Racism from Providers

[DB123]

(1) I encourage you to read what I quoted you as saying above. You didn't assume, yet you assume, and you think "if" covers your ass? yep, it completely does
(2) I commented previously to someone else about my own reasons for being here are my own. You needn't worry about it. Ok sure, but...I recall recently a poster who was banned simply due to the fact that they were a 'non-John', so you may want to get to pooning
(3) You didn't have anything substantive to comment on. As I am not a 'John' I cannot claim that my rights have been infringed. Do you understand that? No. I'll meet you in the middle and we'll speak of the hypothetical gent preemptively denied access to the SP of his choice by virtue of a no whatever he happens to be exclusion. With that in place everything I said about looking like a moron and having no chance of success - leaving out entirely the issue of essentially trying to serve "Jane Doe" with the complaint - is entirely accurate

About going back and adding more, I have tried to avoid that - apologies for the addition after you repllied. I know that is in bad internet form/conduct. My post on page 5 has an entry I put in the "Reason for editing" box when I saw that someone else had posted before my changes could be saved/finished.

Miss Jessica Lee & DB123, I know that my A, B, C thing was a stretch Nah man, it was just lame. I was being serious though, I've seen worse. While editing I had debated removing it. It would not have been better to add the Jackson 5 ... I just made a bad call by putting it in, and then another bad by not taking it out. Just take is as what Miss Jessica Lee already said: 'the worst attempt at being clever in this thread'. Pardon that... I'm busy doing a lot of things while typing out on here.

Whether intended as such, or not, apology accepted, friend

 

[DB123]

hey I'm just giving you the gears ... and as lame as it was... it probably wasn't the absolute complete worst.... probably

IIRC it was once interpreted as 'dumb boy'...that was pretty pathetic

 

[wpgguy]

So Cdnsimon, what are you doing on this board if you've never or don't want to see a SP? You just want to hang out here and chit chat with the boys.

Blackrock with a new handle or just a troll with a similar MO?

 

[Babypowder]

Hey douchebag, you're not my 'homeslice' and you assume that I'm an afflicted minority? You're whole post oozes prejudice.

You put word in my mouth too... my "right to stick it in whoever you want simply because other guys get too". You are a fucktard. I've said the opposite to what you claim I stand for. But hey... don't let facts stand in your way!

Learn to read jackass, you'd have seen that that I said I'm not a 'John' and could have prevented yourself from looking like as ass.

DB123 - you sure have the A, B, C's of douchebaggery down like 1, 2, 3!

douchebaggery:
1)The philosophy held by douchebags, holding that no one other than themselves (or perhaps their close associates) matters in the least bit, and thus that other human beings can and should be treated like complete excrement for little or no reason (and often for selfish reasons). Closely related to fascism, which has been practiced by control freaks such as Adolf Hitler.
2)The act of putting this philosophy into practice.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=douchebaggery

I'll give you one thing... this thread is long... why don't you make it into a pop-up book? It might be easier for you to follow that way.

ownage.

 

[omegaphallic]

This is the single toughest area to deal with when it comes to race, one doesn't want to condone racial discrimination, but neither does one have the right to tell these man and women who they can and can't have sex with.

An example a woman happens to not be attracted sexually black men or maybe she's only a attracted to Asian men, and she happens to concider trying to enjoy what she does is important to her, I can't judge her for that. As a mostly white guy, I would not take the latter example personally.

And the alternative is to what force her to see black or nonasian or whatever against her will, wouldn't that be rape?

I support equality big time for all races, I've seen black, white, and Asian women, Latinas, Middle Eastern, ect... and I dream of adding East Indian to that list, I find refusing service in any other industry to be discusting and vile, but this is industry is unique and needs an exception,
because trying to force them to comply with this would be a violation of consent and as well you can't force people to be attracted to someone they are not or even forced them not to be repulsed by them, as strong emotions are not controlable (although they don't have to be acted upon either).


Another example a woman who was gangraped by a group of men all of a single race, which leaves her of a deep seated fear of that race, and now are you going to demand she have sex with men of that race, even though it could tramatize her serverly.

Also if we extend the OPs logic, wouldn't any woman who refuses to service woman clients be sexists, nevermind the fact that she happens not to be lesbian or bisexual.

I'm a big supporter of sensable PC in the world, not the more riduculus extreme or the stupid shit that has become fashionable, but the bedrock values forms, but the bedroom has to be an exception, because the state can't control peoples sexuality. You can't force people to be aroused by something they are not, or force them to not be aroused by sonething they are. They're fore sexual prefeences, and not just sexual orientations, can't be dictated by the state.

