Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

And that's really the heart of the disagreement. The fact that it's sexual activity either makes it an exceptional business situation or it does not. At this point, the argument pretty much ends at an agreement to disagree.

 

[Toni]

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.

And that's really the heart of the disagreement. The fact that it's sexual activity either makes it an exceptional business situation or it does not. At this point, the argument pretty much ends at an agreement to disagree.

Yes, I think that it does.

 

[Bomb#20]

We are talking about a just law here. Anti-discrimination laws are good things and societies with them are better places than those without them. 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. 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.

Laws against quid pro quo sexual harassment are just laws; they're good things; societies with them are better places than those without them; places where you don't have to sex with somebody you don't want to have sex with or lose your job are better places than ones which allow the powerful to put the powerless in that position. They are a positive step forward and should not be weakened. This isn't a discussion about anti-discrimination laws in general, but prostitute anti-discrimination laws specifically. Those laws specifically put the government in the position of committing quid pro quo sexual harassment. Which brings me to my main point...

Right. That's the whole point. They're different things.

When you have a boss coercing his employee to have sex with someone or lose her job, that's not comparable to a government threatening to pull someone's licence to be a prostitute if she discriminates against black men.

If you weren't one of the ones making the argument that there was an equivalence between the two and saying that the latter situation amounts to the government coercing her to have sex or lose her job the same as the first one, then my response wasn't relevant to your post.

To say X and Y both satisfy the criteria for property P() is not to say that X and Y are the same or equivalent; pointing out that X and Y are not the same does not qualify as a rational reason to deny P(Y). I take it that's why you're no longer denying P(Y) -- you're no longer denying that the government is threatening the prostitute. You're instead implying P(Y) is irrelevant. So the question is, why do you feel "That's not the same thing." amounts to a trump card that overrules logical arguments about what activities satisfy what criteria for having what properties, when you play that card, even though you evidently feel "That's not the same thing." doesn't trump anything when your opponents play that card, when they point out that having to have unwelcome sexual intercourse is not comparable to having to sell birth control pills to single women or give loans to Indians?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Laws against quid pro quo sexual harassment are just laws; they're good things; societies with them are better places than those without them; places where you don't have to sex with somebody you don't want to have sex with or lose your job are better places than ones which allow the powerful to put the powerless in that position. They are a positive step forward and should not be weakened. This isn't a discussion about anti-discrimination laws in general, but prostitute anti-discrimination laws specifically. Those laws specifically put the government in the position of committing quid pro quo sexual harassment. Which brings me to my main point...

Nobody's sexually harassing anybody, though.

Right. That's the whole point. They're different things.

When you have a boss coercing his employee to have sex with someone or lose her job, that's not comparable to a government threatening to pull someone's licence to be a prostitute if she discriminates against black men.

If you weren't one of the ones making the argument that there was an equivalence between the two and saying that the latter situation amounts to the government coercing her to have sex or lose her job the same as the first one, then my response wasn't relevant to your post.

To say X and Y both satisfy the criteria for property P() is not to say that X and Y are the same or equivalent; pointing out that X and Y are not the same does not qualify as a rational reason to deny P(Y). I take it that's why you're no longer denying P(Y) -- you're no longer denying that the government is threatening the prostitute. You're instead implying P(Y) is irrelevant. So the question is, why do you feel "That's not the same thing." amounts to a trump card that overrules logical arguments about what activities satisfy what criteria for having what properties, when you play that card, even though you evidently feel "That's not the same thing." doesn't trump anything when your opponents play that card, when they point out that having to have unwelcome sexual intercourse is not comparable to having to sell birth control pills to single women or give loans to Indians?

I'm saying that telling someone "You have to obey the law when conducting business or you will lose your license to do business" doesn't count as a threat. It's just saying that you have to obey the rules.

When the moderators here say that you can't personally insult other users or we'll give you an infraction and restrict your posting privileges as a result, are we threatening everyone on the forum or just explaining the code of conduct? It's not valid to argue an equivalence between the two things.

 

[Sabine Grant]

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,

That would be incorrect, Toni. I have often covered the social stigma affecting male rape victims and detailed why such stigma which makes them far more susceptible to not come forward compared to female rape victims. And in this thread, my acknowledging prostitution as a phenomenon which covers both male and female sex workers is not "technically" formulated. And I will add that anyone paying attention to my posts would recognize that when I communicated my support towards sex workers refusing services based on GI or/and sexual orientation incompatibility, it certainly covered BOTH male and female sex workers.

the hypotheticals almost always focus heavily on female victims and female prostitutes.

You presented your hypothetical with the specifics of "MoNique and Jasmine" (obviously female sex workers). You set the focus yourself on female sex workers with your hypothetical. If you really mean to test whether there is any gender bias at play, you should have based your hypothetical on male sex workers and examine whether responses Tom or anyone else provided in the course of the thread change or vary depending on the gender of the hypothetical sex worker(s).

