I consider myself a liberal... I think anyone who's read my posts sees that as obvious. But the recent posts on racism and providers who won't see black clients brings up an interesting point.
That point is that the liberal left is as dogmatic and self-centered as the conservative right.
You simply can't flatly state that just because a provider won't see a black client, she's racist... Without knowing the girl personally, you can't make that conclusion. It just isn't that black-and-white (pun intended). There are a variety of reasons that she may choose that policy.
One reason could be that yes, she is a racist. But another could be one of preference; however it may be a business preference rather than a personal one.
Many providers place an age restriction on who they choose to see - they won't see clients under 30 or 35. Do you really think that they make that decision based on personal preference? That they're willing to give up potential clients and money because they prefer to fuck older guys? Of course not... it's a business decision based on past experience. Maybe they found the younger men are too aggressive or too immature; but for whatever reason, experience has casued them to impose an age standard on who'll they'll see.
I've had discussions with black friends (hobbyist and non-hobbyists) about how Black American culture has sometimes complicated their lives as black men because of the way rap and hip-hop has objectified women as nothing more than a thing to be ridiculed and degraded.
A few days ago a hobbyist was excoriated for referring to Memphis as a whore; but rap and hip-hop use that term liberally to refer to women in general. My black friends say that this has led to a new stereotype of black men... In the old days their fathers were stereotyped as lazy and shiftless... today the new stereotype is that they're thugs and players. This may play a part in a provider's decsion not to see black clients (and I know of black providers who won't see black men either).
I've always questioned the conservative right's ability to be pro-life on one side and pro-death penalty on the other. It seems to be paradoxial. But now I have to question the liberal left's ability to argue pro-choice and pro-prostitution as a woman's right to do as she wishes with her body, but denies a woman's right to choose who she fucks or doesn't fuck.
I don't think any of us would like it very much if someone who didn't know us labeled us a a pervert or degenerate because we choose to see providers. Or how about this... how would you like it if someone posted on a forum that you were a pedophile because they found out you watched "barely legal" porn?
In my humble opinion, it's dangerous, absolutist and dogmatic to stick ANYONE with a lable of any kind without knowing them personally.
I'm kidding. Just trying to take a quick break from all the heady talk on here about race.
In my opinion there is a big difference between being a racists and being prejudicial. I think that some people are a little too quick to jump to calling someone a racists as soon as any prejudicial statment or action is taken. So I don't think that these hobbiest are racists, but I still think that they are making a prejudicial decision that is probably based on some form of ignorance.
Because absolutism is a two way street.
Because while it might be wrong to label a given woman a racist because she refuses to see anyone from a particular race, without knowing that woman's personal motives. It's equally wrong for a given woman to label as "unacceptable to see" all people of a given race without knowing who they are individually.
>That point is that the liberal left is as dogmatic and self-centered as the conservative right.
I disagree. The liberal left is far more dogmatic and self-centered than the conservative right.
Look at the response to the Prop 8 issue in California. Churches being attacked and demonstrations against Christians. Conservative scholars finding it impossible to be hired by liberal colleges and universities. The blacklist by gay activists against anyone who contributed to the Prop 8 campaign.
>I've always questioned the conservative right's ability to be pro-life on one side and pro-death penalty on the other.
That's easy. Pro-life means conservatives want more people to live. The death penalty deters future murders so more people live as a result of the death of one convicted murderer.
I've always questioned the liberal left's ability to condone abortion, which means killing the life of a completely helpless child (who would have eventually grown up to be a person just like a liberal or a conservative), yet liberals will go to great lengths to spare the life of a convicted murderer who has killed one or more innocent lives.
>You simply can't flatly state that just because a provider won't see a black client, she's racist.
Actually, you _can_ come to that conclusion. A provider who refuses to see a black client purely because he is black is making a decision purely on racial grounds.
If that same black client were to apply for a mortgage or rent a house and was denied purely because he was black, would that not be considered an act of racism? Yet why do you make a difference between a financial transaction and a sexual one? I'll get to that in a moment.
>In my humble opinion, it's dangerous, absolutist and dogmatic to stick ANYONE with a lable of any kind without knowing them personally.
Yet that's exactly what the provider is doing, she's deciding not to see a black client without knowing them personally. That's racism.
Just to be clear, here is what you said:
"Of course not... it's a business decision based on past experience."
So if a bank denies loans to _all_ black applicants because the default rate from black clients is higher than for white clients, I'm sure you'd say that was racist. But if a provider refuses to see all black clients because of past experience, that's not racist? IMO, it is.
