Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[Bomb#20]

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.

No, you don't understand. Rejecting people by advance decision is self-evidently a criterion that distinguishes rejection of a race from rejection of a sex, because a person's gender has a major bearing on their sexual behaviors and because Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation are lived and experienced identities, from which it obviously follows by elementary Boolean algebra that rejecting an entire gender in advance does not qualify as a decision made in advance. Good god, man, didn't you ever study Aristotelian logic, or Venn diagrams, or operator truth-tables, or anything?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Actually, racism is not different from all other possible criteria in that regard, it seems, since criteria like rejecting all females, all old people, all short men, etc., would be a decision in advance, etc. (ETA: I see Bomb#20 and Loren Pechtel already made the analogy with gender).

But that aside, I'd like to ask some questions again, since you didn't address them. I'll give a bit more details, in case that's the difficulty – plus, I will change a name.

Right now in most of the US, prostitution is illegal - the government can and does fine or incarcerate women for voluntarily engaging in sex, simply because she does so as a business, rather than as a personal, transaction.

Let's say the events happen in a legal brothel in Nevada.

1. Whenever an old client shows up, Sandy refuses to have sex with them. In fact, she does not even show up in the room for prostitutes from which the client would pick. But she doesn't do that with any other category of clients. Jane, who manages the place, tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired. Is Jane coercing Sandy?

2. Whenever a client wearing a cross or a crucifix shows up, Ginger refuses to have sex with them. In fact, she does not even show up in the room for prostitutes from which the client would pick. But she doesn't do that with any other category of clients. Jane, who manages the place, tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired. Is Jane coercing Ginger?

3. Whenever a Black client shows up, Sage refuses to have sex with them. In fact, she does not even show up in the room for prostitutes from which the client would pick. But she doesn't do that with any other category of clients. Jane, who manages the place, tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired. Is Jane coercing Sage?


4. Whenever a female client shows up, Angelica refuses to have sex with her. In fact, she does not even show up in the room for prostitutes from which the client would pick. But she doesn't do that with any other category of clients. Jane, who manages the place, tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired. Is Jane coercing Angelica?

5. Whenever a Black male client shows up, Dahlia refuses to have sex with him. In fact, she does not even show up in the room for prostitutes from which the client would pick. But she doesn't do that with any other category of clients. Jane, who manages the place, tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired. Is Jane coercing Dahlia?

 

[Toni]

Couple of things:


1. Sexuality and preferences are not just formed at or prior to birth but can evolve over time and adapt to circumstances . Further, there is a continuem rather than a gay/straight hard line, with probably most falling pretty solidly at one end or the other of the spectrum.
2. If anyone believes that most prostitutes are sexually attracted to their clients, then please let me sell you some land in FL.

 

[PyramidHead]

Couple of things:


1. Sexuality and preferences are not just formed at or prior to birth but can evolve over time and adapt to circumstances . Further, there is a continuem rather than a gay/straight hard line, with probably most falling pretty solidly at one end or the other of the spectrum.
2. If anyone believes that most prostitutes are sexually attracted to their clients, then please let me sell you some land in FL.

Yeah, I was gonna raise the second point. Clearly, not being physically attracted to someone does not always preclude having sex with them for money. But there are doubtless cases where it goes beyond a simple lack of attraction and extends to revulsion. Not everybody is into anal sex, but there is a difference between doing it for money without enjoying it versus being physically disgusted by it to the point where one cannot participate in it without extreme discomfort. I don't know if there are prostitutes for whom sex with a certain race falls into the second category, but if there are, my view is that they shouldn't be penalized for it. Clients who want anal sex are not a protected class, so why should people of a certain race be, assuming the reasons for rejecting them are essentially the same?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

(ETA: I see Bomb#20 and Loren Pechtel already made the analogy with gender).

And Metaphor too.

 

[bilby]

(ETA: I see Bomb#20 and Loren Pechtel already made the analogy with gender).

And Metaphor too.

Well gender is different in many cases for physiological reasons; a prostitute who allows customers to put their penis in her (or his) mouth or anus; or who allows customers to put their penis in her vagina, is not going to provide that service for female customers for obvious reasons that have zero to do with bias.

For those services provided by prostitutes that are not physiologically dependant on the gender of the client, I am struggling to see any justification for the prostitute to be allowed to discriminate as a matter of gender prejudice. If, for some reason, I was able to earn money by putting my penis in paying customer's mouths, I am not sure quite why I would refuse to do so for customers of one gender - it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It isn't as if my sexual preferences or my enjoyment of the work were at issue - as a prostitute, my motivation is money, not my own pleasure in the act.

It seems to me that a lot of people here are making the incorrect assumption that a sex act that a prostitute does not actively enjoy is the same thing as a sex act that a prostitute would not voluntarily perform - but that is simply not the case (if it was, legal prostitution would not exist). Like everyone else, prostitutes do not always enjoy their jobs - but they can make the reasonable decision that the money makes up for the aspects of the work that they do not enjoy.