As to female rape victims, the hypotheticals who "almost always focus on female victims" is most probably the product of the reality that there is far greater ratio of female rape victims than male rape victims. To add the obvious tendency of OPs linking to an article or event where the victim or alleged victim is a female versus a male.

In this thread, almost every single person aside from me and Metaphor discuss prostitutes as female.

That is definitely not my observation. IMO you are crying out wolf here when there is no wolf. That there be a suspicion of misogyny tainted/influenced opinions in some of the rape centered topics and only with an extreme minority of posters, I can certainly agree. But not the case in this current topic.

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.

How does that refute the reality that everyone acknowledges and is fully aware that sex workers encompass both male and female sex workers? How does your reply in any way confirm that there is a gender bias at play in this thread when it comes to posters who expect that in the context of a legal sex services business employees should be upheld to the same standards specified in anti discrimination laws extended to all legal businesses in the US?

I know that you are not naive enough to believe that prostitutes actually have the power to refuse to service any client.

Sex workers in any legal sex service business are fully empowered under Health Dept. and OSHA directives to refuse to provide services to any prospective client demanding they do not wear a condom. Fully empowered to refuse to provide services to any prospective client whose expectation/demand would present a breach or violation of those specifics formulated within Health Dept. and OSHA regulations.

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.

Legal sex services businesses (again) in order to maintain their license would have to comply with Health Dept. and OSHA issued regulations. Which cover contagious diseases prevention and control. Which means the use of protective barriers as well as maintenance of the locale/facility so that all employees comply with hygiene and sanitation designed to prevent cross contamination. Same applies to all health care workers employed by a licensed business providing health care services. I am totally empowered to refuse to provide services to a patient demanding I not wear any protective barrier when handling any of their bodily fluids or coming in contact with them. I need not to have any confirmation that a patient is HIV sero positive or HP sero positive or any other infectious/contagious diseases to systematically apply standard precautions established by the CDC and enforced via the Health Dept. Any sex worker (again legal and licensed business) employed by such business would in fact be empowered to refuse to provide services to any client demanding or expecting the sex worker to forego/dismiss applying the set of precautions established within the content of Health dept. and OSHA regulations. That is an extremely compelling argument to support the legalization of prostitution because the State can then monitor and audit and inspect legal businesses and via legalization is removed the current heavy burden of a high potential of hazards to the public health.(while both sex workers and clients would be protected).

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.

Neither am I yet as a Home Health Aide I do not deviate from relying on standard precautions designed for contagious/infectious diseases prevention and control.

And of course I do not because I am fully aware that any "cutting corners" on my part may result in cross contaminating other patients as I would have exposed myself to a risk of infection by making the choice to not rely on standard precautions. Further I am fully aware like any other health care worker that non observation of standard precautions could result in termination of employment if not loss of certification or license.

As to "economical pressure", once more, licensed legal businesses under the designation of "sex services providers" would have to comply with labor laws applicable in each State and take into account overtime as well as holiday pay for their employees. Sex workers tempted to deviate from Health Dept and OSHA regulations would have to contemplate the reality that it may mean the termination of their employment or/and suspension of their certification/license.

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.

There is no 100% elimination of exposure to a great variety of infectious/contagious diseases within the health care milieu. However, the use of standard precautions certainly reduces the risk of exposure to include reliance on barriers. To include sanitation and hygiene. I am not sure why similar measures in the context of sex services providers would not be applicable. As a health care worker what I share in common with a sex worker is direct physical contact with my clients'anatomy to include bodily fluids. The main difference being the vectors and route of the infection/contamination.

Female prostitutes still become pregnant on occasion and may or may not terminate.

Which effective and medically prescribed oral contraceptives should reduce the risk of a pregnancy resulting from vaginal intercourse with their clients.

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.

Once a change of mentality occurs where we will talking of sex services providers instead of prostitutes and "whores" and other derogatory epithets targeting both male and female sex workers, it becomes a profession recognized as a benefit to the population. My approach to legalizing prostitution in fact considers it as a legitimate service and from a mental health angle.

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.

And when it comes to nurses and physicians they are held accountable to maintain standard precautions in the exercise of their functions. Never are we instructed to assume any patient/client is free of any infectious/contagious disease.

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.

Again and since you brought up health care workers and professionals you need to know that we are ALL mandated to rely on standard precautions regardless of any observation or lack of of any symptoms of any infectious/contagious diseases.