Now employers like spas have no right to discriminate based on race, if they banned say black men from coming in that would be wrong and I would not provide business to a company that had such a policy.

 

[Hard Idle]

There is absolutely nothing complicated or controversial here. In our legal & social system, control over one's own body and the right to refuse sex is absolute and unconditional. The reason does not matter, it can be real or imaginary, there doesn't even need to be a reason. Consent for sex is at the arbitrary discretion of the individual, and can even be revoked effective immediately. End of story.

Now the people who have a problem with this and bring out the Human Rights Code which applies to civil rights, public institutions and the normal course of business. They presume that the Sex Worker is first and foremost a business. That's THEIR OPINION. Another opinion is that Sex Work is SEX first & foremost, and at least as much a social phenomenon as a business phenomenon.

Even before becoming officially criminalized in C36, there was no legal framework or recognition for prostitution as a professional activity. So, people can quote from the Human Right s code all they want, but it is not all clear or established that this would apply to Sex Work the same way it applies to being served at a Foot Locker or Booster Juice.

Every person has unlimited, arbitrary rights to discriminate when choosing whom to have casual sex with, whom to date or get married to, even though many of these social activities have a component of material benefit. I would argue that Prostitutes have that same right, and I'm convinced that courts would ultimately decide the same way.

 

[Messiahson]

There is absolutely nothing complicated or controversial here. In our legal & social system, control over one's own body and the right to refuse sex is absolute and unconditional. The reason does not matter, it can be real or imaginary, there doesn't even need to be a reason. Consent for sex is at the arbitrary discretion of the individual, and can even be revoked effective immediately. End of story.

Now the people who have a problem with this and bring out the Human Rights Code which applies to civil rights, public institutions and the normal course of business. They presume that the Sex Worker is first and foremost a business. That's THEIR OPINION. Another opinion is that Sex Work is SEX first & foremost, and at least as much a social phenomenon as a business phenomenon.

Even before becoming officially criminalized in C36, there was no legal framework or recognition for prostitution as a professional activity. So, people can quote from the Human Right s code all they want, but it is not all clear or established that this would apply to Sex Work the same way it applies to being served at a Foot Locker or Booster Juice.

Every person has unlimited, arbitrary rights to discriminate when choosing whom to have casual sex with, whom to date or get married to, even though many of these social activities have a component of material benefit. I would argue that Prostitutes have that same right, and I'm convinced that courts would ultimately decide the same way.

That was easy. I agree 100%

 

[VirginJohn]

As far as I am concerned black SPs with no black men policy regardless of age restriction can go to hell, I don't need their service. One thing with emergence of bill c-36 they are the one fucked up along with other back page girls, the well established ones are less likely going to be affected by this law!

But doesn't bill c-36 raise another issue. If these type of providers do not like a particular race of clients now they can even rat them out to the police. Most likely, any blacks caught under this bill c-36 law will likely face jail time in that system even as a first offense while a white business person may just get slapped with a $ 1000 fine.

 

[Hard Idle]

But doesn't bill c-36 raise another issue. If these type of providers do not like a particular race of clients now they can even rat them out to the police. Most likely, any blacks caught under this bill c-36 law will likely face jail time in that system even as a first offense while a white business person may just get slapped with a $ 1000 fine.

That's just one of a whole bunch of potential headaches & abuses of C36. But it's also just another reason to be THANKFUL to those who post their restrictions up front instead of whining about it! It's just another thing that increases your odds of avoiding drama with a potential head case.

I can't imagine who wouldn't want to be forewarned about a provider with issues which at the very best case would lead to a horrible session not even worth $20, and at worse could end up with some kind of incident, to which C36 has added more possible ways for the customer to be burned.

So instead of brooding, we should be encouraging SP's to be open and up front about MORE things which could set them off so even more people can steer clear of such situations.

 

[lomotil]

But doesn't bill c-36 raise another issue. If these type of providers do not like a particular race of clients now they can even rat them out to the police. Most likely, any blacks caught under this bill c-36 law will likely face jail time in that system even as a first offense while a white business person may just get slapped with a $ 1000 fine.

If this happens, it moves things along the road to having prostitution made illegal, so that prostitutes themselves will also get criminal records. LE in Calgary and York Region already target pimps of a certain race, so why not johns?

 

[zefroggy]

So instead of brooding, we should be encouraging SP's to be open and up front about MORE things which could set them off so even more people can steer clear of such situations.

Exactly. If you don't like black or fat or bald or old or young guys. Let us know. Everyone has their preferences and I have no issues with that. When I introduce myself to an indie and she does not respond, it does not bother me at all since she knows she will not provide a good service based on my expectations.