The terrible problem for liberals on this forum is that you think the provider is _justified_ in making that racist decision. You're trying to find a loophole by saying that just because a provider is making a purely racists decision, you can't conclude that she's racist because you don't know her.
That excuse wouldn't work for banks and it won't work for providers.
What's discomforting to liberals is that there is a boundary where even liberals feel that racism cannot be denied. Denying a loan to a black applicant purely based on race is unjustifiable racism. Refusing to see a black client purely because he is black is _justifiable_ racism.
IMO, that's how you can thread the needle on this issue. Loaning money is an impersonal act that should not be based on race. But a sexual act is so personal, liberals feel that race ought to be allowed to be a deciding factor.
But once you've crossed that line, you're condoning racism, regardless of how you twist yourself into a pretzel in avoiding that conclusion.
Eddie: "Of course not... it's a business decision based on past experience."
It occurred to me that I can add some empirical data to this discussion. Hopefully this post will illustrate why Eddie was right to mention Hip Hop and rap culture.
A very long time ago in the early 1990's I was in NYC and decided to visit one of the provider incall apartments advertised in Screw magazine.
I'm Chinese and from Canada. Racism isn't much of a factor in this country, I've experienced maybe 2 or 3 negative incidents in 50 years because I'm not white.
This is roughly how the conversation went when I called the number in the ad. The parts in brackets were my interior thoughts.
Me: I'd like to make an appointment to see XXXX.
Her: OK, she's working today. What is your nationality?
Me: (Huh???? Why would she care about that?) I'm Canadian.
Her: No! I meant what race are you, white or black?
Me: (DOH!) Er, I'm Chinese.
Her: OK, here's the address...
I never thought that race would be a factor, but I learned otherwise that day.
Once there, I had to wait for a while, so I decided to talk to the telephone receptionist about their racial policies, since I obviously had no clue.
She said that they never had any problems with White, Chinese, Pakistani or Indians from India. I asked to make sure and asked what she meant by that. She said she meant zero problems.
However, they've had problems with black clients. Specifically, they had been held up at gunpoint once and lost thousands of dollars, not to mention severe psychological trauma for the women working there.
Also, she said black customers were sometimes rough with the providers, trying to dominate them, and would try to get as much out of them as possible, multiple shots on goal in a half hour appointment or extra oral sex. In other words, they were very demanding customers, which crossed the line into being bad customers. Some providers decided to quit instead of having sessions with black clients because of that abuse.
In other words, the behaviour of some of the black clients was right out of rap culture, something Eddie mentioned.
I asked her about the proportion of that kind of bad client among all their black customers and she said it was about 20% before they decided to stop accepting black clients.
So there you have it, some direct information from one provider location.
Were they racist? Perhaps not, they welcomed Chinese, Indian and Pakistani customers. But perhaps so, after all, they wouldn't see black customers.
The hard choice was this: Zero problems with every racial customer other than black. For black clients, a non zero chance that you'll be robbed and a 20% chance that the client will make the provider feel abused.
Since they stopped seeing black clients, no problems, ever. And she meant _never_.
This where the ethereal discussions about "I never believe in racism" meets messy reality.
One reality is that the majority of black clients were fine. The other reality is that, _unlike all the other races_, some black clients will leave the provider with bad feelings of being abused.
Were they wrong? What would you do if you were running that business? Accept black clients and run the non zero chance of being robbed and a 20% chance of abusive clients where eventually, all the providers would quit. You'll go out of business that way.
Or refuse to see black clients. The result is no problems, you make money and the providers are (relatively) happy.
Those was the choice the operator of that incall apartment had to make.
What would you have done?
I posted about this topic twice and deleted both posts simply because the "answer" we seek can only be given to us by the Providers themselves, and as fast eddie says.. there are some contradictions afoot.
On the one hand we want our individual freedom to choose, yet when someone does they are chastised for their choices. I chatted with one porn actress who doesn't do IR (i.e. black men, white women) because "there are too few black men in the industry" but that she "likes black men totally." I'm not in the business so I can't comment on how these black male performers behave on and off camera, or as to the number of black male performers in total. All I can do is take her at her word.
It's very possible that the providers who exclude a particular group of men have had or been warned of horrible experiences and simply wish to avoid them going forward. Blacks are "Thugs, cheapskates, part of the high-risk group" blah blah blah. Heard it all. Stereotypes (true or not) also apply to younger men, older men and any other group you can categorize. I don't know why these providers have chosen to ban certain groups and since they aren't here to explain why we're just speculating, rightly or wrongly. Note that I am not losing sleep if they do not explain and it wouldn't surprise me if the explanation itself would open up another can of worms. That alone might be a good reason to keep their reasons to themselves.