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 recall having specifically brought up to Tom much earlier the inevitable conflicts between society affirming that mutual informed consent is necessary for any sexual activity and compelling in any way anyone to engage in any sexual activity without their informed consent. However, when it comes to a legal and licensed business falling under the category of sex services providers, one would expect that sex workers are already informed from the get go that in order to be employed, they would have to comply with the business/company policies which I must add the majority of legal and licensed businesses in the US also inform employees about anti discrimination laws when it comes to the employees interactions with the company/business clientele.( as well as how such employees are also protected from discrimination initiated against them by the company).

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.

Which then I am not sure why under the category of sex services providers as a legal and licensed business/company, they should relax their policies which would end up disadvantaging a Black person as a potential client versus potential clients of other ethnic groups. Why should Black persons be deprived of a benefit other ethnic groups benefit of?

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

Again and again, in the context of legal and licensed sex services providers, no applicant looking to be hired as a sex worker is forced to provide sexual services to others against their own wishes or judgement. But in order to be hired they have to agree to abide to the company/business policy(ies). Which under the same legal and licensed context, you need to acknowledge that the policies have to be compatible with State Laws which apply to all legal companies/ businesses.

 

[Bomb#20]

Nobody's sexually harassing anybody, though.

"Quid pro quo harassment is the most commonly recognized form of sexual harassment. It occurs when (1) job benefits, including employment, promotion, salary increases, shift or work assignments, performance expectations and other conditions of employment, are made contingent on the provision of sexual favors, usually to an employer, supervisor or agent of the employer who has the authority to make decisions about employment actions, or (2) the rejection of a sexual advance or request for sexual favors results in a tangible employment detriment, a loss of a job benefit of the kind described above."

(Source)

Which part of the definition is not satisfied by a policy of requiring licenses to do a job plus a policy of revoking licenses as a result of rejection of requests for sexual favors from people in a designated set?

I'm saying that telling someone "You have to obey the law when conducting business or you will lose your license to do business" doesn't count as a threat. It's just saying that you have to obey the rules.

"threat noun
: a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do"

(Source)

Which part of the definition is not satisfied by "You have to obey the law when conducting business or you will lose your license to do business."?

When the moderators here say that you can't personally insult other users or we'll give you an infraction and restrict your posting privileges as a result, are we threatening everyone on the forum or just explaining the code of conduct?

For obvious reasons I really can't say whether you're threatening everyone on the forum. But I can say I used to participate in a different forum where the moderators were threatening everyone. Hypothetically, if the moderators on that forum had said what you say the moderators here say, which part of the definition of "threat" would not have been satisfied?

It's not valid to argue an equivalence between the two things.

It's not valid to argue that "a is an element of set S." constitutes an argument that there is an equivalence between a and some other element of set S.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

For obvious reasons I really can't say whether you're threatening everyone on the forum. But I can say I used to participate in a different forum where the moderators were threatening everyone. Hypothetically, if the moderators on that forum had said what you say the moderators here say, which part of the definition of "threat" would not have been satisfied?

So, let me get this straight. Because we have a TOU at this site which says that you can't insult other users without negative repercussions, you feel that the administrators of the site are threatening all the users of this site? While your posts would make a lot more sense if that was your position, I just want to make sure that this is actually your position. Is that an accurate summary of what you're saying?

 

[Bomb#20]

So, let me get this straight. Because we have a TOU at this site which says that you can't insult other users without negative repercussions, you feel that the administrators of the site are threatening all the users of this site? While your posts would make a lot more sense if that was your position, I just want to make sure that this is actually your position. Is that an accurate summary of what you're saying?

No, it is not. I am not saying a bloody thing about the administrators of this site. I could not have been more clear about that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, let me get this straight. Because we have a TOU at this site which says that you can't insult other users without negative repercussions, you feel that the administrators of the site are threatening all the users of this site? While your posts would make a lot more sense if that was your position, I just want to make sure that this is actually your position. Is that an accurate summary of what you're saying?

No, it is not. I am not saying a bloody thing about the administrators of this site. I could not have been more clear about that.

Actually, you could have been a lot more clear instead of parsing out everything with hypothetically and what you couldn't say. I take your answer to mean that the TOU here doesn't count as a threat.

Are you saying that the mere existence of a rule that's enforced through negative consequences isn't what constitutes a threat but that the people who enforce the threats are dicks is also a necessary component? Given what you've been saying about how the mere existence of a rule about a government being able to enforce negative consequences on a prostitute for not following the anti-discrimination laws counts as sexual harassment due to it being a threat, why would the actions of the two groups of moderators be the deciding factor here as opposed to the mere existence of the rule?

Basically you seem to be saying:

"Don't discriminate the customers you have as a prostitute based on race or you'll lose your licence"

Always a threat.

"You can't personally insult other users or we'll give you an infraction and restrict your posting privileges as a result"
"You can't personally insult other users or we'll give you an infraction and restrict your posting privileges as a result"

One of those is a threat and the other is not depending on other actions taken by the people saying it.

