Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[Tom Sawyer]

Which opinion is that? That jokes about smacking women around to keep them in line are not funny? That everyone has a right to determine what sex acts they wish to engage in and with whom and when or whether to engage in any sex act at all ?

Both opinions were formed many years ago, long before your joke which I don't find to be irrelevant to this thread at all. Your joke opened the post that, as has been pointed out by bomb, changed the direction of the discussion.

No, it was everything other than the joke in that post which he said changed the direction of the discussion. Nobdy's actually been advocating any violence against women and the joke hasn't been referenced again in over three hundred posts before you decided that it was somehow part of the discussion.

If you felt that the joke fell flat, then fine. Not all jokes work for all people. That's not a reason to pretend that it somehow forms a basis for someone's opinion or that there's been any kind of discussion about it in a long thread dealing with a whole lot of other stuff.

 

[ksen]

Tom needs a good bitchslappin'.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Toni]

Which opinion is that? That jokes about smacking women around to keep them in line are not funny? That everyone has a right to determine what sex acts they wish to engage in and with whom and when or whether to engage in any sex act at all ?

Both opinions were formed many years ago, long before your joke which I don't find to be irrelevant to this thread at all. Your joke opened the post that, as has been pointed out by bomb, changed the direction of the discussion.

No, it was everything other than the joke in that post which he said changed the direction of the discussion. Nobdy's actually been advocating any violence against women and the joke hasn't been referenced again in over three hundred posts before you decided that it was somehow part of the discussion.

If you felt that the joke fell flat, then fine. Not all jokes work for all people. That's not a reason to pretend that it somehow forms a basis for someone's opinion or that there's been any kind of discussion about it in a long thread dealing with a whole lot of other stuff.

Why did you make the joke?

 

[fromderinside]

Tom needs a good bitchslappin'.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

So does ksen

Sent from my UP-A-URS II using Getawhack

 

[fromderinside]

No, it was everything other than the joke in that post which he said changed the direction of the discussion. Nobdy's actually been advocating any violence against women and the joke hasn't been referenced again in over three hundred posts before you decided that it was somehow part of the discussion.

If you felt that the joke fell flat, then fine. Not all jokes work for all people. That's not a reason to pretend that it somehow forms a basis for someone's opinion or that there's been any kind of discussion about it in a long thread dealing with a whole lot of other stuff.

Why did you make the joke?

He used satire based either from irony or sarcasm oh sensitive one.

Not all serious posts are linear.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, it was everything other than the joke in that post which he said changed the direction of the discussion. Nobdy's actually been advocating any violence against women and the joke hasn't been referenced again in over three hundred posts before you decided that it was somehow part of the discussion.

If you felt that the joke fell flat, then fine. Not all jokes work for all people. That's not a reason to pretend that it somehow forms a basis for someone's opinion or that there's been any kind of discussion about it in a long thread dealing with a whole lot of other stuff.

Why did you make the joke?

The same reason I make all other jokes. I felt it was humourous enough to merit a light chuckle from readers before they forgot about it five seconds later.

If you want to have a discussion about the appropriateness of various jokes, derailing an unrelated discussion to do so isn't the place to do it.

 

[ksen]

Tom needs a good bitchslappin'.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

So does ksen

Sent from my UP-A-URS II using Getawhack

hmy:

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[fromderinside]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzIZ_ygG-kQ

Sent from where no man has gone before

On topic. Prostitution is a business. Businesses are liable to federal and state and local regulation. In most cases bringing suit against one refusing to perform illegal services for money should be treated in a court of law and then in another court of law. - if you get my drift.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Why did you make the joke?

He used satire based either from irony or sarcasm oh sensitive one.

Not all serious posts are linear.

Satire based comments "either from irony or sarcasm" would be better taken, on this board (same with ex FRDB), when the authors either use [sarcasm] comment [/end of sarcasm] tags or rely on a smiley. It certainly does not require a huge amount of energy to do so. But when a member uses such style of communication as a pattern without any added tags or smiley versus other members who use tags or a smiley, it tends to stick out like a sore thumb and be disruptive.

So, outside of some members being "sensitive", aligning oneself with what the majority of members have no issue doing which is to add a smiley or tags seems like a very reasonable expectation. A satire/parody/ sarcastic comment thrown in the midst of a discussion without a smiley or tags tends to draw negative attention and away from the intended productivity of serious argumentation.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, I should have used a smiley there so that the context of the post was clear.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Yes, I should have used a smiley there so that the context of the post was clear.