I like everyone else have my preferences. And like most people I consider anyone in business to be "fair" about their policies and business practices. However, Providing isn't your typical industry, even though it's been around longer than most. I'd like to think if I were in their shoes I'd discriminate based on politeness, respect, cleanliness and so on versus race, age or religious beliefs. But, it's easy for ME to say that from my vantage point.
Thanks to the internet we can now see how stupid and ugly people can get. How riled up they can get over just about anything. But we can also find like-minded people who are cool, fun and open.
To the providers who exclude me based on my race, I have nothing to say. I can't make them change their minds and wouldn't try to. I would devote my male energy (and my green energy) to the hundreds who might like me for me, instead of wasting it thinking about the few who can't or won't. TER at least allows me to make a mental note of the particulars (their preferences and mine) and move in a good direction. One or two drop off my wish list, but now one or two who I hadn't considered before are now on the list.
All I can do is ask up front "how do you feel about black men?" - if I thought I had another issue (having a bald head, which I do, or three eyes, which I don't) I'd ask those questions also. Sometimes those differences can be fun ('race play' for example) and sometimes they are barriers. That's just how it is. I knew a guy in college who thought oral sex was evil. Bad guy? Crazy guy? Depends on who you ask.
Anyway, that's my take on this "volatile" issue.
Well said, sir, well said.
I agree. Well said.
As a "Man of Color" from a mixed race family I tend to have a short fuse and no hesitation pointing out the unchecked hypocrisy and racism that spews out of the mouths of other minorities without an ounce of self awareness with the same energy towards them that they use to accuse others. Then I see somebody who responds with a bit more restraint and it makes me wish I was a better person.
First of all, I have no idea what hip-hop has to do with this discussion other than to point out that as a minority group, African-Ams are more vulnerable to stereotypes and mischaracterizations induced by images in popular culture and media.
As it relates to preferences. It is a preference to prefer thin as opposed to obese persons to have sex with. It is a preference to prefer women with long rather than short hair. It's a preference to prefer clean shaven over hairy pussies.
It's even a preference to say that you prefer to date someone of your own ethnic group due to similarities in culture and background.
But to say that you just won't screw in a business relationship someone of another ethnic group is another matter altogether.
Other than that, sure without knowing someone personally it's hard to say how a person really is. I'm more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if it just relates to their onscreen performances because some believe that doing scenes with Black men will lower their status and earning potential. But to not see them in your private life or business brings up questions and inferences that just can't be avoided.
And yeah they should just post it plainly that they don't do Brothas and let that be it. I've been hung up on and rejected by providers too many times.
I think we need to understand that the porn industry is not immune to any of the issues that society faces including personal preferences and how they are perceived. Also every performer who decides to provides do not have to feel obligated to see anyone that watched her movies.
Lets also face it, Memphis Monroe is the "hot girl" of the moment in the business which is probably why this is such a hot topic.
Born in New Orleans and raised in Louisville Ky. perhaps her southern backround has an influence on her preferences, or maybe its the concerns for the relationship with her personal friends and family that shares similar backrounds and may not be so open minded that may be factor. Is it racism or is it something else? who's to say other than the person in question. Does she have to say... no she has a right to preference. In the attached video link she did not seem to be mean spirited when she stated her preferences, she just stated them.
I am a African American male and I have seen all types of exotic women in my hobbying from East Indian, European, Oriental and Latina to both Black and White. Thats just my preference subject to no ones approval but mine.
While there has been occasions where because of who I am I have been declined a opportunity to see someone from one or more of the ethnic groups listed 99% of the time it was done politely in either a phone conversation, e-mail or a non offensive statement on a web page. The point is that there are so many beautiful open minded ladies to choose from in all nationalities, backgrounds and age groups... well you get my drift
I agree with ALOT of what you said about the "Left," Eddie. As far as Hip-Hop goes, it has gone the way of porn and society nowadays, IMHO. What I mean by that is that first of all, Hip-Hop and rap are two different thing: Rap is something you do, Hip-Hop is something you live.
Second, rap started off as a positive thing just as porn started off with some actual plots and storylines and great sex back in the day. Now, today's porn is mostly about denigrating women, choking them, making them throw up on a dick, "raping" them (You like that, you dirty bitch!), and making women look and feel like shit for the most part. I dare ANYONE HERE to call a provider a "bitch" and a "whore" or a "dirty fuckin' slut" during a session, and I'll bet the farm that the session will end VERY QUICKLY!! Now some may say that a few providers might like that. My question is: WHO?