Why is it being categorized as a threat all the time in the first instance but only conditionally in the second instance?

 

[angelo]

Getting back to topic. If a prostitute is working in an illegal brothel in a city that outlaws such establishments, and a prostitute refuses to have sex with a John because of his race, who can the John make a complaint to? Does he just grin and bear it even if he complains to the madam and she agrees with the prostitute?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Getting back to topic. If a prostitute is working in an illegal brothel in a city that outlaws such establishments, and a prostitute refuses to have sex with a John because of his race, who can the John make a complaint to? Does he just grin and bear it even if he complains to the madam and she agrees with the prostitute?

There's no one to complain to. You don't have legal protections in illegal work. Similarly, if you're selling crack to someone and he just pulls a gun and robs you, you can't take him to court and sue him for the cost of the crack.

Illegal brothels can and do publically discriminate right now. It's when they become legal that they become constrained by legal regulations.

 

[Toni]

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,

That would be incorrect, Toni. I have often covered the social stigma affecting male rape victims and detailed why such stigma which makes them far more susceptible to not come forward compared to female rape victims. And in this thread, my acknowledging prostitution as a phenomenon which covers both male and female sex workers is not "technically" formulated. And I will add that anyone paying attention to my posts would recognize that when I communicated my support towards sex workers refusing services based on GI or/and sexual orientation incompatibility, it certainly covered BOTH male and female sex workers.

I said often, not always. I checked. Indeed I was the first person to mention males also were prostitutes in this thread. Certainly on the other forum, I was sometimes the first person to mention male prostitutes and male rape victims. Not the only and not only the first, but sometimes, indeed I was.

This does not mean that I am saying that you do not discuss these issues. Or that you are never the first person to bring it up or the only person to mention.

You presented your hypothetical with the specifics of "MoNique and Jasmine" (obviously female sex workers). You set the focus yourself on female sex workers with your hypothetical. If you really mean to test whether there is any gender bias at play, you should have based your hypothetical on male sex workers and examine whether responses Tom or anyone else provided in the course of the thread change or vary depending on the gender of the hypothetical sex worker(s).

Thank you for instructions on how I should post. I wasn't trying to 'test' for gender bias but for bias in compensation/economics. Yes, indeed the free market reigns in prostitution, according to some! The owner of the brothel should be able to legally racially discriminate with respect to pay of prostitutes because some clients are racists and will pay more for a white prostitute than a black prostitute. The only one who isn't allowed to discriminate is the person who is most harmed*. (*Please note: I do not think it is harmful to have sex with a black person. I think it is harmful to have sex with someone you do not wish to have sex with. Period.)

As to female rape victims, the hypotheticals who "almost always focus on female victims" is most probably the product of the reality that there is far greater ratio of female rape victims than male rape victims. To add the obvious tendency of OPs linking to an article or event where the victim or alleged victim is a female versus a male.

It may be true that there are vastly more female victims than male but recent data suggest that there are many more male victims of rape than previously believed. This is almost certainly because of the stigma attached resulting in under reporting, not to mention that the FBI only recently updated its procedures to include the possibility of male rape victims.

How else will these barriers be overcome if they remain unacknowledged? Why should make victimization not be discussed in any thread about rape? They are also victims!

That is definitely not my observation. IMO you are crying out wolf here when there is no wolf. That there be a suspicion of misogyny tainted/influenced opinions in some of the rape centered topics and only with an extreme minority of posters, I can certainly agree. But not the case in this current topic.

I disagree. I noticed it on the first page and since.

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.

How does that refute the reality that everyone acknowledges and is fully aware that sex workers encompass both male and female sex workers? How does your reply in any way confirm that there is a gender bias at play in this thread when it comes to posters who expect that in the context of a legal sex services business employees should be upheld to the same standards specified in anti discrimination laws extended to all legal businesses in the US?

That was not my point. The point was that most individuals who go into sex work have already been significantly victimized and that victimization directly led to prostitution. This is a group of individuals who deserve the same control over their bodies as does any other human being on the planet. We should be more sensitive, not less sensitive to this need and desire.

Sex workers in any legal sex service business are fully empowered under Health Dept. and OSHA directives to refuse to provide services to any prospective client demanding they do not wear a condom. Fully empowered to refuse to provide services to any prospective client whose expectation/demand would present a breach or violation of those specifics formulated within Health Dept. and OSHA regulations.

Oh, please. Look, once I nearly lost my job at a crappy chain restaurant for truthfully answering questions of the health department inspector. The ONLY reason I did not was because someone didn't show up for work that day, and two other people quit and we were slammed and if I had been canned, they would have not been able to get food out. Technically, yes, I would have had a case for wrongful termination but honestly, I had ZERO idea how to do that and if I had had 3 or 4 days worth of pay to tide me over so I would not literally be on the street, I would have quit that job long ago. But management only gave management enough hours to allow for such contingencies so we were all stuck. ALL of us had very legitimate workplace claims against the management, including but not limited to sexual harassment, and OSHA and health dept. violations. Why do you think currently restaurants employ so many illegals right now? Of course restaurant work is legal and without the same stigma as sex work. So go ahead and pretend that legal prostitution would allow sex workers the same rights as office workers. That is not the case now where prostitution is legal. There is a big difference between de jure and de facto.

