Then...
You will note (because you seem passionate, but intelligent, versus others who are passionate in their ignorant prejudice) that I never said that our hypothetical SP HAD to see anyone she chose not to. You will also note that I never called our hypothetical SP a racist (a label that is commonly assigned to people who regularly exhibit racist behavior).
What I did say - and will say again - was that the behavior described (screening clients based solely on race) was racist. I honestly don't see how anyone could rationally argue that point (while fully recognizing some of us clearly aren't real comfortable or experienced with the rational thought process)
"I am only debating these issues for the purpose of discussion and nothing more."
And I understand that. Being an SP you feel very strongly about the right to turn anyone away you see fit. I'd agree with that.
The truth is though that screening of this type is (essentially) a lazy way to achieve a goal. Don't like curry breath? Screen Indian guys. Might be effective....except not ALL Indian guys like curry (so some "good" business is turned away) and there are plenty of people who are not Indian who like curry....and one of them could show up "your" door.
I understand that an SP who uses this type of screening might not be a "bad" person....that she is simply trying to achieve certain goals (comfort, safety, etc.) using this technique. That doesn't change the point that the behavior itself is racist (and frankly of limited effectiveness, given that such stereotypes are seldom survive the scrutiny of true statistical analysis).
Insofar as having preferences regarding appearances, I still question that as a defense for SPs. I doubt if the typical SP finds as many as 50% of her clients "attractive", so any reasoning for excluding a particular race - in entirety - without having even laid EYES on the prospective client based on "not being attracted to" is just a crock from a rational stand point. Now...if said person just cannot see themselves having sex with an Asian person regardless of what they look like...well, hell that is their right (I never said anything otherwise). But only a total moron (and apparently we have some that post to this board) would try to argue that isn't based on some sort of racist prejudice or basis, be it conscious or unconscious.
So - for the record - SP can fuck whomever they want, and I would not advocate anything differently.
But have the balls (ovaries? tits?) to put it right in your ad, so those you wish to not see won't even call. That would make things simpler for everybody, would it not?
Oh...wait...afraid some ethical white guys with both money and a conscious might decide to not do business with you as well are we??
Hmmm…is that what they call “an inconvenient truth”?
...we would agree.KWI said:MLAM - First let me say GREAT points. I mean really great points, and let me also say that I am only debating these issues for the purpose of discussion and nothing more.
Again, I don't think I am racist as I personally would not turn down a client over the phone because he was of a certain background and while I agree that women in this field present and advertise themselves as product to the open public, I believe more in a person's consent to sex then to the right of all races to have sex with that person.
KWI
You will note (because you seem passionate, but intelligent, versus others who are passionate in their ignorant prejudice) that I never said that our hypothetical SP HAD to see anyone she chose not to. You will also note that I never called our hypothetical SP a racist (a label that is commonly assigned to people who regularly exhibit racist behavior).
What I did say - and will say again - was that the behavior described (screening clients based solely on race) was racist. I honestly don't see how anyone could rationally argue that point (while fully recognizing some of us clearly aren't real comfortable or experienced with the rational thought process)
"I am only debating these issues for the purpose of discussion and nothing more."
And I understand that. Being an SP you feel very strongly about the right to turn anyone away you see fit. I'd agree with that.
The truth is though that screening of this type is (essentially) a lazy way to achieve a goal. Don't like curry breath? Screen Indian guys. Might be effective....except not ALL Indian guys like curry (so some "good" business is turned away) and there are plenty of people who are not Indian who like curry....and one of them could show up "your" door.
I understand that an SP who uses this type of screening might not be a "bad" person....that she is simply trying to achieve certain goals (comfort, safety, etc.) using this technique. That doesn't change the point that the behavior itself is racist (and frankly of limited effectiveness, given that such stereotypes are seldom survive the scrutiny of true statistical analysis).
Insofar as having preferences regarding appearances, I still question that as a defense for SPs. I doubt if the typical SP finds as many as 50% of her clients "attractive", so any reasoning for excluding a particular race - in entirety - without having even laid EYES on the prospective client based on "not being attracted to" is just a crock from a rational stand point. Now...if said person just cannot see themselves having sex with an Asian person regardless of what they look like...well, hell that is their right (I never said anything otherwise). But only a total moron (and apparently we have some that post to this board) would try to argue that isn't based on some sort of racist prejudice or basis, be it conscious or unconscious.
So - for the record - SP can fuck whomever they want, and I would not advocate anything differently.
But have the balls (ovaries? tits?) to put it right in your ad, so those you wish to not see won't even call. That would make things simpler for everybody, would it not?
Oh...wait...afraid some ethical white guys with both money and a conscious might decide to not do business with you as well are we??
Hmmm…is that what they call “an inconvenient truth”?
Last edited: