Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[Tom Sawyer]

MoNique and Jasmine are both prostitutes working for a legal brothel. MoNique is black with flowing curls with a figure and face worth of a Playboy centerfold. Jasmine is equally beautiful, white, with long blonde hair and blue eyes. They are both 21, and are considered to be quite skilled in the full range of services offered by the brothel.

However, Butch, the owner/operator of the brothel pays Monique about 60 percent of what he pays Jasmine because that is what customers are willing to pay for each woman's services. The customers agree that MoNique and Jasmine are equally skilled but prefer a blonde, white girl for whatever reason and are willing to pay more to enjoy Jasmine's services.

Although Jasmine and MoNique are equally skilled and equally hard working, MoNique needs to service more customers to cover her room rent at the brothel, not to mention her other bills.

Should this be allowed? If so, why? If not, what is the remedy?

Why wouldn't it be allowed? If a particular product or service is more popular with customers, the price of it rises accordingly. If customers were willing to pay the same for each of them but the brothel owner charges less for Monique because she's black and he doesn't feel that it's right to ask people to pay the same to have sex with her as they would to have sex with a white woman, then there's an issue but there's not one in the scenario you described.

Customers can discriminate in how they spend their money however they like for whatever reason they like and business owners are allowed to take advantage of that. It's when the business owners are the ones doing the discriminating that issues occur.

 

[Toni]

MoNique and Jasmine are both prostitutes working for a legal brothel. MoNique is black with flowing curls with a figure and face worth of a Playboy centerfold. Jasmine is equally beautiful, white, with long blonde hair and blue eyes. They are both 21, and are considered to be quite skilled in the full range of services offered by the brothel.

However, Butch, the owner/operator of the brothel pays Monique about 60 percent of what he pays Jasmine because that is what customers are willing to pay for each woman's services. The customers agree that MoNique and Jasmine are equally skilled but prefer a blonde, white girl for whatever reason and are willing to pay more to enjoy Jasmine's services.

Although Jasmine and MoNique are equally skilled and equally hard working, MoNique needs to service more customers to cover her room rent at the brothel, not to mention her other bills.

Should this be allowed? If so, why? If not, what is the remedy?

Why wouldn't it be allowed? If a particular product or service is more popular with customers, the price of it rises accordingly. If customers were willing to pay the same for each of them but the brothel owner charges less for Monique because she's black and he doesn't feel that it's right to ask people to pay the same to have sex with her as they would to have sex with a white woman, then there's an issue but there's not one in the scenario you described.

Customers can discriminate in how they spend their money however they like for whatever reason they like and business owners are allowed to take advantage of that. It's when the business owners are the ones doing the discriminating that issues occur.

Neither MoNique nor Jasmine are business owners. Are they allowed to discriminate when deciding which customers to service?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Neither MoNique nor Jasmine are business owners. Are they allowed to discriminate when deciding which customers to service?

That would be a good question for the second page of the thread. As it is, it's been answered at least a dozen times and you already know that the answer is no and the exact same points don't need to be rehashed yet again.

 

[Toni]

Neither MoNique nor Jasmine are business owners. Are they allowed to discriminate when deciding which customers to service?

That would be a good question for the second page of the thread. As it is, it's been answered at least a dozen times and you already know that the answer is no and the exact same points don't need to be rehashed yet again.

I just wanted to clarify: a customer is allowed to discriminate; a business owner is allowed to use discriminatory pay practices. The only ones who are not allowed to have a choice about who to have sex with and inder what circumstances are the ones actually performing an intimate service (and bearing the risk to their health and well being).

Who are coincidentally female.

I understand completely.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That would be a good question for the second page of the thread. As it is, it's been answered at least a dozen times and you already know that the answer is no and the exact same points don't need to be rehashed yet again.

