Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[bilby]

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.

I dunno about Tom, but I advocate the government moving to a less restrictive model than its current blanket prohibition on prostitution, and replacing it with a system where people can lawfully engage in prostitution - on the proviso that they agree to comply with anti-discrimination legislation (amongst other rules - such as taxation law, health regulations etc.).

Of course, should someone be granted a license on that basis, but then fail to comply with the terms agreed beforehand - for example, by indulging in racial discrimination in contravention of the law - then this could result in a fine, or loss of their license.

I am still not grasping how any of the above forces anyone to have sex with anyone else in any way shape or form. Could you explain that to me?

Given that nobody starts out with a license to be a prostitute, and given that a commitment to comply with the law (including but not limited to the anti-discrimination laws currently applicable to other industries) would be a prerequisite of any such license being granted, the revocation of that license does not, to my mind, constitute forcing anyone to do anything - rather it constitutes forcing the prostitute NOT to have sex with anybody for money.

Surely there is a difference between saying "You cannot sell sex to anyone" and saying "You must have sex with somebody you don't want to"?

 

[Toni]

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.

I dunno about Tom, but I advocate the government moving to a less restrictive model than its current blanket prohibition on prostitution, and replacing it with a system where people can lawfully engage in prostitution - on the proviso that they agree to comply with anti-discrimination legislation (amongst other rules - such as taxation law, health regulations etc.).

Of course, should someone be granted a license on that basis, but then fail to comply with the terms agreed beforehand - for example, by indulging in racial discrimination in contravention of the law - then this could result in a fine, or loss of their license.

I am still not grasping how any of the above forces anyone to have sex with anyone else in any way shape or form. Could you explain that to me?

Given that nobody starts out with a license to be a prostitute, and given that a commitment to comply with the law (including but not limited to the anti-discrimination laws currently applicable to other industries) would be a prerequisite of any such license being granted, the revocation of that license does not, to my mind, constitute forcing anyone to do anything - rather it constitutes forcing the prostitute NOT to have sex with anybody for money.

Surely there is a difference between saying "You cannot sell sex to anyone" and saying "You must have sex with somebody you don't want to"?

It seems to me that you are suggesting that in order for a prostitute to become licensed and to lawfully engage in sex work, he or she must agree to have sex with any prospective client (assuming there are no safety concerns) regardless of whether they wish to do so. Am I understanding this correctly? Is race the only forbidden criteria to use to screen? Can a prostitute screen by whether he or she feels attracted to a client? Cleanliness and hygiene? Disability? Culture or religion? Gender? Sexual preference? Foreskin/no foreskin?

Because I don't seem much difference between that and a pimp telling a prostitute that he or she must perform whatever sex act on a customer, regardless of how the prostitute feels about it. I thought that legalizing prostitution was supposed to give more power and control to prostitutes.

 

[bilby]

I dunno about Tom, but I advocate the government moving to a less restrictive model than its current blanket prohibition on prostitution, and replacing it with a system where people can lawfully engage in prostitution - on the proviso that they agree to comply with anti-discrimination legislation (amongst other rules - such as taxation law, health regulations etc.).

Of course, should someone be granted a license on that basis, but then fail to comply with the terms agreed beforehand - for example, by indulging in racial discrimination in contravention of the law - then this could result in a fine, or loss of their license.

I am still not grasping how any of the above forces anyone to have sex with anyone else in any way shape or form. Could you explain that to me?

Given that nobody starts out with a license to be a prostitute, and given that a commitment to comply with the law (including but not limited to the anti-discrimination laws currently applicable to other industries) would be a prerequisite of any such license being granted, the revocation of that license does not, to my mind, constitute forcing anyone to do anything - rather it constitutes forcing the prostitute NOT to have sex with anybody for money.

Surely there is a difference between saying "You cannot sell sex to anyone" and saying "You must have sex with somebody you don't want to"?

It seems to me that you are suggesting that in order for a prostitute to become licensed and to lawfully engage in sex work, he or she must agree to have sex with any prospective client (assuming there are no safety concerns) regardless of whether they wish to do so. Am I understanding this correctly?

No.

She must agree not use unlawful prejudice as a selection criterion.

She can reject any individual customer, for any lawful reason. But she - like all other business people - may not reject an entire race or ethnic group in advance.

Is race the only forbidden criteria to use to screen?

That depends on the jurisdiction, but usually not.. The rules are the same as for every other business.

Can a prostitute screen by whether he or she feels attracted to a client?

