Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[ksen]

It's the same with prostitutes. If they're using their body as a business transaction, then different rules apply than if they pick up some guy in a bar. This is no way forces them to have sex with black men but there are legal consequences to doing so which will impact their ability to run their business in such an overtly racist manner.

You couldn't imagine a scenario where a black guy sues a prostitute for not having sex with him and having the judge side with the black guy saying she must serve him? How would that not be forcing her to have sex with a black guy?

 

[dystopian]

I'm not following you here. Are you saying that unless you are registered with the Chamber of Commerce, you're not actually doing work?

It means you're not considered a business for legal purposes. Duh?

Or is it that only certain types of jobs are classified as work? You are, of course, aware that there are many prostitutes who are registered with the CoC. What's the difference between what those prostitutes are doing and what unregistered prostitutes are doing?

Those are utilizing one of the options that does allow for that. One isn't forced to do that, however. One can perform legal prostitution either under

1) a formal wage labour scenario in which you're working for a business (such as say an escort service); this business does not have a special agreement with the tax service; for tax/legal purposes you are considered a regular employee of a business and no mention is made of the nature of the work.

2) Self-employed; you DO need to register with the chamber of commerce, but as I explained previously this does not necessarily mean the prostitute then becomes subject to your interpretation of the rules as such. Incidentally, the CoC distinguishes between self-employed individuals and freelancers; in order for someone to register with the CoC as self-employed (and thus be considered a business entity for legal and tax purposes); the self-employed individual/small business must have a minimum of three clients (as in, it could have a hundred different random clients over a certain period, or it could qualify with just 3 regular long-term clients), but if the ratio between these clients is lopsides, one might not qualify; if for instance 90% of the orders come from a single client. So a prostitute with only 2 regular clients can't register with the CoC.

3) 'Opting-in'; a prostitute still works within the structure of a business (such as the previously mentioned escort-service), but is NOT considered to be in wage labour: this is a hybrid of the two options. You're independent and not formally employed, but the business within which you work signs a separate agreement with the tax service that requires them to hold a percentage of your income and sign it over to them. In this way, the government still gets the taxes it is owed *without* forcing prostitutes to register themselves as such and give up their privacy. It is this option that is most relevant to the discussion.

Given that the tax men in your country are going around nailing the unregistered ones for back taxes and the like,

They don't nail unregistered prostitutes for back taxes, where are you getting this? Like I explained above, prostitutes have a number of options to choose from when it comes to legal prostitution including two which do NOT require them to register themselves as prostitutes. Now, if a prostitute happens to not avail themselves of these legal options but still makes money, then it simply becomes a matter of the government wanting the income tax it is owed; but this doesn't imply that they think you're therefore conducting a legitimate business as such. They do the same with mob bosses and other criminals; if a criminal makes ten million euros in a year using fraud and then gets arrested (on whatever charge), then the government has to decide what to do with the money. If they can't reasonably determine that the money was stolen from people and businesses and who from and how much (such as say, it was defrauded from other criminals), then when they seize that money some of it might get taken in as regular income tax.

they seem to think there's some kind of business going on there. Also, was the lack of forcing prostitutes to register based on the fact that they're not doing business or because they didn't want to force women to publically declare themselves as prostitutes?

The latter, obviously, keeping in mind that being registered with the government as a prostitute even if only the government can see that IS considered a public declaration of such.

You have two computer programmers who are hired as freelancers with a Dutch company. One of them properly registers and gets that id number and files all the correct paperwork and everything and the other doesn't bother.

Like I said, this is not strictly possible since the CoC differentiates between freelancers and self-employed individuals. Furthermore, your situation isn't relevant since it doesn't take into consideration the opting-in option available to prostitutes which means they don't HAVE to register and aren't considered to be tax-evading for it.

If the unregistered person yells out to a customers "Hey, no niggers allowed! Get out of here!", is that OK because he's not there on business?

They would both, in fact, be allowed to do that since as freelance (or self-employed) programmers they're likely working from home. If he's not at home but rather working at the company they're freelancing for, then yes; they could legally say that... of course, that company would probably then terminate their contract.

