Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[angelo]

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.

A little harsh isn't it? At least on half speed would be enough punishment wouldn't it?

 

[angelo]

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.

Too right!

 

[bilby]

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.

But as nobody is saying a prostitute can't refuse a client, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

This is apparently too hard to grasp; but let me just try one more time, because I am convinced that most people here are smart enough to grasp it:

It is never racist to refuse A client. So nobody is saying "a prostitute can't refuse a client". IF you think that that is what other people in this thread are saying, then YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD.

Racism is refusing ANY AND ALL black clients, because and only because they are black.

Refusing one client, of any race, colour or creed, is always OK; refusing a wide range of clients is perfectly fine; but accepting a wide range of clients, but never one who is black, is not fine. Nobody has to have sex with any given client; but anybody who has made a prior decision, without even meeting a client, that they will reject that client for no other reason than his race, is not entitled to a prostitution license. And losing one's licence for this offence is NOT IN ANY WAY equivalent to being required to have sex with any individual, so it is not rape, it is not 'tantamount to' rape, and it is not coercion.

It is not morally or legally acceptable to admit racism as a criterion for a prostitute making the decision to reject a customer - and the reason why racism is different from other possible criteria is that it is a decision made in advance; it is not a rejection of the individual customer, but a rejection of a whole race of people as though they were all part of one homogeneous and indistinguishable mass.

 

[angelo]

What about if the john uses unacceptable behaviour, is she allowed to refuse that character?

 

[bilby]

What about if the john uses unacceptable behaviour, is she allowed to refuse that character?

Why on Earth wouldn't she be??

 

[Toni]

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

But as nobody is saying a prostitute can't refuse a client, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

This is apparently too hard to grasp; but let me just try one more time, because I am convinced that most people here are smart enough to grasp it:

It is never racist to refuse A client. So nobody is saying "a prostitute can't refuse a client". IF you think that that is what other people in this thread are saying, then YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD.

Racism is refusing ANY AND ALL black clients, because and only because they are black.

Refusing one client, of any race, colour or creed, is always OK; refusing a wide range of clients is perfectly fine; but accepting a wide range of clients, but never one who is black, is not fine. Nobody has to have sex with any given client; but anybody who has made a prior decision, without even meeting a client, that they will reject that client for no other reason than his race, is not entitled to a prostitution license. And losing one's licence for this offence is NOT IN ANY WAY equivalent to being required to have sex with any individual, so it is not rape, it is not 'tantamount to' rape, and it is not coercion.

It is not morally or legally acceptable to admit racism as a criterion for a prostitute making the decision to reject a customer - and the reason why racism is different from other possible criteria is that it is a decision made in advance; it is not a rejection of the individual customer, but a rejection of a whole race of people as though they were all part of one homogeneous and indistinguishable mass.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with your position.

To be honest, I disagree with someone who would make a blanket policy to never have sex with someone of any particular race, ethnicity, religion, etc. But I still see it as their choice, just as I see it as their choice, even in a commercial setting, to decide to never provide sexual services to an individual of a particular gender.

 

[dystopian]

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

But as nobody is saying a prostitute can't refuse a client, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

This is apparently too hard to grasp; but let me just try one more time, because I am convinced that most people here are smart enough to grasp it:

It is never racist to refuse A client. So nobody is saying "a prostitute can't refuse a client". IF you think that that is what other people in this thread are saying, then YOU HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD.

Racism is refusing ANY AND ALL black clients, because and only because they are black.

Refusing one client, of any race, colour or creed, is always OK; refusing a wide range of clients is perfectly fine; but accepting a wide range of clients, but never one who is black, is not fine. Nobody has to have sex with any given client; but anybody who has made a prior decision, without even meeting a client, that they will reject that client for no other reason than his race, is not entitled to a prostitution license. And losing one's licence for this offence is NOT IN ANY WAY equivalent to being required to have sex with any individual, so it is not rape, it is not 'tantamount to' rape, and it is not coercion.