Yes.

Cleanliness and hygiene?

Yes.

Disability?

Not usually, no.

Culture or religion?

Not usually, no.

Gender?

That depends on the service on offer; A female client can't expect to be allowed to put her penis in a prostitute's body for reasons that have nothing to do with the law Where it is possible for a service on offer to be provided to customers of either gender, then the local law would apply just as it would for any other service.

Sexual preference?

I am not sure what you are even asking here - Why would a customer whose sexual preference was not met by the prostitute even be there? If you are asking about the prostitute's sexual preference, how is this question different from the previous one?

Foreskin/no foreskin?

Yes; but not if that was a proxy for unlawful discrimination on the basis of religion or ethnicity.

Because I don't seem much difference between that and a pimp telling a prostitute that he or she must perform whatever sex act on a customer, regardless of how the prostitute feels about it.

I understand that you don't see it; but it really is completely different. Before obtaining a license to be a prostitute, people are expected to understand and agree to abide by the regulations that apply to that business, and to businesses in general. Under no circumstance can they be compelled to perform any act they do not wish to perform; however if they refuse to obey the law - for example by refusing to use condoms; or by placing advertisements that say 'No blacks', then like any other licensee who breaks the rules, they may forfeit their license.

I thought that legalizing prostitution was supposed to give more power and control to prostitutes.

In what way does it not? Do you think they have more power now than they would if they could work legally under license?

You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that licensed, legal prostitutes are there against their will, or because they have no other options. That may well be true of many unlawful prostitutes; but it is not true in the legalised trade. It is a choice of business, and it is one that is not open to people who don't want to obey the rules.

 

[Toni]

Because I don't seem much difference between that and a pimp telling a prostitute that he or she must perform whatever sex act on a customer, regardless of how the prostitute feels about it.

I understand that you don't see it; but it really is completely different. Before obtaining a license to be a prostitute, people are expected to understand and agree to abide by the regulations that apply to that business, and to businesses in general. Under no circumstance can they be compelled to perform any act they do not wish to perform; however if they refuse to obey the law - for example by refusing to use condoms; or by placing advertisements that say 'No blacks', then like any other licensee who breaks the rules, they may forfeit their license.

I thought that legalizing prostitution was supposed to give more power and control to prostitutes.

In what way does it not? Do you think they have more power now than they would if they could work legally under license?

You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that licensed, legal prostitutes are there against their will, or because they have no other options. That may well be true of many unlawful prostitutes; but it is not true in the legalised trade. It is a choice of business, and it is one that is not open to people who don't want to obey the rules.

Actually, I don't believe that legalizing prostitution does actually result in greater autonomy or safety of prostitutes, based upon what I've read of interviews with prostitutes who have worked in legal brothels in a number of different countries (heavy on U.S. Nevada). Most of what I have read is that the vast, overwhelming majority of all sex workers would prefer to leave the business, regardless of the legal status of their trade. Most feel exploited, are in the trade because they feel they have no other choices.

I am aware that some few do willingly choose the profession and have some degree of autonomy, which includes being able to select or reject their clients at will. Of course there is an economic cost to this but I imagine some benefit as well. Certain clientele prefer the idea of some selectivity on the part of the sex worker, for a variety of reasons.

 

[bilby]

I understand that you don't see it; but it really is completely different. Before obtaining a license to be a prostitute, people are expected to understand and agree to abide by the regulations that apply to that business, and to businesses in general. Under no circumstance can they be compelled to perform any act they do not wish to perform; however if they refuse to obey the law - for example by refusing to use condoms; or by placing advertisements that say 'No blacks', then like any other licensee who breaks the rules, they may forfeit their license.

I thought that legalizing prostitution was supposed to give more power and control to prostitutes.

In what way does it not? Do you think they have more power now than they would if they could work legally under license?

You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that licensed, legal prostitutes are there against their will, or because they have no other options. That may well be true of many unlawful prostitutes; but it is not true in the legalised trade. It is a choice of business, and it is one that is not open to people who don't want to obey the rules.

Actually, I don't believe that legalizing prostitution does actually result in greater autonomy or safety of prostitutes, based upon what I've read of interviews with prostitutes who have worked in legal brothels in a number of different countries (heavy on U.S. Nevada). Most of what I have read is that the vast, overwhelming majority of all sex workers would prefer to leave the business, regardless of the legal status of their trade. Most feel exploited, are in the trade because they feel they have no other choices.

