Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[Toni]

But that isnt a good argument.
Discrimination is discrimnation.

It isnt really a ”personal act” if you provide it as a service to the public.
Prostitutes do it for the money. Nuff said..
This IS a case where people are using the acess to customers as

Of course it is a personal, intimate service---not a product but a service. It's also not one that is offered in public, generally. Shouldn't prostitutes be allowed to decline to service a customer whose requests they find unreasonable? A customer that they fear may become violent? Or who seems to be too attached? Or just too weird?

First of all, prostitutes who advertise that they don't accept black customers are probably utilizing the racism of their prospective clientele--there are those who prefer not to utilize the same services, especially intimate services, as black customers. Of course, this is racist and not admirable. But also not illegal.

Secondly, in many professions, independent contractors are free to accept or turn down clients for any reason at all--or no reason. Actors and in fact, many who work in the entertainment industry, can and do choose to work with some individuals and not others. One would hope that the reasons are only a matter of professional incompatibility but I think we all are quite aware that some actors have strong dislikes for other actors and when they can, choose not to work with certain individuals. Mel Gibson is pretty infamous for his racism, antisemitism, and his history of domestic abuse and it's hurt him professionally quite a bit--until recently when he seems to have paid his penance. I cannot imagine anyone faulting a person of color, a Jewish person, or a woman for preferring not to work with Mr. Gibson just as I cannot imagine anyone faulting someone for choosing not to work with Woody Allen or Roman Polanski although many still do so, eagerly. I'm pretty sure that if a young actress made it known that she would not work with Allen or Polanski she would not, in fact, work at all.

Dog breeders --and rescuers--can be extremely selective about who will receive (for $$) one of their puppies. Attorneys do not accept all clients. Nor do building contractors or a host of other professionals.

But that doesn't really deal with the issue at hand.

Of course all of those people can reject customers for most any reason. An attorney, prostitute, contractor or porn star can always say "I don't want to do business with you" and then not do business with that person and there's absolutely no issue.

The issue comes up when they specify that they don't want to do business with them for discriminatory reasons. If an attorney advertises "No Mexican clients", then they can't do business as an attorney. That's a completely separate matter for not wanting to do business with them for any other reason or simply not specifying the reason they doesn't want to do business with them. If a prostitute says that lesbians are icky and he doesn't want to stick his penis in some rug-muncher, then he can't run a legal prostitution business with that attitude.

That's irrespective of whether or not it's a good business plan. A prostitute may very well want to cater to a racist clientele by advertising that no blacks are welcome and an accountant may very well want to cater to the local Nazis by advertising his office as a Jew-free zone. Anti-discrimination laws forbid them from running their businesses with those strategies, though.

Can a prostitute refuse to service men who have sex with men because of the increased risk of transmission of HIV and other STI? Isn't it anti-gay to so reject these clients because certainly not all men who have sex with men are infected with HIV or other STIs?

Cannot potential parents select a potential surrogate mother or sperm donor for their racial and other genetic make up? For the degrees they may hold? Their marital status? Whether or not they've given birth to a healthy child previously? OF course they can and do. All of the time.

My position is that (assuming consenting adults always) anyone may use whatever criteria he or she wishes to chose his or her own sex partners and may refuse any sex partner for any reason. Including bad ones. Including ones that I find reprehensible.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But that doesn't really deal with the issue at hand.

Of course all of those people can reject customers for most any reason. An attorney, prostitute, contractor or porn star can always say "I don't want to do business with you" and then not do business with that person and there's absolutely no issue.

The issue comes up when they specify that they don't want to do business with them for discriminatory reasons. If an attorney advertises "No Mexican clients", then they can't do business as an attorney. That's a completely separate matter for not wanting to do business with them for any other reason or simply not specifying the reason they doesn't want to do business with them. If a prostitute says that lesbians are icky and he doesn't want to stick his penis in some rug-muncher, then he can't run a legal prostitution business with that attitude.

That's irrespective of whether or not it's a good business plan. A prostitute may very well want to cater to a racist clientele by advertising that no blacks are welcome and an accountant may very well want to cater to the local Nazis by advertising his office as a Jew-free zone. Anti-discrimination laws forbid them from running their businesses with those strategies, though.

What discrimination laws are you referring to?

There are female pornstars that sleep only with women. What law are they breaking?

There are websites that hire only black pornstars. What law are they breaking?

Please be specific.