Laws prohibiting the use of prejudice, rather than case by case consideration, as the criterion for rejecting customers may be difficult to enforce; but that does not mean that they are not morally right; as dystopian pointed out, there is no moral difference between allowing a prostitute to first meet with and then reject all black clients, and allowing her to put up a sign that says 'No blacks'; my position is that just because prohibition of the former is difficult (or even impossible) to enforce, that does not imply that prohibition of both (and enforcement of those offences that are not impossible to enforce) should not occur.

The world is full of people who get away with breaking the law; but that fact is not a good argument for not prosecuting those who are not sufficiently clever or lucky as to make prosecution impossible.

Sure, some racist prostitutes would still be able to practice; but only those who were careful never to openly admit to being racist. Hidden racism is not ideal; but it is far less damaging to society than open and officially accepted or tolerated racism; And getting rid of the open part is a definite step in the right direction.

 

[Sabine Grant]

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


^^^ 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.

To note that when I use the term racism, I am sticking to its CORRECT definition

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/racism

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
1.1Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:

and once more standing by my certainty that racism ( as correctly defined) is indeed a belief or culturally acquired line of thought/thinking. Whereas Gender Identity and sexual orientation are not. I have not been experiencing my female Gender Identity while born over half a century due to an acquired belief prompted by my cultural environments. I have not been experiencing my sexual orientation as a straight person while born over half a century due to an acquired belief prompted by my cultural environments. But I am certain that my strong multi cultural background and the nurturing from my father who was a humanitarian who strongly fought against racism and anti Semitism are the key factors in my not falling under the definition of racism.

I am somewhat baffled that a couple of folks would attempt to draw an analogy between acquired beliefs/line of thoughts and sexual orientation and/or GI. Surely, everyone can comprehend the vast difference in motivation between a gay male prostitute stating "no females" and a White prostitute stating "no Blacks" or a Black prostitute stating "no Whites". Or any ethnicity prostitute stating "no Asians" or "no Arabs". Surely everyone can comprehend the vast difference in motivation between a female GI MTF Transgender prostitute stating "no females" and prostitutes of any ethnicity stating "no X ethnicity".

As to this :

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;

What causes gay males to engage in sexual intimacy only with males has nothing to do with aesthetics. Preferring pretty feet or pretty faces, thin partners or fat ones is a matter of aesthetics. I am rather certain that an individual who systematically excludes Blacks from their social interaction to include dating and resulting sexual intimacy , it is not because they somehow dislike the color black and prefer the color white. It is because they view persons of Black ethnicity via a series of highly prejudicial stereotypes, stereotypes and prejudices being the product of culture.

but to take it for granted that it's either inborn or else a product of ideology would be deeply irrational.

What is deeply irrational is to dismiss the inevitable incompatibility between a female GI MTF transgender and sexual partners of the female gender. Deeply irrational to dismiss the inevitable incompatibility between a gay male and female sexual partners. To call it "discrimination" while attempting to draw an analogy with discrimination based on ethnicity.

It cannot be beyond human comprehension to acknowledge the vast difference between an acquired belief (product of culture) triggering rejection of individuals of X ethnicity and the inevitable incompatibility when it comes to GI and sexual orientation.

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.

Throughout the history of mankind, any time "No Blacks" or " No Jews" popped up I am rather certain that it was not the product of "anatomical characteristics" but the unfortunate result of racism and Antisemitism. Culturally induced in societies where a predominant racial majority views the racial minority as inferior to them.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Well gender is different in many cases for physiological reasons; a prostitute who allows customers to put their penis in her (or his) mouth or anus; or who allows customers to put their penis in her vagina, is not going to provide that service for female customers for obvious reasons that have zero to do with bias.

But you said earlier that racism was different from any other possible criteria in 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.”

However, that is not the case. For example, racism is no different in that regard from any other possible criteria, like rejecting all female [would-be]clients, or all old clients, or all short or obese clients, or all Christian or Muslim clients, etc. beforehand.

What you're saying now is that rejecting everyone of a race is different from rejecting everyone of a gender, or a sex, in other regards. But that was not what I was pointing out in that part of my post – or what they were pointing out in the respective parts of theirs.

That aside, I asked you about other scenarios in order to assess, among other issues, whether your use of the word “coercion” was guided by considerations about whether the threat came from the state or from someone else, and generally how you were using that word, since it seems clear to me that all of those actions would be coercive.

Could you please address my questions about whether there is coercion?

For those services provided by prostitutes that are not physiologically dependant on the gender of the client, I am struggling to see any justification for the prostitute to be allowed to discriminate as a matter of gender prejudice.

The justification would be that it's her choice, as in the case of race. One might ask what the justification for banning such discrimination would be. If it's to prevent gender discrimination, such prevention has to be assessed against the cost of coercing some people into having sex with someone they feel no attraction to.

But if you think that that would not be coercion, then I would ask you again to please address my questions, so that I may try to ascertain how you're using the word “coercion”, and related ones.

Regardless, which word we use is not the point. The point is that the prevention of gender discrimination (or sex discrimination, if someone prefers) in this case has to be weighed against placing a person in a position of having to endure sexual activity that makes them suffer a lot psychologically, or not being able to live off sexual activity that – while they do not seek for their own enjoyment – does not make them suffer, or not to a similar degree.