It is not morally or legally acceptable to admit racism as a criterion for a prostitute making the decision to reject a customer - and the reason why racism is different from other possible criteria is that it is a decision made in advance; it is not a rejection of the individual customer, but a rejection of a whole race of people as though they were all part of one homogeneous and indistinguishable mass.

This argument doesn't really feel convincing. If a prostitute has the right to refuse any client; then she necessarily also has the right to refuse them based on racial prejudice (you can't prove, even with a 100% pattern, that the prostitute is rejecting them due to racial prejudice, which in any case doesn't matter since we've established that she the right to refuse any one client for whatever reason, and she is after all refusing them all individually). You can't have it both ways. It comes down to whether or not a prostitute has the right to tell people in advance she's going to reject them. Arguing that she doesn't may appeal to some idealistic notion of equality; but it doesn't actually do anything to eliminate real prejudice; not to mention that it is a massive waste of time for everyone involved.

If it's legal for a prostitute to first meet with and then reject all black clients (and it would be/is), then it makes *no* sense for it to be illegal when the prostitute puts a sign out and reject them before they get in the door; the two situations are effectively the same (since a prostitute is not a public space or service the situation is NOT analogous to a regular business putting the same sign out); there is no point to such a law other than to weigh the possibility of some people experiencing offense higher than you do the *reality* of wasting those same people's time.

Incidentally, if you're arguing that a prostitute can't reject *all* black clients because that'd be racist, then you *are* effectively saying that they can't refuse a client, because under that logic the prostitute would then be forced to have sex with at least one black client or lose their job; which is coercion. Maybe that's not what you meant, but it is a logical outcome of what you're saying.

 

[Metaphor]

It is not morally or legally acceptable to admit racism as a criterion for a prostitute making the decision to reject a customer - and the reason why racism is different from other possible criteria is that it is a decision made in advance; it is not a rejection of the individual customer, but a rejection of a whole race of people as though they were all part of one homogeneous and indistinguishable mass.

You mean exactly how individuals reject an entire gender in advance? Like everyone from one gender was part of a homogeneous and indistinguishable mass?

The fact that you allow gender discrimination but not race discrimination is naked special pleading.

 

[angelo]

What about if the john uses unacceptable behaviour, is she allowed to refuse that character?

Why on Earth wouldn't she be??

In some sex slave situations the sex worker has no say whatsoever.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why on Earth wouldn't she be??

In some sex slave situations the sex worker has no say whatsoever.

Ya, but we're talking about legal businesses where the employees are making free choices. While sex slavery is rampant within the prostitution industry, it's not relevant to the discussion of this aspect of the industry.

 

[Toni]

In some sex slave situations the sex worker has no say whatsoever.

Ya, but we're talking about legal businesses where the employees are making free choices. While sex slavery is rampant within the prostitution industry, it's not relevant to the discussion of this aspect of the industry.

It depends on who you ask whether prostitutes who work legally are free to make decisions. You seem to be advocating one decision they cannot make.

 

[Sabine Grant]

It is not morally or legally acceptable to admit racism as a criterion for a prostitute making the decision to reject a customer - and the reason why racism is different from other possible criteria is that it is a decision made in advance; it is not a rejection of the individual customer, but a rejection of a whole race of people as though they were all part of one homogeneous and indistinguishable mass.

You mean exactly how individuals reject an entire gender in advance? Like everyone from one gender was part of a homogeneous and indistinguishable mass?

The fact that you allow gender discrimination but not race discrimination is naked special pleading.

Choices governed by one's GI or/and sexual orientation should not fall under " discrimination". As I had detailed previously :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...reject-black-men&p=35806&viewfull=1#post35806

IMO what bilby is pointing to is that when it comes to sexual orientation (hetero male or female, gay male or female) and gender identity (such as MTF transgender prostitute) all those are lived and experienced identities. It is 100% justified that a female GI MTF transgender would accept only male clients. 100% justified that a gay male would accept only male clients. 100% justified that a gay female would accept only female clients. That a hetero male or female would accept only clients of the opposite gender. It is highly questionable that persons of a specific GI or/and sexual orientation be compelled by any law to render sexual services to clients incompatible with their legitimate GI or/and sexual identity.