I just wanted to clarify: a customer is allowed to discriminate; a business owner is allowed to use discriminatory pay practices. The only ones who are not allowed to have a choice about who to have sex with and inder what circumstances are the ones actually performing an intimate service (and bearing the risk to their health and well being).

Who are coincidentally female.

I understand completely.

That's a ... random ... way to interpret what I'm saying.

Given the dozens of posts throughout the thread explaining why this isn't the case, some of which were directly to you, why do you continue to insist that my (or anyone else who's involved) position is in any way related to my being a misogynist? You can ignore all the responses and continue to insist that our positions are centered on the fact that we all hate women because ... because fuck us, we just all hate women and are making shit up to try and hide that undeniable fact, or you can have a discussion based on what we're saying as opposed to beating the dead horse of some irrelevant strawman that's unrelated to what anyone is saying.

 

[Sabine Grant]

That would be a good question for the second page of the thread. As it is, it's been answered at least a dozen times and you already know that the answer is no and the exact same points don't need to be rehashed yet again.

I just wanted to clarify: a customer is allowed to discriminate; a business owner is allowed to use discriminatory pay practices. The only ones who are not allowed to have a choice about who to have sex with and inder what circumstances are the ones actually performing an intimate service (and bearing the risk to their health and well being).

Who are coincidentally female.

I understand completely.

What makes you believe that the response would be different when it concerns male prostitutes? I thought throughout this thread everyone agreed and recognized that prostitution is certainly not limited to only female sex workers.

As to "bearing the risk to their health and well being", under the specific circumstances of a sex service legal business mandating a license, the same regulations under OSHA and Health Department applying to legal brothels in Nevada would be enforced. Meaning that any employed sex worker can refuse to provide services on the grounds of a prospective client presenting a health hazard or/and hazard to their well being. Keep in mind that business owners are fully liable for the physical safety of their employees during the exercise of their job/assignments.

 

[Toni]

I just wanted to clarify: a customer is allowed to discriminate; a business owner is allowed to use discriminatory pay practices. The only ones who are not allowed to have a choice about who to have sex with and inder what circumstances are the ones actually performing an intimate service (and bearing the risk to their health and well being).

Who are coincidentally female.

I understand completely.

What makes you believe that the response would be different when it concerns male prostitutes? I thought throughout this thread everyone agreed and recognized that prostitution is certainly not limited to only female sex workers.

As to "bearing the risk to their health and well being", under the specific circumstances of a sex service legal business mandating a license, the same regulations under OSHA and Health Department applying to legal brothels in Nevada would be enforced. Meaning that any employed sex worker can refuse to provide services on the grounds of a prospective client presenting a health hazard or/and hazard to their well being. Keep in mind that business owners are fully liable for the physical safety of their employees during the exercise of their job/assignments.

Oh, I am aware that technically people are acknowledging that there are male prostitutes who would be required to do the same. However, I am often the first person in a thread to bring up male prostitution or male rape and in any thread discussing rape or prostitution, the hypotheticals almost always focus heavily on female victims and female prostitutes. In this thread, almost every single person aside from me and Metaphor discuss prostitutes as female.

Adding (usually gay) men in the group of prostitutes being discussed simply includes another group of individuals that have a long standing history of being victimized sexually and with other violence. Yes, I know we are all so open and progressive now, we are acknowledging the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry, have a family, have the same family rights but this is an extremely new development. Old ways and old attitudes die hard. Women and LGBTQ individuals still experience a disproportionate amount of sexual violence which is even greater for persons of color who are in these groups.

I know that you are not naive enough to believe that prostitutes actually have the power to refuse to service any client. I know that you are medically sophisticated enough to know that HIV and other STI are most infectious in the days to weeks to months before they are detectable. And that rarely is HIV detected earlier than 6 weeks after infection, usually not until long after that. It is estimated that 20 percent of those infected with HIV in the US are unaware of their HIV infection status.

