Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[ronburgundy]

Do you believe that it slavery if a baker is forced to bake cakes for gays in exchange for having a business licence?

No, not slavery, but definitely government overreach.

That's like saying that having spend a 3 hours at the DMV if you want to operate a motor vehicle means you are being imprisoned against your will at the DMV.

More government overreach.

So, you think there should be zero requirement to demonstrate the most basic driving competence and knowledge of traffic laws before being allowed to operate a 2 ton object at 60 mph that could easily kill dozens of people in seconds?

Well, you and your fellow anarchist zealots pretending to be libertarians can go somewhere else and all kill each other. The reasonable among us will gladly support a government with that rather minimal amount of "reach".

 

[ronburgundy]

What I'm making the determining factor here is the inconsistency of those who are now saying that she can simply find another job.

There is no inconsistency. You are making a false equivalence between completely different situations, and then pointing out the people have different positions on those completely different issues. To show an inconsistency, you need to show that the same people who say that she should get another job also say that other workers should be able to break the laws related to their profession and keep their job.

Actually there is a different consistency in play here - if it expands the reach of government then it is the position taken.

The only consistency is your own, if the government is trying to protect people from being harmed by others, then you are opposed to it. As with most corporatist pseudo-libertarians you likely only make an exception when its the government protecting the rich and powerful from being harmed by the poor.

Again, you cannot show there are more than a small handful of people think this woman should have to have sex with gay men, if she is going to be a sex worker. And among those people, you cannot show that any of them generally oppose workers being forced to follow the laws related to their profession. You are taking 2 tiny subgroups that may not even overlap and asserting that most progressives belong to both subgroups.

OK, maybe not rape, but sexual harrassment for sure. That is, the employer is saying (implicity, perhaps) , "do this sexual thing I'm asking or find yourself another job". Wouldn't that be considered against the law in any job?

This is sex work we are discussing where sex is explicitly part of the job, but the inability to turn down a client is something from sexual harassment to rape in my opinion. Apparently the progressive opinion is that a sex worker must not discriminate in their clientele.

I missed this the first round. It isn't even sexual harassment. It's only sexual harassment if every aspect of any form of sex-work is inherently sexual harassment. IOW, only in the same sense that anyone asking her to have sex with anyone is sexual harassment. That makes your argument an argument that all sex work should be illegal, because it inherently consists entirely of being sexually harassed. The very simple solution to this is to note that if job explicitly entails getting paid for having sex, then the concept of sexual harassment does not apply in most of the ways it would in any other job. This is not a big deal at all. Many workplace regulations vary by the inherent nature of the job. An owner of a bar is not supposed to expose his employees to lead, but the owner of a toxic cleanup company is.

I already exposed the total fallacy is your argument.
It isn't a "progressive" but simply honest rational opinion is that it's only "rape" to the same degree that abiding by any law related to any job is slavery. Do you believe that it slavery if a baker is forced to bake cakes for gays in exchange for having a business licence?

That's like saying that having spend a 3 hours at the DMV if you want to operate a motor vehicle means you are being imprisoned against your will at the DMV.

And I don't believe in the concept of a business license. But since a business license does expand government (allegedly for the benefit of someone) you support it.

I don't support it because it is government. I just don't blindly and dogmatically oppose it because it's government. Being an actual libertarian who grasps the inherent logic of individual rights (rather than an corporatist who uses the cloak of libertarianism to benefit the rich), I support people's rights to protect themselves from their far greatest threat, which is other individual citizens. That is done via government. Since virtually all economic transactions have clear causal impacts on other individuals in the community, individual rights and liberty means those other individuals have the right to collectively protect themselves from that likely harm via things like business licenses, epa regulations, etc..

Unless you equally oppose driver's licenses and traffic laws in general, then you are the inconsistent hypocrite. And if you do oppose those things then you have no grasp of what applying the principle of individual rights means.

 

[ronburgundy]

It doesn't look to me like he's making a false equivalence. It looks to me like you are. You are in effect suggesting that "If you want to sell sex you have to do it indiscriminately" is equivalent to "If you want to sell coal you have to shore up the tunnels". But by all means, make your case. Explain why that isn't a false equivalence.