If he exposes himself to one of the female employees, is that not considered sexual harassment because he's not a co-worker?

That would then fall under general sexual harassment laws rather than the harassment rules of that company. I don't see why you think this is a relevant analogy; do you imagine Dutch law only considers sexual harassment to be a thing when it's done within the context of a job environment?

A unionized construction worker is on a job. To save some money on extra work, the manager hires a couple of illegal immigrants under the table. The two of them are hammering alongside each other, but is one of them engaging in business and the other not? If the illegal one drops a brick and it hits a passerby on the sidewalk, does that guy not have a case against the construction company for damages because it wasn't an employee who harmed them, but just some private individual?

This also doesn't take into account the opting-in scheme; which allows prostitutes to be independent while to some extent being affiliated with a business. It's more equivalent to the business being the landlord than anything else; if a resident of an apartment complex attacks you within its halls, who do you report to the police; the person who attacked you or the person who owns the apartment complex where it happened? The business with which the prostitute has entered into an opting-in agreement will likely have set some terms in the same way that the landlord might set terms for residence; but those terms aren't going to be as strict as those found in a regular employment contract. If the prostitute violates these terms, then of course the business can throw them out; but they're not legally responsible for the prostitute's misconduct anymore than the landlord is responsible for their renter's violent behavior.

A prostitute is working in the red light district. She properly registers as a self-employed businesswoman, files all the correct paperwork, had an accountant do her taxes and everything like that. In the room next to her, an unregistered prostitute is there. She charges the same rates, sees the same number of clients, does the same things during the sessions, etc. What is the difference between the two of them? Are neither of them actually engaging in business, are both of them engaging in the exact same business, or is one doing business and the other not simply as a result of the paperwork that was filed? Please explain your answer.

See my explanation of the different options available for prostitutes. The unregistered prostitute would either be a criminal in her violation of the tax law, be operating under the opting-in scheme and thus not legally considered employed while still through a roundabout way paying her taxes, or instead be in regular wage employ under a business.

 

[Angry Floof]

you do accept that certain situation demand a certain degree of discrimination, but you don't agree that sex is one of those things, or just sex you pay for? A woman is free to turn down any man for any reason if she is acting as a private citizen, but once sex becomes her job, she looses her right of refusal unless for acceptable reasons? And if the reason is unlawful, her John has the right to demand to fuck her and she must acquiesce, against her will?

The problem here,as I see it, is not so much about race discrimination as who has the right to control the body and actions of the woman. With regard to acts of an intimate nature, just how much power should the state have, even when there is a business transaction involved?

NO. A body is the same as a sandwich is the same as tax services. There are RULES, little missy, and rules are more important than any human concern. NO EXCEPTIONS. [/Inspector Javert]

I would not support any legislation or regulation (or even social norm for that matter) that would diminish, fine, sanction, interfere with, or punish in any way any adult, consenting human being's sexual choices.

Regardless of whether they make money from it, or how much.
Regardless of their reasons, or whether anyone is disgusted by those reasons, or whether they lie about their reasons, or whether they give any reasons at all.
Regardless of whether they have paid their taxes or fees, or whether they are properly licensed or registered.

The only restrictions on anyone's sexual choices that I would support are those that might affect any non-consenting person. That would mean age restrictions, consent, and laws regarding location, hygiene, and spreading of disease.

The OP asks if a prostitute refusing to share his or her body with a black person is racist. Maybe it is. You don't know unless you ask that particular prostitute, but even if you do and he or she says it's racism, it's still a non-issue. It's not your business, or the law's, no matter how repugnant you find it. Money-making business or not, sexual preference is an area where no one has the right to make that choice for another or to punish anyone for refusing sex to anyone.

On a slightly different note, if prostitution should become legal, expect those who currently work to punish women through healthcare access and reproductive rights legislation to expand that war to doing the same to prostitutes through whatever laws and regulations end up on the table. I support legalization of prostitution regardless of how badly the trogs among us will behave, but I have no illusions that it would go smoothly. Imagine the Republican talking points when the lowest of the low on the social ladder start to look like they might gain some level of social power and respectability...