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.

Legal sex services businesses (again) in order to maintain their license would have to comply with Health Dept. and OSHA issued regulations. Which cover contagious diseases prevention and control. Which means the use of protective barriers as well as maintenance of the locale/facility so that all employees comply with hygiene and sanitation designed to prevent cross contamination. Same applies to all health care workers employed by a licensed business providing health care services. I am totally empowered to refuse to provide services to a patient demanding I not wear any protective barrier when handling any of their bodily fluids or coming in contact with them. I need not to have any confirmation that a patient is HIV sero positive or HP sero positive or any other infectious/contagious diseases to systematically apply standard precautions established by the CDC and enforced via the Health Dept. Any sex worker (again legal and licensed business) employed by such business would in fact be empowered to refuse to provide services to any client demanding or expecting the sex worker to forego/dismiss applying the set of precautions established within the content of Health dept. and OSHA regulations. That is an extremely compelling argument to support the legalization of prostitution because the State can then monitor and audit and inspect legal businesses and via legalization is removed the current heavy burden of a high potential of hazards to the public health.(while both sex workers and clients would be protected).

Testing for STIs does NOTHING to protect sex workers as the clients are not being tested. Early infections of many STIs, including HIV are not detectable before seroconversion except with 4th generation screens for HIV which do not detect any infection within a minimum of 10 days, during which time the infected individual is HIGHLY contagious because virus is actively and rapidly replicating.

I've actually spent quite a number of years working in environments which mandate universal precautions. This includes more than a decade of working in a health care setting where not only was I required to use universal precautions but also to provide appropriate testing after employee and/or patient exposure which sometimes involved needle sticks but not always. Certainly when I worked in a preschool, there was no needle stick exposure yet we were mandated to use universal precautions for our protection as well as for the protection of the children. I am extremely aware.

I am extremely aware of what happens when there is an exposure, what meds are involved, what testing, what compromises any individual who has been POTENTIALLY exposed must make until they are cleared and it is demonstrated that their exposure to blood/body fluids did not involve an STI.

Please note that those types of exposures account for far fewer transmissions of STIs than does sexual contact.

I am also extremely aware that universal precautions do not convey 100% prevention of transmission of STIs all of the time. If they did, there would be no need for the follow up testing and follow up meds.

As it is, there are very, very few cases of transmission of STIs in health care settings which contrasts with the much increased rate of transmission in sex work. There are many reasons for this but one reason is that health care workers almost always are not working behind a closed, locked door with no likelihood of another individual walking in and observing lax precautions.

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.

Neither am I yet as a Home Health Aide I do not deviate from relying on standard precautions designed for contagious/infectious diseases prevention and control.

And of course I do not because I am fully aware that any "cutting corners" on my part may result in cross contaminating other patients as I would have exposed myself to a risk of infection by making the choice to not rely on standard precautions. Further I am fully aware like any other health care worker that non observation of standard precautions could result in termination of employment if not loss of certification or license.

I am certain that you wear gloves and other PPE when there is risk of exposure to blood/body fluids. Prostitutes are unlikely to be allowed to wear gloves or PPE. You face ZERO economic pressure to forego the gloves and PPE. Your clients WANT you to use them. You are not going to be promised a tip if you just go bare skin, just this once.

As to "economical pressure", once more, licensed legal businesses under the designation of "sex services providers" would have to comply with labor laws applicable in each State and take into account overtime as well as holiday pay for their employees. Sex workers tempted to deviate from Health Dept and OSHA regulations would have to contemplate the reality that it may mean the termination of their employment or/and suspension of their certification/license.

Sure. And I am certain I really am the sole heir of a recently deceased Nigerian millionaire whom I've never met.

OSHA and the Health Dept. are not going to be present in the rooms where prostitutes provide services. Prostitutes are still going to be pressured to provide sex without protection. Some will take the risk. Bribes and corruption will remain and will be even more prevalent than in the food industry.

It's a fantasy that prostitutes in legal brothels will be empowered to always use condoms which will never break and which will never allow any pregnancy or STI.

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.

There is no 100% elimination of exposure to a great variety of infectious/contagious diseases within the health care milieu. However, the use of standard precautions certainly reduces the risk of exposure to include reliance on barriers. To include sanitation and hygiene. I am not sure why similar measures in the context of sex services providers would not be applicable. As a health care worker what I share in common with a sex worker is direct physical contact with my clients'anatomy to include bodily fluids. The main difference being the vectors and route of the infection/contamination.

