Racism from Providers

[SchlongConery]

HAHAHAHAHA this is the dumbest thing I read on this thread. ILLEGAL?? What part of selling sex for money can be considered not an underground business.. Who would be dumb enough to sue a provider cause they won't have sex with you for money based on race?????

People need to know that prostitution is frowned upon by society, not to mention that a person (male or female) has a right to refuse sex with anyone or it is considered rape; WHICH IS ILLEGAL.

That's why I come to this board to read these funny comments. This is buying sex, not buying a newspaper or eating at a restaurant. Commenters are right in that it's not racism - people can choose who they sleep with. And if it just happens they aren't attracted to a certain color of skin or weight or 6 toes, they have the every right to be.

Sorry, but I didn't mean to make fun of you, but you may have lost all logic.

Buttercup set out with precision and logic, the applicable particulars of the Ontario Human Rights Code. However, because you don't agree with the premise of the Human Rights Code in this application you accuse him of losing all logic. You are speaking out of emotion, not logic nor an understanding of the law.

First off let me express my opinion that I understand and agree with a provider of sexual services making subjective judgements and discriminating based on race, age family status, mental or physical disability, gender identity (ie: transexuals) and sexual orientation.

Each and every one of these are specifically named "protected grounds" under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

And buttercup set out with precision, the reasons why a female provider of any services who discriminated on the basis of any of these grounds, in particular if they refuse to provide services to black or East Indian men, would be in contravention of the very first lines of the OHRC. Or married men, or men under 25, or men on welfare, or men with downs syndrome, or schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder or parapalegic men or incontinent men or .....women.

And the Human Rights Code does not carve out exceptions to sex work.

So, niveaman, you are absolutely wrong in your assessment of buttercup's assessment of the provisions of the OHRC. I am not familiar with any case law regarding sex work that has excepted these protections.

Having said that, I think that IF a black man were brave enough to bring an application to the OHRC against a sexual service provider, the sp may have an arguable defense based on the inherently intimacy required of the service. And that the OHRC did not anticipate being applied to sex work.

 

[niveamen]

Buttercup set out with precision and logic, the applicable particulars of the Ontario Human Rights Code. However, because you don't agree with the premise of the Human Rights Code in this application you accuse him of losing all logic. You are speaking out of emotion, not logic nor an understanding of the law.

First off let me express my opinion that I understand and agree with a provider of sexual services making subjective judgements and discriminating based on race, age family status, mental or physical disability, gender identity (ie: transexuals) and sexual orientation.

Each and every one of these are specifically named "protected grounds" under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

And buttercup set out with precision, the reasons why a female provider of any services who discriminated on the basis of any of these grounds, in particular if they refuse to provide services to black or East Indian men, would be in contravention of the very first lines of the OHRC. Or married men, or men under 25, or men on welfare, or men with downs syndrome, or schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder or parapalegic men or incontinent men or .....women.

And the Human Rights Code does not carve out exceptions to sex work.

So, niveaman, you are absolutely wrong in your assessment of buttercup's assessment of the provisions of the OHRC. I am not familiar with any case law regarding sex work that has excepted these protections.

Having said that, I think that IF a black man were brave enough to bring an application to the OHRC against a sexual service provider, the sp may have an arguable defense based on the inherently intimacy required of the service. And that the OHRC did not anticipate being applied to sex work.

Well he COULD bring it to the courts and he'll be laughed at. Any woman would just say, " I said NO" to sex as a defense. End of discussion. You can't quote just one section of the charter. What happened to the section on life liberty and "security of person"??? or "denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada." I assume choosing one's sexual partner is one of them, wouldn't you?

 

[KBear]

The anti-discrimination laws only apply to the providers -- not to customers. There is no law that bans customers from discriminating against providers on racial grounds. A white nurse cannot refuse to nurse a black patient -- but a black patient can refuse to be nursed by a white nurse.
.

Where does it say that employers can discriminate? The act would apply to everyone, just because you have cash does not mean you are the king.