 

[VirginJohn]

If this happens, it moves things along the road to having prostitution made illegal, so that prostitutes themselves will also get criminal records. LE in Calgary and York Region already target pimps of a certain race, so why not johns?

How do you figure this will lead to selling of services becoming illegal?

 

[VirginJohn]

I saw this ad in backpage from a black SP:

http://toronto.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/classifieds/EnlargeImage?oid=23379081&image=24323674

It says: "ongoing aggressiveness and disrespect amongst Black men"

This is right from the horses mouth. Now, if there is any truth to this, then some SP's have a legitimate problem that there is an issue beyond preference.

However, the main issue is to whether this element is causing this and some providers are protecting themselves from a potential nuisance or harm in their business, or whether some providers are just racist and wouldn't want to deal with anyone who is not white for either racial pride or their own preference. It's a bit mis-leading when it says "NO Black men" if they mean "NO non-white men". However, since nobody has advance that type of issue and I have no personal interaction I guess it's a non-issue on this thread for now.

 

[Hard Idle]

There have been SP's who dedicate up to two paragraphs of the info page on their websites to rules for contact and phone etiquette, publishing extensive lists of terms & behaviors for whch you will be hung up on & banned without further notice.

I think it may be a need to establish total control of something to help deal with a general sense of vulnerability in their position. Or to recover some sense of power by establishing boundaries to replace the the boundaries which which they have to surrender as part of their work when the circumstances are such that it's not as simple as just quitting and getting a different job.

 

[cdnsimon]

Whether intended as such, or not, apology accepted, friend

(1) I encourage you to read what I quoted you as saying above. You didn't assume, yet you assume, and you think "if" covers your ass? yep, it completely does
(2) I commented previously to someone else about my own reasons for being here are my own. You needn't worry about it. Ok sure, but...I recall recently a poster who was banned simply due to the fact that they were a 'non-John', so you may want to get to pooning
(3) You didn't have anything substantive to comment on. As I am not a 'John' I cannot claim that my rights have been infringed. Do you understand that? No. I'll meet you in the middle and we'll speak of the hypothetical gent preemptively denied access to the SP of his choice by virtue of a no whatever he happens to be exclusion. With that in place everything I said about looking like a moron and having no chance of success - leaving out entirely the issue of essentially trying to serve "Jane Doe" with the complaint - is entirely accurate
...

...t my A, B, C thing was a stretch Nah man, it was just lame. I was being serious though, I've seen worse.

Pardon reviving this old thread. This is the first time I'm back since my last post. It's hard work having one's own life and raising two parents too! But boy do they grow up quick...!

I underlined what you wrote because it was just hard to separate it all.

(1)
DB123, "if" isn't an ambigiouos cover all to save everying that someone says. Regardless of that conjunction being used, it does nt change the assumptions one makes to get to the point of saying if. Put another way, you made assumptions to get to a certain point, and using if in the end doesn't change the fact that a whole lot of assumptions were made (correct or incorrect) to get to a specific thought.

(2)
If another poster was banned for not being a John, then that's fine. If the board owner or mods want to ban me, then it's up to them. They could just ask me to leave, and I wouldn't return - so a ban isn't all that necessary. The logic behind your post doesn't hold up though. How does one know when someone is or isn't a john. It isn't a requirement to post here after someone uses sex services. This is a rhetorical postulation.

(3)
Part of the reason that I wished not to address your comments ("nothing substantive to comment on" as you put it) was because you explicity said that you didn't read anything.

Ignorance is the absence of knowledge, but having that information available and choosing not to learn is something else beyond ignorance. You didn't take the time to read anything, but most importantly: I don't owe you any type of explanation. The material is there for you to review on your own, and the human rights code is there for you to look up on your own. I'm not going to do your work for you.

I'll try to spell out what I said ("As I am not a 'John' I cannot claim that my rights have been infringed. Do you understand that?") in a different way:

In order for anyone to make a human rights complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Comission or Ontario Human Rights Tribunal they must show that their rights have been infringed upon. As I said, I am not a John. As such, I cannot make any claim that my rights have been infringed upon. What is ironic is that sex services is often argued under the umbrella of human rights (as it very well should be), but some members in that line of work openly discriminate. If the discrimination is based on safety reasons that's fine (it's allowed in human rights to happen), but to say that no blacks or indians are accepted for safety reasons is so stupid it's unbelievable. It's appalling that some people are claiming that here so broadly and suggesting that it should apply to all members of a race. Someone's skin colour is not a predetermining factor for crime (that falls under prejudice and racism).

