Sp client preference

[G.D. Gentleman]

Small reality check. You would be surprised how high a percentage of the advertising ladies who state 'no black clients' is due to a reason xomontrealer called out and I am confirming here after 20+ years of hobby life -

They have a black male pimp and it's his requirement. He doesn't want possible other black males attempting to meet and 'steal' his girl(s).

Anyone who's been to a west end strip club in the last 10 years has seen it on public display as a side but related note.


In this particular situation those who are being racist are in fact the black male pimps against other black males, and those who are frustrated they cannot see these ladies simply as clients would be surprised this is the reason behind many of the 'no black clients' ads.

 

[J.A. Prufrock]

Let's flip the script (is that an expression?)

Anyway, if you're a black or brown guy, why would you want to spend your hard-earned money on some (possibly) racist cunt who'd only be going through the motions before rushing you out the door? Fuck that shit and see someone who'll give you a good time.

In that sense, it's good that some of these bitches make it clear on the agency site they won't see men of certain races -- as much as it would suck to be singled out like that.

 

[squeezer]

Small reality check. You would be surprised how high a percentage of the advertising ladies who state 'no black clients' is due to a reason xomontrealer called out and I am confirming here after 20+ years of hobby life -

They have a black male pimp and it's his requirement. He doesn't want possible other black males attempting to meet and 'steal' his girl(s).

Anyone who's been to a west end strip club in the last 10 years has seen it on public display as a side but related note.


In this particular situation those who are being racist are in fact the black male pimps against other black males, and those who are frustrated they cannot see these ladies simply as clients would be surprised this is the reason behind many of the 'no black clients' ads.

This is very true in many cases.

 

[fall]

First part yes. Second part no. There is no charter protection for being racist.

Fact is people can make racist comments and others can condemn them for it.

Of course they can, they have the right to do so, as long as it is just condemning and not actually doing any harm to that person. This is the beauty of a free country. But firing someone for their beliefs (no matter what their beliefs are) is discrimination

 

[fall]

You're not racist but...

Sorry but if you judge people on race based generalisation (from stats or not), I think the shoe fits.

I do not judge people, I am computing conditional probabilities. I do not consider the race to be the reason, the race is an independent parameter but both the race and crime correlate with poverty (race by the fact that it is hard to get out of poverty when your grew in poverty, second because poor people are more likely to resort to crime). Hence, while I do not believe that race has anything to do with it, if I cannot observe the socio-economic status of the person, the use of race as an signal is perfectly rational.

 

[fall]

Racism is bad when you use the colour of a person's skin to judge unrelated factors such as intelligence or honesty.

OK, consider the following situation. Fro simplicity, assume there are 500 white and 500 black people in a country. 40% of white (100 people) and 60% of black (300 people) are poor, everybody else is rich. Assume also that "intelligence" is not a quality given at birth, but something that can be developed through education. For simplicity, assume "education" is the same as "intelligence (the argument will remain the same as long as we assume positive correlation between them) Assume 80% of rich people are able to receive a good education while only 20% of poor people can do so. This ability does not depend on race, only on economic status. Now, we have a country with 300*0.8+200*0.2=280 "intelligent" white people and 200*0.8+300*0.2=220 "intelligent" black people. I.e., the probability that a randomly chosen white person is intelligent is 280/500=56%, while this probability for a black person is only 220/500=44%. The same applies to probability to be a criminal. It has nothing to do with race, only with economic status, yet, if economic status is not know, the race become a factor that a rational person will use.

 

[fall]

Small reality check. You would be surprised how high a percentage of the advertising ladies who state 'no black clients' is due to a reason xomontrealer called out and I am confirming here after 20+ years of hobby life -

They have a black male pimp and it's his requirement. He doesn't want possible other black males attempting to meet and 'steal' his girl(s).

Anyone who's been to a west end strip club in the last 10 years has seen it on public display as a side but related note.


In this particular situation those who are being racist are in fact the black male pimps against other black males, and those who are frustrated they cannot see these ladies simply as clients would be surprised this is the reason behind many of the 'no black clients' ads.

Hence, the question arises: if I assume that most pimps are black, or (which is the same thing mathematically) that a random black guy is more likely to be a pimp than a random white guy, am I a racist. Note that I simply state the fact.

 

[buttercup]

Ontario Human Rights Code:
The Code prohibits actions that discriminate against people based on a protected ground in a protected social area.
Protected grounds are:
Age
Ancestry, colour, race
Citizenship
Ethnic origin
Place of origin
Creed
Disability
Family status
Marital status (including single status)
Gender identity, gender expression
Receipt of public assistance (in housing only)
Record of offences (in employment only)
Sex (including pregnancy and breastfeeding)
Sexual orientation.
Protected social areas are:
Accommodation (housing)
Contracts
Employment
Goods, services and facilities
Membership in unions, trade or professional associations.

Canada Human Rights Act
3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

5 It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public
(a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or
(b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,
on a prohibited ground of discrimination.


Obviously, it is illegal for a service provider (any kind of service) to discriminate against (potential) clients on the grounds of colour, sex, etc.

There is no bar to discrimination on grounds other than the prohibited grounds. So it's ok for a SP to discriminate on the grounds of ability to pay, for instance.