Certainly you are aware that condoms break, that clients often insist on going without a condom and/or pay more to go bareback, creating an economic pressure that many prostitutes are unable to resist. And that neither the prostitute nor the brothel owner are licensed medical practitioners who are able to accurately assess the health status of either prostitute or client. Indeed, weekly visits with health professionals for the sex workers do nothing at all--- NOTHING AT ALL--to eliminate their risk of contracting an STI but merely increase the likelihood that they will be diagnosed early (and removed from their work environment) and perhaps have access to treatment. Female prostitutes still become pregnant on occasion and may or may not terminate. Each exposure to an STI, each unwanted pregnancy represents a significant health risk to prostitutes who almost always are in this profession because they lack any other real choice. Being the previous victim of sexual abuse is so common that it almost seems to be a job prerequisite.

A prostitute, a pimp, a brothel operator, a nurse, a physician, cannot tell by looking which individuals are infected with STIs, although some infections, particularly herpes, may be detectable by visual sign. Fourth generation HIV screens still do not detect antigen until 10 days post infection, those first 10 days representing the most highly contagious period of infection. This is assuming that the test is performed correctly on a sample which has been collected correctly.


The risks to physical health and well being are borne by sex workers and are quite significant. However, that is not the only reason---or even the main reason that I object to any person, regardless of profession or status in life being required for any reason at all to provide sexual services to another person against their will.

I find racism to be despicable and rooted in ignorance and also in a desire to enforce and maintain a power structure which heavily benefits some over others.

So does forcing a certain group of persons to provide sexual services to others against their own wishes or judgment.

 

[maurile]

We are talking about a just law here.

Are we? Which law?

You keep posting as if anti-discrimination laws apply to individual prostitutes. Do you have a jurisdiction in mind where that's true? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

We are talking about a just law here.

Are we? Which law?

The anti-discrimination laws. Numerous references to various examples of them have been made. I get that you came into the thread late, but I'm not going to type the same thing over and over again. Find the posts if you want.

- - - Updated - - -

I find racism to be despicable and rooted in ignorance and also in a desire to enforce and maintain a power structure which heavily benefits some over others.

So does forcing a certain group of persons to provide sexual services to others against their own wishes or judgment.

But, as you are well aware, there is nobody arguing in favour of forcing such a thing, so you are arguing against something that nobody is arguing for.

 

[Toni]

Are we? Which law?

The anti-discrimination laws. Numerous references to various examples of them have been made. I get that you came into the thread late, but I'm not going to type the same thing over and over again. Find the posts if you want.

- - - Updated - - -

I find racism to be despicable and rooted in ignorance and also in a desire to enforce and maintain a power structure which heavily benefits some over others.

So does forcing a certain group of persons to provide sexual services to others against their own wishes or judgment.

But, as you are well aware, there is nobody arguing in favour of forcing such a thing, so you are arguing against something that nobody is arguing for.

Legally requiring prostitutes to take clients that they do not wish to take is exactly that. No one should be forced--through physical, mental, emotional, economic or legal coercion: which includes the threat of loss of livelihood--to provide a sexual service to someone they do not wish to service.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Legally requiring prostitutes to take clients that they do not wish to take is exactly that. No one should be forced--through physical, mental, emotional, economic or legal coercion: which includes the threat of loss of livelihood--to provide a sexual service to someone they do not wish to service.

No, it is not exactly that. There's a huge difference between a government enforcing laws and somebody coercing someone else into sex. Nobody has a right to hold a licence to be a prostitute and it, like every other business licence, requires that the businessperson follow the laws in their jurisdiction.

If they don't want to follow all the laws required for a business licence, which should include following anti-discrimination laws, then they shouldn't apply for that licence. If they have a licence and they don't want to follow all of those laws, then they should lose that licence. The business being sex shouldn't affect that.

 

[maurile]

Are we? Which law?

The anti-discrimination laws. Numerous references to various examples of them have been made. I get that you came into the thread late, but I'm not going to type the same thing over and over again. Find the posts if you want.