Ya, those would both be OK. Not everything is black and white. If a porn star wants to only do lesbian scenes or a gym wants to be female only, that's fine. If a website wants to only show black actors because that's a fetish they cater to or a building manager wants to rent out to black-owned businesses in order to increase their representation in the community, no problem.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Can a prostitute refuse to service men who have sex with men because of the increased risk of transmission of HIV and other STI? Isn't it anti-gay to so reject these clients because certainly not all men who have sex with men are infected with HIV or other STIs?

Cannot potential parents select a potential surrogate mother or sperm donor for their racial and other genetic make up? For the degrees they may hold? Their marital status? Whether or not they've given birth to a healthy child previously? OF course they can and do. All of the time.

My position is that (assuming consenting adults always) anyone may use whatever criteria he or she wishes to chose his or her own sex partners and may refuse any sex partner for any reason. Including bad ones. Including ones that I find reprehensible.

And therein lies the inherent difference in our positions. I think that if you're going to make sex work legal, then part of doing that should make sex work the same as any other work.

I don't see much difference between your first sentence and the sentence "Can a shop owner refuse to service men who are black because of the increased risk of robbery? Isn't it anti-black to so reject these clients because certainly not all black men are robbers?"

In both cases the answer is that they can't run their businesses that way. Crime rates are higher amongst blacks, but that doesn't mean that it's OK to assume that blacks entering your shop are criminals who want to rob you. HIV infection rates are higher amongst gay men than straight men, but that doesn't mean it's OK to assume that homosexuals entering your brothel are HIV positive.

For your second sentence, there's nothing I disagree with.

For your third one, if you want to run a legal business that prohibits service to people for reprehensible reasons, you need to either take the time to come up with less reprehensible ones to pass off as your reasons or you need to not prohibit service for those reasons.

 

[Toni]

Can a prostitute refuse to service men who have sex with men because of the increased risk of transmission of HIV and other STI? Isn't it anti-gay to so reject these clients because certainly not all men who have sex with men are infected with HIV or other STIs?

Cannot potential parents select a potential surrogate mother or sperm donor for their racial and other genetic make up? For the degrees they may hold? Their marital status? Whether or not they've given birth to a healthy child previously? OF course they can and do. All of the time.

My position is that (assuming consenting adults always) anyone may use whatever criteria he or she wishes to chose his or her own sex partners and may refuse any sex partner for any reason. Including bad ones. Including ones that I find reprehensible.

And therein lies the inherent difference in our positions. I think that if you're going to make sex work legal, then part of doing that should make sex work the same as any other work.

I don't see much difference between your first sentence and the sentence "Can a shop owner refuse to service men who are black because of the increased risk of robbery? Isn't it anti-black to so reject these clients because certainly not all black men are robbers?"

In both cases the answer is that they can't run their businesses that way. Crime rates are higher amongst blacks, but that doesn't mean that it's OK to assume that blacks entering your shop are criminals who want to rob you. HIV infection rates are higher amongst gay men than straight men, but that doesn't mean it's OK to assume that homosexuals entering your brothel are HIV positive.

For your second sentence, there's nothing I disagree with.

For your third one, if you want to run a legal business that prohibits service to people for reprehensible reasons, you need to either take the time to come up with less reprehensible ones to pass off as your reasons or you need to not prohibit service for those reasons.

I think a key difference in our positions is that I see a difference between being robbed and being fucked.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think a key difference in our positions is that I see a difference between being robbed and being fucked.

How about rape then? Is it ok for taxi cab drivers or bus drivers to deny service to black men if they fear black men to more likely be rapists?

How about being murdered? Is it ok for gun shops to deny black people firearms due to their race because statistically more black people kill people with guns?

This is an awfully weak argument and dives directly into racial discrimination and directly against much of what you have written elsewhere.

 

[Toni]

I think a key difference in our positions is that I see a difference between being robbed and being fucked.

How about rape then? Is it ok for taxi cab drivers or bus drivers to deny service to black men if they fear black men to more likely be rapists?

How about being murdered? Is it ok for gun shops to deny black people firearms due to their race because statistically more black people kill people with guns?

This is an awfully weak argument and dives directly into racial discrimination and directly against much of what you have written elsewhere.

Why are you so invested in forcing women to have sex with people they don't wish to have sex with?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Getting back to the restart of this thread because of August Ames, I think this is about second hand risk.

It seems like the say porn industry is more lax on HIV testing frequency, but instead relies on using condoms and "PrEP" medicine. There are also some amount of HIV+ performers, who use condoms.

So a straight woman who has sex with gay performer "A" who is tested like a straight performer has been having sex recently with weakly tested men B, C, D, E and F.