Rap is now the same way: "Bitch betta have my money!" or "I'ma bust a cap in dat nigga!" Society has also gotten a Hell of alot more ruthless as well. I guess that's why there are "The Golden Age of Porn" and "The Good Ol' Dayz of Rap." Negative Rap only complicates things for Black men if you let it, and I don't.
As far as providers go, they have the right to see who they wanna see (Have I said that before?). There IS a difference between preference and racism even though personally, I think it's bullshit (Have I said that before, too?). There are however, a few providers that GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to say in various interviews and/or posts that they don't do "Men of Color" (And since you did mention Memphis Monroe, she's one of them.) or use that lame excuse that "I'm not attracted to them." But you get wet for Ron Jeremy? (Not that he's not a cool guy.) You're attracted to getting pissed on and degraded by Max Hardcore? (There's a provider on this board who can tell you all about Ol' Max.) Riiiiight. To me, THAT'S racism.
And the reality of it is that some providers really are racist, just like some hobbyists may say, "I don't fuck with Black bitches." That's racist, too. And like you said, we both know of at least one Black provider (Devin Delray) who won't see Black hobbyists. That's fucked up, too.
On a lighter note, here's pic of a former provider that, according to a recent post, is making a comeback and didn't care what ethnic group you were from...
ENJOY!!
Zartan
-- Modified on 12/8/2008 11:21:58 AM
-- Modified on 12/8/2008 11:29:55 AM
I agree w/another one of Eddie's great postings & being over 40 I remember when "pimp's, pimping, ho's, bitches, etc" ment something else !!
I had no idea what "Bling" was until one of my friends 12 year old son told me what it was/ment =)
This topic is getting old, but I will chime in and then I am done:
- There maybe something in Memphis past (or any lady that makes this choice) that makes her not want to see black men. That is her choice and it appears she is doing fine personally and professionally. I wish her the best!
- That being said, as a black man if the biggest worry I had is that a 1500/hr whore (excuse my french - and this goes for any lady not just Memphis) will not fuck me, then my world would be GREAT!! Geez there has been way too many mental gymnasticts wasted on this.
If black guys are looking for ladies who will enjoy their company, they are out there!! Would you want to see a a lady who does not like black guys? Do you think you would have a good time? Isn't that why we do this to have a good time??
Give Demi a call. She will hook you up with ladies who PREFER/LOVE black guys!! (Carly Parker LOVES black men) For evey lady where black guys don't do it for them, there are ladies who truly enjoy the company of a black man.
I'm done. I'd rather spend my time in search of the lady I want to wish me a Merry Christmas!! LOL
happy Holdiays All!!
rol
The issue here how do you classify a person, provider or not as a racist based on their personal preferences and choices. I consciously decided not live in low income neighborhood, I choose not go to a University where majority of the students are Black Americans not that the some of the Universities are not top notch; Howard and Moore House College comes to mind. I made those decisions based on the belief that, I wouldn't have too much in common. The question is does that make me a racist?
I believe, one cannot judge someone else based on their preferences of not to intimately associate with someone. In most cases one can socially associate many people and treat with respect and equality but may not choose to do so in their private personal matters.
Definition of bigotry and racism is based whether you treat someone equally and with respect in socially and has nothing to do with what decisions a person makes on their private life.
Woah, wait a minute...
Give Demi a call. She will hook you up with ladies who PREFER/LOVE black guys!!
Are you trying to say that these women prefer a certain group of men because of the color of their skin? Isn't that the definition of racist? Of course that is bullshit and we should all immediately boycott these women not support them, right?
Oh yeah, I forgot, it's only racism when you say they prefer white men. Sorry. Ignore my post.
They prefer black or love black guys but they also see every other race!! Relax!!
very well written eddie, I think you make a great point, while some who have read these topics and commented I think some are missing the grand scheme but im glad everyone here can discuss the topic and give their two cents on such a sensitive topic without starting beef. I think it shows the good character of the people on these boards. As for the topic itself I am a very young hobbyist so to speak at only 23 I have encountered some women who wouldnt see me because I was too young. I did not get upset and I respected their decision and in way glad the told me...I dont know about the rest of you but when I put down top dollar to spend some time with these lovely ladies I want us both to get the most out of the experience. If a provider didnt really want to see me because of my age but just did it because she needed the money i can guarantee you that there wouldnt be as much chemistry in the session and neither of us would enjoy it as much as wed hoped. With that said im glad the people most concerned with this topic are getting the answers they need.
If I am not mistaken this entire topic was started earlier on because someone accused Ms. M.Monroe of not answering e-mails because someone was of color or just won't see men of color.