I am aware of lots of anti-discrimination laws that do not apply to individual prostitutes.

You're saying that you're aware of some that do, but you're not going to tell me where? Not even a hint? Say, for example, that you (mistakenly) have Nevada in mind, or Australia. The reason you're not going to tell me is that you can't bear to type "Nevada" one more time?

That's not very helpful.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The anti-discrimination laws. Numerous references to various examples of them have been made. I get that you came into the thread late, but I'm not going to type the same thing over and over again. Find the posts if you want.

I am aware of lots of anti-discrimination laws that do not apply to individual prostitutes.

You're saying that you're aware of some that do, but you're not going to tell me where? Not even a hint? Say, for example, that you (mistakenly) have Nevada in mind, or Australia. The reason you're not going to tell me is that you can't bear to type "Nevada" one more time?

That's not very helpful.

I guess I'm talking more about Canada than anywhere else. Not particularly relevant to the point where it would be, however, since I think the same concepts should apply.

 

[Toni]

Legally requiring prostitutes to take clients that they do not wish to take is exactly that. No one should be forced--through physical, mental, emotional, economic or legal coercion: which includes the threat of loss of livelihood--to provide a sexual service to someone they do not wish to service.

No, it is not exactly that. There's a huge difference between a government enforcing laws and somebody coercing someone else into sex. Nobody has a right to hold a licence to be a prostitute and it, like every other business licence, requires that the businessperson follow the laws in their jurisdiction.

If they don't want to follow all the laws required for a business licence, which should include following anti-discrimination laws, then they shouldn't apply for that licence. If they have a licence and they don't want to follow all of those laws, then they should lose that licence. The business being sex shouldn't affect that.

Does Canada actually have such legislation ?

The end result is the same: have sex with who I say or lose your livelihood. Power is once again used to complel those who bear the greatest risks, who are the most likely to be victims of violence, especy sexual violence , who are the most marginalized and most disenfranchised, who most need support rather than coercion.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If a law is unjust, then the conversation would be about repealing the law and that would be a different conversation.

Actually, the conversation is, to a considerable extent, about not passing a proposed law, and one of the main reasons is that it would be unjust, as it would side with the villains, or with the more villainous by far of two villains, etc.

Of course, you believe the proposed law (or what you believe Canadian law says on the matter) is not unjust. But that is what most of the disagreement is about. What do you think your debate opponents are objecting to?

We are talking about a just law here.

That is what several of us have been disputing for a long time in this thread.

Anti-discrimination laws are good things and societies with them are better places than those without them.

That depends on the case.

For example, if there is a society in which there is very little racial discrimination and anyone who engaged in racial discrimination in public accommodation would just go broke because people would stop going there, there seems to be no need for the use of state force banning it.

If that example does not convince you, would you favor laws banning discrimination on the basis of, say, height, or sign of the zodiac, or last number of your national identity card, or driver's license, etc., even in societies where such cases do not constitute a social problem?

Still, let's say you think all of those laws would be a good thing. How about laws banning prostitutes from discriminating on the basis of physical appearance, or sex?

Places where you don't have to walk down the street or read through the paper without seeing "No blacks" or "No Jews" are better places than ones which allow the signs.

That depends on the case.
First, a place that allows the signs may well be also a place where there are no such signs.
Second, a place that does not allow such signs may be worse for some other reason. For example, one of the reasons would be that if a place even bans prostitutes for so discriminating, they're siding with the villain (e. g., see my replies to bilby).

They are a positive step forward and should not be weakened. This isn't a discussion about laws in general, but anti-discrimination laws specifically.

Sometimes they're a positive step, and sometimes they're a negative step. Sometimes, they might be neutral. It depends on the social context, on what the anti-discrimination law actually bans, etc.

For example, it seems you have already realized that it would be unjust not to allow prostitutes to discriminate on the basis of sex. What about other features, like being short, or obese? Do you think banning discrimination in such cases would be a good thing too?