 

[AthenaAwakened]

you do accept that certain situation demand a certain degree of discrimination, but you don't agree that sex is one of those things, or just sex you pay for? A woman is free to turn down any man for any reason if she is acting as a private citizen, but once sex becomes her job, she looses her right of refusal unless for acceptable reasons? And if the reason is unlawful, her John has the right to demand to fuck her and she must acquiesce, against her will?

The problem here,as I see it, is not so much about race discrimination as who has the right to control the body and actions of the woman. With regard to acts of an intimate nature, just how much power should the state have, even when there is a business transaction involved?

Once something becomes a business transaction, different rules apply. I can tell anybody to get the fuck out of my house because I don't allow niggers in there. Once I start running a home-based business, however, I can no longer do that for anyone who comes in as a customer because they are entering a business and the fact that it's also a private home isn't relevant to my interactions with them. I can't assert my right to do what I want with my private property when I'm using that property as a business in the same way that I can when it's just my house. This in no way forces me to allow niggers on my property and I can put up a sign saying "NO BLACK MEN ALLOWED" if I feel like it, but there are legal consequences to doing so which will impact my ability to run my business in such an overtly racist manner.

It's the same with prostitutes. If they're using their body as a business transaction, then different rules apply than if they pick up some guy in a bar. This is no way forces them to have sex with black men but there are legal consequences to doing so which will impact their ability to run their business in such an overtly racist manner.

If you don't want black people coming into your home, you don't operate a home-based business which involves customers coming into your home. Full stop. Your racist attitude is at odds with your ability to operate your business.

If you don't want black people sticking their penis into you, you don't operate (or work for) a business which involves customers sticking their penis into you. Full stop. Your racist attitude is at odds with your ability to run your business.

and if there is a demand and the law says it's legal to provide a supply to fill that demand?

now the prejudice isn't at odds with your business, but the basis for it. is such a specific business of such an intimate nature really the business of government?

 

[Unbeatable]

This has been raised a few times so far, but I wonder if it's really been considered: are male prostitutes equivalent to female prostitutes in the positions you all take on the issue? If a male prostitute refused to sleep with black women, would that make him racist?

Yes, though whether it's racist or not isn't really even the question in my eyes. As I see it, the question is whether the prostitute should be allowed to engage in racial discrimination. I don't see the prostitute or client's sex as being relevant to that question.

 

[Earl IV]

I hear black people have a hard time renting cars too.

Probably just a coincidence.


Sent from portable distraction device

 

[ApostateAbe]

Whether or not it is racist is a matter of definition. But, black men are routinely discriminated against in the escort world because blacks are many times more likely to lack the ability to pay, many times more likely to be violent, many times more likely to carry STDs, and many times more likely to attract law enforcement. There is no doubt--discriminating against blacks is a smart business move for escorts in predominantly-white environments.

 

[dystopian]

it is not a question of emulation, but of freedom of association. Public places are just that, public. They are paid for by the public and are necessary to the enhancement of life for the public.

But we, the public, can't force each and everyone of our members to be good and kind and wise. Nor can we say that people have a right to privacy and then publicly regulate what goes on in people's private lives. And if part of that private life is bigotry, in order for the rest of us to do what we do in private and unmolested, we must suffer the existence of LEGAL acts we find loathsome.

Now if we find such acts too loathsome, we can then change the law, but right now in the US, we still have venues that practice legal discrimination. Bet they even have such venues in that bastion of all things good and kind and wise called Canada too.

But we can force them to have certain standards of conduct in how they do business. I find it despicable that your country allows business to put up signs on the sidewalk saying "Private Dining Club. No Black Men Allowed. Come sign up and eat in racial purity". I assume that's how it works - I don't know but I think that's how they get around anti-smoking laws up here. It shouldn't be allowed that certain members of a society be excluded from certain activities or places as a result of their race.

Legal discrimination should be outlawed and the fact that it's a private entity as opposed to a public entity shouldn't affect that. When you're conducting business, there are higher standards that you need to abide by than when you are just doing something as a private individual.

Nonsense.