Thou shall be bitch slapped for not using a smiley. Though I favor tying you up to a ceiling fan and putting it on high speed.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Recognizing that such employer actions are likely to be rampant and hard to police, the simplest solution would be not to legalize pimping. It's probably easier to suppress it when prostitution itself is legal.

Yes. This is the direction prostitution is headed in Canada. Legal to sell sex, and legal to hire a driver or phone person, but the prostitute must be the boss. I think it will be illegal to be employed as a prostitute by somebody that then sells your services. This is what the "living off the avails" law was meant to capture, but it was made too broad (catching the driver and hired phone person as well) and was struck down recently.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Recognizing that such employer actions are likely to be rampant and hard to police, the simplest solution would be not to legalize pimping. It's probably easier to suppress it when prostitution itself is legal.

Yes. This is the direction prostitution is headed in Canada. Legal to sell sex, and legal to hire a driver or phone person, but the prostitute must be the boss. I think it will be illegal to be employed as a prostitute by somebody that then sells your services. This is what the "living off the avails" law was meant to capture, but it was made too broad (catching the driver and hired phone person as well) and was struck down recently.

How would that apply to brothels then? I was under the impression that they were becoming legal and yet there doesn't seem to be much to distinguish them from pimps under that definition.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

My Question: If Prostitution is made legal, and a man has paid a prostitute money for sex in advance with no mention between them as to his race, and the woman then refuses the sex because he turns out to be black, what is the customer's recourse? Can he force her to fulfill her obligations under the contract, like you can with other contracts? Can she simply refund his money and walk away? Can he sue her for additional damages caused by her behavior in rejeting him? If she has spent or lost they money and has none, can he garnish the payment from the next customer? Does this make him a pimp?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes. This is the direction prostitution is headed in Canada. Legal to sell sex, and legal to hire a driver or phone person, but the prostitute must be the boss. I think it will be illegal to be employed as a prostitute by somebody that then sells your services. This is what the "living off the avails" law was meant to capture, but it was made too broad (catching the driver and hired phone person as well) and was struck down recently.

How would that apply to brothels then? I was under the impression that they were becoming legal and yet there doesn't seem to be much to distinguish them from pimps under that definition.

Impossible to know just yet, as the legislators still have a few months to address the issue. The Supreme Court struck down the laws against living off the avails, common baudy house, and solicitation, because these laws were too broad and put women in danger, but a stay was put in place, keeping those laws active for set time period to let legislators make new laws.

If the legislators follow the logic of the judges, they will keep the women firmly in charge of the businesses.

Perhaps they will make brothels similar to what some motels now are. You open a premises and rent rooms out to prostitutes, who then in turn charge the johns. You may also offer a service where you offer drivers and phone personel to the prostitutes too. Some businesses may go further, collect fees on behalf of the prostitutes, etc, but I think they will have to be very careful to make it clear that the women are fully in control of what they are doing and with whom.

Most strippers in Ontario run under a similar system. Most are not paid by the club. Most pay a "DJ Fee" to work there for the night and then collect $20 per song from customers, going directly into the stripper's pocket. The club profits not from dances sold, but from drinks sold, cover charges to customers, and the DJ fee from the girls.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

My Question: If Prostitution is made legal, and a man has paid a prostitute money for sex in advance with no mention between them as to his race, and the woman then refuses the sex because he turns out to be black, what is the customer's recourse? Can he force her to fulfill her obligations under the contract, like you can with other contracts? Can she simply refund his money and walk away? Can he sue her for additional damages caused by her behavior in rejeting him? If she has spent or lost they money and has none, can he garnish the payment from the next customer? Does this make him a pimp?

It would be like any other business contract. She needs to either refund the money or provide the service (and I'll specify that refunding the money is always an option for those who seem to think that someone's arguing women should be forced into sex). Garnishing the payment from the next customer doesn't make him a pimp anymore than the shoestore owner who takes that money in exchange for shoes would be her pimp. The rejected customer would simply be someone to whom she owes money.

If the guy decides to pursue the action further in the courts due to being the victim of discrimination, it wouldn't be any different from a case where he got thrown out of the office of an accountant he'd booked an appointment with because that accountant doesn't want to do a black man's tax returns.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How would that apply to brothels then? I was under the impression that they were becoming legal and yet there doesn't seem to be much to distinguish them from pimps under that definition.

Impossible to know just yet, as the legislators still have a few months to address the issue. The Supreme Court struck down the laws against living off the avails, common baudy house, and solicitation, because these laws were too broad and put women in danger, but a stay was put in place, keeping those laws active for set time period to let legislators make new laws.