That aside, we're not talking about weakening such laws, but about not passing new ones, at least most of us.
If you are talking about existing laws, could you please let us know which jurisdiction already allows prostitution but does not allow racial discrimination by prostitutes?

The anti-discrimination laws. Numerous references to various examples of them have been made. I get that you came into the thread late, but I'm not going to type the same thing over and over again. Find the posts if you want.

I guess I'm talking more about Canada than anywhere else. Not particularly relevant to the point where it would be, however, since I think the same concepts should apply.

1. Do you actually have evidence that in Canada, prostitutes are banned from discriminating on the basis of race?
If you do, could you please provide some evidence?
2. Do you think prostitutes in Canada are also banned from discriminating on the basis of sex, obesity, or some other traits?

No, it is not exactly that. There's a huge difference between a government enforcing laws and somebody coercing someone else into sex. Nobody has a right to hold a licence to be a prostitute and it, like every other business licence, requires that the businessperson follow the laws in their jurisdiction.

1. By that reasoning, the same would apply to enforcing laws banning discrimination by prostitutes on the basis of sex, height, weight, obesity, lack of limbs, old age, lack of eyes, facial disfigurement, and so on. Would you say that in none of those cases there is any coercion into having sex, as long as the government passes the laws in question?

To be clear, in this particular part of my post, I'm talking about whether there is coercion, not about whether some bases for discrimination are reasonable and/or less unreasonable than others. The point is that by the standard you propose above, there would not be coercion into having sex in any of those cases. .

2. When you say that nobody has a right to hold a license to be a prostitute, are you making a legal, or a moral claim?
If it's a moral claim, then I would say that many people have the right to be prostitutes (i. e., it would be immoral to forcibly prevent them from being prosititutes), so the government often should not prevent them from doing so by means of introducing licenses whose terms they do not meet, and then banning them from being prostitutes without a license. So, if licenses are introduced, they do have a moral right to get one.
If it's a legal claim, then I would ask what jurisdiction you're talking about, what the evidence is, and how that would be relevant to the moral issues at hand.

P. S: Could you please address my questions?

Also, could you please address Bomb#20's points?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, it is not exactly that. There's a huge difference between a government enforcing laws and somebody coercing someone else into sex. Nobody has a right to hold a licence to be a prostitute and it, like every other business licence, requires that the businessperson follow the laws in their jurisdiction.

If they don't want to follow all the laws required for a business licence, which should include following anti-discrimination laws, then they shouldn't apply for that licence. If they have a licence and they don't want to follow all of those laws, then they should lose that licence. The business being sex shouldn't affect that.

Does Canada actually have such legislation ?

No. The whole thread is an if/then scenario. If Canada did have such legislation then I'd expect them to treat prostitution like any other legal and licensed business and have the licence dependent on their business conforming to the laws of conducting business just like any other business.

The end result is the same: have sex with who I say or lose your livelihood. Power is once again used to complel those who bear the greatest risks, who are the most likely to be victims of violence, especy sexual violence , who are the most marginalized and most disenfranchised, who most need support rather than coercion.

I posted this earlier to Bomb#20, but he apparently wasn't arguing that they were the same thing and agreed with me that they were different concepts, so I didn't get a discussion on it. I'll pass the argument on to you.

The distinction being made is between criminal coercion and coercion by law, which is a major distinction. An argument can be made that all government is based on coercion and that the government imposes its authority by the threat of negative consequences. If you want to use the same word for them then fine, but that doesn't make them the same concept.

If two people tell you need to give them $100,000 or they'll lock you in a room for a few months, there's a huge distinction between the situations if one of them is saying "because I have a gun to your head and feel like robbing you" and the other is saying "because you owe a lot of back taxes". Both are coercing you to give them money through the threat of negative consequences, but the usage of the word is not comparable between them.

