• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

Looking back at the original question, and based on what I have seen in English Law, where a prostitute is racist and refuses a customer of colour a court action against her would fail. By refusing his custom she declined to take part in an illegal act (but where it is legal in parts of the USA there could be a cause of action).
 
Which would also apply to prostitutes as long as their trade isn't legal.

Yes, if she's operating illegally, there aren't any regulations on how she behaves. Similarly, if you get legal advice from a disbarred lawyer, he doesn't need to respect attorney-client confidentiality and can tell anyone he likes about what you told him. It's only if they're operating in legal, regulated businesses that legal regulations apply to them.
 
If a woman does not want to have sex with other races from her own, prostitution should be the last " profession" she should choose.
 
Looking back at the original question, and based on what I have seen in English Law, where a prostitute is racist and refuses a customer of colour a court action against her would fail. By refusing his custom she declined to take part in an illegal act (but where it is legal in parts of the USA there could be a cause of action).

In the places where it's legal the price is a matter of negotiation. If she doesn't want a client she simply asks too much.
 
Looking back at the original question, and based on what I have seen in English Law, where a prostitute is racist and refuses a customer of colour a court action against her would fail. By refusing his custom she declined to take part in an illegal act (but where it is legal in parts of the USA there could be a cause of action).

In the places where it's legal the price is a matter of negotiation. If she doesn't want a client she simply asks too much.

Changing prices based on a client's race is illegal. Just ask a realtor.
 
It seems to me that underlying the issue of whether or not it's racist for a prostitute to reject black men is whether racism is (always) wrong.

Suppose the question read, "is it wrong for prostitutes to regect black men and why." If the answer is "yes, because it's racist," then if a non prostitute rejects black men (because of race), is it racist but not wrong?

See, the question, "is it racist..." may be yes since the basis of rejection is race, but the inclusion of "prostitute" (especially legal prostitution) seems to mask the underlying issue. How can racism always be wrong if it's perfectly legitimate to reject others because of race outside of commerce?

Suppose I want to have consensual sex but expressly reject doing so with a particular race. Of course, no one has a duty to perform, not even a prostitute if the rejection is for a good reason, but if it's not wrong to deny because of attraction reasons, why should a prostitute be bound to act in opposition to who she finds attractive?

I suppose it is racist for a prostitute to reject black men, but if it's not wrong for a non prostitute to do the same, how is it still not racist?
 
Because legalized prostitution us to about having consensual sex but about providing a professional service in exchange for payment. That means this business transaction is subject to the same anti-discrimination legislation as all other business transactions.
 
Because legalized prostitution us to about having consensual sex but about providing a professional service in exchange for payment.
Unless she is being forced into it, sex work is a subset of consensual sex, not a distinct category.

That means this business transaction is subject to the same anti-discrimination legislation as all other business transactions.
I think the law makes exceptions for business transactions that have a personal component. An apartment complex may not discriminate as to renting apartments, but if you rent the spare room of the house you live in, you may.
Sex is rather more intimate than sharing a fridge and/or bathroom/

- - - Updated - - -

Changing prices based on a client's race is illegal. Just ask a realtor.
She could go around it by charging by the inch. :) #PositiveStereotypes
 
Because legalized prostitution us to about having consensual sex but about providing a professional service in exchange for payment. That means this business transaction is subject to the same anti-discrimination legislation as all other business transactions.

I'm juxtaposing that the posited question is not a stand-alone question but rather a rebuttal question that would carry more meaning if not offered out of context. Presupposing the answer offered to the given parties of the original undisclosed question is yes, then we should not conclude that the answer addresses the hidden question.

Where are you not seeing what's not there? You would not make a good ghost hunter. :D
 
If a woman does not want to have sex with other races from her own, prostitution should be the last " profession" she should choose.

If she rejects black men specifically, it's not "other races from her own". I have also seen black providers have this stipulation.
Sometimes it is further refined, to include only black men younger than 35. That is further evidence that it is about (perceived) safety rather than animus toward black men.
 
I think the law makes exceptions for business transactions that have a personal component. An apartment complex may not discriminate as to renting apartments, but if you rent the spare room of the house you live in, you may. Sex is rather more intimate than sharing a fridge and/or bathroom/
Nice response; I can work with that.

A) you're black, so you can't rent my apartment.
B) you're black, so you can't rent my spare bedroom.
C) you're black, so you can't rent my body.

'A' is both clearly racist and clearly legally unacceptable.
'B' is possibly legally acceptable, but that alone doesn't negate racism.

If a white man places an ad to the general public saying that he's looking for a full time live in hooker and will pay handsomely for it in the form of taxable wages, and supposing it's in an area where such a thing is legal, then a stipulation that the woman must be white because having a woman of his race matters to him raises some questions. 1) is it racist? 2) is it acceptable?

Four possibilities: yes, yes; no, no; yes, no, and no, yes.

As to the second question, you think it's acceptable, so you give a yes. Tom doesn't think it's acceptable, so he gives a no.

What peaks my curiosity is whether the answer to the second influences people's answer to the first (or vice versa). Is there a connection, or should the answer be independent. Tom might be inclined to think that it's racist and that you're condoning a form of racism.

ETA
My previous rambling takes it a bit further. If we take the monetary component out of the equation, how are answers affected. Does it all of a sudden not become racist?
 
In the places where it's legal the price is a matter of negotiation. If she doesn't want a client she simply asks too much.

Changing prices based on a client's race is illegal. Just ask a realtor.