Also, money is used to represent a unit of work, so in a transaction you are trading work for work.. You could also agree to paint the SP walls or steam clean her carpets in exchange for her services. You can't offer to paint a ladies walls, unless she is of a certain race.

That said I think it is up to the ladies who they see or don't see. We don't know their personal situation and are not in a position to judge.

 

[Ridgeman08]

I think this thread has officially gone way passed the incredibly ludicrous stage.
:frusty:

 

[Hard Idle]

I have a great idea. Why wouldn't Buttercup & Schlong go to an incall with racial restrictions - if they themselves are not a member of an excluded group this can simply disguise themselves (White-to-light skinned Indian/Pakistani is an easy make -up job). Then using a cell phone, one can make a video of the other identifying himself as the person who called earlier and offered to purchase sexual services. Then when they get turned down on camera, they can take the video and play it to our Federal Justice Minister and see what if any legal action flows from the evidence!

 

[Hard Idle]

Also illegal.

BTW, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms regulates what the government can/cannot do to us -- not what individuals can/cannot do to each other.

This argument, if accepted seems to invalidate everything in the post preceding it, since neither prostitutes nor escort agencies are government or public institutions, so any application of it to a sex service scenario would be an extrapolation.

Maybe someday if we have public brothels funded by the government like hospitals are, this might present a legal conflict where sex workers could be likened to nurses.

Since there is no constitutional or other legislative right or expectation to obtain sexual services (or to have sexual contact of any kind, ever) this would seem to cancel out any argument the rejected person might have. The ONLY legal remedy for an undelivered sexual act is the annulment of an unconsummated marriage, or granting divorce on grounds of non-existent marital relations.

Otherwise the absolute right to control one's own body in terms of sexual consent has been upheld many times. The courts have established countless times that the arbitrary right to grant and revoke sexual consent is absolute and infinite.

 

[cex]

It's NOT racism...

It's simply personal preference. Nothing more.

/end thread and put this non issue to bed forever.

It depends on the SP, obviously not all are racist but there are some who are racist. One of my all time favourite SP does not see black men under 30, do I think she's racist? NO! At the same time I had one unfortunate experience where the SP did not state in her AD or over the phone that she does not see black men. On getting to her location I was left standing in the hallway and had all sorts of racist profanity thrown at me via text message(I learned some new racist words in the process) for not being able to read her AD. I personally don't care why SPs choose not to see black guys, there are worse things that could happen to me than an sp not wanting to see me because of my colour, but at least be upfront about it through AD or when the client contacts you. I really hate having my time wasted after driving for long distances and sitting in awful traffic.

 

[Hard Idle]

At the same time I had one unfortunate experience where the SP did not state in her AD or over the phone that she does not see black men. On getting to her location I was left standing in the hallway and had all sorts of racist profanity thrown at me via text message(I learned some new racist words in the process) for not being able to read her AD..

It's a real shame you had to go through that. Maybe it was a case of some unfortunate basket case who was too drunk or stoned at the time of posting her ad to remember including her restrictions. Or maybe the "assistant" who post her ads just recycled the text form his/her other SP's and forgot to add the restriction, now she can't understand why she's getting these bookings all week long.

I think it just supports the idea we should not in any way discourage SP's from openly posting this information or any other information which ultimately HELPS a customer to steer clear of a terrible service experience which no normal person would enjoy, much less pay for.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

Her body her choice. Even with the charter of rights bullshit that is being spewed. This is a case of two competing rights. Her rights to her body and your rights to undiscriminating purchase of service. Hers is ALWAYS going to win out even if by a chance it is purely racist in nature.

This is all pre C36 anyway. After is it passed, you have no right period to purchase sexual services, so the whole point become moot.

Enjoy!

 

[Toke]

Like a couple of others have already stated here (I did so in the past), but I don't mind it. Weeds them off of my potential list. Racism or not, doesn't bother me as I avoid meeting someone who doesn't want to meet me regardless.

Here's a way to look at it. What if an SP preferred (or even detested) seeing older/younger/overweight/etc. clients? If you fit into that unwanted group, wouldn't you rather just avoid the provider rather than get a 'he's paying for it so I'll simply go through he motions' session?