It is only Jason who thinks these two are equivalent. He treats them as the same, thus he opposes government intervention in both. He thinks that if sex workers can choose not to have sex with someone whose behavior makes them 100 times more likely to have HIV, then no employer should have any regulations put on them, such as basic safety precautions for their workers.
His equivalence of these is why he is claiming that progressives mus either want her to be forced to have sex with gay porn actors or else they being inconsistent with the support for any other form of government regulation.

I think she should be able to protect herself from a 100-fold risk increase stemming from a co-worker's or client's known past behaviors. The reality is that it violates no discrimination regulation for her to do so, because the other actor being gay is irrelevant. It is his participation in man-on-man porn (which some straight men also do for $).

IOW, I don't think she should have been forced to find other work, but my point is that even she was that would be no more "rape" than it counts as slavery every single time any worker is required to do something they would rather not do, whether that task is required by their employer or by statute (e.g., following safety procedures).

I am avoiding a derail by turning this into a debate about the justification for any kind of anti-discrimination laws in general. The point is that there is nothing logically inconsistent about supporting such laws and supporting sexual harassment laws, but noting that the qualitatively distinct nature of sex work means the reasoning behind those laws does not logically apply in the same way. And that it is absurd to claim that applying some regulations to sex-work makes it "rape", because the same logic would make every aspect of sex work inherently rape (e.g., the demand for sex just because you gave her money).

Should sex workers be allowed to engage in non-stop fraud, taking $ under false pretense and providing no service? IF not, then they must be forced by regulation to provide sex to anyone who gave them $ under the promise of sex. That is as much "rape" as making her have sex with type of person. Thus, you and Jason believe that all sex work is rape, or you are being inconsistent and hypocritical.

 

[sharon45]

No, not slavery, but definitely government overreach.

More government overreach.

So, you think there should be zero requirement to demonstrate the most basic driving competence and knowledge of traffic laws before being allowed to operate a 2 ton object at 60 mph that could easily kill dozens of people in seconds?

I didn't say that, yet this certain department has been obviously underwater for a long time.

Well, you and your fellow anarchist zealots pretending to be libertarians can go somewhere else and all kill each other. The reasonable among us will gladly support a government with that rather minimal amount of "reach".

I'm not a libertarian or anywhere near an anarchist or zealot. I simply want small and efficient government.

 

[Bomb#20]

To deny service to a person only because of their perceived race IS racist, by definition.

It is. So what?

So NobleSavage asked a question and Juma answered it. What's the problem?

This thread is not about racist prostitutes but about why at least some women should not have the right to choose their sexual partners and sexual practices.

No, actually it's about racist prostitutes. 90+ percent of the posts in it have been about why at least some women should not have the right to choose their sexual partners and sexual practices, true; but that' because Tom Sawyer derailed the thread right from the get-go, turning it into a debate about his conviction that the government by right should be every prostitute's pimp and that racism among prostitutes is a disease that needs to be cured by having their pimp financially bitchslap them.

 

[Toni]

So NobleSavage asked a question and Juma answered it. What's the problem?

I dunno. What's the problem?
I thought I was allowed to respond to posts. And to ask my own questions.


Is the problem that I am...female? And not supposed to post unless I have the approval of some male? Or permission?

That seems to be a trend in this thread: women need someone male to be in charge of them and to tell them what they can and cannot do and why.

This thread is not about racist prostitutes but about why at least some women should not have the right to choose their sexual partners and sexual practices.

No, actually it's about racist prostitutes. 90+ percent of the posts in it have been about why at least some women should not have the right to choose their sexual partners and sexual practices, true; but that' because Tom Sawyer derailed the thread right from the get-go, turning it into a debate about his conviction that the government by right should be every prostitute's pimp and that racism among prostitutes is a disease that needs to be cured by having their pimp financially bitchslap them.

Nah, it's really about women not having the right to choose their own sex partners using whatever criteria they want. You really just convinced me even more.

 

[AdamWho]

I wondered this too and I just asked a couple of prostitutes why they don't like (usually younger) black men.

Their answer wasn't about racism, is was because of their treatment by black men such as getting ripped off, being treated aggressively, violence... Usually they would accept an older (30+) black guy.