However when it comes to rejecting clients based on their ethnicity, it has NOTHING to do with GI or/and sexual orientation based incompatibility.

Rejecting clients based on their ethnicity is the product of an ideology. Rejecting clients based on incompatibility with one's GI or/and sexual orientation is the product of nature. Unless you want to argue that the experiencing of having a female GI or male GI, the experiencing of being gay or hetero is somehow the product of an ideology. Unless you would argue that the reason why gay males will not have sex with females is the product of misogyny.

Do you understand the vast difference between behavior governed by ideologies and behavior governed by one's identity whether it be GI or sexual orientation?

 

[PyramidHead]

You mean exactly how individuals reject an entire gender in advance? Like everyone from one gender was part of a homogeneous and indistinguishable mass?

The fact that you allow gender discrimination but not race discrimination is naked special pleading.

Choices governed by one's GI or/and sexual orientation should not fall under " discrimination". As I had detailed previously :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...reject-black-men&p=35806&viewfull=1#post35806

IMO what bilby is pointing to is that when it comes to sexual orientation (hetero male or female, gay male or female) and gender identity (such as MTF transgender prostitute) all those are lived and experienced identities. It is 100% justified that a female GI MTF transgender would accept only male clients. 100% justified that a gay male would accept only male clients. 100% justified that a gay female would accept only female clients. That a hetero male or female would accept only clients of the opposite gender. It is highly questionable that persons of a specific GI or/and sexual orientation be compelled by any law to render sexual services to clients incompatible with their legitimate GI or/and sexual identity.

However when it comes to rejecting clients based on their ethnicity, it has NOTHING to do with GI or/and sexual orientation based incompatibility.

Rejecting clients based on their ethnicity is the product of an ideology. Rejecting clients based on incompatibility with one's GI or/and sexual orientation is the product of nature. Unless you want to argue that the experiencing of having a female GI or male GI, the experiencing of being gay or hetero is somehow the product of an ideology. Unless you would argue that the reason why gay males will not have sex with females is the product of misogyny.

Do you understand the vast difference between behavior governed by ideologies and behavior governed by one's identity whether it be GI or sexual orientation?

I am not convinced that rejection of a sexual partner based on race (or preference for one's own) is purely ideological. There is surely also a strong biological component. It may not be related to GI or sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean it's a conscious choice.

 

[Sabine Grant]

What about if the john uses unacceptable behaviour, is she allowed to refuse that character?

Going back to Nevada brothels which are legal, a prospective client expecting a sex worker to engage in unprotected intercourse would be ground for rejection. Such legal brothels are liable to uphold directives implemented by OSHA and the Health Department. Any behavior susceptible to compromise the safety of the sex worker is ground for rejection (OSHA). Any behavior susceptible to breach Health Department directives is ground for rejection. I am certain that it is up to the discretion of the business owner to reject inebriated prospective clients and deemed as ground for rejection.

Essentially, what the business owner cannot do is compel her/his employees to engage in activities which would compromise their safety or/and health.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Choices governed by one's GI or/and sexual orientation should not fall under " discrimination". As I had detailed previously :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...reject-black-men&p=35806&viewfull=1#post35806

IMO what bilby is pointing to is that when it comes to sexual orientation (hetero male or female, gay male or female) and gender identity (such as MTF transgender prostitute) all those are lived and experienced identities. It is 100% justified that a female GI MTF transgender would accept only male clients. 100% justified that a gay male would accept only male clients. 100% justified that a gay female would accept only female clients. That a hetero male or female would accept only clients of the opposite gender. It is highly questionable that persons of a specific GI or/and sexual orientation be compelled by any law to render sexual services to clients incompatible with their legitimate GI or/and sexual identity.