This is a very personal decision for ladies in the business, me I have no problems seeing men of color nor do many other ladies, but many do.....
I am surprised that everyone is speaking on her behalf,,, why not let her speak for herslelf as to why she does or doesn't see men or color and if not why?
I don't believe she has responded to the post, I might have missed it.
Everyone here has an opinion, and we all know what that means.
She is well aware of the board, she posts here regularly, so let's see what she has to say and put this subject to rest.
It's not fair to speak on her behalf!!
-- Modified on 12/8/2008 2:32:25 PM
Actually Kathy, I was hoping more providers would give their thoughts on this matter. So far, only you and Bridgette Monroe have done so.
Zartan
Eddie, Puh-LEASE!!! How isn't Memphis Monroe a "whore"? When did that become hip hop slander???
*******************************************
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whore
whore
/hɔr, hoʊr or, often, hʊər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hawr, hohr or, often, hoor] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, whored, whor⋅ing.
–noun
1. a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet.
–verb (used without object)
*******************************************
I've now heard from a friend of hers that she actually does have an issue with blacks. I know you are a legend here, but I don't get why you are defending her so strongly. Anyways, who cares? Memphis who? There are other great ladies out there...
Hey Will,
Please elaborate, what did her friend say was her actual "issue" with Black folks?? Was it bad previous experiences? family pressure? Innate dislike of blacks?? I am quite curious about that. Not that is makes a difference, because I would never spemt $1500 on that, but would be interesting to find ot the reasons why people do the things they do. PEACE!!
-Mike
Really? Do you guys really care why she doesn't?
-- Modified on 12/9/2008 9:31:11 AM
It doesn't matter how one got to be prejudiced, it only matters how one is willing to overcome it. As to who really is racist or not among PSE ranks, I don't know. I only know that there ought not to be, and one shouldn't enable those that are.
You miss my point. I'm not defending Memphis at all. As I said, it's entirely possible that she is a racist. But I have a problem with anyone being tagged with a label based on assumptions.
And I had no comment about Memphis being a whore other than to point out that OTHER members of the board blasted a guy last week for calling her that.
While by definiton any PSE could be called a whore, it IS a derogatory term, and since this board is about seeing providers and many of them post here, it's not good form or very nice to use that term on this forum.
...which is what Europeans mean when they say "liberal". Your logic is White Dude "excusology". As a non-White I have to point out that your message is written as if you only expect White people to read it. Anyone discriminating solely based upon race is a RACIST! That does not necessarily make one a racial rupremacist or racial degradationist, but it does mark one as an exclusionist (segragationist) -- and theregore a RACIST!
Waiter: I won't serve black customers because they are bad tippers.
Pizzaman: I won't deliver in black neighborhoods because I'll get robbed.
Doctor: I won't take a black patient because they won't do anything to control their diabetes, and it wastes medication which is payed for by taxes.
Lawyer: I won't take a black client because they're always guilty and they never pay up.
Are you going to argue that some professions should be exempted from anti-discriminatory policy? Aren't all professionals human beings? Your argument is that humans have discriminatory inclinations ("preferences") which must be respected. Are doctors and and lawyers and pizza-deliverers to be considered to have lesser right to express their own humanity than prostitutes?
Bah, Humbug.
>Waiter: I won't serve black customers because they are bad tippers.
>Pizzaman: I won't deliver in black neighborhoods because I'll get robbed.
>Doctor: I won't take a black patient because they won't do anything to control their diabetes, and it wastes medication which is payed for by taxes.
>Lawyer: I won't take a black client because they're always guilty and they never pay up.
Here's the interesting question: What if those examples are actually true, at least to some extent? What then?
What if a higher percentage of black customers _compared to other races_ actually do the things that you said? Should people continue to treat all black customers exactly the same as other races? Is that fair to members of other races that behave well?
I've experienced a kind of reverse racism. I've been told by some old time vendors that they'll give me credit purely because they've never been stiffed by a Chinese customer. Is that unfair? He's making a business decision based on past experience.
I'll say the words out loud. In the past, many races were better customers _compared to black customers_.
Rather than complain about discrimination against black customers, the black community should, as Bill Cosby has been saying for years, start working to eliminate bad behaviour among some black citizens. I know that kind of peer group pressure existed in the Canadian Chinese community and it worked.
Eddie mentioned the ideas behind rap music. Any culture that doesn't try to stop the kind of behaviour celebrated in rap music is going to have problems because members of other races don't behave in that destructive way.
"because members of other races don't behave in that destructive way" -
Really?