If, for some reason, I was able to earn money by putting my penis in paying customer's mouths, I am not sure quite why I would refuse to do so for customers of one gender - it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It isn't as if my sexual preferences or my enjoyment of the work were at issue - as a prostitute, my motivation is money, not my own pleasure in the act.

But being willing to have sex for money not pleasure is very different from being willing to endure any suffering resulting from a sexual act. For example, it may be that Rob would not feel bad about getting paid by women for sex, but he would suffer if he were to have sexual contact with another male, regardless of what form that sexual contact might choose.
The same goes, of course, for female prostitutes, and any category of clients that they may have.

There are, however, other potential rationales.
For example, let's consider the allegedly true story of Tina, a New Orleans prostitute who would never take a Black client, because she believes they're “They’re too cheap, too rough and too full of themselves.”

Assuming the story is true (if not, we may stipulate something like that happens) that's a vast overgeneralization, though it may be true that Black clients in the social circle in which she words are in fact much more often like that than non-Black clients, and if so, her life will be better by rejecting Black clients.

Or it may be that that's not true, and she came to have such beliefs out of bad luck, because she just happened to have bad experiences with all or most of the Black men she was sexually involved with, as a part of her job or not. But regardless of the reasons, the fact remains that she does not want to have sex with Black men (or at least, not with Black clients; that's not entirely clear in the account).

If her work were legalized but she were told to choose between not doing it anymore or accepting Black clients, that would be psychologically traumatizing for her. Yes, granted, there are other cases not involving prostitution in which someone might be psychologically traumatized. A question is how much and what kind of coercion a government should apply in order to reduce the risk of such unjust discrimination.

It seems to me that a lot of people here are making the incorrect assumption that a sex act that a prostitute does not actively enjoy is the same thing as a sex act that a prostitute would not voluntarily perform - but that is simply not the case (if it was, legal prostitution would not exist). Like everyone else, prostitutes do not always enjoy their jobs - but they can make the reasonable decision that the money makes up for the aspects of the work that they do not enjoy.

I don't see any evidence that a lot of people are making that incorrect assumption.
But as has been pointed out before, there is a big difference between engaging in sexual activity one does not enjoy, and engaging in sexual activity that makes one suffer a lot.

Laws prohibiting the use of prejudice, rather than case by case consideration, as the criterion for rejecting customers may be difficult to enforce; but that does not mean that they are not morally right; as dystopian pointed out, there is no moral difference between allowing a prostitute to first meet with and then reject all black clients, and allowing her to put up a sign that says 'No blacks'; my position is that just because prohibition of the former is difficult (or even impossible) to enforce, that does not imply that prohibition of both (and enforcement of those offences that are not impossible to enforce) should not occur.

But then, sometimes it might be enforced, and a question is whether it would be acceptable to do so.

But let's consider the two following scenarios:

a. No one puts up any signs, but a small bar does not allow Black customers. They just say that they reject them individually. But the owners have actually said, privately, that they would never accept Black clients.
So, a group of activists decide to gather evidence against them, either shutting them down or forcing them to deal with it and accept Black customers. So a Black activist goes each day, and they and other activists document what happened.
The owners realize that they would lose their only source of income and it would be really bad for their finances to be shut down, so they start accepting Black customers, even if that makes them suffer psychologically.

b. Similar case in terms of discrimination, but in a case of legal prostitution. That is, a prostitute rejects all Black clients, and someone documents the matter, etc., so she's in a position to choose between accepting Black clients – which would make her suffer – or no longer working as a prostitute (let's say the ban on unlicensed prostitution is generally enforced), which would result in serious hardship not only for her, but for her children as well.
So, for the sake of her children, she puts up with Black clients, even if she does so only because she does not want her children to live on the streets.

Do you think the scenarios a. and b. are similar, with regard to the morality of passing those anti-discrimination laws? Also, what about the morality of the actions of the activists?

c. Let's say that there is a city where most bar owners are racist, and want to reject Black customers.
But then, a law is passed, and such discrimination is not allowed anymore.
Then, it would not be immoral, generally, for Black people, to go to bars when they do not know whether the owner is a racist, even if they know that probably – on statistical grounds – the owner is a racist and is accepting them only because they will lose their license if they don't. And that's regardless of what consequences losing their license would have for the racists in question.

d. Now, let's consider the prostitution case. Let's say that most prostitutes in a city would reject Black clients if they were allowed to. But it's also the case that many, perhaps most of them have no alternative source of income – say, there is a crackdown on unlicensed prostitution -, and that they would put up and suffer having sex with Black clients just not to lose their jobs and source of income.
Would it be acceptable for Black men to actually hire prostitutes under those circumstances, not knowing whether or not the prostitute they're hiring is one of those (perhaps, most) who are doing so just to keep their jobs, and despite their suffering?

e. Regardless of what the majority of prostitutes in the city want, let me point out a difference you have not considered between banning racial discrimination in prostitution vs. other activities.
Generally, it would not be immoral for people of race X to go into a bar to have fun, even if they know that the bar owner would want to reject them on racial grounds.
But what would you think of a man of race X to hire a prostitute he knows is a racist who would suffer for having sex with anyone of race X, but he wagers she would not want to risk losing her license (with consequences for her and her family, etc.), so she will likely put up?
The point is that regardless of whether she actually puts up, his behavior is morally appalling. So, by banning some immoral behavior, this proposed licensing system supports something a lot worse.