I can't be bothered to rationalize the reasons completely (though I do have my hunches), so I move on.

 

[Celticman]

Her body her choice. Even with the charter of rights bullshit that is being spewed. This is a case of two competing rights. Her rights to her body and your rights to undiscriminating purchase of service. Hers is ALWAYS going to win out even if by a chance it is purely racist in nature.

This is all pre C36 anyway. After is it passed, you have no right period to purchase sexual services, so the whole point become moot.

Enjoy!

Exactly

 

[buttercup]

. . And buttercup set out with precision, the reasons why a female provider of any services who discriminated on the basis of any of these grounds, in particular if they refuse to provide services to black or East Indian men, would be in contravention of the very first lines of the OHRC. Or married men, or men under 25, or men on welfare, or men with downs syndrome, or schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder or parapalegic men or incontinent men or .....women.

Schlong, baby, I hardly like to make a comment against you! -- but refusal to provide a service to a person on the grounds that they have a certain disease is ok, in that disease is not listed as one of the banned categories of discrimination (given that the 'disease' is not a 'disability'). Likewise, it is ok to refuse to provide service to someone on welfare. But it is illegal, under the CHRA, to refuse service to people on the grounds that they are disabled, or on the grounds that they are women, or that they are married, because those things are included on the list of banned catagories.

Where does it say that employers can discriminate? The act would apply to everyone, just because you have cash does not mean you are the king.

The CHRA does indeed bar employers from discriminating against (potential) employees, on the listed grounds. But the issue under discussion was/is the extent to which the CHRA bars service providers from refusing service to customers based on race, religion, etc. As a generality, the CHRA does not require customers /employees) to refrain from discriminating against the race etc of service providers /employers.

This argument, if accepted seems to invalidate everything in the post preceding it, since neither prostitutes nor escort agencies are government or public institutions, so any application of it to a sex service scenario would be an extrapolation.

Again, the Canadian Human Rights Act deals with what Canadians can/cannot do to each other. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms deals with what the government can/cannot do to Canadians.

Her body her choice. Even with the charter of rights bullshit that is being spewed. This is a case of two competing rights. Her rights to her body and your rights to undiscriminating purchase of service. Hers is ALWAYS going to win out even if by a chance it is purely racist in nature.
Enjoy!

You are probably right, if it came to any sort of conflict between the two. But the issue was whether the CHRA permits her to stipulate "No black men."
No, it does not.

 

[cdnsimon]

I always thought that racism was the view that one race was better/worse than another based solely on race related reasons. Ie. Saying that all Chinese men have a small penis, and thus they are the worst lovers. Similarly, saying that all black people are criminals. Those are racist statements.

There are some providers on here that ask about race, and every time I read that I lose some more faith in everything good.

Why the flying fuck would someone's race/ethnicity matter? Imagine this... You get into a bad car accident. Doctors need to glue and sew you back together, and you need blood. Do you think your next of kin will open their cakehole and spew out 'we don't want blood from blacks or indians'? What about if your kid, in cancer treatment needed blood, would anyone say 'no black or indians'?

Maybe people of colour should only donate blood, organs, stem cells, etc. to people of their own ethnicity. Everybody is an expert on human rights and race but nobody sees the double standard. It's a coloured person's blood and organs and their choice, right? Before the noodleheads here jump on donating blood and paid sex services remember that those paid services are illegal. Yes blood/tissue donations are voluntary in Canada, but the point is the absurdity of only wanting to give to similar ethnicities. Just BS.

Racists make me sick. Race only matters when it benefits them, when their ass is in a bind they couldn't care less.

 

[Titalian]

I always thought that racism was the view that one race was better/worse than another based solely on race related reasons. Ie. Saying that all Chinese men have a small penis, and thus they are the worst lovers. Similarly, saying that all black people are criminals. Those are racist statements.

There are some providers on here that ask about race, and every time I read that I lose some more faith in everything good.