As I've been trying to explain; anti-discrimination laws are meant to protect people from discrimination that prevents them from partaking in products, services, activities, and locations that are considered to be part of the common good. Different standards do apply to private entities centered around specific ideals or activities; places that are NOT publically accessible but by their nature only to a smaller subset of the population. A supermarket can't force you to wear a tuxedo, but a club could. A club that centers exclusively around model trains would be perfectly justified in denying membership to someone who isn't interested in model trains and just wants to play with model airplanes instead. Of course, because the nature of the club is about model trains, they don't have a legal or moral argument that they can reject membership of a black model train enhusiast.

However, it gets more complex when the point of the club involves race in some way. Here, for legal and moral purposes; one can and most certainly *should* allow the club to discriminate based on whatever criteria that are relevant, so long as they can make a good case that the club's purpose is such that it makes sense for them to discriminate and that there's no reasonable expectation on the part of the discriminated against that they should be allowed access/membership. This doesn't even have to actually be racist in any significant way. Would it for instance be racist of a Japanese-American heritage organization to only accept members of Japanese-American heritage and their direct family? I think not.

 

[PyramidHead]

This has been raised a few times so far, but I wonder if it's really been considered: are male prostitutes equivalent to female prostitutes in the positions you all take on the issue? If a male prostitute refused to sleep with black women, would that make him racist?

Yes, though whether it's racist or not isn't really even the question in my eyes. As I see it, the question is whether the prostitute should be allowed to engage in racial discrimination. I don't see the prostitute or client's sex as being relevant to that question.

Neither do I, but I wonder if the people who view sex as a special class of service due to its "intimacy" or "invasiveness" feel the same way whether it's a woman or a man performing the service?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

This has been raised a few times so far, but I wonder if it's really been considered: are male prostitutes equivalent to female prostitutes in the positions you all take on the issue? If a male prostitute refused to sleep with black women, would that make him racist?

Yes, though whether it's racist or not isn't really even the question in my eyes. As I see it, the question is whether the prostitute should be allowed to engage in racial discrimination. I don't see the prostitute or client's sex as being relevant to that question.

Neither do I, but I wonder if the people who view sex as a special class of service due to its "intimacy" or "invasiveness" feel the same way whether it's a woman or a man performing the service?

I don't think it does. It is the act that is intimate not the gender. What two consenting adults legally do is their business.

 

[Angry Floof]

This has been raised a few times so far, but I wonder if it's really been considered: are male prostitutes equivalent to female prostitutes in the positions you all take on the issue? If a male prostitute refused to sleep with black women, would that make him racist?

Yes, though whether it's racist or not isn't really even the question in my eyes. As I see it, the question is whether the prostitute should be allowed to engage in racial discrimination. I don't see the prostitute or client's sex as being relevant to that question.

Neither do I, but I wonder if the people who view sex as a special class of service due to its "intimacy" or "invasiveness" feel the same way whether it's a woman or a man performing the service?

I see no reason to make a legal distinction.

I'm a woman, so I might be sensitive to women's issues and sex is one of the most effective weapons used against us, whether it's social shaming or physical abuse, but my view on this is based in respect for any human being's freedom to choose who can touch their body and under what circumstances.

 

[dystopian]

Neither do I, but I wonder if the people who view sex as a special class of service due to its "intimacy" or "invasiveness" feel the same way whether it's a woman or a man performing the service?

Have any of us given you the impression that we wouldn't feel the same way? I've gone out of my way to not refer to prostitutes by their gender in this thread (it's real easy to slip into referring to them as she when the other side in the conversation does so); I don't think it matters if the prostitute is male, female, in-between or whatever.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Whether or not it is racist is a matter of definition. But, black men are routinely discriminated against in the escort world because blacks are many times more likely to lack the ability to pay, many times more likely to be violent, many times more likely to carry STDs, and many times more likely to attract law enforcement. There is no doubt--discriminating against blacks is a smart business move for escorts in predominantly-white environments.

