Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[Bomb#20]

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.

Is that really the way you want to interact? As you wish. I guess we'll see whether anyone in this thread who agrees with you about the speciousness of my arguments trusts his or her judgment on that point enough to be willing to have it subjected to cross-examination.

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.

Well then, for the benefit of those who might otherwise be swayed by Bilby's specious arguments, see post #330. He's now contradicting what he wrote last week. But hey, at least it took a week...

... 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';...
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.

No moral difference, the man says; and he says one is far less damaging to society.

 

[Metaphor]

Whereas I am rather certain that being born a Caucasian does not automatically cause a biological imperative to reject individuals of a different ethnicity.

Whoever said it did? What makes you think something is "100% nature" versus "100% learned" (I used 'learned' in the behavioural sense of not being innate).

Babies do not show much difference in their reaction to spiders versus flowers. But a baby can be conditioned much more quickly to fear spiders than to fear flowers. It is not nature or nurture but an interaction.

In any case, even if the behaviour is 'learned' (and it might not have been to do with any malice on the part of anyone; growing up in an ethnically homogeneous society might shape people to prefer others like themselves), so what? Are the feelings somehow less valid to act on? Why?

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.

You, of course, are an exception. Most people do not find all ethnicities equally sexually attractive.

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?

Why on earth do you think something is 100% biological or 100% learned and nothing in between?

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.

You've made a lot of assertions but haven't explained why what you've said makes a difference.

If having sex with women makes prostitute A extremely uncomfortable, or having sex with White men makes prostitute B extremely uncomfortable, why does A have latitude to discriminate but B does not? Because A didn't 'learn' her behaviour but 'B' did (at least, according to your epistemologically unambiguous universe).

 

[Metaphor]

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.

So, in fact, a gigolo who usually services wealthy older women (they're always wealthy, right?) by putting his penis in their mouths, vaginas, or anuses is not free to refuse a man who wants the gigolo's penis in his anus? And he would be morally and legally wrong to categorically reject men as johns?

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).

Who on earth has made that assumption, and what does it have to do with anything?

 

[Metaphor]

She also incorrectly believes that those characteristics apply to ALL blacks.

Really?

So, if I correctly believe that Black people have a higher likelihood of having Type 2 diabetes versus Whites, I also inevitably and incorrectly believe that all Black people have Type 2 diabetes?

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.

So, withholding sex from people who would be willing to pay is her 'imposing her erroneous belief' on others?

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

No, it doesn't. Because if I said 'Black men are more likely to have prison records than White men, so I'm just not going to interview any Black men for this position' I'd be racist (well, it would be prejudiced discrimination, not racism per se, since Black men are indeed more likely to have a prison record), but it does not follow that I believe every Black man has a prison record.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

bilby, are you or are you not advocating actually not allowing prostitutes to work unlicensed, while at the same time not allowing licensed prostitutes to discriminate on the basis of race?

If you are, then prostitutes would to choose between losing their job, or having sex with people they would otherwise - i.e., lacking that law, or its enforcement - not have sex with.

Or are you advocating having a law, but then allowing unlicensed prostitutes to work and discriminate if they so choose?

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

I think he already answered that one. Here's what he'd think of such a man:

"I feel no great concern about the possibility that bigots might be made to feel uncomfortable, or be penalised for their bigotry. They were not born racist. They chose it - with all its consequences. (None of which include rape, btw)."​

Being pressured into having sex with somebody she'll be traumatized by having sex with is apparently a well-deserved punishment for the sin of racism. There are an awful lot of people to whom the concept of morally appalling behavior committed against a person they don't feel sorry for is simply alien. Religions are diseases of the moral sense; like other diseases, they cripple the organs they attack.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

I think he already answered that one. Here's what he'd think of such a man:

"I feel no great concern about the possibility that bigots might be made to feel uncomfortable, or be penalised for their bigotry. They were not born racist. They chose it - with all its consequences. (None of which include rape, btw)."​

Being pressured into having sex with somebody she'll be traumatized by having sex with is apparently a well-deserved punishment for the sin of racism. There are an awful lot of people to whom the concept of morally appalling behavior committed against a person they don't feel sorry for is simply alien. Religions are diseases of the moral sense; like other diseases, they cripple the organs they attack.

Good points.

I was asking because (at least with respect to engaging bilby rather than writing for readers) I was trying to get bilby to explicitly assess the behavior of a malicious perpetrator.

I agree the text of the reply you quote indicates he seems to have done that, but I'm not entirely sure when he said that he took that possibility into consideration, or he just thoughtlessly assessed the behavior of a racist victim and condemned her for her racism without thinking about the state of mind of the perpetrator at all (which would be in line with other replies).

Then again, maybe I'm being too charitable here. Unfortunately - though not surprisingly - he did not address that point in his reply to my question.

 

[angelo]

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.

I think it's universal in most Western nations at least that unprotected sex is a no no and grounds for rejection.

 

[Toni]

John is (fill in race/ethnicity and call that X) and has a profound belief that people of (different race/ethnicity and call that Y) are inherently inferior subhumans. He is a racist against Y. He also likes to visit prostitutes on occasion and always insists on a prostitute who is Y precisely because the prostitute is Y. He makes no secret that he only wants a Y prostitute.