Why the flying fuck would someone's race/ethnicity matter? Imagine this... You get into a bad car accident. Doctors need to glue and sew you back together, and you need blood. Do you think your next of kin will open their cakehole and spew out 'we don't want blood from blacks or indians'? What about if your kid, in cancer treatment needed blood, would anyone say 'no black or indians'?

Maybe people of colour should only donate blood, organs, stem cells, etc. to people of their own ethnicity. Everybody is an expert on human rights and race but nobody sees the double standard. It's a coloured person's blood and organs and their choice, right? Before the noodleheads here jump on donating blood and paid sex services remember that those paid services are illegal. Yes blood/tissue donations are voluntary in Canada, but the point is the absurdity of only wanting to give to similar ethnicities. Just BS.

Racists make me sick. Race only matters when it benefits them, when their ass is in a bind they couldn't care less.

So if you refuse to have intercourse with someone you don't desire, does that make you racist too??

 

[Rizza]

I know but think about it for a bit.I have never seen a add that says no convicted sex offenders,no murderer,rapists and gang bangers.But i see no black guys a lot

 

[VinnyBlaze]

I always thought that racism was the view that one race was better/worse than another based solely on race related reasons. Ie. Saying that all Chinese men have a small penis, and thus they are the worst lovers. Similarly, saying that all black people are criminals. Those are racist statements.

There are some providers on here that ask about race, and every time I read that I lose some more faith in everything good.

Why the flying fuck would someone's race/ethnicity matter? Imagine this... You get into a bad car accident. Doctors need to glue and sew you back together, and you need blood. Do you think your next of kin will open their cakehole and spew out 'we don't want blood from blacks or indians'? What about if your kid, in cancer treatment needed blood, would anyone say 'no black or indians'?

Maybe people of colour should only donate blood, organs, stem cells, etc. to people of their own ethnicity. Everybody is an expert on human rights and race but nobody sees the double standard. It's a coloured person's blood and organs and their choice, right? Before the noodleheads here jump on donating blood and paid sex services remember that those paid services are illegal. Yes blood/tissue donations are voluntary in Canada, but the point is the absurdity of only wanting to give to similar ethnicities. Just BS.

Racists make me sick. Race only matters when it benefits them, when their ass is in a bind they couldn't care less.

I think for the most part, it's just preferences as opposed to racism. Sure, there's generalization, many probably refuse to see black men under this impression of black guys being aggressive/or based on whatever experiences they might have endured. Just like many probably refuse to see black men because they are simply not attracted to us. I don't think it's racism at all, and this is coming from a black guy. It can definitely be a little discouraging to read 'No Black men' in many ads when you find someone who is well reviewed and recommended. But oh well, you just move on. They are free to see whoever they want to see. I'd rather read 'No black men' rather than to schedule an appointment with someone, reach their incall, just to get rejected because she prefers not seeing someone of my skin colour and didn't bother putting it on her ad. So the little heads up on the ad can some time be much appreciated, despite how discouraging it might be.

 

[fuji]

Saying that all or most blacks are criminals is stereotyping, certainly.

Saying that an SP significantly cuts her risk of being robbed by refusing birch clients is just true.

 

[Babypowder]

Also illegal.


The fact is that if a provider of services discriminates against potential customers on one of the prohibited grounds (race, religion, etc) the provider comits an lillegal act. If you think providers should be as free to discriminate as customers, you should write to your MP.


Not just racist -- also illegal.



The prohibited categories are set out in Section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act -- race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, or conviction for an offence. Discrimination on any grounds not listed is not prohibited.

Obviously, for example, it is perfectly acceptable for a services provider to discriminate against (potential) customers on the grounds of their ability to pay -- but not on the grounds that people of a certain religion are bad payers. Or, another example, a services provider can discriminate against a customer on the grounds of their having a disease -- but not on the grounds of their being more likely to have a disease because of their race.

It is acceptable for a provider to discriminate against big fat customers - because size is not one of the banned grounds. It is doubly acceptable for a customer to specify a BBW - size and beauty are not listed grounds, and in any case, customers are generally free to discriminate on any grounds.

