. Dat wil niet zeggen dat de prostituee zich kan presenteren als zelfstandige. Het voorwaardenpakket is een fictieve dienstbetrekking en geldt als een derde mogelijkheid naast loondienst (echte dienstbetrekking) en het zelfstandig ondernemerschap."

The bolded part is the only thing I'll bother translating for you.

"The conditional package (of the Opting In arrangement -dystopian) is a fictitious form of employment and serves as a third possibility beside wage labor (real employment) and self-employed entrepeneurship."

Any questions? Or do you still want to maintain you know Dutch government policy better than someone who can actually *read* said policy in its proper form instead of the condensed public information for expats?

Or do you expect me to translate everything for you?

I apologize. It appears that the phrase "we can end our exchange" is as difficult for you to understand as Dutch laws and regualtions are. It means we don't reply to each other's posts anymore. It's because I don't see you adding any value to the discussion and would prefer to focus my posts elsewhere.

I'm sorry for the lack of clarity about that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Dutch law EXPLICITLY criminalizes the act of forcing a prostitute to have sex. Forcing a prostitute to have sex is defined and understood to include ANY of the following criteria (this list is from a brochure on the subject put out by the dutch government to help identify forced prostitution):

• You have to hand over the money you earn (some or all of it) to someone else;

I find most of these rules are a good idea but I have a problem with this one.

The problem is that it precludes any agreement where you pay a percentage in exchange for facilities and bringing in customers. (A brothel advertizes, the individual prostitutes do not.)

No, it doesn't. It doesn't apply to (legal) contractual obligations, obviously. If you sign a contract (that you weren't forced into) that states you pay a percentage for the use of facilities, then that is perfectly legal.

I don't see any exceptions there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What if racial purity is the kink the prostitute is selling?

Keep in mind, sex workers don't all come in a one size fits all package. They can be quite specialized.

If a sex worker's specialty is Nazi dominatrix, her chosen cliental would expect her, as part of the fantasy, to not sleep with black men.

Or should such specialization be outlawed?

Good point. I've never heard of that degree of specialization but neither would I have any problem with such a specialist restricting her clientele to Nazi-acceptable patrons. I think current law goes too far towards excluding appearance--many customer service roles have a substantial acting/showmanship role and I have no problem with business mandating them even when it's not the whole job.

 

[dystopian]

I apologize. It appears that the phrase "we can end our exchange" is as difficult for you to understand as Dutch laws and regualtions are. It means we don't reply to each other's posts anymore. It's because I don't see you adding any value to the discussion and would prefer to focus my posts elsewhere.

I'm sorry for the lack of clarity about that.

If you don't want to continue the debate *that's* fine; but you don't then get to walk away and maintain the delusion that they haven't gone and disproved your assertions using actual sources when in fact they went to the trouble of finding you those sources after you complained about it. I expect you to acknowledge the fact that I have provided government sourced information that backs up my statements rather than just pretend it didn't happen and that your position hasn't been seriously challenged (nay, overturned) as such.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I apologize. It appears that the phrase "we can end our exchange" is as difficult for you to understand as Dutch laws and regualtions are. It means we don't reply to each other's posts anymore. It's because I don't see you adding any value to the discussion and would prefer to focus my posts elsewhere.

I'm sorry for the lack of clarity about that.

If you don't want to continue the debate *that's* fine; but you don't then get to walk away and maintain the delusion that they haven't gone and disproved your assertions using actual sources when in fact they went to the trouble of finding you those sources after you complained about it. I expect you to acknowledge the fact that I have provided government sourced information that backs up my statements rather than just pretend it didn't happen and that your position hasn't been seriously challenged (nay, overturned) as such.

Except you didn't. Let's leave it at agreeing to disagree. By that, I mean that you're completely wrong. It's sort of how "It's not you, it's me" always means that it's you.

Feel free to put in the last snitty word and then we'll continue with other people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What if racial purity is the kink the prostitute is selling?

Keep in mind, sex workers don't all come in a one size fits all package. They can be quite specialized.

If a sex worker's specialty is Nazi dominatrix, her chosen cliental would expect her, as part of the fantasy, to not sleep with black men.