The world is full of people who get away with breaking the law; but that fact is not a good argument for not prosecuting those who are not sufficiently clever or lucky as to make prosecution impossible.

Sure, but on the other hand, that enforcing the law would be horribly unjust generally is.

Sure, some racist prostitutes would still be able to practice; but only those who were careful never to openly admit to being racist. Hidden racism is not ideal; but it is far less damaging to society than open and officially accepted or tolerated racism; And getting rid of the open part is a definite step in the right direction.

But the proposed solution takes a leap in the wrong direction when it comes to allowing and supporting behaviors that are even worse than those prostitute's racism.

 

[bilby]

OK, Let's consider the allegedly true story of Tina, a New Orleans prostitute who would never take a Black client, because she believes they're “They’re too cheap, too rough and too full of themselves.”

Tina objects to having sex with clients who are cheap, rough and/or full of themselves. And she may reject any client on any of those bases (amongst others).

She also incorrectly believes that those characteristics apply to ALL blacks. That is a problem with and for her; and society has an obligation to restrain her from imposing her erroneous belief in this regard on others.

If she insists on imposing that erroneous belief on others as part of her business dealings, her license may be revoked. I fail to see how this is a bad thing; and there is no way in which this requires her to have as a client any person who meets her ACTUAL criteria for rejection - cheapness, roughness, or self-containment.

Racism is wrong. And I don't mean morally wrong (although it is that); I mean it is factually wrong - it relies upon the false premise that people of other races universally share certain negative characteristics (in Tina's case, she goes so far as to enumerate three such characteristics). People do not have the right to impose their factually incorrect beliefs on others, or on society.

 

[laughing dog]

Racism is wrong. And I don't mean morally wrong (although it is that); I mean it is factually wrong - it relies upon the false premise that people of other races universally share certain negative characteristics (in Tina's case, she goes so far as to enumerate three such characteristics). People do not have the right to impose their factually incorrect beliefs on others, or on society.

In the USA, they most certainly do. The recent Hobby Lobby decision is an example.

 

[Toni]

OK, Let's consider the allegedly true story of Tina, a New Orleans prostitute who would never take a Black client, because she believes they're “They’re too cheap, too rough and too full of themselves.”

Tina objects to having sex with clients who are cheap, rough and/or full of themselves. And she may reject any client on any of those bases (amongst others).

She also incorrectly believes that those characteristics apply to ALL blacks. That is a problem with and for her; and society has an obligation to restrain her from imposing her erroneous belief in this regard on others.

If she insists on imposing that erroneous belief on others as part of her business dealings, her license may be revoked. I fail to see how this is a bad thing; and there is no way in which this requires her to have as a client any person who meets her ACTUAL criteria for rejection - cheapness, roughness, or self-containment.

Racism is wrong. And I don't mean morally wrong (although it is that); I mean it is factually wrong - it relies upon the false premise that people of other races universally share certain negative characteristics (in Tina's case, she goes so far as to enumerate three such characteristics). People do not have the right to impose their factually incorrect beliefs on others, or on society.

Or maybe Tina is black and does not wish to service other black clients for the same reasons that many prostitutes refuse to kiss their clients on the lips: she doesn't want to confuse her work with her real life. Servicing a black man is too close to acknowledging something that she doesn't really want to admit about what she's doing, or risks too much the potential to have an emotional response that she just can't afford.

Or as a young girl, Tina was gang raped by a group of black guys. Or just one. It is not uncommon for prostitutes to have been victims of sexual abuse. She is sufficiently traumatized that she cannot bring herself to have sexual contact with another black man.

Or: her high school basketball coach was a black man who initiated a sexual relationship when she was only 13. She adored him and he encouraged her as a student and athlete but the relationship left her damaged and filled with shame and confusion.

Or she grew up hearing that the man who shot her mother in a convenience store robbery was black.

Or: Any reason whatsoever. It doesn't matter, really.

I don't think anyone here will argue that racism is ok. I think we all agree that it is ignorant, hateful and despicable and should not be a foundation upon which anyone establishes policy.

However, I still argue that any person has the right to refuse to perform any sex act on any other individual for any reason whatsoever, even despicable reasons. Sex acts involve a high degree of physical intimacy and also a high degree of risk of transmission of STDs and of pregnancy. There are other physical risks as well as substantial emotional risks involved. This type of risk is unique to sex. I believe that any individual has the right to assess their own risks and make their own choices without fear of reprisal from the law, so far as their choices cause no harm to another (i.e. no rape, no underaged contact, etc.)

 

[bilby]

OK, Let's consider the allegedly true story of Tina, a New Orleans prostitute who would never take a Black client, because she believes they're “They’re too cheap, too rough and too full of themselves.”

Tina objects to having sex with clients who are cheap, rough and/or full of themselves. And she may reject any client on any of those bases (amongst others).