The anti-discrimination laws only apply to the providers -- not to customers. There is no law that bans customers from discriminating against providers on racial grounds. A white nurse cannot refuse to nurse a black patient -- but a black patient can refuse to be nursed by a white nurse.


There is nothing in the CHRA that recognizes providers of escort services as different from providers of waitress services.



Again, the discrimination laws only apply to providers -- customers, by contrast, generally are free to discrimintate racially etc against providers.
There is nothing in the CHRA that permits providers to racially discriminate against customers -- even when the customer commits an illegal act.

BTW, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms regulates what the government can/cannot do to us -- not what individuals can/cannot do to each other.

+10 some one gets it. the the way most people support these racist policies on terb makes me give c36 a second thought

 

[Smallcock]

There are three elements involved for sex workers refusing particular clients based on race:

1) The concern of violence (in the form of assault, theft, etc).

2) Attraction

3) Personal - (their pimp or boyfriend doesn't want them to sleep with particular people based on race); or they're racist

When it comes to it sex workers, #1 is not a concern. Statistically speaking, violence rarely occurs. When it does, it can be a member of any race. Unless a sex worker is working from a cheap motel in a ghetto part of town, violent clients are filtered out almost automatically.

When it comes to sex workers, #2 doesn't apply. Attraction is not even in the headspace of a sex worker. They have sex with physically beautiful and disgusting men, clean and dirty men all day long. When somebody decides to sell access to their body, they essentially take an unspoken oath to fuck anything that is willing to pay.

When it comes to sex workers, #3 does apply. 95% of the time, sex workers will refuse based on race because they don't want to be recognized since they date members of that race or that community, or they have pimps or boyfriends or relatives that do not allow them to have sex with members of a particular race. The other 5% of SPs who do not see clients based on race are indeed racist. Five percent is still a significant number, but not significant enough that it should concern any hobbyist. It's the racist SPs loss at the end of the day.

The only caveat to #3 is cultural preference based on ethnic behavior and lifestyle. Certain foods eaten can cause odors to permeate clothes and men from some cultures may barter more than others. However, this caveat would rarely apply to the "no black guys" posts - again unless the SP is working out of some ghetto motel where the clientele reflect the ghettoness of the area.

 

[cdnsimon]

So if you refuse to have intercourse with someone you don't desire, does that make you racist too??

Please don't speak in hyperboles that disregard the main ideas behind my points.
Is the refusal for intercourse based on the belief that someone is less than another because of their skin colour? Would have said person have no problem screwing the brains out of whatever person prior to knowing their undesirable skin colour?
See.. I can do it too, but fuck all happens with this discussion.

===========================

holy shit...

How quickly we forget the pride of admirable behaviour, Mr. Caucasian -- Russell Williams or Paul Bernardo -- types. Let's just label all blacks and indians and wife beaters or pimps. That makes a whole lot of sense.

You know what - I've never seen prostitute/SP or whatever (I'm just here for the shits and giggles), but I'm going to remove myself as a blood donor, organ donor, and from the stem cell registry. Fuck that... why should I sacrifice myself for racists out there? I have blood-type that less than 10% of Canadians have, but fuck the racists, I'll keep what I have for myself and my own people/family.

A racist wants...
-my plasma, platelets, RBC's, WBC's?
-my organs when I die, or a kidney when I'm alive?
-my stem cells to fight their cancers or congenital disease's?
-my tissue to help their kid with cancer, or lost a limb from an accident, or a congenital disease they got from your racist ass?
-etc.?

FUCK NO!
It's my "personal choice". It's not because I don't want the racists or their kids to get it... it's just because of my "desire".
I guess the KKK, their no-good pimp, or other racist brethren don't offer medical benefits?

Enough's enough. Thank you TERB you opened my eyes to ways I was still being a sucker - same young fool I always was. A Everybody is first to get their own - well now I take back mine: I'll be calling Canadian Blood Services tonight.

Save your damn self... I won't be doing it anymore.
Nice guys end up last? Okay, lesson learned.