You're assuming a fixed price in the first place, something that doesn't exist.

She's going to charge what she thinks she can get. If she thinks the customer will pay more she may ask more. If things are busier she's going to demand more even if that means sometimes refusing a client. (She decides that she's likely to make more by waiting for a customer that will pay more.)
 
I think the law makes exceptions for business transactions that have a personal component. An apartment complex may not discriminate as to renting apartments, but if you rent the spare room of the house you live in, you may. Sex is rather more intimate than sharing a fridge and/or bathroom/
Nice response; I can work with that.

A) you're black, so you can't rent my apartment.
B) you're black, so you can't rent my spare bedroom.
C) you're black, so you can't rent my body.

'A' is both clearly racist and clearly legally unacceptable.
'B' is possibly legally acceptable, but that alone doesn't negate racism.

Around here B is legal and I think that's the right choice. The greater the intrusion into one's life the more the social compatibility factors matter.

If a white man places an ad to the general public saying that he's looking for a full time live in hooker and will pay handsomely for it in the form of taxable wages, and supposing it's in an area where such a thing is legal, then a stipulation that the woman must be white because having a woman of his race matters to him raises some questions. 1) is it racist? 2) is it acceptable?

Four possibilities: yes, yes; no, no; yes, no, and no, yes.

People have various physical features they are looking for in sexual partners. When hiring a sex partner as opposed to dating there are far fewer factors involved and thus appearance is a bigger factor. Some people have preferences that line up with racial features. If he says "white only" I see that no different than if he said "D-cup breasts". There are also those who have racially-aligned preferences that aren't of their own race. Ever hear of "yellow fever"? (not the disease.)

Then there are preferences that are only somewhat racially aligned. I fall into that category--I do not find tropical features sexually desirable.
 
'B' is possibly legally acceptable, but that alone doesn't negate racism.
How could 'you're black, so...' NOT be racism?
Whatever the consequence is, it's a consequence based entirely, and baldly, on the person's race.
 
'B' is possibly legally acceptable, but that alone doesn't negate racism.
How could 'you're black, so...' NOT be racism?
Whatever the consequence is, it's a consequence based entirely, and baldly, on the person's race.
Exactly, yet people want to walk that back when race based decisions are acceptable. Labeling someone as a racist has such a negative connotation, there seems to be no reasonable exception, yet when there is a reasonable exception, the term mysteriously doesn't apply.
 
How could 'you're black, so...' NOT be racism?
Whatever the consequence is, it's a consequence based entirely, and baldly, on the person's race.
Exactly, yet people want to walk that back when race based decisions are acceptable. Labeling someone as a racist has such a negative connotation, there seems to be no reasonable exception, yet when there is a reasonable exception, the term mysteriously doesn't apply.

It has a negative connotation because it's negative. It may be legal, but it's a legally acceptable act of racism. The term still applies fine.

The reason that people want to walk it back is because they don't want to say that there are legally acceptable acts of racism, so they want to find a way to call it something else. They doesn't mean it's actually something else, though.
 
I am taking this quote from a quora.com post:

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-prostitute-be-sued-for-discrimination-if-she-wont-service-black-men

Unlike some have stated, it’s not necessarily racism. Escorts provide services for donations. It’s business. They have no interest in wasting time and every possible interest in maximizing their profit for time. They want to spend as little time as possible making as much money as possible, just like everyone else. It’s got little to nothing to do with hate for a given race, the size of their dicks or anything like that. And sure, in some cases maybe it does. Some people just are not attracted to blacks. Some aren’t attracted to whites. Or Asians, fat guys, men over 50 - whatever. That’s their prerogative.

According to a friend who used to work in the business - it’s just that a large number of customers ruin things for the minority of customers associated with their race. Largely, black men are a waste of time for escorts. They want to play games with her time, they’ll know the price in advance and try to squirrel out of paying it at all, or trying to force a half off deal. They’ll tend to be a lot more rough which takes further dates that night off the table, leaving the escort sore. They feel like they bought property, meaning they can be as rough as they like, as nasty as they like. Like paying for her time means they can smack the shit out of her, talk in a demeaning way, etc. They often try to make business deals (trying to work in as her pimp, driver, security, whatever). It’s a hassle, a waste of time more often than not and so they just dismiss it. That’s not to say that all black clients are like that, or that they think they all are. Their chances of coming across these types though are exceedingly high, and so they prefer to not waste their time. If in a given region white men for example are easier - paying without question, being gentle/considerate/staying within boundaries the escort sets, leaving (or letting them leave) at the agreed time, not getting attached or dominating, rough, etc. - they’re going to target those. Not to mention - frankly, again, the bad seeds spoil things. Their chances of running into someone associated with drugs or legal issues are higher. There’s just a number of reasons that have nothing to do with hate.

It’s like working as a car salesman. If you see a homeless looking guy walk up to look at a Mercedes, you’ll dismiss him to see another client who appears to have money and is put together. That doesn’t mean the disheveled man doesn’t have money and isn’t able to pay cash or that the put together business looking man can - it just means more often than not that’s the case, so that’s what you look for.

In some areas you’ll see other lines drawn. You’ll see them saying No Albanians. No Muslims. No Italians. You’ll even see women who won’t see white men, Asians, you name it. It all depends on the location, who wastes time more, and who is the safest option for both their health and physical safety, and the maximization of their time for profit.

See, white boy Derec is probably a good docile customer.
 
Back
Top Bottom