If the legislators follow the logic of the judges, they will keep the women firmly in charge of the businesses.

Perhaps they will make brothels similar to what some motels now are. You open a premises and rent rooms out to prostitutes, who then in turn charge the johns. You may also offer a service where you offer drivers and phone personel to the prostitutes too.

Most strippers in Ontario run under a similar system. Most are not paid by the club. Most pay a "DJ Fee" to work there for the night and then collect $20 per song from customers, going directly into the stripper's pocket. The club profits not from dances sold, but from drinks sold, cover charges to customers, and the DJ fee from the girls.

That seems like a very fine line. If you're not pimping the girl out but instead renting rooms in your establishment to prostitutes who pay you a fee for the administrative services which coincidentally happens to be exactly as much as they make that night, the distinction seems moot.

 

[Bomb#20]

The distinctions between drug dealer and pharmacists are many and varied and so is the service and product they provide. Indeed there is great interest in legalizing recreational drugs. I believe that it has even been a recent topic here.

Sure; but if recreational drugs are legalized then there will be a lot less distinction, especially once big corporations become the dominant suppliers -- we'll probably see recreational drugs sold in traditional pharmacies. My point was that I doubt anybody is going to have a problem with requiring marijuana dealers not to discriminate unless he already has a problem with requiring traditional pharmacists not to discriminate; those people are scarce.

I did notice Tom sawyer's charming proposal to remedy racial discrimination by feme prostitutes.
...
Which opinion is that? That jokes about smacking women around to keep them in line are not funny? That everyone has a right to determine what sex acts they wish to engage in and with whom and when or whether to engage in any sex act at all ?

Both opinions were formed many years ago, long before your joke which I don't find to be irrelevant to this thread at all. Your joke opened the post that, as has been pointed out by bomb, changed the direction of the discussion.

I've got to agree with you about the relevance. When people are dissatisfied with a prostitute's choice in sex partners and decide to do something about it, what tactics are acceptable for them to use are the principle topic of this thread; the tactic Tom described is probably the number one tactic as measured by frequency of application. It's hard to see why experience with pimps wouldn't be relevant to a proposal for the state to act in loco pimpis.

 

[Toni]

Sure; but if recreational drugs are legalized then there will be a lot less distinction, especially once big corporations become the dominant suppliers -- we'll probably see recreational drugs sold in traditional pharmacies. My point was that I doubt anybody is going to have a problem with requiring marijuana dealers not to discriminate unless he already has a problem with requiring traditional pharmacists not to discriminate; those people are scarce.

I did notice Tom sawyer's charming proposal to remedy racial discrimination by feme prostitutes.
...
Which opinion is that? That jokes about smacking women around to keep them in line are not funny? That everyone has a right to determine what sex acts they wish to engage in and with whom and when or whether to engage in any sex act at all ?

Both opinions were formed many years ago, long before your joke which I don't find to be irrelevant to this thread at all. Your joke opened the post that, as has been pointed out by bomb, changed the direction of the discussion.

I've got to agree with you about the relevance. When people are dissatisfied with a prostitute's choice in sex partners and decide to do something about it, what tactics are acceptable for them to use are the principle topic of this thread; the tactic Tom described is probably the number one tactic as measured by frequency of application. It's hard to see why experience with pimps wouldn't be relevant to a proposal for the state to act in loco pimpis.

One must keep in mind that a king an employee (or anyone) is assault and is illegal even if the victim of the assault is a racist and even if the victim is a prostitute.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Which opinion is that? That jokes about smacking women around to keep them in line are not funny? That everyone has a right to determine what sex acts they wish to engage in and with whom and when or whether to engage in any sex act at all ?

Both opinions were formed many years ago, long before your joke which I don't find to be irrelevant to this thread at all. Your joke opened the post that, as has been pointed out by bomb, changed the direction of the discussion.

No, it was everything other than the joke in that post which he said changed the direction of the discussion. Nobdy's actually been advocating any violence against women and the joke hasn't been referenced again in over three hundred posts before you decided that it was somehow part of the discussion.

If you felt that the joke fell flat, then fine. Not all jokes work for all people. That's not a reason to pretend that it somehow forms a basis for someone's opinion or that there's been any kind of discussion about it in a long thread dealing with a whole lot of other stuff.

You advocate using the (force of) government to force her to have sex with the black guy change her business plan or face government sanctions up to and including the violence of arrest force her to be unemployed and starve go into another line of work.