She also incorrectly believes that those characteristics apply to ALL blacks. That is a problem with and for her; and society has an obligation to restrain her from imposing her erroneous belief in this regard on others.

If she insists on imposing that erroneous belief on others as part of her business dealings, her license may be revoked. I fail to see how this is a bad thing; and there is no way in which this requires her to have as a client any person who meets her ACTUAL criteria for rejection - cheapness, roughness, or self-containment.

Racism is wrong. And I don't mean morally wrong (although it is that); I mean it is factually wrong - it relies upon the false premise that people of other races universally share certain negative characteristics (in Tina's case, she goes so far as to enumerate three such characteristics). People do not have the right to impose their factually incorrect beliefs on others, or on society.

Or maybe Tina is black and does not wish to service other black clients for the same reasons that many prostitutes refuse to kiss their clients on the lips: she doesn't want to confuse her work with her real life. Servicing a black man is too close to acknowledging something that she doesn't really want to admit about what she's doing, or risks too much the potential to have an emotional response that she just can't afford.

Then she should probably not become a prostitute.

Or as a young girl, Tina was gang raped by a group of black guys. Or just one. It is not uncommon for prostitutes to have been victims of sexual abuse. She is sufficiently traumatized that she cannot bring herself to have sexual contact with another black man.

If she has been traumatized by sex, prostitution is not a good choice of career.

Or: her high school basketball coach was a black man who initiated a sexual relationship when she was only 13. She adored him and he encouraged her as a student and athlete but the relationship left her damaged and filled with shame and confusion.

Then she shouldn't have sex with high school sports coaches? If she mistakenly believes that blackness is the important criterion here, then prostitution is not a good choice of career.

Or she grew up hearing that the man who shot her mother in a convenience store robbery was black.

So she should probably refuse to have sex with armed robbers?

Or: Any reason whatsoever. It doesn't matter, really.

No, it doesn't. If her reasoning is not based in fact, to the point where she is unable to avoid prejudice, then prostitution (or indeed ANY service industry) is a poor career choice.

I don't think anyone here will argue that racism is ok. I think we all agree that it is ignorant, hateful and despicable and should not be a foundation upon which anyone establishes policy.

Good; so you agree with me then?

However, I still argue that any person has the right to refuse to perform any sex act on any other individual for any reason whatsoever, even despicable reasons.

Absolutely they do; and if sex, within the bounds of the law as it relates to prostitution - including anti-discrimination law - is in any way repugnant to them, then they can (and should) chose a different career.

Sex acts involve a high degree of physical intimacy and also a high degree of risk of transmission of STDs and of pregnancy. There are other physical risks as well as substantial emotional risks involved. This type of risk is unique to sex. I believe that any individual has the right to assess their own risks and make their own choices without fear of reprisal from the law, so far as their choices cause no harm to another (i.e. no rape, no underaged contact, etc.)

No unjustified prejudice... No choosing to become a prostitute if they feel sex is physically or emotionally risky...

It's not mandatory to become a prostitute. If you don't want to be one, don't. If you want to be one, but only if you are allowed to bring a bunch of unlawful prejudices to the job, then tough - it isn't for you.

 

[Toni]

Or maybe Tina is black and does not wish to service other black clients for the same reasons that many prostitutes refuse to kiss their clients on the lips: she doesn't want to confuse her work with her real life. Servicing a black man is too close to acknowledging something that she doesn't really want to admit about what she's doing, or risks too much the potential to have an emotional response that she just can't afford.

Then she should probably not become a prostitute.

Or as a young girl, Tina was gang raped by a group of black guys. Or just one. It is not uncommon for prostitutes to have been victims of sexual abuse. She is sufficiently traumatized that she cannot bring herself to have sexual contact with another black man.

If she has been traumatized by sex, prostitution is not a good choice of career.

Or: her high school basketball coach was a black man who initiated a sexual relationship when she was only 13. She adored him and he encouraged her as a student and athlete but the relationship left her damaged and filled with shame and confusion.

Then she shouldn't have sex with high school sports coaches? If she mistakenly believes that blackness is the important criterion here, then prostitution is not a good choice of career.

Or she grew up hearing that the man who shot her mother in a convenience store robbery was black.

So she should probably refuse to have sex with armed robbers?

Or: Any reason whatsoever. It doesn't matter, really.

No, it doesn't. If her reasoning is not based in fact, to the point where she is unable to avoid prejudice, then prostitution (or indeed ANY service industry) is a poor career choice.

I don't think anyone here will argue that racism is ok. I think we all agree that it is ignorant, hateful and despicable and should not be a foundation upon which anyone establishes policy.

Good; so you agree with me then?

However, I still argue that any person has the right to refuse to perform any sex act on any other individual for any reason whatsoever, even despicable reasons.

Absolutely they do; and if sex, within the bounds of the law as it relates to prostitution - including anti-discrimination law - is in any way repugnant to them, then they can (and should) chose a different career.

Sex acts involve a high degree of physical intimacy and also a high degree of risk of transmission of STDs and of pregnancy. There are other physical risks as well as substantial emotional risks involved. This type of risk is unique to sex. I believe that any individual has the right to assess their own risks and make their own choices without fear of reprisal from the law, so far as their choices cause no harm to another (i.e. no rape, no underaged contact, etc.)