Well, as part of the fantasy, she should SAY she doesn't sleep with black men. But it IS a fantasy that she's selling. And the law should not hew to the fantasy. So if a black man wants to hire a Nazi dominatrix whore to punish him for being an American, the opinion of other Johns has no bearing.

There are boards where johns discuss prostitutes. She could easily be exposed if she took black clients.

People who make movies about Nazis can choose whites to play all the Nazi roles, because the race is important to make the role believable. They don't have a right to only hire whites to work behind the scene, as the race of the gaffer doesn't impact the movie plot's credibility.

Agreed--while I'm fairly liberal about appearance requirements for the front positions they absolutely should not apply behind the scenes.

 

[dystopian]

I don't see any exceptions there.

I copy pasted that from a public information site that aims to inform people of the basics; do you imagine such a site is going to confuse people by throwing legalese at them?

 

[dystopian]

Except you didn't.

I linked directly to a PDF on the subject that's hosted on rijksoverheid.nl; a dutch government website (THE dutch government website, actually). You don't get to claim that I didn't.

Let's leave it at agreeing to disagree.

Let's not. I linked you directly to a government document from a government website that proves you wrong. Either learn Dutch so you can parse it yourself, run it through a translator and piece it together, or trust that your fellow forumite isn't lying when he says it says what it says (I have no reason to lie about what it says). But don't tell me I'm wrong when you don't even know what the text says.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Tom Sawyer

Do you think that racial kink between consenting adults should be outlawed or just done only for free?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Tom Sawyer

Do you think that racial kink between consenting adults should be outlawed or just done only for free?

I have no problem with it either way and don't come down against such broad and overly generic terms.

Discriminatory practices are not a valid part of a legal business model, however. If someone wants to call working in a whites-only office a racial kink as opposed to discriminating against black people in a business office, I'd be against that specific appellation of the term. If someone wants to run any other aspect of their business in such a way that it explicitly bars customers of a certain race and calls it a racial kink, I'm against that appellation of the term.

There are some kinks which are against the law and legalization of prostitution would not change the legal status of those kinks. There are other kinks which are now available which would become unavailable if prostitution became legalized due to various regulations. You couldn't pay more to fuck her without a condom, for instance. Also, she couldn't advertise a business model which conflicts with anti-discrimination legislation.

Do you have an answer to my questions?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Tom Sawyer

Do you think that racial kink between consenting adults should be outlawed or just done only for free?

I have no problem with it either way and don't come down against such broad and overly generic terms.

Discriminatory practices are not a valid part of a legal business model, however. If someone wants to call working in a whites-only office a racial kink as opposed to discriminating against black people in a business office, I'd be against that specific appellation of the term. If someone wants to run any other aspect of their business in such a way that it explicitly bars customers of a certain race and calls it a racial kink, I'm against that appellation of the term.

There are some kinks which are against the law and legalization of prostitution would not change the legal status of those kinks. There are other kinks which are now available which would become unavailable if prostitution became legalized due to various regulations. You couldn't pay more to fuck her without a condom, for instance. Also, she couldn't advertise a business model which conflicts with anti-discrimination legislation.

Do you have an answer to my questions?

which ones?

I am not trying to be funny, I am sincerely asking. Been a little hectic here. I will be running a poetry camp for two weeks in July (yes for two weeks you all will have to struggle on without me although I might still some time to go to the coffee shop in town and check on y'all) and I have some preparations still to do.

 

[ApostateAbe]

There is an online forum for escorts and johns where the topic is discussed. A black man asked why so many escorts discriminate against black men. The most useful post on the first page is from a "provider":

Let me first off by saying I do not have a race preference.I will see all races as long as the gent is clean,respectful,and can provide the necessary info.
This topic has been beaten like a dead horse on so many different sites.
Here is a few reasons why providers might not see black men these are reasons I have heard through the years.
-Some providers have had bad experiences with black men in the past.
-Some providers have dealt with black men who are cheap and try to get discounts or haggle over rates.
-Some providers fear that the man who is contacting them is in a "Management"position
-Some providers think black guys especially in their 20s and 30s are thugs
-Some providers think black men are too well endowed for them.
-Some providers are just not attracted to black men and they want to have some kind of attraction to the person they are seeing.
Last reason some providers have "Management"that tells them to not see any black men period.