However when it comes to rejecting clients based on their ethnicity, it has NOTHING to do with GI or/and sexual orientation based incompatibility.

Rejecting clients based on their ethnicity is the product of an ideology. Rejecting clients based on incompatibility with one's GI or/and sexual orientation is the product of nature. Unless you want to argue that the experiencing of having a female GI or male GI, the experiencing of being gay or hetero is somehow the product of an ideology. Unless you would argue that the reason why gay males will not have sex with females is the product of misogyny.

Do you understand the vast difference between behavior governed by ideologies and behavior governed by one's identity whether it be GI or sexual orientation?

I am not convinced that rejection of a sexual partner based on race (or preference for one's own) is purely ideological. There is surely also a strong biological component. It may not be related to GI or sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean it's a conscious choice.

Whereas I am rather certain that being born a Caucasian does not automatically cause a biological imperative to reject individuals of a different ethnicity. I am rather certain I am not an exception as a Caucasian person who is in no way directed by a biological imperative to experience rejection towards persons of a different ethnicity.

I am also rather certain that racism is the NOT the product of nature rather nurture. Do you think that children born in and raised by a White Supremacist family are conditioned by nature to view ethnic minorities as inferior human beings or is it a phenomenon resulting from their cultural indoctrination? Do you think that Europeans who cultivated anti Semitic views during WW2 were "born" with a biological imperative giving them no choice but to view Jews as inferior human beings?

Whereas I guarantee you that a gay male rejecting sexual activities with a female is NOT based on "viewing females as inferior human beings" but simply the direct product of his sexual orientation which governs his choice of sexual partners.

So, let's not sink here into attempting to draw analogies between behaviors governed by defined and widely recognized biological imperatives(GI and sexual orientation) and acquired behaviors resulting from cultural indoctrination/nurturing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, but we're talking about legal businesses where the employees are making free choices. While sex slavery is rampant within the prostitution industry, it's not relevant to the discussion of this aspect of the industry.

It depends on who you ask whether prostitutes who work legally are free to make decisions. You seem to be advocating one decision they cannot make.

Only in the sense that because I can't legally make the decision to steal the computer from my office, I'm essentially a slave to my boss. Having the terms of your employment constrained by an obligation to obey the law isn't somehow comparable to slavery.

 

[PyramidHead]

Whereas I am rather certain that being born a Caucasian does not automatically cause a biological imperative to reject individuals of a different ethnicity. I am rather certain I am not an exception as a Caucasian person who is in no way directed by a biological imperative to experience rejection towards persons of a different ethnicity.

What is the source of your certainty?

I am also rather certain that racism is the NOT the product of nature rather nurture. Do you think that children born in and raised by a White Supremacist family are conditioned by nature to view ethnic minorities as inferior human beings or is it a phenomenon resulting from their cultural indoctrination? Do you think that Europeans who cultivated anti Semitic views during WW2 were "born" with a biological imperative giving them no choice but to view Jews as inferior human beings?

I agree with your assessment about racism in those cases, but that does not preclude natural racial preference in other cases. The overwhelming majority of people prefer to mate with people of their own race. Are you claiming this is a cultural phenomenon only? If so, I would be interested in knowing why.

Whereas I guarantee you that a gay male rejecting sexual activities with a female is NOT based on "viewing females as inferior human beings" but simply the direct product of his sexual orientation which governs his choice of sexual partners.

I agree.

My point is that sexual preference is shaped in ways that are not all necessarily within our control. Some, such as the preference for males versus females, are completely beyond our control. Others, such as the choice to mate with people who we think will give us a raise at our current job, are almost completely under our control. I'm saying that racial preference may not be all the way on that end of the spectrum. I could be wrong, but I can see how there may be a plausible evolutionary reason to for that kind of thing. In which case, a prostitute who is simply not interested in sex with people of a certain race may harbor no feelings of superiority towards those people, but for whatever reason is not attracted to them in such a way.