I understand it is not PC but black and white people in the US have different cultures and everything isn't about race.

 

[Bomb#20]

It doesn't look to me like he's making a false equivalence. It looks to me like you are. You are in effect suggesting that "If you want to sell sex you have to do it indiscriminately" is equivalent to "If you want to sell coal you have to shore up the tunnels". But by all means, make your case. Explain why that isn't a false equivalence.

It is only Jason who thinks these two are equivalent. He treats them as the same, thus he opposes government intervention in both. He thinks that if sex workers can choose not to have sex with someone whose behavior makes them 100 times more likely to have HIV, then no employer should have any regulations put on them, such as basic safety precautions for their workers.

I do not see evidence in Jason's posts to support your inferences about what he thinks, but I guess that's between you and him to hammer out; or perhaps he'll get bored with trying to correct your jumped-to conclusions about him. My concern here is with your statement:

"Employers being required to do business in a way that doesn't threaten the public safety and thus requiring employees to abide by such codes is not remotely comparable to and employer doing whatever he wants to employees with their only recourse being to quit. That is the false equivalence you are making."​

You appear to have written that because Jason had implied that the government making an employer require prostitutes not to discriminate is comparable to an employer doing whatever he wants to employees with their only recourse being to quit. I.e., you appear to have categorized a hypothetical law requiring prostitutes not to racially discriminate on pain of their employers losing their licenses as "Employers being required to do business in a way that doesn't threaten the public safety". If you weren't categorizing such a law that way, then that part of your reply to Jason in post #705 makes no sense in context. If you were categorizing it that way, then I want to know how prostitute racism threatens public safety.

You replied to my preamble but you snipped out the operational part of my post. Here it is again:

When a Samoan encounters a whore who turns him down because she's squicked by the idea of sex with a Samoan, and he says to her "Shut up, lie down, spread your legs, and let me screw your brains out, or else I'll have you fired", by all means, explain how if the government doesn't have his back it threatens the public safety.

I am avoiding a derail by turning this into a debate about the justification for any kind of anti-discrimination laws in general.

That would not derail anything. The entire argument of the yank-her-license side of the debate here amounts to "An anti-discrimination law for prostitutes would be a just law, because anti-discrimination laws in general are just laws." But if the posters on that side systematically refuse to talk about the justification for anti-discrimination laws in general, then how are we to examine whether that justification is a weighty enough argument to outweigh the factors that make sex work different from tax accounting?

The point is that there is nothing logically inconsistent about supporting such laws and supporting sexual harassment laws, but noting that the qualitatively distinct nature of sex work means the reasoning behind those laws does not logically apply in the same way.

There's nothing logically inconsistent about supporting high taxes for Jews and low taxes for Muslims either. Logical consistency is a low bar.

Should sex workers be allowed to engage in non-stop fraud, taking $ under false pretense and providing no service? IF not, then they must be forced by regulation to provide sex to anyone who gave them $ under the promise of sex. That is as much "rape" as making her have sex with type of person.

That is an insane position for you to take. You are literally advocating government-authorized rape. Not "rape". Rape. How on earth can the visual image of a court either holding a woman in custody for contempt until she lets a man screw her, or prosecuting her for not letting him screw her, strike you as a reasonable application of fraud law? That's not the sort of thing courts in civilized countries do. We leave that sort of "law" to Pakistani village elders.

Thus, you and Jason believe that all sex work is rape, or you are being inconsistent and hypocritical.

No. We do not believe all sex work is rape, and we are not being inconsistent and hypocritical; you are being idiotic. Should sex workers be allowed to engage in non-stop fraud, taking $ under false pretense and providing no service? No, of course not. And that does not in any way imply they must be forced by regulation to provide sex to anyone who gave them $ under the promise of sex. You have no reason to think it implies that. You are making an illogical inference.

Since sex workers are not allowed to engage in non-stop fraud, taking $ under false pretense and providing no service, they must be forced by regulation to give his money back to anyone they won't screw who gave them $ under the promise of sex. This is not rocket science.

 

[Bomb#20]

I dunno. What's the problem?