Some would consider the following examples of destructive behavior:
The "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia
The genocide in Darfur and WW2
The fact that most serial killers in the USA are white males.
And I would guess there are a good number of Chinese citizens right now who would love to live in our democracy.
My point is there is plenty of bad behavior to go around. Singling me out without getting to know me is idiotic.
I'm not going to defend bad behavior, even from my ethnic group, but if you're going to say that rap music is a problem I could make an equal argument for rock music (ever heard of "sex, drugs and rock and roll") and about a hundred other things in our culture, including "the hobby."
If I like rap music or like to watch "Terminator" or "Deliverance" doesn't mean I want to shoot people or slice someone's throat. If a person is easily influenced by what they hear or see and can't think on their own then they are screwed in the head, period.
>"because members of other races don't behave in that destructive way" -
>Really?
>Some would consider the following examples of >destructive behavior:
Yes, really.
We're talking apples and oranges. Is every member of every race perfect? No. You're talking perfection and I'm talking probabilities.
How many Chinese neighbourhoods would a pizza delivery person be afraid to go to?
How many Chinese customers would a provider be afraid to see?
The number is not zero (actually the number of Chinese neighbourhoods that are scary probably is zero).
How many black customers/neighbourhoods would someone be afraid of?
Is it 100%? No.
Is the number not zero? Yes.
This is a problem for two groups right now. Muslims and black citizens. It's not the good behaving majority that is the problem, the problem is that the bad behaving minority is large enough and causes enough damage to make providers reluctant to see them.
Chris Rock and Bill Cosby talk about this all the time. It's the bad (pick your number) 5%, 10%, 20% that besmirches the reputation of the other 100%.
There aren't enough white and Chinese serial killers to make all providers afraid of white customers. The number is maybe 2 or 5 serial killers per 60M people.
Providers have to rely on the probabilities. The probability of coming across a bad black customer is high enough that providers will refuse to see all black customers. That's very unfair to the majority of good black customers. But it's fair to the small minority of bad black customers and to the provider herself. She doesn't need or want to deal with a bad customers.
As to your example of rock and roll. The issue isn't music that encourages bad behaviour, the issue is whether or not listeners of that music put the bad behaviour espoused in the lyrics into action that damages other people. Sex, drugs and rock roll encourages people to do damaging things to themselves, rap music encourages people to damage society, women and police.
The West Coast racial exclusion laws of the 19th and 20th Century were a reaction to CHINESE criminality... Tongs! Opium Dens! White Slavery!
Those assholes who tell you that they're throwing you business on account of race are RACIST BIGOTS and you are fucking enabling them! You're being Switzerland to Nazi Germany, asshole.
>The West Coast racial exclusion laws of the 19th and 20th Century were a reaction to CHINESE criminality... Tongs! Opium Dens! White Slavery!
That's right, Chinese people were discriminated against for a very long time.
As an ethnic group, we got our act together and proved that we were good law abiding citizens that no one should be afraid to do business with. Now that China has abandoned communism and has become stronger economically, all Chinese people benefit because as a racial group, we have earned respect.
That's the solution to discrimination against black citizens. Reduce the number of bad behaving black citizens and the problem eventually goes away. That worked for Chinese people, it's working for India.
If the black community took Bill Cosby's advice, it will work for black citizens as well.
It's not easy and it's not quick, but it works.
Don't blame the providers for resorting to _justified_ racism.
Don't get me wrong.
This is racism.
Racism is unfair to the majority of good black clients.
It's your problem to solve, not the provider.
The Chinese didn't clean up their own act, they were almost legislated out of existence in the US by the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), the Geary Act (1892) and the Immigration Act of 1924.
All women were barred from immigrating from China, and there were already laws banning interracial marriage. Furthermore, since the Chinese migrants in the US were excluded from citizenship, they couldn't bring already existing families into the United States. Only officials, teachers, students, merchants, and travelers were allowed to enter.
What helped them was Pearl Harbor. Since Japan and China had been fighiting since 1937 (or on and off since 1895), the US felt it necessary to foster an alliance between the new allies.
>The Chinese didn't clean up their own act, they were almost legislated out of existence in the US by the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), the Geary Act (1892) and the Immigration Act of 1924.
You're talking to someone who is Chinese. My own father had to pay a head tax when he came to Canada and it was almost impossible to bring his wife to this country.
Like I said, Chinese people have been discriminated against and it was justified. The very poor education system and feudal economic system of China meant the vast majority of Chinese people had no skills or knowledge of the world.
What is your argument? Who uplifted the Chinese people from low skill workers to a respected and wealthy ethnic group? The tooth fairy?