In the "escort world" ? Are you kidding me! Escort services in my home town Cannes on the French Riviera operate a triage system based on the established WEALTH of potential clients. If you *think* that the diversity of international conventions and events hosted on the French Riviera does not draw participants of diverse ethnicity, you are sorely mistaken.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

They don't nail unregistered prostitutes for back taxes, where are you getting this?

I'll link to some of the articles from home. You don't seem to be very aware of how either business or prostitution works in Holland, so we can end this exchange.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

and if there is a demand and the law says it's legal to provide a supply to fill that demand?

now the prejudice isn't at odds with your business, but the basis for it. is such a specific business of such an intimate nature really the business of government?

Yes. It is the business of government to ensure that businesses within their community follow all regulations of that business, including anti-discrimination laws. The fact that a business happens to be of an intimate nature is not relevant to that.

If two businesses advertise themselves as:

Private Dining Club
NO BLACK MEN ALLOWED
Come and eat in a racially pure environment

and

Private Escort Club
NO BLACK MEN ALLOWED
Come and fuck in a racially pure environment

Then I have the same problem with both of them and I feel that the government should have the same problem with both of them (assuming, of course, that the prostitution has been legalized).

 

[ksen]

They don't nail unregistered prostitutes

phrasing!

 

[dystopian]

They don't nail unregistered prostitutes for back taxes, where are you getting this?

I'll link to some of the articles from home. You don't seem to be very aware of how either business or prostitution works in Holland, so we can end this exchange.

I *live* here; I've *known* prostitutes. I can guarantee you that I'm more informed about it than someone who'se just repeating english-language articles that don't capture the intricacies of our social policies and attitudes toward these kinds of subjects.

If you want to stop debating someone because you don't think the two of you are going agree on the principles behind your arguments; then that's fine. But please don't do it by telling someone they don't understand how things in their own country work as well as you do with a few minutes of googling and then walk away; it's pretty condescending among other things..

 

[Tom Sawyer]

They don't nail unregistered prostitutes for back taxes, where are you getting this?

I'll link to some of the articles from home. You don't seem to be very aware of how either business or prostitution works in Holland, so we can end this exchange.

I *live* here; I've *known* prostitutes. I can guarantee you that I'm more informed about it than someone who'se just repeating english-language articles that don't capture the intricacies of our social policies and attitudes toward these kinds of subjects.

If you want to stop debating someone because you don't think the two of you are going agree on the principles behind your arguments; then that's fine. But please don't do it by telling someone they don't understand how things in their own country work as well as you do with a few minutes of googling and then walk away; it's pretty condescending among other things..

Everything you've said has been in direct contradiction to what I've found on the Dutch government sites and you haven't backed them up with anything but vague assertions because you think that finding support for your positions would be too hard, so either you don't know what the laws and regulations are there or the Dutch government doesn't. If you don't, then it's pointless to continue and if the Dutch government doesn't then it's pointless to continue. Either way, we can end our exchange.

 

[Unbeatable]

Neither do I, but I wonder if the people who view sex as a special class of service due to its "intimacy" or "invasiveness" feel the same way whether it's a woman or a man performing the service?

Well, I tend to lean towards that view of sex myself (while not necessarily seeing the situation as immutable; I basically think our culture has a long way to go when it comes to attitudes about sex before it becomes realistic to legally enforce the view that sex is just like flipping burgers or something), and the sex of the prostitute/client doesn't make a difference to me. It doesn't seem to me that intimacy/invasiveness are dependent on whether something is literally entering the prostitute's body.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Whether or not it is racist is a matter of definition. But, black men are routinely discriminated against in the escort world because blacks are many times more likely to lack the ability to pay, many times more likely to be violent, many times more likely to carry STDs, and many times more likely to attract law enforcement. There is no doubt--discriminating against blacks is a smart business move for escorts in predominantly-white environments.

In the "escort world" ? Are you kidding me! Escort services in my home town Cannes on the French Riviera operate a triage system based on the established WEALTH of potential clients. If you *think* that the diversity of international conventions and events hosted on the French Riviera does not draw participants of diverse ethnicity, you are sorely mistaken.

OK, seems about right. Is prostitution legal or unenforced in Cannes?