Furthermore, as sex acts (or companionship) for money is still an illegal act, it's much more than problematic to claim human rights for an illegal act. Finally, it is not against any human rights to be able to copulate with whomever or whatever you want. That is ridiculous. It is against human rights to discriminate based on race related grounds.

Please read:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/code_grounds/race
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/racial-discrimination-brochure

wpgguy, someone having an opinion different from yours and an opinion that they are willing to defend - doesn't make them a troll. Someone here just posting to inflame people is another thing. Please learn the difference. That other attempt to reduct what I said and brushing it off as a 'troll' just further acts to ignore the issues.

Here is a CBC article about racism:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/racism-still-an-uncomfortable-truth-in-canada-duncan-mccue-1.2831066

 

[DB123]

Pardon reviving this old thread. This is the first time I'm back since my last post. It's hard work having one's own life and raising two parents too! But boy do they grow up quick...!

I underlined what you wrote because it was just hard to separate it all.

(1)
DB123, "if" isn't an ambigiouos cover all to save everying that someone says. Regardless of that conjunction being used, it does nt change the assumptions one makes to get to the point of saying if. Put another way, you made assumptions to get to a certain point, and using if in the end doesn't change the fact that a whole lot of assumptions were made (correct or incorrect) to get to a specific thought.

(2)
If another poster was banned for not being a John, then that's fine. If the board owner or mods want to ban me, then it's up to them. They could just ask me to leave, and I wouldn't return - so a ban isn't all that necessary. The logic behind your post doesn't hold up though. How does one know when someone is or isn't a john. It isn't a requirement to post here after someone uses sex services. This is a rhetorical postulation.

(3)
Part of the reason that I wished not to address your comments ("nothing substantive to comment on" as you put it) was because you explicity said that you didn't read anything.

Ignorance is the absence of knowledge, but having that information available and choosing not to learn is something else beyond ignorance. You didn't take the time to read anything, but most importantly: I don't owe you any type of explanation. The material is there for you to review on your own, and the human rights code is there for you to look up on your own. I'm not going to do your work for you.

I'll try to spell out what I said ("As I am not a 'John' I cannot claim that my rights have been infringed. Do you understand that?") in a different way:

In order for anyone to make a human rights complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Comission or Ontario Human Rights Tribunal they must show that their rights have been infringed upon. As I said, I am not a John. As such, I cannot make any claim that my rights have been infringed upon. What is ironic is that sex services is often argued under the umbrella of human rights (as it very well should be), but some members in that line of work openly discriminate. If the discrimination is based on safety reasons that's fine (it's allowed in human rights to happen), but to say that no blacks or indians are accepted for safety reasons is so stupid it's unbelievable. It's appalling that some people are claiming that here so broadly and suggesting that it should apply to all members of a race. Someone's skin colour is not a predetermining factor for crime (that falls under prejudice and racism).

Furthermore, as sex acts (or companionship) for money is still an illegal act, it's much more than problematic to claim human rights for an illegal act. Finally, it is not against any human rights to be able to copulate with whomever or whatever you want. That is ridiculous. It is against human rights to discriminate based on race related grounds.

Please read:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/code_grounds/race
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/racial-discrimination-brochure

wpgguy, someone having an opinion different from yours and an opinion that they are willing to defend - doesn't make them a troll. Someone here just posting to inflame people is another thing. Please learn the difference. That other attempt to reduct what I said and brushing it off as a 'troll' just further acts to ignore the issues.

Here is a CBC article about racism:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/racism-still-an-uncomfortable-truth-in-canada-duncan-mccue-1.2831066

I hope you don't mind that I didn't read any of that (while not on twitter I do appreciate brevity). I imagine it made you feel better though so :thumb:

 

[IM469]

I hope you don't mind that I didn't read any of that (while not on twitter I do appreciate brevity). I imagine it made you feel better though so :thumb:

Good, I didn't read it as well. At a glance I could tell some deep thought went into it so I had a little guilt skipping it but visually I had the feeling that I was wading into quicksand. Obviously a well thought out dissertation on something. :thumb:

 

[TESLAMotors]

It's not racism. Not everything in this world is fucking racism.

^^^

If the women doesn't want to see a particular ethnic background, too fucking bad.
Sorry.

I actually asked one through a PM here as to why and she told me, some have very poor hygiene, others try to bargain down like it's some kind of bazaar and some are downright forceful, rude and too physical.
They're not punching bags ffs.

Woman's body, her choice.

 

[wpgguy]

OK not blackie, just another blowhard troll. One more for the ignore list, no big deal.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

OK not blackie, just another blowhard troll. One more for the ignore list, no big deal.

Is there a post that says he is "not blackie" or is that just an assumption/excuse to post the way you did?