 

[Bomb#20]

What is the source of your certainty?

Presumably, her out-of-hand rejection of alternative hypotheses is either the product of an ideology or else the product of nature.

My point is that sexual preference is shaped in ways that are not all necessarily within our control. Some, such as the preference for males versus females, are completely beyond our control. Others, such as the choice to mate with people who we think will give us a raise at our current job, are almost completely under our control. I'm saying that racial preference may not be all the way on that end of the spectrum. I could be wrong, but I can see how there may be a plausible evolutionary reason to for that kind of thing. In which case, a prostitute who is simply not interested in sex with people of a certain race may harbor no feelings of superiority towards those people, but for whatever reason is not attracted to them in such a way.

^^^ This ^^^. Some people are only turned on by sex partners of one race, just as some people are only turned on by partners with big butts. And jumping to the assumption that it's their own race they prefer is unwarranted. Nobody ever specified that the hypothetical whites-only prostitute whose rights we're debating is white.

What causes people to prefer males or females, to prefer pretty feet or pretty faces, to prefer thin partners or fat ones, is a biological mystery; but to take it for granted that it's either inborn or else a product of ideology would be deeply irrational. But somehow, if whatever anatomical characteristics a person imprints on when his or her sexuality is forming happen to be correlated with race, then taste in sex partners gets moralized, causing common sense to fly out the window.

 

[PyramidHead]

Presumably, her out-of-hand rejection of alternative hypotheses is either the product of an ideology or else the product of nature.

My point is that sexual preference is shaped in ways that are not all necessarily within our control. Some, such as the preference for males versus females, are completely beyond our control. Others, such as the choice to mate with people who we think will give us a raise at our current job, are almost completely under our control. I'm saying that racial preference may not be all the way on that end of the spectrum. I could be wrong, but I can see how there may be a plausible evolutionary reason to for that kind of thing. In which case, a prostitute who is simply not interested in sex with people of a certain race may harbor no feelings of superiority towards those people, but for whatever reason is not attracted to them in such a way.

^^^ This ^^^. Some people are only turned on by sex partners of one race, just as some people are only turned on by partners with big butts. And jumping to the assumption that it's their own race they prefer is unwarranted. Nobody ever specified that the hypothetical whites-only prostitute whose rights we're debating is white.

What causes people to prefer males or females, to prefer pretty feet or pretty faces, to prefer thin partners or fat ones, is a biological mystery; but to take it for granted that it's either inborn or else a product of ideology would be deeply irrational. But somehow, if whatever anatomical characteristics a person imprints on when his or her sexuality is forming happen to be correlated with race, then taste in sex partners gets moralized, causing common sense to fly out the window.

I agree with that assessment, with the caveat that we shouldn't treat all cases of racial preference as biological, just as we shouldn't treat them all as ideological. I suppose this brings us back to the OP title. It could be "racist," depending on whether that term means belief in the superiority of one race over another, and that's the reason for the prostitute's refusal. But it could also be a biological preference that is not accompanied by any opinion one way or the other about which race is superior overall. Some may call that racism, because it's technically discrimination based on race, but I hesitate to use the term because of its ideological connotations. In a similar way, one may be viscerally disgusted by homosexual intercourse between males but completely in favor of granting gays equal rights in marriage and promoting their status in society. Maybe that's not a perfect comparison since gender preference is obviously innate. But it shows that taste in mates and their qualities may be distinct from any cognitive bias about them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is not morally or legally acceptable to admit racism as a criterion for a prostitute making the decision to reject a customer - and the reason why racism is different from other possible criteria is that it is a decision made in advance; it is not a rejection of the individual customer, but a rejection of a whole race of people as though they were all part of one homogeneous and indistinguishable mass.

And I categorically refuse to date males. Am I sexist?