No unjustified prejudice... No choosing to become a prostitute if they feel sex is physically or emotionally risky...

It's not mandatory to become a prostitute. If you don't want to be one, don't. If you want to be one, but only if you are allowed to bring a bunch of unlawful prejudices to the job, then tough - it isn't for you.

You are either incredibly misinformed or willfully naive if you are unaware that there is an extremely high correlation between previous sexual abuse and the 'decision' to become a prostitute. And also willfully uninformed if you do not know that when there is significant trauma, victims often fixate on a particular characteristic of the events. If one has little contact or few or no good experiences with say: blonde haired/blue eyed men and is then assaulted by a blonde haired/blue eyed man, one may find that feeling of fear or anger transferred to all blonde/blue eyed men. Or if an attacker is wearing a kind of cologne, or a color of shirt or: name it. It happens, quite commonly. And not only by whites against blacks.

But I agree that she should not choose prostitution as a career. I don't think anyone should.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

OK, Let's consider the allegedly true story of Tina, a New Orleans prostitute who would never take a Black client, because she believes they're “They’re too cheap, too rough and too full of themselves.”

Tina objects to having sex with clients who are cheap, rough and/or full of themselves. And she may reject any client on any of those bases (amongst others).

She also incorrectly believes that those characteristics apply to ALL blacks. That is a problem with and for her; and society has an obligation to restrain her from imposing her erroneous belief in this regard on others.

If she insists on imposing that erroneous belief on others as part of her business dealings, her license may be revoked. I fail to see how this is a bad thing; and there is no way in which this requires her to have as a client any person who meets her ACTUAL criteria for rejection - cheapness, roughness, or self-containment.
the
Racism is wrong. And I don't mean morally wrong (although it is that); I mean it is factually wrong - it relies upon the false premise that people of other races universally share certain negative characteristics (in Tina's case, she goes so far as to enumerate three such characteristics). People do not have the right to impose their factually incorrect beliefs on others, or on society.

I wrote a very long, detailed post and posted a link, but you mostly ignore the post and did not read the link I'm afraid.

For example, you talk about a false premise that “people of other races universally share certain negative characteristics (in Tina's case, she goes so far as to enumerate three such characteristics)”, but if you had read the link, you would know that Tina is Black, so she's talking about men of her race, not about men of other races - not that it changes the relevant issue.

Also, by the way, how would you propose that she assess whether a man is too rough (i. e., he causes pain by the way he goes about having sex with her) without first having sex with him?
Perhaps, she's had bad experiences with Black clients very often. She overgeneralizes, of course, but in her particular social context, it might even be that Black clients are frequently too rough for her; what do I know?
Also, what if she didn't say that Black men are like that, but she said that Black men are frequently too rough, and since she cannot tell in advance, she has a “No Black men” policy because she does not want to endure the pain?
Granted, maybe she would be mistaken about that too. But again, what do I know? I'm not familiar with the social context in question.

Still, this is not really the point. Regardless of her particular case, I explained some of the reasons why the proposed policy is a bad thing.

One of them is that the proposed law sides with the villain – like the man who hires a prostitute knowing she does not want to have sex with him and would suffer if she did (i. e., it would be a traumatic experience for her), but he is betting that she will undergo that suffering in order not to lose her job.
Even if what the prostitute does is wrong, what the client does is far worse. But the advocated policy is one of siding with him. And if you consider her a villain too, then at least the law sides with the by far more villainous of the two. That's a very bad thing, usually, and I don't see why it wouldn't be so in this case. Yes, it's a way of fighting racism, but at the expense of placing people in a position in which they have to choose between engaging in sexual activity that makes them suffer a lot, or losing their jobs – and of course, I include psychological suffering, not just pain. And yes, other people who want to discriminate on the basis of race in other activities would suffer too. But that, in most activities, is justified. I already addressed this in my previous post, so if you'd like to know what my points are, please read it and address my points if you disagree.

 

[bilby]

OK, Let's consider the allegedly true story of Tina, a New Orleans prostitute who would never take a Black client, because she believes they're “They’re too cheap, too rough and too full of themselves.”

Tina objects to having sex with clients who are cheap, rough and/or full of themselves. And she may reject any client on any of those bases (amongst others).

She also incorrectly believes that those characteristics apply to ALL blacks. That is a problem with and for her; and society has an obligation to restrain her from imposing her erroneous belief in this regard on others.

If she insists on imposing that erroneous belief on others as part of her business dealings, her license may be revoked. I fail to see how this is a bad thing; and there is no way in which this requires her to have as a client any person who meets her ACTUAL criteria for rejection - cheapness, roughness, or self-containment.
the
Racism is wrong. And I don't mean morally wrong (although it is that); I mean it is factually wrong - it relies upon the false premise that people of other races universally share certain negative characteristics (in Tina's case, she goes so far as to enumerate three such characteristics). People do not have the right to impose their factually incorrect beliefs on others, or on society.

I wrote a very long, detailed post and posted a link, but you mostly ignore the post and did not read the link I'm afraid.

