Maybe providers should screen, based on those factors instead (income, education)? Because I'd pass those tests with flying colors, despite my skin tone
I’ll simplify for statistical understanding, and switch places for empathy of the lady’s plight, though remain accurate numerically to those FBI stats. Lets switch the places of hobbiests and providers, and make the risk not crime but STD’s. Let’s get rid of black, white, latino, asian and just have Provider women of an alien race- Sneeches with Stars, and Sneeches without Stars. Let’s say instead of murder we have HIV, instead of lesser crimes we have all other curable STD’s (and its planet BareBack, no cheating to get out of risk!).
So, there are 100 ads on Backpage. 12 ads are by lady Sneeches with Stars, 88 by No Star Sneeches.
The 12 Star Sneeches are known, as a group, to have caused 5 cases of HIV, and a total of 28 cases of other STD’s.
The 88 No Stars are known, as a group, to have also caused 5 cases of HIV, and a total of 72 cases of other STD’s.
You are super horny and wish to see 2 girls today (no cheating, you can’t decide not to see a Sneech at all).
You don’t know the individual STD rates for any Sneech, just their Sneech group.
Which Sneeches would you call, to risk your vulnerable bare wiener with?
Call 2 of the No Stars, the 88:72 STD ratio and 88:5 HIV ratio group?
Call 2 of the With Stars, the 12:28 STD and 12:5 HIV ratio group?
One of each, or random?
You are free to call randomly, to avoid dissing any STD free Sneeches solely because of their Star Status, and accept greater risk of disease or death. Or you could go to lots more trouble to request testing info to avoid Star based discrimination.
But if you wanted to maximize your chance of health, without lots more trouble…
You would choose the No Stars girls to put your vulnerable bare wiener inside of. Obviously.
So, why resent so terribly the woman who wants to similarly reduce her risk of violence or violent death, the risk when she locks herself bare inside a hotel room with a strange man?
OK, there's been discussion of screening, and relative crime risk of groups, and lots of misunderstanding of the statistics.
I’ll simplify for statistical understanding, and switch places for empathy of the lady’s plight, though remain accurate numerically to those FBI stats. Lets switch the places of hobbiests and providers, and make the risk not crime but STD’s. Let’s get rid of black, white, latino, asian and just have Provider women of an alien race- Sneeches with Stars, and Sneeches without Stars. Let’s say instead of murder we have HIV, instead of lesser crimes we have all other curable STD’s (and its planet BareBack, no cheating to get out of risk!).
So, there are 100 ads on Backpage. 12 ads are by lady Sneeches with Stars, 88 by No Star Sneeches.
The 12 Star Sneeches are known, as a group, to have caused 5 cases of HIV, and a total of 28 cases of other STD’s.
The 88 No Stars are known, as a group, to have also caused 5 cases of HIV, and a total of 72 cases of other STD’s.
You are super horny and wish to see 2 girls today (no cheating, you can’t decide not to see a Sneech at all).
You don’t know the individual STD rates for any Sneech, just their Sneech group.
Which Sneeches would you call, to risk your vulnerable bare wiener with?
Call 2 of the No Stars, the 88:72 STD ratio and 88:5 HIV ratio group?
Call 2 of the With Stars, the 12:28 STD and 12:5 HIV ratio group?
One of each, or random?
You are free to call randomly, to avoid dissing any STD free Sneeches solely because of their Star Status, and accept greater risk of disease or death. Or you could go to lots more trouble to request testing info to avoid Star based discrimination.
But if you wanted to maximize your chance of health, without lots more trouble…
You would choose the No Stars girls to put your vulnerable bare wiener inside of. Obviously.
So, why resent so terribly the woman who wants to similarly reduce her risk of violence or violent death, the risk when she locks herself bare inside a hotel room with a strange man
This is a goofy Seuss parable of the relative risk, on average, by race, of violent crime, tying into the perennial topic of women excluding AA's and whether that is illogical and shameful, or rational and moral.
Per Census and FBI stats-
Blacks are 12% of the population, and commit 54% of murders.
All other races combined are 88%, and commit 46% of murders.
For other crimes, the majority commits a majority of crimes, but still disproportionately low, meaning less than their overall percent of the population. For example, Whites and Latinos together are 72% of the population, and commit 69% of the total crime (violent and white collar combined), while Blacks are 12% and commit a disproportionately high 28%.
This means that blacks, while committing a minority of total crime, commit it at a much higher rate per capita and pose a greater risk per individual. And for the worst crime, murder, they commit a majority, even though being a small minority, and so pose a much much higher risk, overall, on average.
Some continue to confuse aggregate and per capita rates, and therefore misunderstand the stats.