Without 100% effective prevention, there is risk. Sex workers incur unique and greater risks than do health care workers, of which I have been one.

About those routes of transmission. You are far less likely to contract any STI through any exposure through the contact you sustain with your client compared with the contact a prostitute will experience. YOU use gloves when exposed to blood and body fluids. Your clients do not insert their penis into any orifice, with or without condoms. Prostitutes do not use gloves, experience contact which, even with the 100% use of the world's best condoms represents a more serious threat of exposure to STIs than anything you do.

I am not minimizing your risks. They are not insignificant and they must be respected. I am acutely aware. Please do not suggest that your risks are the same or on the same level as a prostitute using condoms.

Female prostitutes still become pregnant on occasion and may or may not terminate.

Which effective and medically prescribed oral contraceptives should reduce the risk of a pregnancy resulting from vaginal intercourse with their clients.

Reduce but not eliminate unless you are proposing hysterectomies for all female prostitutes. I am also acutely aware of the failure rate (theoretical and real world) of all forms of birth control, having been sexually active for many decades now, having raised to adulthood several children and having worked as a counselor providing information about birth control and the transmission of STIs, among other things.

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.

Once a change of mentality occurs where we will talking of sex services providers instead of prostitutes and "whores" and other derogatory epithets targeting both male and female sex workers, it becomes a profession recognized as a benefit to the population. My approach to legalizing prostitution in fact considers it as a legitimate service and from a mental health angle.

Sure: there will be no mental health cost at all to sex workers who service 10 or more clients a day. Or health risks because all pregnancies, all STIs will be prevented as they are not currently in legal brothels which exist across the world today.

Please conjure up a universal living wage along with affordable universal access to health care, education, housing and food while you are fantasizing.

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.

And when it comes to nurses and physicians they are held accountable to maintain standard precautions in the exercise of their functions. Never are we instructed to assume any patient/client is free of any infectious/contagious disease.

Yes, but you are not a prostitute. I was speaking to the idea that in house health care workers would be able to on the spot adequately screen for any STIs that might be transmitted. They cannot, even if they were employed on site and screened each client.

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.

Again and since you brought up health care workers and professionals you need to know that we are ALL mandated to rely on standard precautions regardless of any observation or lack of of any symptoms of any infectious/contagious diseases.

Yes, but health care workers are not prostitutes and do NOT experience the same levels of risk or the same risks of exposure. Nor do they experience the same pressures to forego PPE.

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 recall having specifically brought up to Tom much earlier the inevitable conflicts between society affirming that mutual informed consent is necessary for any sexual activity and compelling in any way anyone to engage in any sexual activity without their informed consent. However, when it comes to a legal and licensed business falling under the category of sex services providers, one would expect that sex workers are already informed from the get go that in order to be employed, they would have to comply with the business/company policies which I must add the majority of legal and licensed businesses in the US also inform employees about anti discrimination laws when it comes to the employees interactions with the company/business clientele.( as well as how such employees are also protected from discrimination initiated against them by the company).

Yes, the MAJORITY is not 100%. And there are exceptions. For example, a landlord is forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race when renting accommodations. Sadly, in some states, they can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. That should not be the case but it is and I fully advocate for eliminating such discrimination. However, in most locals, if I rent a room in my own home, I can discriminate on whatever basis I choose.

I see sex work as being entirely unique and believe that sex workers, along with every other human being in the entire world should be able to choose/accept sex partners using whatever criteria they wish, including for reasons that I find despicable and and find unacceptable in any other context. Period.

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.

Which then I am not sure why under the category of sex services providers as a legal and licensed business/company, they should relax their policies which would end up disadvantaging a Black person as a potential client versus potential clients of other ethnic groups. Why should Black persons be deprived of a benefit other ethnic groups benefit of?

Actually, my statement is not limited to blacks but applies equally to ALL.

As far as I am concerned, any person should be able to locate whatever legal service he or she desires. They just should not be able to require a sexual service from any INDIVIDUAL who declines to provide it, even if the reason is a bad reason.

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

Again and again, in the context of legal and licensed sex services providers, no applicant looking to be hired as a sex worker is forced to provide sexual services to others against their own wishes or judgement. But in order to be hired they have to agree to abide to the company/business policy(ies). Which under the same legal and licensed context, you need to acknowledge that the policies have to be compatible with State Laws which apply to all legal companies/ businesses.

You contradict yourself: you say that no worker would be required to provide services to any client against their will but at the same time insist that in order to earn their livelihood, they must accept company policy which will require that they accept clients regardless of race. Even if they do not wish to do so.