The problem is you got on Juma's case based on an incorrect premise: "This thread is not about racist prostitutes". If you inspect the thread title and the OP, you'll find that the thread actually is about racist prostitutes.

I thought I was allowed to respond to posts. And to ask my own questions.


Is the problem that I am...female? And not supposed to post unless I have the approval of some male? Or permission?

God, you're weird. Who the heck ever suggested you are not allowed to respond to posts and ask your own questions? You are allowed to respond to posts and ask your own questions. And so are the rest of us! No, the problem is not that you are female. The problem is that you got on Juma's case based on an incorrect premise. You can tell your femaleness is not the problem if you review my other posts -- you'll find that I often point out male posters' incorrect premises too.

That seems to be a trend in this thread: women need someone male to be in charge of them and to tell them what they can and cannot do and why.

No, actually it's about racist prostitutes. 90+ percent of the posts in it have been about why at least some women should not have the right to choose their sexual partners and sexual practices, true; but that' because Tom Sawyer derailed the thread right from the get-go, turning it into a debate about his conviction that the government by right should be every prostitute's pimp and that racism among prostitutes is a disease that needs to be cured by having their pimp financially bitchslap them.

Nah, it's really about women not having the right to choose their own sex partners using whatever criteria they want. You really just convinced me even more.

Well, the part of the thread that responded to post #2 is really about that. I'm merely pointing out that Juma's post isn't in that category -- it responded to post #1.

 

[Toni]

The problem is you got on Juma's case based on an incorrect premise: "This thread is not about racist prostitutes". If you inspect the thread title and the OP, you'll find that the thread actually is about racist prostitutes.


God, you're weird. Who the heck ever suggested you are not allowed to respond to posts and ask your own questions? You are allowed to respond to posts and ask your own questions. And so are the rest of us! No, the problem is not that you are female. The problem is that you got on Juma's case based on an incorrect premise. You can tell your femaleness is not the problem if you review my other posts -- you'll find that I often point out male posters' incorrect premises too.

That seems to be a trend in this thread: women need someone male to be in charge of them and to tell them what they can and cannot do and why.

No, actually it's about racist prostitutes. 90+ percent of the posts in it have been about why at least some women should not have the right to choose their sexual partners and sexual practices, true; but that' because Tom Sawyer derailed the thread right from the get-go, turning it into a debate about his conviction that the government by right should be every prostitute's pimp and that racism among prostitutes is a disease that needs to be cured by having their pimp financially bitchslap them.

Nah, it's really about women not having the right to choose their own sex partners using whatever criteria they want. You really just convinced me even more.

Well, the part of the thread that responded to post #2 is really about that. I'm merely pointing out that Juma's post isn't in that category -- it responded to post #1.

I wasn't getting 'on Juma's case.'

I responded to a post. I don't care whose post it was. I have nothing against Juma or anyone else. You asked me what the problem was. I speculated about what problem you had with me posting in response to someone's post.

As for this thread being about 'racists prostitutes' I will say: So what if some prostitutes are racist? Prostitutes are human beings.

But let's get back to what the threat is REALLY about. In your own words:

90+ percent of the posts in it have been about why at least some women should not have the right to choose their sexual partners and sexual practices, true;

Exactly.
Seems to me that is if 90+% of the posts in a thread are about something, that something is what the thread is about, no matter what the intentions of the OP.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ron, you seem to be having a real problem understanding my position. I don't know how to make my position clearer though. Okay, I guess I can say that my position has several parts.

Part 1. I do believe a business can turn away any person for any reason. That puts me at odds with the holy grail of anti-discrimination. And I believe that if the person is not self-employed, the boss has every right to fire any person who refuses to serve whomever takes such a position under the employ of someone else. If an employee says "I won't serve black people" the boss can say "you're fired."

Part 2. I noticed a disparity of comments from those I normally argue against. This is a summary of what I see.

Worker: I do not like this wage and working conditions.
Me: Okay, find another job.
Progressive: How dare you say something so awful.
Me: Interesting. Here is a sex worker who won't service minorities.
Progressive: Then she should find another job.
Me: Even more interesting.