Does John get to have his racism indulged by a prostitute? Why?



It is my understanding that frequently, men who visit prostitutes look specifically for certain physical characteristics: breast size, hair color, skin color, etc. Some may, for example, only visit prostitutes with large breasts, long blonde hair and black skin. Why is that OK but it is not OK for a prostitute to similarly select clients based on their physical characteristics? What is the difference.

 

[Bomb#20]

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:

Meaning is determined by use. Who are the speech community that you observed using "racism" in a manner for which that dictionary's definition is "correct"?

If you Google 'racism definition' you'll turn up several dictionaries with several competing definitions. The one you quote appears to an egregiously incompetent attempt at lexicography. A guy who believes 90% of blacks are criminals, so he treats the black person in front of him as a criminal because he's too lazy to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and stereotyping saves time, is obviously a racist as nearly everyone uses the term, even though he does not believe "all members" of the race share an inferior characteristic.

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".

When somebody says X has property Q because it has property P, so somebody else points out that that's an invalid inference because Y also has property P but doesn't have property Q, you can express bafflement that anyone would draw an analogy between X and Y; you can complain until you're blue in the face about the vast difference; but it won't turn the first guy's inference into a valid argument. Counterexamples do not require any particular degree of similarity; they only require the single property that the original claim appealed to to be shared.

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.

So foot fetishists are the way they are because they find feet beautiful? That's one of the more implausible psychological hypotheses I've encountered. Do you have empirical evidence for it?

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.

Or they just don't get hard-ons from fantasizing about doing black people. If you could cause people to get hard-ons for the sex-objects your ideology teaches you that they should get hard-ons for by subjecting them to a different cultural environment, then "gay-therapy" would work.

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.

Excuse me? Who the bejesus do you perceive as having dismissed the inevitable incompatibility between a gay male and female sexual partners, or as having called it discrimination? The point of the comments you are presumably referring to was that it would be discrimination if an earlier poster's criteria for discrimination were correct, because those criteria cover a gay male rejecting female sexual partners, and therefore those criteria cannot be correct. Have you never encountered the concept of a reductio ad absurdum proof?

(Oh, and incompatibility between a female GI MTF transgender and sexual partners of the female gender is hardly inevitable. GI does not determine sexual preference.)

 

[Toni]

It is my understanding that men who frequent prostitutes often select on the basis of physical characteristics such as hair color and length, breast size, skin color, etc. If a john wishes to have sex only with white prostitutes or only with Asian prostitutes or only with black prostitutes--or anyone EXCEPT a white woman, Asian woman, black woman, whatever---, is that john not being a racist? Should his racism be sanctioned by being allowed to frequent only prostitutes of a certain race? How is this different than a prostitute refusing clients of a certain race?

 

[angelo]

John is (fill in race/ethnicity and call that X) and has a profound belief that people of (different race/ethnicity and call that Y) are inherently inferior subhumans. He is a racist against Y. He also likes to visit prostitutes on occasion and always insists on a prostitute who is Y precisely because the prostitute is Y. He makes no secret that he only wants a Y prostitute.

Does John get to have his racism indulged by a prostitute? Why?



It is my understanding that frequently, men who visit prostitutes look specifically for certain physical characteristics: breast size, hair color, skin color, etc. Some may, for example, only visit prostitutes with large breasts, long blonde hair and black skin. Why is that OK but it is not OK for a prostitute to similarly select clients based on their physical characteristics? What is the difference.

Amazing what a blonde wig and sprayed on tans can do.

 

[Metaphor]

John is (fill in race/ethnicity and call that X) and has a profound belief that people of (different race/ethnicity and call that Y) are inherently inferior subhumans. He is a racist against Y. He also likes to visit prostitutes on occasion and always insists on a prostitute who is Y precisely because the prostitute is Y. He makes no secret that he only wants a Y prostitute.

Does John get to have his racism indulged by a prostitute? Why?



It is my understanding that frequently, men who visit prostitutes look specifically for certain physical characteristics: breast size, hair color, skin color, etc. Some may, for example, only visit prostitutes with large breasts, long blonde hair and black skin. Why is that OK but it is not OK for a prostitute to similarly select clients based on their physical characteristics? What is the difference.

The difference is obvious. bilby doesn't care how racists spend their money to indulge their racism, he is only interested in condemning and outlawing sex workers who make their money in a way that is compatible with their racism. Duh!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It is my understanding that men who frequent prostitutes often select on the basis of physical characteristics such as hair color and length, breast size, skin color, etc. If a john wishes to have sex only with white prostitutes or only with Asian prostitutes or only with black prostitutes--or anyone EXCEPT a white woman, Asian woman, black woman, whatever---, is that john not being a racist? Should his racism be sanctioned by being allowed to frequent only prostitutes of a certain race? How is this different than a prostitute refusing clients of a certain race?