You see this as legitimate. I do not. Sex work is the only circumstance I can think of in which I believe there is a legitimate right to refuse to provide service to any client for any reason. This is not because I advocate racism but because I believe that ALL individuals have the right to refuse sex for ANY reason at all. Even despicable reasons.

Although I have written a rather sharp toned reply, I mean no disrespect to you. I feel that this is one issue where you and I will simply have to agree to disagree as Tom and I have done.

 

[maurile]

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.

Thanks. I agree that what the law is in any given jurisdiction is irrelevant to what the law should be. I made a quick case for what I think the law should be in post #506, and you responded in posts #508 and #511 appearing to say what the law is -- though seeming to get it wrong, for the most part, as far as I could tell (though I'm unfamiliar with how Canada applies its anti-discrimination laws to individual prostitutes, so you could be right there). In any case, we got sidetracked.

Let's get back to discussing what the law should be. I'll restate my previous argument more explicitly because I used the phrase "not in the mood" in a quirky way before that may have been misinterpreted.

It seems to me that we humans tend to value a number of mutually inconsistent freedoms, including:

1. The freedom to do business, or to refuse doing business, with anyone we want.

2. The freedom not to be discriminated against based on race.

3. The freedom to decide for ourselves whom we are willing to have sex with, and whom we are not, for any reason whatsoever, without being penalized by the state (except, perhaps, in the case of state-run brothels, who may decide not to employ prostitutes who aren't sufficiently indiscriminate).

That list is in increasing order of importance. So when they conflict, #1 often gives way to #2, and #2 gives way to #3. That's why prostitutes, but not accountants, should be able to discriminate based on race.

If we disagree, I suspect it's because you value #2 more than #3; and if so, I suspect you are in the minority (which does not by itself make you wrong). Is that a fair summary?

 

[fromderinside]

Getting back to topic. If a prostitute is working in an illegal brothel in a city that outlaws such establishments, and a prostitute refuses to have sex with a John because of his race, who can the John make a complaint to? Does he just grin and bear it even if he complains to the madam and she agrees with the prostitute?

There's no one to complain to. You don't have legal protections in illegal work. Similarly, if you're selling crack to someone and he just pulls a gun and robs you, you can't take him to court and sue him for the cost of the crack.

Illegal brothels can and do publically discriminate right now. It's when they become legal that they become constrained by legal regulations.

OK. So the black lost the case because it was an illegal brothel. Now we go to civil court. Here, if one can show it's a business by any means one should have standing on civil rights grounds to recover for discrimination.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

OK. So the black lost the case because it was an illegal brothel. Now we go to civil court. Here, if one can show it's a business by any means one should have standing on civil rights grounds to recover for discrimination.

No, you have no legal recourses when engaged in illegal transactions. The guy has no case whatsoever. That's why prostitution ads right now can advertise "No Black Men". They're not legal businesses, so they don't need to conform to the legal rules of doing business.

 

[abaddon]

OK. So the black lost the case because it was an illegal brothel. Now we go to civil court. Here, if one can show it's a business by any means one should have standing on civil rights grounds to recover for discrimination.

Regardless of legalities, I wonder why pursue it at all?

If a prostitute says "don't want black customers", is it really all that much like bus drivers across the south saying "sit in the back"?

Looks like a very different ballgame to me. It's a person that wants sex with someone that does not want sex with him. People can say a prostitute should either "take all comers" so to speak or go find another job. But why doesn't the john just go find another prostitute, someone that at least doesn't find sex with him or her to be abhorrent to their person?

So, is he suing for the general principle that all whores shall not behave in a racist manner? Or does he intend to force things so he can fuck people that don't want to fuck him?

Every time I've glanced in this thread, I've wondered "Isn't it more good than bad if prostitutes can name their preferences?" so, if you're a potential customer, you can select someone that doesn't already hate you even before you meet? Or are these people just holes to use for an orgasm?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

Thanks. I agree that what the law is in any given jurisdiction is irrelevant to what the law should be. I made a quick case for what I think the law should be in post #506, and you responded in posts #508 and #511 appearing to say what the law is -- though seeming to get it wrong, for the most part, as far as I could tell (though I'm unfamiliar with how Canada applies its anti-discrimination laws to individual prostitutes, so you could be right there). In any case, we got sidetracked.

Let's get back to discussing what the law should be. I'll restate my previous argument more explicitly because I used the phrase "not in the mood" in a quirky way before that may have been misinterpreted.

It seems to me that we humans tend to value a number of mutually inconsistent freedoms, including:

1. The freedom to do business, or to refuse doing business, with anyone we want.

2. The freedom not to be discriminated against based on race.

3. The freedom to decide for ourselves whom we are willing to have sex with, and whom we are not, for any reason whatsoever, without being penalized by the state (except, perhaps, in the case of state-run brothels, who may decide not to employ prostitutes who aren't sufficiently indiscriminate).