The only difference between the two conditions is that in the second case, it runs afoul of Part 1. She should be sacrificed on the altar of anti-discrimination, and denied both her worker rights and her female rights In a way it makes sense, race trumps gender on the progressive stack, so a white woman has more privilege than a black man. I am told here that any sex worker who refuses to service minorities must find a whole other line of work, not just a different employer.

Part 3. Given that I already disagree with Part 1, and find inconsistency in Part 2, I do not agree that a sex worker must service any eligible client. I would have no problem saying she should find another employer, but I have a great problem saying she should be barred from sex work as a whole due to her discriminatory decisions. Saying she should be barred from sex work, that goes too far.

I also see forcing someone to engage in sex when that person does not consent as rape. I do not see "I take this job" as "I consent to all eligible clients." I see those as two completely different statements. If the option is "you must engage in sex with that person or not work in this industry" then I see it as coerced sex, sex by threat of force. Given my disagreement with Part 1, I see no other way to interpret the threat of being barred from working at all as a vicious threat and the resulting sex as anything other than rape.

Part 4: This wasn't part of my original argument, I thought of it earlier today. The top rank of the progressive stack is race, then comes gender identity (not gender), then comes gender, then sexual orientation. A gay man has more privilege than a straight woman. Therefore this porn star saying she didn't want to perform with a man who has sex with men doesn't violate the progressive stack, and that makes this whole argument even more incomprehensible.

 

[Toni]

Ron, you seem to be having a real problem understanding my position. I don't know how to make my position clearer though. Okay, I guess I can say that my position has several parts.

Part 1. I do believe a business can turn away any person for any reason. That puts me at odds with the holy grail of anti-discrimination. And I believe that if the person is not self-employed, the boss has every right to fire any person who refuses to serve whomever takes such a position under the employ of someone else. If an employee says "I won't serve black people" the boss can say "you're fired."

Part 2. I noticed a disparity of comments from those I normally argue against. This is a summary of what I see.

Worker: I do not like this wage and working conditions.
Me: Okay, find another job.
Progressive: How dare you say something so awful.
Me: Interesting. Here is a sex worker who won't service minorities.
Progressive: Then she should find another job.
Me: Even more interesting.

The only difference between the two conditions is that in the second case, it runs afoul of Part 1. She should be sacrificed on the altar of anti-discrimination, and denied both her worker rights and her female rights In a way it makes sense, race trumps gender on the progressive stack, so a white woman has more privilege than a black man. I am told here that any sex worker who refuses to service minorities must find a whole other line of work, not just a different employer.

Part 3. Given that I already disagree with Part 1, and find inconsistency in Part 2, I do not agree that a sex worker must service any eligible client. I would have no problem saying she should find another employer, but I have a great problem saying she should be barred from sex work as a whole due to her discriminatory decisions. Saying she should be barred from sex work, that goes too far.

I also see forcing someone to engage in sex when that person does not consent as rape. I do not see "I take this job" as "I consent to all eligible clients." I see those as two completely different statements. If the option is "you must engage in sex with that person or not work in this industry" then I see it as coerced sex, sex by threat of force. Given my disagreement with Part 1, I see no other way to interpret the threat of being barred from working at all as a vicious threat and the resulting sex as anything other than rape.

Part 4: This wasn't part of my original argument, I thought of it earlier today. The top rank of the progressive stack is race, then comes gender identity (not gender), then comes gender, then sexual orientation. A gay man has more privilege than a straight woman. Therefore this porn star saying she didn't want to perform with a man who has sex with men doesn't violate the progressive stack, and that makes this whole argument even more incomprehensible.

You're way overthinking this.


This thread is actually about finding a way to force women to have sex with people they don't want to have sex. The fact is that for the most part, most people accept that women (and presumably men) can refuse to have sex with anyone they want. They're just trying to find a special category of woman who doesn't deserve the same autonomy of her body as you know, regular women.

Never mind that a lot of prostitutes are male. No one ever talks about what male prostitutes might or might not be forced to do. Because it's just too uncomfortable to contemplate a male being forced to provide sexual services to someone he finds distasteful or unappealing, or to give up that much autonomy.

 

[sharon45]

This thread is actually about finding a way to force women to have sex with people they don't want to have sex.

No, it is the OP, as was already pointed out.