Is this characteristic of employment in the prostitution industry; or characteristic of employment in Nevada?

How many Nevada workers in non-sex related roles feel exploited, and would quit if they felt that they had other choices? I find it astonishing that anyone can tolerate the conditions that are apparently the norm in 'At will' states - of which Nevada is one.

I am aware that some few do willingly choose the profession and have some degree of autonomy, which includes being able to select or reject their clients at will. Of course there is an economic cost to this but I imagine some benefit as well. Certain clientele prefer the idea of some selectivity on the part of the sex worker, for a variety of reasons.

The situation here is that prostitutes can select or reject their clients at will. They could still lose their licence for breaking anti-discrimination laws though.

Perhaps the problem in Nevada is exacerbated by the illegality of prostitution in other states; that would add to the more general issues that come from the woefully inadequate protections for employees of any kind in Nevada, by making it harder for sex workers to vote with their feet than it is for workers in other industries.

If exploitation is the norm in many employment environments, as a result of poor labour protection laws, then I can't see why exploitation in the sex industry would not be equally rampant - but that isn't a prostitution problem; it is an 'At will' employment problem.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I am aware that some few do willingly choose the profession and have some degree of autonomy, which includes being able to select or reject their clients at will. Of course there is an economic cost to this but I imagine some benefit as well. Certain clientele prefer the idea of some selectivity on the part of the sex worker, for a variety of reasons.

Yes, there can be a clear economic benefit towards focusing one's business on a racist subsection of society and sacrificing business from black clients in order to cater to those who prefer to go to someone who guarantees an exclusively white operation. It's still illegal, though, and for good reason. Regardless of whether you call yourself White Power Accounting Services or White Power Escort Services, that's not an allowable business plan even if someone thinks that they can make it a profitable business plan.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

I take it you mean bitchslapping an employee is assault and is illegal. There was a time when beating an underling who wouldn't put out on command was legal, normal and socially acceptable. Then that became illegal; but it was still legal and normal, if a bit shameful in polite company, to demand that subordinates put out on command in exchange for getting to keep their jobs. Then that became actionable. Our culture has been gradually coming to its senses.

Good reason/bad reason/no reason at all: both parties must consent of their own free will and should not be compelled in any way to have sex if they find it objectionable for any reason.

^^^ This ^^^. Going back to the time when "Screw who I tell you to or lose your job." was acceptable behavior is a step back from becoming civilized people.

 

[bilby]

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.

I take it you mean bitchslapping an employee is assault and is illegal. There was a time when beating an underling who wouldn't put out on command was legal, normal and socially acceptable. Then that became illegal; but it was still legal and normal, if a bit shameful in polite company, to demand that subordinates put out on command in exchange for getting to keep their jobs. Then that became actionable. Our culture has been gradually coming to its senses.

Good reason/bad reason/no reason at all: both parties must consent of their own free will and should not be compelled in any way to have sex if they find it objectionable for any reason.

^^^ This ^^^. Going back to the time when "Screw who I tell you to or lose your job." was acceptable behavior is a step back from becoming civilized people.

Indeed it is. Going back to the time when putting up a sign saying "No Jews or Blacks" was acceptable behavior is a step back from becoming civilized people too.

Fortunately, we can avoid both retrograde steps, simultaneously, even in the prostitution industry - because despite the foolish and dogged insistence of some here, the latter concession to civilisation does not entail compromising the former in the slightest.

 

[Toni]

I am aware that some few do willingly choose the profession and have some degree of autonomy, which includes being able to select or reject their clients at will. Of course there is an economic cost to this but I imagine some benefit as well. Certain clientele prefer the idea of some selectivity on the part of the sex worker, for a variety of reasons.

Yes, there can be a clear economic benefit towards focusing one's business on a racist subsection of society and sacrificing business from black clients in order to cater to those who prefer to go to someone who guarantees an exclusively white operation. It's still illegal, though, and for good reason. Regardless of whether you call yourself White Power Accounting Services or White Power Escort Services, that's not an allowable business plan even if someone thinks that they can make it a profitable business plan.

Of course there is the possibility that someone could bear no ill will towards a particular racial or ethnic group yet still not wish to engage in sexual acts with them, even as a paid prostitute.

 

[Toni]

I take it you mean bitchslapping an employee is assault and is illegal. There was a time when beating an underling who wouldn't put out on command was legal, normal and socially acceptable. Then that became illegal; but it was still legal and normal, if a bit shameful in polite company, to demand that subordinates put out on command in exchange for getting to keep their jobs. Then that became actionable. Our culture has been gradually coming to its senses.