I barely have time to respond to the worst misconceptions and mischaracterisations of my position in this thread as it is; I am certainly not able to invest the time needed to respond in detail to every point made, or to read external links - which I trust you to summarise sufficiently well to make your point.

For example, you talk about a false premise that “people of other races universally share certain negative characteristics (in Tina's case, she goes so far as to enumerate three such characteristics)”, but if you had read the link, you would know that Tina is Black, so she's talking about men of her race, not about men of other races - not that it changes the relevant issue.

Also, by the way, how would you propose that she assess whether a man is too rough (i. e., he causes pain by the way he goes about having sex with her) without first having sex with him?

I don't know - but I do know that his race alone is not an adequate proxy for that misbehaviour.

Perhaps, she's had bad experiences with Black clients very often. She overgeneralizes, of course, but in her particular social context, it might even be that Black clients are frequently too rough for her; what do I know?

So your point is that although there is no reason whatsoever to think that race is a good proxy for such undesirable behaviours, you are perfectly OK with letting her base her decisions solely on this non-indicator?

Also, what if she didn't say that Black men are like that, but she said that Black men are frequently too rough, and since she cannot tell in advance, she has a “No Black men” policy because she does not want to endure the pain?

Then she should not have a license to practice - in exactly the same way, and for the same reason that an accountant who refuses to work for black men because he believes that they are dishonest should not be licensed to practice accountancy.

Granted, maybe she would be mistaken about that too. But again, what do I know? I'm not familiar with the social context in question.

Horseshit; you know as well as I do that race is NOT a valid proxy for propensity to violence. It isn't that she COULD BE mistaken; she IS WRONG, and she is wrong in a manner that harms society.

Still, this is not really the point. Regardless of her particular case, I explained some of the reasons why the proposed policy is a bad thing.

One of them is that the proposed law sides with the villain – like the man who hires a prostitute knowing she does not want to have sex with him and would suffer if she did (i. e., it would be a traumatic experience for her), but he is betting that she will undergo that suffering in order not to lose her job.

No, it doesn't.

Even if what the prostitute does is wrong, what the client does is far worse. But the advocated policy is one of siding with him. And if you consider her a villain too, then at least the law sides with the by far more villainous of the two. That's a very bad thing, usually, and I don't see why it wouldn't be so in this case. Yes, it's a way of fighting racism, but at the expense of placing people in a position in which they have to choose between engaging in sexual activity that makes them suffer a lot, or losing their jobs – and of course, I include psychological suffering, not just pain. And yes, other people who want to discriminate on the basis of race in other activities would suffer too. But that, in most activities, is justified. I already addressed this in my previous post, so if you'd like to know what my points are, please read it and address my points if you disagree.

You are wrong; you are wrong because you still seem to think that not being a licensed prostitute is not a perfectly valid choice; or that not being given a licence to practice as a prostitute is somehow a harmful choice to the point where the harm caused by explicit racism is the lesser evil. Indeed, you seem to have completely missed the fact that being a licensed prostitute is currently impossible for anyone in many jurisdictions; by granting that privilege only to non-racists, society makes a clear statement about racism, while simultaneously rewarding non-racist behaviour.

Nobody is placing people in a position in which they have to choose between engaging in sexual activity that makes them suffer a lot, or losing their jobs, except those prostitutes who go into the process of applying for a licence to provide prostitution services, knowing that they will not comply with the terms of that licence - which include obeying the law with regard to discrimination.

 

[ksen]

I'd like to thank all the guys who've taken time out of their busy schedules to mansplain to the chicks here about why the state should be able to tell them who they must let between their legs.

 

[bilby]

I'd like to thank all the guys who've taken time out of their busy schedules to mansplain to the chicks here about why the state should be able to tell them who they must let between their legs.

I would like to request that people stop mischaracterising the arguments against allowing racism as "the state [being] able to tell them who they must let between their legs". Despite the popularity of that baseless slur, it remains baseless; the state is setting prerequisites for becoming a licensed prostitute, and no part of those prerequisites includes telling someone they must have sex with anyone they don't want to have sex with.

So you can drop your poorly veiled insults.

 

[ksen]

no part of those prerequisites includes telling someone they must have sex with anyone they don't want to have sex with.

Except the ones that do.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I barely have time to respond to the worst misconceptions and mischaracterisations of my position in this thread as it is; I am certainly not able to invest the time needed to respond in detail to every point made, or to read external links - which I trust you to summarise sufficiently well to make your point.

I didn't mischaracterize your position, but the point is that you're not even replying to any of my points. You keep repeating yours.

But regardless, if you don't have the time to read the post carefully – or the external link -, then you could just say that you don't have time to discuss the matter.

I don't know - but I do know that his race alone is not an adequate proxy for that misbehaviour.

You don't know whether that behavior happens often in Black males in the specific social context in which Tina worked.
But even if that was not the case, again that was an example. The rest of my points are independent of that.

Perhaps, she's had bad experiences with Black clients very often. She overgeneralizes, of course, but in her particular social context, it might even be that Black clients are frequently too rough for her; what do I know?