Those are just a few of the reasons I have heard while that is the choices these providers make is their right to do so.If you see a provider that says no black men in her ads move on!Don't call her and ask why she will not see you or try to convince her you are a respectful gentle.There are so many ladies that will see black men this should not even be an issue of why certain providers will not.
At least these providers are letting you know ahead of a time who they will not see rather you get to the door waste time and gas and she will not open it because you are black.Happens quite often!
Don't sweat the small stuff see a lady who does not have these preferences and throw it out of your mind the ones who do.
Just my .02
Jaydalee-Your Well-Reviewed Vegas Exotic Escapade
www.jaydalee.com

 

[Sabine Grant]

Whether or not it is racist is a matter of definition. But, black men are routinely discriminated against in the escort world because blacks are many times more likely to lack the ability to pay, many times more likely to be violent, many times more likely to carry STDs, and many times more likely to attract law enforcement. There is no doubt--discriminating against blacks is a smart business move for escorts in predominantly-white environments.

In the "escort world" ? Are you kidding me! Escort services in my home town Cannes on the French Riviera operate a triage system based on the established WEALTH of potential clients. If you *think* that the diversity of international conventions and events hosted on the French Riviera does not draw participants of diverse ethnicity, you are sorely mistaken.

OK, seems about right. Is prostitution legal or unenforced in Cannes?

You said "escort world". Escort agencies are legal. Prostitution is not. The difference being that escort agencies do not expect their employees to give a "happy ending" to their clients. Whereas by the very nature of prostitution, it directly implies sexual services.

 

[J842P]

Whether or not it is racist is a matter of definition. But, black men are routinely discriminated against in the escort world because blacks are many times more likely to lack the ability to pay, many times more likely to be violent, many times more likely to carry STDs, and many times more likely to attract law enforcement. There is no doubt--discriminating against blacks is a smart business move for escorts in predominantly-white environments.

In the "escort world" ? Are you kidding me! Escort services in my home town Cannes on the French Riviera operate a triage system based on the established WEALTH of potential clients. If you *think* that the diversity of international conventions and events hosted on the French Riviera does not draw participants of diverse ethnicity, you are sorely mistaken.

OK, seems about right. Is prostitution legal or unenforced in Cannes?

You said "escort world". Escort agencies are legal. Prostitution is not. The difference being that escort agencies do not expect their employees to give a "happy ending" to their clients. Whereas by the very nature of prostitution, it directly implies sexual services.

While that is true, the term escort has become a euphemized term for prostitution, although, I hear legitimate (i.e. non-sexual) escorts exist.

 

[bilby]

The problem with this logic is that by saying that a prostitute always has the right to refuse to do business with any single individual you are ALSO saying it is okay for them to say no to a whole race of customers. All you're doing by saying she can't say so upfront is to waste everyone's time; what's the point in forcing racist prostitutes to waste their own and black people's time by having her individually tell each of them that she won't have sex with them? It doesn't force her or inspire her (or anyone) to stop being racist; it is a completely pointless thing. The problem is that people are equating this to a regular business, where anti-discrimination laws DO serve a purpose in that they make it so that minorities can't be denied service that ought to be available to everyone. You can force a restaurant to serve anyone regardless of race; you can't do the same with a prostitute. Anti-discrimination laws therefore are meaningful when used against the restaurant, but not the prostitute.

Actually, that is not the case; you can't force a restaurant to serve anyone regardless of race; all you can do is force them to come up with a different (but lawful) pretext to refuse service.

I agree that it is a bit of a waste of time to make bigots reject customers piecemeal; but that is the way the law works, and I can't see an obvious solution other than to repeal anti-discrimination law in its entirety.

While such laws do exist, there is nothing unique about prostitution that makes those laws inapplicable; while it might be nice to think that a restaurant can be forced to sever any customer, the reality is that they are not, in fact, forced to do so by current law. It is difficult to prove discrimination, other than by recourse to history - if you can show that a restaurant has rejected every Jewish customer ever to approach them, then that is good evidence of illegal discrimination, but the result is a fine, and perhaps closer scrutiny of their future behaviour; Nobody tracks down all the rejected Jewish customers, marches them to the restaurant, and forces the chef to cook them a meal. If a restaurant is owned by a bigot, he might well be forced to close his business if he continues to break the law. But still, nobody eats a meal at his place without his consent.