Yeah, I have heard this, also. There are enough HIV+ gay performers that I don't blame her one bit for not wanting a crossover.

- - - Updated - - -

If you provide a service to the public you should not discriminate people just because of color etc. what is this so hard to understandhave you all forgotten Rosa Parks?

Pornstars do not provide a "service to the public". They perform with whom they consent to perform.

Actually, they do provide a service to the public.

If one were to refuse to sell a video to someone because of their race I would have a problem with it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think a key difference in our positions is that I see a difference between being robbed and being fucked.

How about rape then? Is it ok for taxi cab drivers or bus drivers to deny service to black men if they fear black men to more likely be rapists?

How about being murdered? Is it ok for gun shops to deny black people firearms due to their race because statistically more black people kill people with guns?

This is an awfully weak argument and dives directly into racial discrimination and directly against much of what you have written elsewhere.

Why are you so invested in forcing women to have sex with people they don't wish to have sex with?

Why are you attempting to dodge the question by making libelous false allegations against me accusing me of intending rape (forced sex)?

 

[Toni]

Why are you so invested in forcing women to have sex with people they don't wish to have sex with?

Why are you attempting to dodge the question by making libelous false allegations against me accusing me of intending rape (forced sex)?

That's exactly what is being proposed: a prostitute cannot use his or her best judgement and preferences when choosing which clients s/he will take on. S/he should be compelled to provide services for a client s/he does not wish to service. This is rape.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why are you so invested in forcing women to have sex with people they don't wish to have sex with?

Why are you attempting to dodge the question by making libelous false allegations against me accusing me of intending rape (forced sex)?

That's exactly what is being proposed: a prostitute cannot use his or her best judgement and preferences when choosing which clients s/he will take on. S/he should be compelled to provide services for a client s/he does not wish to service. This is rape.

You still aren't answering the question.

And what you quoted of me above did not advocate in either direction.

I want to see if you answer the question, and if not, then I think you may enjoy listening to some Ben Shapiro.

 

[Toni]

That's exactly what is being proposed: a prostitute cannot use his or her best judgement and preferences when choosing which clients s/he will take on. S/he should be compelled to provide services for a client s/he does not wish to service. This is rape.

You still aren't answering the question.

And what you quoted of me above did not advocate in either direction.

I want to see if you answer the question, and if not, then I think you may enjoy listening to some Ben Shapiro.

What question? Which one of your questions built on the premise of black criminality?

You really do seem pretty invested in trying to compel women to do something.

Why is that?

 

[dismal]

But that doesn't really deal with the issue at hand.

Of course all of those people can reject customers for most any reason. An attorney, prostitute, contractor or porn star can always say "I don't want to do business with you" and then not do business with that person and there's absolutely no issue.

The issue comes up when they specify that they don't want to do business with them for discriminatory reasons. If an attorney advertises "No Mexican clients", then they can't do business as an attorney. That's a completely separate matter for not wanting to do business with them for any other reason or simply not specifying the reason they doesn't want to do business with them. If a prostitute says that lesbians are icky and he doesn't want to stick his penis in some rug-muncher, then he can't run a legal prostitution business with that attitude.

That's irrespective of whether or not it's a good business plan. A prostitute may very well want to cater to a racist clientele by advertising that no blacks are welcome and an accountant may very well want to cater to the local Nazis by advertising his office as a Jew-free zone. Anti-discrimination laws forbid them from running their businesses with those strategies, though.

What discrimination laws are you referring to?

There are female pornstars that sleep only with women. What law are they breaking?

There are websites that hire only black pornstars. What law are they breaking?

Please be specific.

Ya, those would both be OK. Not everything is black and white.

Not everything is black or white, but everything at BlacksonBlondes.com is black on white.

 

[ruby sparks]

Why are you so invested in forcing women to have sex with people they don't wish to have sex with?

Why are you attempting to dodge the question by making libelous false allegations against me accusing me of intending rape (forced sex)?

That's exactly what is being proposed: a prostitute cannot use his or her best judgement and preferences when choosing which clients s/he will take on. S/he should be compelled to provide services for a client s/he does not wish to service. This is rape.

Personally, I'm finding this a very tricky topic to come to a settled opinion on. There seems to be two ways of looking at it at almost every juncture. So, while I felt I could agree with you a moment ago, it occurred to me that there's an answer to that question which would involve being keen not to have black people discriminated against just because of their skin colour.

 

[Toni]

That's exactly what is being proposed: a prostitute cannot use his or her best judgement and preferences when choosing which clients s/he will take on. S/he should be compelled to provide services for a client s/he does not wish to service. This is rape.