But all are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
you are using the overall murder stats, of which, is a much larger population than what you're projecting or applying the stats to. More applicable would be murders where the victim was not known or even better, sex worker murders.
Get some stats that are applicable to the case you're applying them to -- ie, murders (or even just "reported violence and murders of sex workers") broken down by ethnicity... until then, this is an unfair distortion and misuse of information and not even marginally acceptable.
Also, you should cite your sources.
I disagree on two counts.
If the topic is "is it reasonable for women to screen out AA's?" then it is reasonable to use overall murder rates as a viable proxy statistic, though imprecise in the ways you mention.
For these stats to not reasonably be applicable, you need to claim that the much harder to find stat of murder of sex workers by race would be radically different than overall murders. If the black differential were halved, if they were only 4.4 times the murder rate of all others for this one category, not the 8.9 x for the overall murder rate, then the point stands. Much much higher risk. My assertion is plausible given overall trends, yours isn't and so is the one requiring documentation.
Second, naming sources. OK, that's easy. Department of Justice, and US Census Bureau
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
(posted previously by DC Poorboy to refute, but doesn't
that the vast majority of murders occur between a victim & perpetrator who are well known to each other, for any reasonable analysis relating to providers & hobbyists you would have to find a way to exclude all of those murders occurring among familiar perpetrators & victims from the data analyzed. I don't even know if that is possible with the way the data you cite are presented. But if you can't do this, then any application of global statistics to the very specific subject of provider/hobbyist relations is specious at best & can't provide any really meaningful insights.
Yes, the overall stats about murder do not prove a pattern for murder of providers by hobbyists.
But, murder and all other crime stats show an extremely consistent and robust pattern of AA's being an extreme outlier in terms of criminal behavior, and even more so the more violent the behavior.
So, for your counter assertion, that it is not reasonable for providers to screen by race because adequately specific stats aren't on offer, to be true, you would need to at least provide a plausible scenario on why the broad consistent pattern would not apply to the narrow case.
Basically you are saying, sure, blacks kill and rob and commit all manner of crime a LOT more, but when it comes to killing or robbing prostitutes, we can expect a very different pattern of behavior. Any woman who screens based on believing that leopards don't change their spots is irrational. I say bullshit.
I can't prove the narrow case, only infer. You can't prove the opposite narrow case, that blacks are as safe as anyone else with prostitutes, only infer. Your case is equally as specious as mine, but mine is by far the more plausible and reasonable inference from the data at hand.
Unless you are going to propose that blacks are genetically predisposed to violence, and that's just the way things are. I think most people will agree that socio economic factors are much more germane than those strictly based on race. IOW a poor black man from the ghetto is much more likely to mug you than a middle class person of any color. Can we agree on that?
If so, I would like to point out that very few thugs of any color are out hiring hookers at $300 hr. To rely on any study regarding violence against "high end" hookers by clients, you have to throw out all men without the means to be clients in the first place, which means virtually all of those black thugs you seem to be so afraid of.
Ok, feel free to go back to your racist rant now. I am sure you won't allow my little speed bump of common sense to slow you down on your quest to make people cower at the thought of black men enjoying the hobby.
I’ll simplify for statistical understanding, and switch places for empathy of the lady’s plight, though remain accurate numerically to those FBI stats. Lets switch the places of hobbiests and providers, and make the risk not crime but STD’s. Let’s get rid of black, white, latino, asian and just have Provider women of an alien race- Sneeches with Stars, and Sneeches without Stars. Let’s say instead of murder we have HIV, instead of lesser crimes we have all other curable STD’s (and its planet BareBack, no cheating to get out of risk!).
So, there are 100 ads on Backpage. 12 ads are by lady Sneeches with Stars, 88 by No Star Sneeches.
The 12 Star Sneeches are known, as a group, to have caused 5 cases of HIV, and a total of 28 cases of other STD’s.
The 88 No Stars are known, as a group, to have also caused 5 cases of HIV, and a total of 72 cases of other STD’s.
You are super horny and wish to see 2 girls today (no cheating, you can’t decide not to see a Sneech at all).
You don’t know the individual STD rates for any Sneech, just their Sneech group.
Which Sneeches would you call, to risk your vulnerable bare wiener with?
Call 2 of the No Stars, the 88:72 STD ratio and 88:5 HIV ratio group?
Call 2 of the With Stars, the 12:28 STD and 12:5 HIV ratio group?
One of each, or random?
You are free to call randomly, to avoid dissing any STD free Sneeches solely because of their Star Status, and accept greater risk of disease or death. Or you could go to lots more trouble to request testing info to avoid Star based discrimination.