Is your argument that something magical happened to improve the lives and effectiveness of Chinese people and black people have been unlucky to have missed the magic spell?
I'm arguing that a large enough minority of black people behaves badly enough such that providers refuse to see them. I'm arguing that the minority of Chinese, White and Indian people who behave badly is so low that providers have are willing to see clients from those ethnic groups.
How you managed to bring in various discriminatory acts against Chinese people into this discussion and how the fact that Chinese people have been discriminated against in the past advances your argument (which I haven't seen yet) eludes me.
I'll spell it out again.
A large enough minority of black clients behave badly and providers refuse to see all black clients as a result.
The minority of badly behaving individuals of other ethnic groups is smaller than the number of badly behaving black clients and is so small that providers have no qualms about seeing clients from those other ethnic groups.
Chinese, Jews and Indians (and Irish and Italian subgroups) have been discriminated against in the past because they were poorly educated and had little to no skills. They fixed the problem over the decades and now they are respected members of society.
The black community has to make the effort to try to persuade the badly behaving minority within their community to stop behaving like criminals. That worked for other ethnic groups and it will work for the black community.
My paternal grandfather's grandfather and my maternal grandmother's grandfather were Chinese. Of course, you know have to be 8/8ths Chinese to count as Chinese so I identify myself as the 7/8ths not.
Are you telling me that it's fine to pass exclusionary laws based upon education -- when the people being excluded were being excluded from the public SCHOOL SYSTEM? Are smoking opium as you write these things?
Both Chinese and Irish worked on the Transcontinental railroad and in the gold mines -- but the Exclusion Act did not apply to the Irish... who were WHITE! You consider that fair to the Chinese?
You are soooo monstrously ignorant of American history I have no doubt that the Chinese laborers of the previous century would have beaten your neo-bourgeois ass had you made this argument in front of a tong meeting 100 years ago, when they were complaining that they were horny but none of the white prostitutes would take them (syphillis scaremongering), and all the Chinese prostitutes had been rescued by Christian Missionaries.
>Both Chinese and Irish worked on the Transcontinental railroad and in the gold mines -- but the Exclusion Act did not apply to the Irish... who were WHITE! You consider that fair to the Chinese?
I don't understand your point. I've said several times that Chinese people were discriminated against in the past. I know the history of discrimination against Chinese people from my parents and relatives. Of course it was unfair.
My point, which I keep on stating and you keep avoiding, is that Chinese, Jews, Italians, Irish, Indians and many other racial and ethnic groups have been subjected to discrimination in the past. They've all overcome it.
However, blacks have lagged in that respect. I agree with Eddie and Bill Cosby, it's probably due to elements of black culture.
>You are soooo monstrously ignorant of American history I have no doubt that the Chinese laborers of the previous century would have beaten your neo-bourgeois ass had you made this argument in front of a tong meeting 100 years ago,
Groan. What is it with your continued attempts to question my knowledge of historical Chinese discrimination? Of course I know all about that.
Did you know that when the railway was built across Canada many of the labourers were Chinese, but the Canadian government refused to allow their wives to come to Canada? Those men were forced to live out the rest of their lives without their families.
I think I see why you keep harping on this theme, you haven't been able to counter any of my other points, so you fall back on your imagination about my lack of knowledge of the Chinese experience in North America. Such a weak argument, as you'll see.
I'll tell you about an example of relatively recent discrimination against Chinese people here in Canada.
Back in the 70's when I was in University, the first generation of Chinese children born in Canada after the initial wave of late 1950's immigration were just entering the post secondary school system, as I was.
The provincial government noticed that something like 80% of the first year medical school class were Chinese. It's the usual thing, children of Chinese immigrants were encouraged to do well in school and they did so, and filled up the medical schools as a result.
The Ontario government then announced a policy to restrict the number of non white (i.e. Chinese) students in medical school. Their reason was that that vast majority of Ontario citizens were white and they would prefer white doctors. They actually used those words in a public announcement.
I remember the Chinese Student Association assembled a protest at Queens Park, but nothing came of it. I don't even know if that policy is still in force. It predated the Internet by about 20 years (and even Usenet by about 5 years) so I can't find anything about it using a search engine.
That was an instance of public racism against Chinese people. I was very likely one of the students who qualified to enter medical school in Ontario but couldn't, because of that policy.
Did it bother me? Yes, it did. Did it stop me from getting on with my life? No, I did something else instead that paid more than being a doctor.
You say you're 1/8 Chinese which means you're not a visible minority. Who are you to lecture me about discrimination?
You're not Chinese, who are you to throw the history of discrimination against Chinese people to me, I'm someone who has experienced it directly?