So your point is that although there is no reason whatsoever to think that race is a good proxy for such undesirable behaviours, you are perfectly OK with letting her base her decisions solely on this non-indicator?

The “so” implies that that is what I'm saying in that part of my post. But your reply is not related to what I'm saying in that part of my post. Of course, I am against banning her choice, even if it's based on an overgeneralization.

Also, what if she didn't say that Black men are like that, but she said that Black men are frequently too rough, and since she cannot tell in advance, she has a “No Black men” policy because she does not want to endure the pain?

Then she should not have a license to practice - in exactly the same way, and for the same reason that an accountant who refuses to work for black men because he believes that they are dishonest should not be licensed to practice accountancy.

Of course, that is not at all the same way, as has been explained repeatedly.

Horseshit; you know as well as I do that race is NOT a valid proxy for propensity to violence. It isn't that she COULD BE mistaken; she IS WRONG, and she is wrong in a manner that harms society.

Actually, no, I do not know that in the social context in which Tina practices prostitution, there isn't a high percentage of Black men who would engage in sex that is too rough for her, if that is what you mean by “valid proxy”. I have insufficient information about Black men who hire prostitutes in some social circles of New Orleans to tell. I have seen claims that they're often too rough, but that's not enough information. I do not have evidence to the contrary, either.

So, I do not know the answer. But that is not really the point.

Still, this is not really the point. Regardless of her particular case, I explained some of the reasons why the proposed policy is a bad thing.

One of them is that the proposed law sides with the villain – like the man who hires a prostitute knowing she does not want to have sex with him and would suffer if she did (i. e., it would be a traumatic experience for her), but he is betting that she will undergo that suffering in order not to lose her job.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. I already explained that.

Even if what the prostitute does is wrong, what the client does is far worse. But the advocated policy is one of siding with him. And if you consider her a villain too, then at least the law sides with the by far more villainous of the two. That's a very bad thing, usually, and I don't see why it wouldn't be so in this case. Yes, it's a way of fighting racism, but at the expense of placing people in a position in which they have to choose between engaging in sexual activity that makes them suffer a lot, or losing their jobs – and of course, I include psychological suffering, not just pain. And yes, other people who want to discriminate on the basis of race in other activities would suffer too. But that, in most activities, is justified. I already addressed this in my previous post, so if you'd like to know what my points are, please read it and address my points if you disagree.

You are wrong; you are wrong because you still seem to think that not being a licensed prostitute is not a perfectly valid choice; or that not being given a licence to practice as a prostitute is somehow a harmful choice to the point where the harm caused by explicit racism is the lesser evil. Indeed, you seem to have completely missed the fact that being a licensed prostitute is currently impossible for anyone in many jurisdictions; by granting that privilege only to non-racists, society makes a clear statement about racism, while simultaneously rewarding non-racist behaviour.

1. No, I do not seem to think that not being a licensed prostitute is a perfectly valid choice. I said nothing on the matter. I pointed out that if unlicensed prostitution is not allowed – and even more if the ban is enforced -, the proposed law sides with the man who insists on having sex with a woman who – he knows – will suffer a lot as a result. It's a bad law.
2. Not being given a license may be harmful to different degrees, depending on the circumstances. But we're talking about a situation in which unlicensed prostitution is not allowed. Or are you advocating allowing it too?
3. I didn't miss the facts about many jurisdictions. Instead, you missed the fact that what is actually legal today is irrelevant to the moral issues I'm discussing.

Nobody is placing people in a position in which they have to choose between engaging in sexual activity that makes them suffer a lot, or losing their jobs, except those prostitutes who go into the process of applying for a licence to provide prostitution services, knowing that they will not comply with the terms of that licence - which include obeying the law with regard to discrimination.

Of course, those prostitutes have to choose between getting a license or not being allowed to do their jobs, at least not legally and if the proposed laws were actually enforced not at all.

In other words, if the laws you proposed were actually passed and enforced, prostitutes would not have the choice of working without a license, and if they wanted to keep working, they would have to put up with men who would hire them knowing the suffering they're causing them. They may do it if not working would have worse consequences for them or their children, for example. But the law sides with the villains.

 

[Metaphor]

Rejecting clients based on their ethnicity is the product of an ideology.

What "ideology"? Since you don't know the reasons for the rejection, how can you possibly know that?

Rejecting clients based on incompatibility with one's GI or/and sexual orientation is the product of nature.

So what? Are you saying it's okay to discriminate as long as the reason is to be found in 'nature'? If not, what are you saying?

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.

I wouldn't argue this, but some lesbian separatists and radicals who believe in 'political lesbianism' certainly would. Of course, those women are utterly deluded, but it's no skin off my nose if they laughably believe in libertarian free will and that they chose to be attracted to women.

Unless you would argue that the reason why gay males will not have sex with females is the product of misogyny.

Why would that follow? I don't accuse heterosexual women of misogyny for not having sex with women.

(Of course, there are radical lesbians who believe that gay men are expressing another form of misogyny by rejecting women as sexual partners. But then, radical lesbians are deluded about so many things, I wouldn't know where to start if I wanted to disabuse them of their erroneous thinking).

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?

No, since I don't understand what you mean by 'governed by ideologies'.