Good reason/bad reason/no reason at all: both parties must consent of their own free will and should not be compelled in any way to have sex if they find it objectionable for any reason.

^^^ This ^^^. Going back to the time when "Screw who I tell you to or lose your job." was acceptable behavior is a step back from becoming civilized people.

Indeed it is. Going back to the time when putting up a sign saying "No Jews or Blacks" was acceptable behavior is a step back from becoming civilized people too.

Fortunately, we can avoid both retrograde steps, simultaneously, even in the prostitution industry - because despite the foolish and dogged insistence of some here, the latter concession to civilisation does not entail compromising the former in the slightest.

Can you explain to me exactly the difference between a boss telling an employee: you perform whichever sex acts they want with who I say or lose your job VS the government saying to a prostitute: you perform whichever sex acts they want with anyone who wishes to procure your services or lose your business license?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, there can be a clear economic benefit towards focusing one's business on a racist subsection of society and sacrificing business from black clients in order to cater to those who prefer to go to someone who guarantees an exclusively white operation. It's still illegal, though, and for good reason. Regardless of whether you call yourself White Power Accounting Services or White Power Escort Services, that's not an allowable business plan even if someone thinks that they can make it a profitable business plan.

Of course there is the possibility that someone could bear no ill will towards a particular racial or ethnic group yet still not wish to engage in sexual acts with them, even as a paid prostitute.

And there's the possibility that someone could bear no ill will towards a particular racial or ethnic group yet still not wish to do their tax returns, even as a paid accountant. If they specifically ban black people from their business, however, they are in violation of the anti-discrimination rules which govern their business no matter what their rationale for banning people along racial lines might be and, as a result, they can't operate this business in a jurisdiction which has anti-discrimination laws.

The same holds true for prostitutes. If they want to run a legal business, they need to operate by the legal rules and this means greater constraints on their business plan than they have in environments with no legal rules.

 

[Toni]

Of course there is the possibility that someone could bear no ill will towards a particular racial or ethnic group yet still not wish to engage in sexual acts with them, even as a paid prostitute.

And there's the possibility that someone could bear no ill will towards a particular racial or ethnic group yet still not wish to do their tax returns, even as a paid accountant. If they specifically ban black people from their business, however, they are in violation of the anti-discrimination rules which govern their business no matter what their rationale for banning people along racial lines might be and, as a result, they can't operate this business in a jurisdiction which has anti-discrimination laws.

The same holds true for prostitutes. If they want to run a legal business, they need to operate by the legal rules and this means greater constraints on their business plan than they have in environments with no legal rules.

Gotcha: It's just another version of do what I say or you have no protections at all.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Gotcha: It's just another version of do what I say or you have no protections at all.

Or absolutely nothing like that in any way, shape or form. It's one or the other.

Stupid government telling people that they have to obey the law or face legal consequences. You know else wanted people to obey his rules or get in trouble? Hitler, that's who.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Gotcha: It's just another version of do what I say or you have no protections at all.

Or absolutely nothing like that in any way, shape or form. It's one or the other.

Stupid government telling people that they have to obey the law or face legal consequences. You know else wanted people to obey his rules or get in trouble? Hitler, that's who.

That's your whole argument? "Stupid government telling people they have to obey the law or face legal consequences."?

Are all laws equal? Are any laws bad enough that people shouldn't follow them?

 

[bilby]

I take it you mean bitchslapping an employee is assault and is illegal. There was a time when beating an underling who wouldn't put out on command was legal, normal and socially acceptable. Then that became illegal; but it was still legal and normal, if a bit shameful in polite company, to demand that subordinates put out on command in exchange for getting to keep their jobs. Then that became actionable. Our culture has been gradually coming to its senses.

Good reason/bad reason/no reason at all: both parties must consent of their own free will and should not be compelled in any way to have sex if they find it objectionable for any reason.

^^^ This ^^^. Going back to the time when "Screw who I tell you to or lose your job." was acceptable behavior is a step back from becoming civilized people.

Indeed it is. Going back to the time when putting up a sign saying "No Jews or Blacks" was acceptable behavior is a step back from becoming civilized people too.

Fortunately, we can avoid both retrograde steps, simultaneously, even in the prostitution industry - because despite the foolish and dogged insistence of some here, the latter concession to civilisation does not entail compromising the former in the slightest.