The government has the authority and the right to "coerce" people to obey the law. It's not the same thing as someone without that authority and right illegally coercing someone to do things.

What's at issue is their ability to conduct business as a prostitute, not simply to have sex. When you're doing something in the course of a legal and licenced business, there are more constraints placed on your activities than there are when you're doing something in your personal life or as part of an illegal and/or unlicenced business.

Right now in Toronto, there are prostitutes who advertise that they do not accept black clients. Under a legal and licenced framework, they would no longer be able to do that as it is in conflict with anti-discrimination laws. Right now in Toronto, there are prostitutes who advertise that they will give blowjobs without a condom. Under a legal and licenced framework, they would no longer be able to do that as it would be against the health and safety codes which would be brought in with the legalization of the industry. Right now in Toronto, there are prostitutes who do not charge sales tax to their clients and keep all the money received for themselves. Under a legal and licenced framework, they would no longer be able to do that as it would be in violation of tax laws and she would need to add that to the cost of their services and then pass that money onto Revenue Canada.

If a prostitute thinks that she will lose business if she charges $226 for an hour instead of $200 per hour (sales tax here is 13%), the government isn't somehow coercing her into having sex for less than she wants to charge since she'd need to lower her base rate to compensate for that and keep her prices at a level she thinks she can sell. She could lose her licence as a prostitute if she didn't, so the coercion occurs, but it's not the same usage of the word coercion as is would be if someone threw $180 on the end of the bed and said "Fuck me at a discount or I'll make you regret it". The government is simply saying that there is a law about taxation for services in place and you, as a businessperson, are required to conform to that law when conducting your business and that's very different from an illegal threat.

It's no different with anti-discrimination laws. If the government says that anti-discrimination laws are one of the rules of doing business, then saying that she'll lose her licence if she doesn't conform to them isn't the same usage of the word coercion as a pimp telling her to fuck this guy or she's out on the street or any other type of illegal coercion into having sex she doesn't want to have.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No. The whole thread is an if/then scenario. If Canada did have such legislation then I'd expect them to treat prostitution like any other legal and licensed business and have the licence dependent on their business conforming to the laws of conducting business just like any other business.

Okay, so Canada does not have a ban on racial discrimination by prostitutes. So, do you know of any jurisdiction in which allowing racial discrimination by prostitutes would be a weakening of present-day anti-discrimination laws? (not that it would matter, from a moral perspective; such laws would be unjust).

Anyway, so let me get this point clear. You're proposing that Canada pass a law banning prostitutes from engaging in racial discrimination. So, the government would be telling prostitutes who currently engage in racial discrimination to either start having sex with clients regardless of race, or lose their jobs. Is that correct?

The government has the authority and the right to "coerce" people to obey the law. It's not the same thing as someone without that authority and right illegally coercing someone to do things.

With that criterion, the government has the authority and the right to coerce prostitutes (what you call “coerce” in quotation marks, but you're using the word in a non-standard fashion without realizing it, but that's not really the point) not to engage in discrimination on the basis of height, obesity, facial disfigurement, sex, and so on.

What's at issue is their ability to conduct business as a prostitute, not simply to have sex.

Actually, your claim seems universal, namely that the government has the right to coerce people to obey the law. With that criterion, the government has a right to coerce women to obey a law that says they must weak a bikini, as long as they pass the law in question.
But if you mean only laws demanding licenses to practice certain activities, with that criterion the government would have the right to ban prostitutes from discriminating on the basis of height, weight, looks, sex, etc.

When you're doing something in the course of a legal and licenced business, there are more constraints placed on your activities than there are when you're doing something in your personal life or as part of an illegal and/or unlicenced business.

You seem to be jumping between legal and moral claims, without realizing it.
Yes, there are more constraints. That does not mean the government has a moral right to impose any constraints they may choose.

Right now in Toronto, there are prostitutes who advertise that they do not accept black clients. Under a legal and licenced framework, they would no longer be able to do that as it is in conflict with anti-discrimination laws.