That list is in increasing order of importance. So when they conflict, #1 often gives way to #2, and #2 gives way to #3. That's why prostitutes, but not accountants, should be able to discriminate based on race.

If we disagree, I suspect it's because you value #2 more than #3; and if so, I suspect you are in the minority (which does not by itself make you wrong). Is that a fair summary?

No, that's not even close to a fair summary and ignores every argument made throughout the thread.

#3 is always more important than #2 and nobody here has ever disputed or challenged that in any way, shape or form. Not once. Except, of course, in the cases of the mischaracterizing strawmen of those on the other side of the argument who were trying to assert that it was the case when there has actually never been anybody arguing for the position that they were looking to argue against.

What is not part of #3 is your freedom to be legally employed as a prostitute. You can always choose who you do or do not have sex with for whatever reasons you want, but you do not have the same right in terms of how you can conduct your business transactions. Even if that business is sex, there are greater restrictions in what actions you can take as a businessperson than there are in your private life. You have less choice in how you sell sex than you do in how you have sex. What the government restricts is your business licence. You have no "right" to that licence and it is dependent on your following the legal rules of conducting business - the relevant one to the discussion being the rule against racial discrimination.

The only real dispute in the thread is over whether or not that's a moot distinction. One side feels that since it essentially amounts to demanding that they have sex with someone they don't want to or lose their jobs, it's pretty much forcing them to have nonconsentual sex. The other side feels that it's a simple regulation of business activities, which the government is free to do, and the fact that the business happens to be sex doesn't make it an exceptional case and isn't relevant to the government's ability to regulate a legal industry.

There is no call, after this much discussion on the topic, to continue to mischaracterize the other side and try to frame their argument as if they are on the same side of this distinction as you are and that they're trying to argue that sexual freedom of choice should be suppressed when that has nothing to do with any actual arguments being made.

 

[maurile]

What is not part of #3 is your freedom to be legally employed as a prostitute.

And you don't think the state's refusal to allow you to be legally employed as a prostitute (based on the fact that you racially discriminate) counts as penalizing you?

If you do think it counts as penalizing you, I have no idea how I'm misrepresenting your position. Can you clarify?

If you don't think it counts as penalizing you, I'd suggest you have an odd standard for what counts as a penalty. But suit yourself. I'll amend my argument as follows.

It seems to me that we humans tend to value a number of mutually inconsistent freedoms, including:

1. The freedom to do business, or to refuse doing business, with anyone we want.

2. The freedom not to be discriminated against based on race.

3. The freedom to decide for ourselves whom we are willing to have sex with, and whom we are not, for any reason whatsoever, without being penalized by the state, and without being denied any state licenses based on those decisions.

Now is it fair to say that you think #2 is more important than #3, and that's where your disagreement seems to be with most other people?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What is not part of #3 is your freedom to be legally employed as a prostitute.

And you don't think the state's refusal to allow you to be legally employed as a prostitute (based on the fact that you racially discriminate) counts as penalizing you?

If you do think it counts as penalizing you, I have no idea how I'm misrepresenting your position. Can you clarify?

If you don't think it counts as penalizing you, I'd suggest you have an odd standard for what counts as a penalty. But suit yourself. I'll amend my argument as follows.

It seems to me that we humans tend to value a number of mutually inconsistent freedoms, including:

1. The freedom to do business, or to refuse doing business, with anyone we want.

2. The freedom not to be discriminated against based on race.

3. The freedom to decide for ourselves whom we are willing to have sex with, and whom we are not, for any reason whatsoever, without being penalized by the state, and without being denied any state licenses based on those decisions.

Now is it fair to say that you think #2 is more important than #3, and that's where your disagreement seems to be with most other people?

Dude, it's quite simple.

One side is saying that it's not about business, it's about sex. The other side is saying that it's not about sex, it's about business.

The arguments between the two different sides aren't matching because both sides are beginning from a completely different premise.

 

[maurile]

Now is it fair to say that you think #2 is more important than #3, and that's where your disagreement seems to be with most other people?

Dude, it's quite simple.

One side is saying that it's not about business, it's about sex. The other side is saying that it's not about sex, it's about business.

The arguments between the two different sides aren't matching because both sides are beginning from a completely different premise.

I can't tell if that's a yes or a no.

Prostitution, and regulations regarding it, are self-evidently about both sex and business. The reason prostitution should be treated differently from other businesses is because of the sex aspect. The business of sex is different from the business of accounting because sex is more intimate than accounting. That difference justifies subjecting participants in those businesses to different rules, IMO. It's a lot more important for people to choose their own sex partners than it is for people to choose their own accounting relationships; so when we weigh the importance of non-discrimination principles against the importance of freedom-of-association principles, the scale need not tip the same way in the case of prostitution as it does in the case of accounting.