Can you explain to me exactly the difference between a boss telling an employee: you perform whichever sex acts they want with who I say or lose your job VS the government saying to a prostitute: you perform whichever sex acts they want with anyone who wishes to procure your services or lose your business license?

There wouldn't be any. But as that is NOT what the government is saying, it doesn't matter.

Can't you tell the difference between saying "You perform whichever sex acts they want with anyone who wishes to procure your services or lose your business license?"; and saying "You have the right to reject any potential customer, but you must be aware in advance that if your long term pattern of rejection of customers shows a distinct racial prejudice, then you should not apply for a license; and that if you do, it can be revoked due to such a pattern"?

Can't you tell the difference between saying "I don't want to have sex with Barack Obama" and "I don't want to have sex with black men"?

Surely you can see how these are not the same?

 

[Toni]

I take it you mean bitchslapping an employee is assault and is illegal. There was a time when beating an underling who wouldn't put out on command was legal, normal and socially acceptable. Then that became illegal; but it was still legal and normal, if a bit shameful in polite company, to demand that subordinates put out on command in exchange for getting to keep their jobs. Then that became actionable. Our culture has been gradually coming to its senses.

Good reason/bad reason/no reason at all: both parties must consent of their own free will and should not be compelled in any way to have sex if they find it objectionable for any reason.

^^^ This ^^^. Going back to the time when "Screw who I tell you to or lose your job." was acceptable behavior is a step back from becoming civilized people.

Indeed it is. Going back to the time when putting up a sign saying "No Jews or Blacks" was acceptable behavior is a step back from becoming civilized people too.

Fortunately, we can avoid both retrograde steps, simultaneously, even in the prostitution industry - because despite the foolish and dogged insistence of some here, the latter concession to civilisation does not entail compromising the former in the slightest.

Can you explain to me exactly the difference between a boss telling an employee: you perform whichever sex acts they want with who I say or lose your job VS the government saying to a prostitute: you perform whichever sex acts they want with anyone who wishes to procure your services or lose your business license?

There wouldn't be any. But as that is NOT what the government is saying, it doesn't matter.

Can't you tell the difference between saying "You perform whichever sex acts they want with anyone who wishes to procure your services or lose your business license?"; and saying "You have the right to reject any potential customer, but you must be aware in advance that if your long term pattern of rejection of customers shows a distinct racial prejudice, then you should not apply for a license; and that if you do, it can be revoked due to such a pattern"?

Can't you tell the difference between saying "I don't want to have sex with Barack Obama" and "I don't want to have sex with black men"?

Surely you can see how these are not the same?

Of course I can. BUT I still contend that it is morally wrong to insist that someone-anyone, under any circumstance perform any sex act with any person against their wishes, even if the reason to refuse is rooted in prejudice or racism.

This is almost the only circumstance under which I thinks someone should be allowed to refuse service. The other circumstance would be if person A rents apartments, they should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, etc. when it comes to renting their apartments. But if Person A rents out a room in their own private residence, I think one must allow much greater latitude, even if we find their selection criteria to be repugnant. Likewise, if someone wishes to paint a swastika on the front of their house or hand out White Power pamphlets, etc. it should not be forbidden, however repugnant the message.

 

[Bomb#20]

Going back to the time when "Screw who I tell you to or lose your job." was acceptable behavior is a step back from becoming civilized people.

Indeed it is. Going back to the time when putting up a sign saying "No Jews or Blacks" was acceptable behavior is a step back from becoming civilized people too.

Fortunately, we can avoid both retrograde steps, simultaneously, even in the prostitution industry - because despite the foolish and dogged insistence of some here, the latter concession to civilisation does not entail compromising the former in the slightest.

Oh, are you still talking to me? You didn't answer any of my questions to you in post #344. I suspect you didn't answer for precisely the reason Metaphor proposed; but in case you just overlooked them, here they are again:

If in fact you are not applying a blatant double standard for what is or isn't coercive, what single standard are you applying?

Is an instruction that a janitor have sex with one of the men her boss nominates or else he'll stop giving her his company's money tantamount to a threat, at all?

Is firing a janitor because she won't put out on command the same thing as forcing her to have sex with people she doesn't want to have sex with?

(That doesn't include the questions from post #344 that were just asking you to account for your rhetoric. Account for it or not as you please; if you don't we can just take it as read that your rhetoric was unjustified, and move on.)