You mean, prostitutes are working illegally in Toronto?

As for whether they would be able to do that, that depends on the case. If they're already working illegally, then clearly they can break the law. Maybe they would still be able to break the law. Or maybe anti-discrimination laws would not say that.

But for that matter, the same goes for discriminating on the basis of sex, weight, old age, etc., as long as the anti-discrimination laws demanding that are passed as well.

It's no different with anti-discrimination laws. If the government says that anti-discrimination laws are one of the rules of doing business, then saying that she'll lose her licence if she doesn't conform to them isn't the same usage of the word coercion as a pimp telling her to fuck this guy or she's out on the street.

And, going by that reasoning, the same would apply to laws telling prostitutes that they would no longer be allowed to discriminate on the basis of weight, height, sex, lack of limbs, old age, or generally physical appearance, etc.

Please, take into consideration that saying that prostitutes should be allowed to discriminate on other bases would not affect the point here. The fact would remain that the rationale that you provide in support of your position entails that the government has the right to ban prostitutes from discriminating on any of those bases.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

P. S: Could you please address my questions?

Also, could you please address Bomb#20's points?

<edit>

Seriously.

<edit>

This thread has been going on for weeks and I've been a major participant in it since the beginning. To have you suggest that I'm somehow not participating because my scores of posts in the thread haven't addressed every question from every poster that's come along is inane.

I'll respond to what I want to when I want to and not to anything more, thank you very much. If I feel that something is redundant to another point that I've answered, I won't feel a need to answer it as well. If I feel that something is off-topic or irrelevant, I won't feel a need to respond to it. If I miss a valid post from a few pages ago, I won't feel a need to go back and address it as opposed to simply continuing with the current conversation for no reason beyond not wanting to take thirty seconds to look back a bit. If three people ask me questions on a page and I only feel like typing out two responses, then the third person will just not get answered. If I don't feel like responding to a particular post for absolutely no fucking reason whatsoever, then I won't respond to that post.

Don't ever bold-face a demand that I answer a post. If I answer a post I'll answer it. If I don't you'll fucking live with it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

<edit>

Seriously.
<edit>

Insulting me makes no difference to any of the matters at hand, but I will point out that your behavior in replying to me is morally unacceptable.

This thread has been going on for weeks and I've been a major participant in it since the beginning. To have you suggest that I'm somehow not participating because my scores of posts in the thread haven't addressed every question from every poster that's come along is inane.

I'm not suggesting that you're not participating. Rather, you're participating but failing to address precisely most the points that show or will easily lead to show serious errors in your argumentation (that includes most of my questions and points, and also Bomb#20's.

By the way, your reply that if a law were unjust, we would be having a different conversation shows you haven't yet realized what many, maybe most of your opponent's points are about.

I'll respond to what I want to when I want to and not to anything more, thank you very much. If I feel that something is redundant to another point that I've answered, I won't feel a need to answer it as well. If I feel that something is off-topic or irrelevant, I won't feel a need to respond to it. If I miss a valid post from a few pages ago, I won't feel a need to go back and address it as opposed to simply continuing with the current conversation for no reason beyond not wanting to take thirty seconds to look back a bit. If three people ask me questions on a page and I only feel like typing out two responses, then the third person will just not get answered. If I don't feel like responding to a particular post for absolutely no fucking reason whatsoever, then I won't respond to that post.

But by choosing not to address the points you're choosing not to address, you're failing to correct your mistakes. You don't realize that, but you're doing it anyway.

Don't ever bold-face a demand that I answer a post. If I answer a post I'll answer it. If I don't you'll fucking live with it.

You will do whatever you want I guess, but I will bold-face anything I fell like bold facing, and I will choose depending on what I think is needed because of your responses if I choose to engage you (I eventually bold-faced it, given that you keep failing to reply to most of the points that did or would show your errors, even if you do not realize that) , though your insults make me less inclined to talk to you, so we will see.