They're just trying to find a special category of woman who doesn't deserve the same autonomy of her body as you know, regular women.

Which people?

Never mind that a lot of prostitutes are male. No one ever talks about what male prostitutes might or might not be forced to do. Because it's just too uncomfortable to contemplate a male being forced to provide sexual services to someone he finds distasteful or unappealing, or to give up that much autonomy.

Because women prostitutes obviously make up a much larger group, and are more considered as victims.

 

[Toni]

No, it is the OP, as was already pointed out.

The thread quickly evolved. Even included curing prostitutes of thinking they had any rights to decide about what happened to their own body as Tom Sawyer so charmingly pointed out by 'bitch slapping' her. Of course that was a 'joke.' Funny thing is that there never seem to be any jokes about bitch slapping a man for refusing to have sex with someone...or for any reason, actually.


-

Which people?

All those who are posting about how it is just like any other business and the women shouldn't care whose dick gets stuck where: it's not her choice.

And it's always HER.

Never mind that a lot of prostitutes are male. No one ever talks about whatever t male prostitutes might or might not be forced to do. Because it's just too uncomfortable to contemplate a male being forced to provide sexual services to someone he finds distasteful or unappealing, or to give up that much autonomy.

Because women prostitutes obviously make up a much larger group, and are more considered as victims.

I'm sure that prostitutes turning down black customers are a minority, too. And I'm pretty sure that those boys turning tricks are just as exploited and victimized.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Woman should bitch slap a man if he don't has sex with her. Heh.

There. A joke. You happy?

Also, as has been consistently pointed out every time this topic is brought up, the exact same would hold true for men as for women. It has absolutely nothing yo do with gender.

 

[Toni]

Woman should bitch slap a man if he don't has sex with her. Heh.

There. A joke. You happy?

Also, as has been consistently pointed out every time this topic is brought up, the exact same would hold true for men as for women. It has absolutely nothing yo do with gender.

Sure it does. If it didn't, I wouldn't be the only person in such threads that acknowledges the reality of male prostitution. Or male rape victims, for that matter.

 

[sharon45]

The thread quickly evolved.

Derails can add extra life to dead threads, but this one happened rather early.

Never mind that a lot of prostitutes are male. No one ever talks about whatever t male prostitutes might or might not be forced to do. Because it's just too uncomfortable to contemplate a male being forced to provide sexual services to someone he finds distasteful or unappealing, or to give up that much autonomy.

Because women prostitutes obviously make up a much larger group, and are more considered as victims.

I'm sure that prostitutes turning down black customers are a minority, too. And I'm pretty sure that those boys turning tricks are just as exploited and victimized.

Even though male prostitution is well-known, I doubt that there are anywhere near as many victims.

 

[Toni]

Derails can add extra life to dead threads, but this one happened rather early.

Never mind that a lot of prostitutes are male. No one ever talks about whatever t male prostitutes might or might not be forced to do. Because it's just too uncomfortable to contemplate a male being forced to provide sexual services to someone he finds distasteful or unappealing, or to give up that much autonomy.

Because women prostitutes obviously make up a much larger group, and are more considered as victims.

I'm sure that prostitutes turning down black customers are a minority, too. And I'm pretty sure that those boys turning tricks are just as exploited and victimized.

Even though male prostitution is well-known, I doubt that there are anywhere near as many victims.

I'm not sure I get the point you are trying to make.

 

[Juma]

In a country where most services are run by private entrepreneurs discrimantion by color/gender/physical/mental handicap etc where it really doesnt matter is a really bad thing. This isnt about the freedom of the entrepreneurs. This is about letting people not to be discriminated! As an entrepreneur you take advantage of the society and there is no right to dismiss people just because have another color.

 

[sharon45]

In a country where most services are run by private entrepreneurs discrimantion by color/gender/physical/mental handicap etc where it really doesnt matter is a really bad thing. This isnt about the freedom of the entrepreneurs. This is about letting people not to be discriminated! As an entrepreneur you take advantage of the society and there is no right to dismiss people just because have another color.

Yeah, except prostitution and working in pornography are hardly counted as typical jobs, especially since engaging in sex for normal folks is a very personal and private choice, and of course also highly discriminatory.