The Codes do not grant any exception for sex-workers. The Codes simply do indeed bar SPs from discrimination on grounds of colour and the rest..

One of the problems with charges of racism is that it is hard to prove, if the person denies it. Actually advertising that you discriminate on grounds of colour knocks out that defence.

 

[kherg007]

You pay for companionship. That is legal. Paying for sex is illegal. Thus if sex "happens" it requires consenting adults. If one member of the pair does not consent and sex happens then it is rape.

Thus would you pay for companionship but then not get consent for sex once you get in the door? That could happen legally. Just a thought.

 

[oil&gas]

Obviously, it is illegal for a service provider
(any kind of service) to discriminate against (potential)
clients on the grounds of colour, sex, etc.

It is not illegal for those indies who screen
intrusively to require a first time client to provide
personal information including ethnicity before
any appointment is granted. That way they
can reject clients outside their comfort zone
and still call other 'no-blacks-allowed escorts'
racist.

 

[Damnthealiens]

Thanks for your thoughts. But i still can understand the concept of few bad apples effecting am entire race. And since we are into flipping scripts, Are you telling me that all white folks behaved with 100% courtesy and that there were no bad apples or are we More forgiving when it comes to white people. The answer to this should tell you whether this industry is racist or not.

 

[fall]

You pay for companionship. That is legal. Paying for sex is illegal. Thus if sex "happens" it requires consenting adults. If one member of the pair does not consent and sex happens then it is rape.

Thus would you pay for companionship but then not get consent for sex once you get in the door? That could happen legally. Just a thought.

So, if prostitution was legal (like in Germany), the payment will be for sex (not "companionship" ) and denial service based on colour would be against the law, right?

 

[superstar_88]

But isnt rejecting on basis of skin color what racism all about?

With this logic if some cowboy wants to ride you and you reject does that make you homophobic?

 

[Damnthealiens]

With this logic if some cowboy wants to ride you and you reject does that make you homophobic?

But me being straight or someone bieng gay is not a choice. They are born that way. Racism is a choice.

 

[bebe]

I always thought NO meant NO.

Guess lots of guys cannot deal with that.

 

[fall]

I always thought NO meant NO.

Guess lots of guys cannot deal with that.

This has nothing to do with being racist. If SP provide services to people they are not attracted too, but refuse to do it to black people, it is their right, but it is racial discrimination (not necessary racism). IMHO, if an UBER driver refuses to give the right to two big black dudes, it is racial discrimination, but not racism (he has nothing against black guys but based on the statistics he beliefs he is more likely to get robbed by two black dudes than by two white dudes). If you walk into the bus and have a choice to sit next to white or black guy who are otherwise identical and prefer to sit next to white guy - it is racism (i.e., you have preferences based on the skin colour)

 

[kherg007]

So, if prostitution was legal (like in Germany), the payment will be for sex (not "companionship" ) and denial service based on colour would be against the law, right?

Depends how the laws are written. Being a baker is one thing, intimate services another. In Australia, where prositution is legal, cameras show the bloke entering the brothel so the lady can decide not to show up for the intro. Not illegal. If it was someone she knew she can avoid the show up too. No reasons need be given. A bias? Yes. Legal? Yes.

 

[bebe]

This has nothing to do with being racist. If SP provide services to people they are not attracted too, but refuse to do it to black people, it is their right, but it is racial discrimination (not necessary racism). IMHO, if an UBER driver refuses to give the right to two big black dudes, it is racial discrimination, but not racism (he has nothing against black guys but based on the statistics he beliefs he is more likely to get robbed by two black dudes than by two white dudes). If you walk into the bus and have a choice to sit next to white or black guy who are otherwise identical and prefer to sit next to white guy - it is racism (i.e., you have preferences based on the skin colour)

It has everything to do with saying NO if the SP does not want to see black or brown men

I would put my safety above all else, the SP should have that same freedom. Sounds simple enough

Why should an SP be forced against her will to see men she does not want to be with

 

[fall]

It has everything to do with saying NO if the SP does not want to see black or brown men

I would put my safety above all else, the SP should have that same freedom. Sounds simple enough

Why should an SP be forced against her will to see men she does not want to be with

And I completely agree with you. What I am saying that the disputable right for an SP to refuse to see the black client has nothing to do with the issue of being racist. There are two reasons for an SP to refuse black clients: she does not like them (same as she may (not like fat guys) or she is afraid for he safety. In the former case she is racist (she does not like a person just because of his race) in the second case she rationally discriminates based on the race (either based on her own experience or other statistics she believes that among black clients the ratio od violent people is higher). No one is saying that she must accept black clients. She can refuse. By if she refuses, she is either racist or discriminates based on the race. Nothing wrong in either of this cases.

 

[fall]

Depends how the laws are written. Being a baker is one thing, intimate services another. In Australia, where prositution is legal, cameras show the bloke entering the brothel so the lady can decide not to show up for the intro. Not illegal. If it was someone she knew she can avoid the show up too. No reasons need be given. A bias? Yes. Legal? Yes.

Yes, this is one way of doing it. But what will happen with a barbershop if it become known that one of the barbers refuses to serve black clients? The only reason I hear is "but sex work is a different from anything else". Why? Why should it be different in a country when it is legal?