Regardless of your attacks, your position still is seriously flawed, and you still do not realize why. If you were to address the points and questions in question, perhaps you would. Or perhaps that ship has sailed, and you're just too angry to realize that. I do not know.

You could have chosen to engage in a civil discussion with me, but you chose to attack me instead. Okay (well, not okay, but such is life. Nothing I can do about it). Maybe you will still choose to engage B20 in a civil fashion. He already replied to your post.

 

[Toni]

Does Canada actually have such legislation ?

No. The whole thread is an if/then scenario. If Canada did have such legislation then I'd expect them to treat prostitution like any other legal and licensed business and have the licence dependent on their business conforming to the laws of conducting business just like any other business.

The end result is the same: have sex with who I say or lose your livelihood. Power is once again used to complel those who bear the greatest risks, who are the most likely to be victims of violence, especy sexual violence , who are the most marginalized and most disenfranchised, who most need support rather than coercion.

I posted this earlier to Bomb#20, but he apparently wasn't arguing that they were the same thing and agreed with me that they were different concepts, so I didn't get a discussion on it. I'll pass the argument on to you.

The distinction being made is between criminal coercion and coercion by law, which is a major distinction. An argument can be made that all government is based on coercion and that the government imposes its authority by the threat of negative consequences. If you want to use the same word for them then fine, but that doesn't make them the same concept.

If two people tell you need to give them $100,000 or they'll lock you in a room for a few months, there's a huge distinction between the situations if one of them is saying "because I have a gun to your head and feel like robbing you" and the other is saying "because you owe a lot of back taxes". Both are coercing you to give them money through the threat of negative consequences, but the usage of the word is not comparable between them.

The government has the authority and the right to "coerce" people to obey the law. It's not the same thing as someone without that authority and right illegally coercing someone to do things.

What's at issue is their ability to conduct business as a prostitute, not simply to have sex. When you're doing something in the course of a legal and licenced business, there are more constraints placed on your activities than there are when you're doing something in your personal life or as part of an illegal and/or unlicenced business.

Right now in Toronto, there are prostitutes who advertise that they do not accept black clients. Under a legal and licenced framework, they would no longer be able to do that as it is in conflict with anti-discrimination laws. Right now in Toronto, there are prostitutes who advertise that they will give blowjobs without a condom. Under a legal and licenced framework, they would no longer be able to do that as it would be against the health and safety codes which would be brought in with the legalization of the industry. Right now in Toronto, there are prostitutes who do not charge sales tax to their clients and keep all the money received for themselves. Under a legal and licenced framework, they would no longer be able to do that as it would be in violation of tax laws and she would need to add that to the cost of their services and then pass that money onto Revenue Canada.

If a prostitute thinks that she will lose business if she charges $226 for an hour instead of $200 per hour (sales tax here is 13%), the government isn't somehow coercing her into having sex for less than she wants to charge since she'd need to lower her base rate to compensate for that and keep her prices at a level she thinks she can sell. She could lose her licence as a prostitute if she didn't, so the coercion occurs, but it's not the same usage of the word coercion as is would be if someone threw $180 on the end of the bed and said "Fuck me at a discount or I'll make you regret it". The government is simply saying that there is a law about taxation for services in place and you, as a businessperson, are required to conform to that law when conducting your business and that's very different from an illegal threat.

It's no different with anti-discrimination laws. If the government says that anti-discrimination laws are one of the rules of doing business, then saying that she'll lose her licence if she doesn't conform to them isn't the same usage of the word coercion as a pimp telling her to fuck this guy or she's out on the street or any other type of illegal coercion into having sex she doesn't want to have.

I read your argument earlier. I don't agree. Being required to pay fees or taxes is not the same thing as being forced to have sexual contact with someone you do not wish to have sexual contact with.

Nor is being required to follow health and safety rules.