Because the john isn't running a business - which has been the entire basis of the argument. He's making an individual choice in his personal life, so he can be as racist as he wants for whatever reasons he wants and it's nobody's concern except his own. It's no different than his having hamburgers and sushi but never going into the Ethiopian place. People in the government can be disgusted by him for being a racist asshole but they have no basis to sanction him. If one of those restaurants has an Ethiopian guy walk in and they tell him to go and eat elsewhere because his kind isn't welcome, however, then the government has a basis for the sanctions.

The prostitute is running a business and her licence to run that business is dependent on her following the rules for conducting business. If she doesn't pay her corporate taxes, the government can revoke her business licence and that doesn't make the government her pimp because she's passing on the cash she made from sex to them. If she doesn't follow health and safety rules, the government can revoke her licence and that doesn't mean they're forcing her out of the security of a brothel and out into the danger of the street. If she doesn't follow anti-discrimination rules, the government can revoke her licence and that doesn't mean they're coercing her into sex.

It's the government regulating that a legal business must comply with the legal rules of conducting business. That's irrelevant to a customer deciding which business they want to go to.

 

[Toni]

It is my understanding that men who frequent prostitutes often select on the basis of physical characteristics such as hair color and length, breast size, skin color, etc. If a john wishes to have sex only with white prostitutes or only with Asian prostitutes or only with black prostitutes--or anyone EXCEPT a white woman, Asian woman, black woman, whatever---, is that john not being a racist? Should his racism be sanctioned by being allowed to frequent only prostitutes of a certain race? How is this different than a prostitute refusing clients of a certain race?

Because the john isn't running a business - which has been the entire basis of the argument. He's making an individual choice in his personal life, so he can be as racist as he wants for whatever reasons he wants and it's nobody's concern except his own. It's no different than his having hamburgers and sushi but never going into the Ethiopian place. People in the government can be disgusted by him for being a racist asshole but they have no basis to sanction him. If one of those restaurants has an Ethiopian guy walk in and they tell him to go and eat elsewhere because his kind isn't welcome, however, then the government has a basis for the sanctions.

The prostitute is running a business and her licence to run that business is dependent on her following the rules for conducting business. If she doesn't pay her corporate taxes, the government can revoke her business licence and that doesn't make the government her pimp because she's passing on the cash she made from sex to them. If she doesn't follow health and safety rules, the government can revoke her licence and that doesn't mean they're forcing her out of the security of a brothel and out into the danger of the street. If she doesn't follow anti-discrimination rules, the government can revoke her licence and that doesn't mean they're coercing her into sex.

It's the government regulating that a legal business must comply with the legal rules of conducting business. That's irrelevant to a customer deciding which business they want to go to.

So a business has the right to provide the John with a prostitute who does not object to the john's race, right? And the individual prostitute can refuse to service clients of a particular race?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So a business has the right to provide the John with a prostitute who does not object to the john's race, right? And the individual prostitute can refuse to service clients of a particular race?

Take two situations.

In the first, a black man walks into a bar and orders a beer. The bartender tells him that they don't serve blacks in here and he'll need to leave and go to another bar.

In the second, a black man walk into a bar and orders a beer. The bartender tells him that he doesn't personally serve blacks, but if the man would turn his head slightly and talk to the other bartender standing right next to him, that one would be happy to get it.

Do you think that the customer would only have a valid anti-discrimination suit against the first bar and it's fine to have a bar run its business the second way since the black man ends up getting his drink? I would say that both of them are in the wrong and if they want to continue running their business in either of those two ways, they need to lose their liquor licence and can't operate a bar anymore. I see no difference for a black man entering a brothel.

 

[ksen]

serving drinks and fucking are exactly the same itt

 

[bilby]

bilby, are you or are you not advocating actually not allowing prostitutes to work unlicensed, while at the same time not allowing licensed prostitutes to discriminate on the basis of race?

If you are, then prostitutes would to choose between losing their job, or having sex with people they would otherwise - i.e., lacking that law, or its enforcement - not have sex with.

Or are you advocating having a law, but then allowing unlicensed prostitutes to work and discriminate if they so choose?

For fucks sake. I will say this one last time.

Nobody starts out as a licensed prostitute. So no one is forced to stop being racist or lose their job. People who are racist are not allowed to START being prostitutes.

No one is forced to fuck anyone. No one is allowed to be racist when selling ANYTHING.

No matter how much people want to make racism a special and protected prejudice. No matter how much people want to claim that sex is somehow different from other personal services.

I am fed up with being repeatedly told that I advocate something I have explicitly and repeatedly declared that I am opposed to in the strongest terms; you can all take your smug closeted racism and stick it up your arses.

 

[angelo]

Sex unlike selling a book or whatever, is up close and personal.
I would hazard a guess and say many prostitutes are capable of turning off and pretend they`re elsewhere.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

serving drinks and fucking are exactly the same itt

They're both legal businesses which require licences to operate and there are conditions attached to having those licences. One of those conditions is that you don't break any laws while running your business and if you don't uphold that or any other condition of the licence, you can lose your licence as a result. So, while there are many differences between the two types of business, they are exactly the same as pertains to the relevant question of the thread.