Personally, I'm finding this a very tricky topic to come to a settled opinion on. There seems to be two ways of looking at it at almost every juncture. So, while I felt I could agree with you a moment ago, it occurred to me that there's an answer to that question which would involve being keen not to have black people discriminated against just because of their skin colour.

Which would be?

 

[ruby sparks]

That's exactly what is being proposed: a prostitute cannot use his or her best judgement and preferences when choosing which clients s/he will take on. S/he should be compelled to provide services for a client s/he does not wish to service. This is rape.

Personally, I'm finding this a very tricky topic to come to a settled opinion on. There seems to be two ways of looking at it at almost every juncture. So, while I felt I could agree with you a moment ago, it occurred to me that there's an answer to that question which would involve being keen not to have black people discriminated against just because of their skin colour.

Which would be?

Um....., "I'm keen not to have black people discriminated against just because of their skin colour"?

You don't have to find it as convincing, but it is a valid answer. You personally may feel that a prostitute's preferences trumps it. That's cool. That would be your personal opinion.

 

[J842P]

That's exactly what is being proposed: a prostitute cannot use his or her best judgement and preferences when choosing which clients s/he will take on. S/he should be compelled to provide services for a client s/he does not wish to service. This is rape.

Personally, I'm finding this a very tricky topic to come to a settled opinion on. There seems to be two ways of looking at it at almost every juncture. So, while I felt I could agree with you a moment ago, it occurred to me that there's an answer to that question which would involve being keen not to have black people discriminated against just because of their skin colour.

Which would be?

The argument is if you have a business "open to the public" then you cannot discriminate based on factors like race, religion, sexual-orientation, etc.

We have a large discussion going on with this very same situation in the case of a wedding-cake for a gay marriage.

The argument goes something like "you are not being forced to bake a cake, but if you choose to sell cakes, then you must not discriminate". So, here in the case of prostitutes it would be "you are not being forced to have sex, but if you choose to have sex as a business, you cannot discriminate based on <whatever protected statuses>".

I personally think both of those arguments are wrong. People should be free to discriminate all they want, except perhaps for businesses that have been granted corporation status, or and a few select industries (say, healthcare, finance, maybe some others).

The state should not be able to compel you do do these things.

 

[Toni]

I think that there are differences between the wedding cake scenario and prostitution but also some similarities. I don't think a bakery has the right to refuse to produce a cake for a gay couple. I do think a baker has the right to refuse to provide gendered toppers for cakes or to write Congratulations Bob and Dave. I think those refusals must be consistent whether the couple is gay or straight.

I think that it is wrong to discriminate against someone because of race but even more wrong to compel someone to have sex with someone they don't wish to have sex. Even if the reason is racist. I think it is wrong to discriminate against people because of age or disability or gender but I believe that it is acceptable to decline (or to specifically choose) to have sex with someone because of any of these.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am with J842P on this. You SHOULD allowed to not take black people, redheads, or Norwegians as customers for no stated reason, unless you are a public company doing a public service that all citizens have a right to (and pay taxes for)

 

[J842P]

I think that there are differences between the wedding cake scenario and prostitution but also some similarities. I don't think a bakery has the right to refuse to produce a cake for a gay couple. I do think a baker has the right to refuse to provide gendered toppers for cakes or to write Congratulations Bob and Dave. I think those refusals must be consistent whether the couple is gay or straight.

I think that it is wrong to discriminate against someone because of race but even more wrong to compel someone to have sex with someone they don't wish to have sex. Even if the reason is racist. I think it is wrong to discriminate against people because of age or disability or gender but I believe that it is acceptable to decline (or to specifically choose) to have sex with someone because of any of these.

I think the two situations are exactly analogous when it comes to the relevant principles. But even if I did believe that the government should be able to compel businesses not to discriminate, I would definitely special-case something like prostitution.

My actual position is sort of the inverse, the government should not be able to compel businesses not to discriminate, unless there is a special case of healthcare, housing, financial services, and perhaps, businesses that have been incorporated.

 

[Toni]

Which would be?

Um....., "I'm keen not to have black people discriminated against just because of their skin colour"?

You don't have to find it as convincing, but it is a valid answer. You personally may feel that a prostitute's preferences trumps it. That's cool. That would be your personal opinion.

I'm also very adamantly opposed to someone being discriminated against because of their skin color.

But I am even more adamantly opposed to a scenario where someone does not have the right to decline any or all sexual act with anyone for any reason. Even bad reasons. Otherwise it is rape.

That's what it boils down to for me.