As for what compromises concessions to civilization, nobody still in the discussion advocated letting people put up a sign saying "No Jews or Blacks". So the circumstance that banning the latter doesn't entail compromising the former is not to the point. The question that is to the point is this:

Can you explain why "If your long term pattern of rejection of customers shows a distinct racial prejudice I will revoke your license to have a screwing job." is not an instance of "Screw who I tell you to or lose your job."?

 

[PyramidHead]

Apart from the nature of the service being provided (from the perspective of the prostitute), there is also an element of luxury at play here from the recipient's perspective. In other words, for the landlord/accountant/grocer, discrimination is impossible to support because it deeply infringes upon the basic interests of people who need an apartment, financial services, and food. In those cases, a hypothetical black person's right to shop in the same supermarket as everybody else is more important than the business owner's right to only sell groceries to white people. Thus, the business owner's inconvenience of having to serve black people is far outweighed by the basic need of a black person who has to feed a family.

In the case of prostitution, the bar tilts the other way. To enforce anti-discrimination laws would be to place a black person's inconvenience of not being able to pay somebody to have sex with him over the basic need of a person, namely the prostitute, to have total freedom of choice in who she has sex with. Just because there are not other cases like it does not change this fact. It is the consequences of a policy, who they benefit and who they harm, that should be considered in each circumstance (especially unique ones). I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that for 99.9% of the services a person can charge money for, being forced to provide them equally to members of all races does not rise above the level of an inconvenience when compared to the deprivation that would be otherwise be suffered by victims of their racism, but sex is an instance where having sex with someone you don't want to is NEVER merely an inconvenience.

However, that raises the further question: does every woman have the right to become a prostitute? Perhaps the relevant comparison in the above scenario is not between the John's inconvenience of selecting another hooker vs. the hooker relinquishing control over her sexual autonomy. Maybe it should be asked: does a black man's right to select the prostitute of his choice outweigh a woman's right to become a prostitute in the first place? That is, if the only recourse for a woman who prefers not to have sex with black men is to not become a prostitute, is she being merely inconvenienced, as is the grocery store owner? My current feeling takes into account the desperation of many people who turn to the sex trade; to deny them that revenue source could seriously hurt their overall well-being in a way that forcing a grocery store owner to sell vegetables to black people would not. The grocer has a choice between the inconvenience of serving blacks and finding another job. The prostitute has the choice between the bodily violation of having sex with somebody she doesn't want to and destitution. Maybe if prostitution were legalized things would be different, but as it stands there is not much to be gained for black Johns versus the potential for harm to prostitutes with a racial preference.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course I can. BUT I still contend that it is morally wrong to insist that someone-anyone, under any circumstance perform any sex act with any person against their wishes, even if the reason to refuse is rooted in prejudice or racism.

That's how I see it, also. To say a prostitute can't refuse a client amounts to rape in my book.

 

[bilby]

Indeed it is. Going back to the time when putting up a sign saying "No Jews or Blacks" was acceptable behavior is a step back from becoming civilized people too.

Fortunately, we can avoid both retrograde steps, simultaneously, even in the prostitution industry - because despite the foolish and dogged insistence of some here, the latter concession to civilisation does not entail compromising the former in the slightest.

Oh, are you still talking to me? You didn't answer any of my questions to you in post #344. I suspect you didn't answer for precisely the reason Metaphor proposed; but in case you just overlooked them, here they are again:

If in fact you are not applying a blatant double standard for what is or isn't coercive, what single standard are you applying?

Is an instruction that a janitor have sex with one of the men her boss nominates or else he'll stop giving her his company's money tantamount to a threat, at all?

Is firing a janitor because she won't put out on command the same thing as forcing her to have sex with people she doesn't want to have sex with?

(That doesn't include the questions from post #344 that were just asking you to account for your rhetoric. Account for it or not as you please; if you don't we can just take it as read that your rhetoric was unjustified, and move on.)

As for what compromises concessions to civilization, nobody still in the discussion advocated letting people put up a sign saying "No Jews or Blacks". So the circumstance that banning the latter doesn't entail compromising the former is not to the point. The question that is to the point is this:

Can you explain why "If your long term pattern of rejection of customers shows a distinct racial prejudice I will revoke your license to have a screwing job." is not an instance of "Screw who I tell you to or lose your job."?

I am not talking to you - I am talking about your post, for the benefit of those who understand why I can no longer be bothered talking to you, but who might otherwise be swayed by your specious arguments.

Debating you in this subject is clearly a waste of time. Life is too short.