But if you wanted to maximize your chance of health, without lots more trouble…
You would choose the No Stars girls to put your vulnerable bare wiener inside of. Obviously.
So, why resent so terribly the woman who wants to similarly reduce her risk of violence or violent death, the risk when she locks herself bare inside a hotel room with a strange man?
Because of one of his threads?....This it too damn funny,lol. People are publicly hanging themselves, haha. This is crazy....*dead
name a statistic that is wrong or wrongly interpreted.
Cite a better source than the FBI and the US Census.
If you can't, you're just lazy or prefer to ignore the facts.
First and foremost these are ARREST statistics...not conviction statistics, so your whole thesis is flawed from the door.
Second, since most providers won't see men under the age of 18, those stats have to be tossed entirely, so we are only dealing with those over 18.
Now in your typical high end hotel, the murder of a provider is rare, but let's look at the arrest stats for rape, aggravated assault, burglary, violent crime, property crime, other assaults, forgery..
Point 1- Over 18: yes, the rates for AA's over 18 (more like 25) will drop... but so will those for every other race. So the point, which deals with RELATIVE risk between races still stands. A 50 year old black guy is much less of a risk than a 22 year old black guy, but still a much higher risk than a 50 year old white or latino or Asian guy.
Point 2- Tossing stats: you are asserting that the pattern observed for the full age spectrum, of blacks committing crime at far higher rates, would disappear for an age range restricted to 18 and above (toss the statistics). This is not a reasonable inference from the data, and in fact would imply that the disparity for 0-18 was massively higher, to so distort the ratio for 0-99. Therefore the burden is on you to provide a statistic that proves your highly unlikely assertion.
Point 3-: Yes, the black murder rate ratio vs all other races is the worst at 8:1. For other crimes it is lower, around 4:1 to 7:1, or 400%-700% higher phrased differently. That's still a uniquely higher risk compared to any other group. So this doesn't change the conclusion that blacks are, on average, in the aggregate, a much higher risk, as they are for all crimes, across the board. And yes, murder is rare. Robbery is frequent, and nearly as high a disparity. And murder, the ultimate fear for a provider, could rationally shape a provider's risk assessment, even if more rare. So this doesn't effect whether the provider's screening is rational and moral.
So, why resent so terribly the woman who wants to similarly reduce her risk of violence or violent death, the risk when she locks herself bare inside a hotel room with a strange man?
-- Modified on 3/11/2015 12:05:25 AM
Never said they were doing statistical analysis.
I said their conclusions, drawn from their personal observations of the world, from all the local robberies of providers being black, etc., are in fact accurate and conformance with fact.
Their generalizations, whatever their source, are rational and true.
Obviously you can't refute the facts, so you resort to name calling -Doo Doo Head!
Guess that's not pseudo intellectual, that's retro kindergarten, well done!
At the risk of kicking the hornet's nest again ... I'll just leave this here.
"The rate of new HIV infection in African Americans is 8 times that of whites based on population size."
Source: CDC
-- Modified on 3/11/2015 12:55:53 PM
So you/we engaged in a similar thread/s back in October 2014. Now you're back again LEADING these discussions?!?!
What is your REAL motive?
Is it that you don't want to fuck behind "big black dick," or the menancing big black dude?
Whatever your motive/s are I DOUBT SERIOULSY it's out of some genuine "care" for the ladies.
With that said I'll simply repost my responses to your "Dirk" styled statistical analysis.....LMAO.
I was gonna leave it alone but I can't let your BS go unchallenged!!
For your reading pleasure.
LMAO
I will offer now, as I did then, the subject website and it's author Tim Wise. He's noted WHITE antiracist and may can help enlighten you....some! Since he's one of your "own kind" you may give more than passing consideration.
Enjoy as he has plenty of writings, talks, essays on the use of "statistics."
Go see the list.
Blacks commit crime at far far higher rates than all other races combined.
They worse the crime the higher the black disparity.
You don't refute this, because you can't and you know it.
Whites commit crime is not a refutation, because its consistent with the thesis, which is that blacks commit MORE crime per capita, not ALL crime.
Some anecdotal high profile crimes being by non-blacks doesn't refute it.
Citing some guy with a different name than yours doesn't refute it, that's argument by authority, a logical fallacy.
So, we are left with the thesis unrefuted by you. Given the far higher risks involving blacks, one possible strategy which would be rational and effective for Prostitutes would be to screen blacks. This is not irrational, nor immoral.
A woman who uses individual screening is still using limited data to make a prediction of future behavior. Having biographical info deters bad behavior, but is not guaranteed. Having references from other Prostitutes provides data the is highly predictive, but not guaranteed. Talking to the person voice to voice to get a feel for them might help but isn't guaranteed. Charging more, to indirectly screen out poorer or lower socioeconomic class clients helps a great deal, but is not guarantee. Its all playing the odds and trying to minimize risk.