- - - Updated - - -

What if racial purity is the kink the prostitute is selling?

Keep in mind, sex workers don't all come in a one size fits all package. They can be quite specialized.

If a sex worker's specialty is Nazi dominatrix, her chosen cliental would expect her, as part of the fantasy, to not sleep with black men.

Or should such specialization be outlawed?

Umm ... Yes.

Explain exactly what the difference is between that and a specialized restaurant where the patrons, as part of the dining experience, don't have to eat with the darkies or a specialized shopping mall where, as part of the shopping experience, the shoppers don't have to be in the same building as any Spics?

we have that dining experience in America.

It's called a restricted private club.

Such things may exist in America, but they are illegal in the civilised world.

 

[credoconsolans]

Similar in that one aspect yet fundamentally different otherwise.

But we ARE talking about a job, right?

The job calls for someone to not be very picky since the men who go to prostitutes are seldom the creme de la creme of male beauty.

So you are the one to determine how picky another person can be regarding their choice in sexual partner?

I sure am when they're the ones who decided being a paid for penis holster was a good job choice that would appeal to their sensibilities.

So you're better at making personal choices for them since they're lowly whores.

Not because they're lowly whores, but because I'm smarter. Only a moron takes on a job where they will get 'icky' about one part of their job and choose not to do it and still expect to be employed.

Then they should work for themselves and not a business that expects results.

Many whores do work for themselves.

Good for them. They can be as picky as they want. Now, it's another matter entirely when they are not the boss.

And who is that? Apparently almost anyone who will open his wallet. If she was that picky about who she has sex with, she wouldn't be a prostitute. Ya think?

No I don't think that at least not for high end whores. Not all whores accept all comers like a crack ho might.

Sure, there are different types of whores, but the scenario in my discussion is one who works for a legal brothel she doesn't own.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

which ones?

I am not trying to be funny, I am sincerely asking. Been a little hectic here. I will be running a poetry camp for two weeks in July (yes for two weeks you all will have to struggle on without me although I might still some time to go to the coffee shop in town and check on y'all) and I have some preparations still to do.

If two businesses publically advertise themselves as:

Private Dining Club
NO BLACK MEN ALLOWED
Come and eat in a racially pure environment

and

Private Escort Club
NO BLACK MEN ALLOWED
Come and fuck in a racially pure environment

Then I have the same problem with both of them and I feel that the government should have the same problem with both of them (assuming, of course, that the prostitution has been legalized).

How do you feel about each of them?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Whether or not it is racist is a matter of definition. But, black men are routinely discriminated against in the escort world because blacks are many times more likely to lack the ability to pay, many times more likely to be violent, many times more likely to carry STDs, and many times more likely to attract law enforcement. There is no doubt--discriminating against blacks is a smart business move for escorts in predominantly-white environments.

In the "escort world" ? Are you kidding me! Escort services in my home town Cannes on the French Riviera operate a triage system based on the established WEALTH of potential clients. If you *think* that the diversity of international conventions and events hosted on the French Riviera does not draw participants of diverse ethnicity, you are sorely mistaken.

OK, seems about right. Is prostitution legal or unenforced in Cannes?

You said "escort world". Escort agencies are legal. Prostitution is not. The difference being that escort agencies do not expect their employees to give a "happy ending" to their clients. Whereas by the very nature of prostitution, it directly implies sexual services.

Ha! I will tell my girls to put their mouths around my dick, but it is not a sexual invitation, as sucking is appreciated but not required.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You said "escort world". Escort agencies are legal. Prostitution is not. The difference being that escort agencies do not expect their employees to give a "happy ending" to their clients. Whereas by the very nature of prostitution, it directly implies sexual services.

You do know that all the people working at escort agencies are prostitutes, right? The disclaimers about how sexual services aren't part of deal are for legal reasons and not actually related to what they're offering.