All screening collects data to try to make distinctions, which is what discrimination means (though not by race). All screening discriminates based on predicted future behavior, which is what prejudice means. All screening can eliminate clients who would have posed no threat.
For Backpage girls, who operate in the seedier, higher risk end of this thing, and all prostitutes operate outside the normal protections of the law. With a lower profit margin and higher volume don't have the time or resources to discriminate or prejudge based on individual, higher quality, more predictive data. So they do it based on cruder measures, which result in lots of unfairness to lots of good law abiding well meaning black guys.
But this isn't irrational, it has a good reason backed up by the facts.
A majority of black men don't get arrested.
A hyper majority of black men don't commit murder.
The majority of black clients don't mistreat prostitutes.
Robbery of prostitutes is rare, murder very rare.
White, Asian, and Latino men can also be a threat, rob prostitutes, commit murder.
BUT, it is not wrong for girls to seek to avoid the risk of assault or death, even if the risk is low.
AND the minority of black men who commit violent crime is much larger relative to population size than the minority of men of all other races who do. So it can make sense for girls to screen AA's.
My motives? These posts that attempt to call out poorer more marginal girls who screen for their own safety, and treat them as if they are wrong and imply some collective punishment, really piss me off. Quit calling out the girls, I'll quit quoting the unflattering FACTS.
Do I prefer girls who screen blacks? yes, because it also lowers the chance of STD's by an equally large margin as it lowers the girl's risk of violence.
Maybe providers should screen, based on those factors instead (income, education)? Because I'd pass those tests with flying colors, despite my skin tone
I’ll simplify for statistical understanding, and switch places for empathy of the lady’s plight, though remain accurate numerically to those FBI stats. Lets switch the places of hobbiests and providers, and make the risk not crime but STD’s. Let’s get rid of black, white, latino, asian and just have Provider women of an alien race- Sneeches with Stars, and Sneeches without Stars. Let’s say instead of murder we have HIV, instead of lesser crimes we have all other curable STD’s (and its planet BareBack, no cheating to get out of risk!).
So, there are 100 ads on Backpage. 12 ads are by lady Sneeches with Stars, 88 by No Star Sneeches.
The 12 Star Sneeches are known, as a group, to have caused 5 cases of HIV, and a total of 28 cases of other STD’s.
The 88 No Stars are known, as a group, to have also caused 5 cases of HIV, and a total of 72 cases of other STD’s.
You are super horny and wish to see 2 girls today (no cheating, you can’t decide not to see a Sneech at all).
You don’t know the individual STD rates for any Sneech, just their Sneech group.
Which Sneeches would you call, to risk your vulnerable bare wiener with?
Call 2 of the No Stars, the 88:72 STD ratio and 88:5 HIV ratio group?
Call 2 of the With Stars, the 12:28 STD and 12:5 HIV ratio group?
One of each, or random?
You are free to call randomly, to avoid dissing any STD free Sneeches solely because of their Star Status, and accept greater risk of disease or death. Or you could go to lots more trouble to request testing info to avoid Star based discrimination.
But if you wanted to maximize your chance of health, without lots more trouble…
You would choose the No Stars girls to put your vulnerable bare wiener inside of. Obviously.
So, why resent so terribly the woman who wants to similarly reduce her risk of violence or violent death, the risk when she locks herself bare inside a hotel room with a strange man?
True, income, education, profession, SEC, criminal background check, provider references, all are or could be superior screening filters to the crude catch all of race.
The problem is, that race is easy to detect, often simply by voice alone on the phone, whereas all the others need significant effort (transcripts, background checks, real ID, contacting and awaiting reply from references). Most BP girls are first come, first serve, lower budget girls, without the time in their business model to await in depth screening.
You can approximate income screening by charging more... but again, not the BP market niche.
So, BP girls use the simple and effective race screen.
Higher cost, lower volume ladies don't, because they don't need to
I never thought of this myself because I don't mess with BP but sometimes when you area girl on BP saying NO AAs it's mainly to TRY to ward off pimps. Either because A she doesn't want one or B she already has one. Many of their pimps will post their BP ads for them and they certainly don't want any other pimps trying to hone in on their business. It's all sad but just something else to think about.
....and I've gotten this from the "horses mouth" that another reason they do this, inparticular the scammers, the chance that a black guy will retaliate is higher (real or stereotype) than a white guy.
Meaning that once the guy shows and realizes that it's not the girl in the PIC, it's a cash and dash operation, certain session attributes are not allowed as advertised, etc..