What makes you qualified to pass judgment on my racial experience, or on the racial experience of any provider who refuses to see black clients?
You are smoking opium -- or worse!
Your astounding ignorance of AMERICAN history is pathetic! You writing completely out of your ass, so just stop already. It's impossible to have intelligent discourse with you on this topic because you have no education on this topic.
I'm not a VISIBLE minority?
Dork, didn't you read the post where I called myself a "Brownskin"? I know you read the one where I said I was Asian-American. What type of Asian-American is most likely to have brown skin, do you think? Probably, the kind that invented the Karaoke machine -- and, no, it wasn't the Japanese who invented it, they just named it that. You know, the kind the Chinese associate with housecleaning, construction laboring, hostage-ransoming, and lounge singing?
How do I know you're actually Chinese and not a Vietnamese person passing? That's a Christy Chung reference -- who is, of course, also Canadian.
Yes, Hong Kong cinema has been my specialty for years because back in the 90's my two Chinese aunts (by marriage) used to give me HK videos because they knew I liked martial-arts-type movies. Over the years I've seen CURRY & PEPPER, FATAL VACATION, MARIANNA, LONELY FIFTEEN (which is the best teen angst movie ever made might I add), NOCTURNAL DEMON -- plus all those RP-HK cop-team movies like TOUGH BEAUTY & THE SLOPPY SLOP, HIGH VOLTAGE, ULTIMATE REVENGE, et. al. Yet, despite their negative caricautres of my "people", my half-Chinese cousins are my favorite people in the world. And my full-Chinese cousin-law from Hong Kong, she's really nice, too.
The word whore should only be used when your cock is in her and she says:
"FUCK ME LIKE A DIRTY WHORE!!" then you can reply " OH YOU LIKE THAT YOU DIRTY LITTLE WHORE?"
Sorry I thought I would bring a little humor to this thread.
-- Modified on 12/9/2008 12:11:55 PM
It's all about timing - whipping out your johnson in the car before you're invited in is probably NOT a good idea (guys do it though)
the smiley face and heading made me laugh before i even opened the post.after reading it, i lol and decided to terminate reading any more of this crap.
>Those assholes who tell you that they're throwing you business on account of race are RACIST BIGOTS and you are fucking enabling them! You're being Switzerland to Nazi Germany, asshole.
Were you joking? What exactly was I supposed to do?
Someone says that he's never been stiffed by a Chinese customer and he extends credit to me.
What should I have done? Say to him "You're reverse discriminating against me! You're giving me a compliment because of my race! You think I'm a good person purely because I'm Chinese. Therefore, I won't do business with you, you asshole!".
It's incredible that you should make that suggestion.
It's usually at this point, where a liberal resorts to his usual excuse "I was just making a joke". Are you going to do that now?
>You're being Switzerland to Nazi Germany, asshole.
An instance of Godwin's Law. Didn't take very long either.
Again I ask, what the heck is wrong with you kyomu0? Why can't you have a discussion without resorting to insults and, for heaven's sake, Nazis?
I'm Chinese. My parents told me about the discrimination that they suffered. I've only experienced a few instances of racial discrimination in my 50+ years.
But I can have a discussion about race without going berserk. What's your problem? Are you unused to having your arguments challenged?
I'm not used to dealing with racists without being able to physcially assault them. Especially when that racist is himself form a race which was grievously discriminated against.
Nazis are racial stereotypers, you're a racial stereotyper. You are pushing a stereotype equating race with criminal proclivity. So did the Nazis.
That doesn't make you a Nazi, that makes you an enabler of Nazis, because you agree with some of their basic principles -- namely, that criminality and "backwardness" are racial traits. By the way, Africa has no auto industry? Actually it does, South Africa and Egypt both have active industries.
Ooo...burn!
I can't imagine living life as a black man, so of course I filter everything through a "white dude" point of view. BUT I'm not making excuses for racist behavior. As a "non-white", as you call yourself, you can choose to define racism anyway you choose, but the dictionary defines it as 1. An inate belief that one race is superior to another, and 2. Hatred of someone based on their race.
I'm sorry, but without knowing if definition 1 or 2 was a mitigationg factor, choosing not to have sex with a non-white person doesn't meet that definition. I'm not saying that it isn't discriminatory, but discrimination in and of itself isn't necessarily racism.
My best friend, who I've known for 42 years, is Jewish. For as long as I've known him he only dated Jewish girls and of course married a Jewish woman. Now, he isn't particularly religious, but his choice not to date outside his faith was based on respect for (and maybe a little fear of) his parents. Only dating Jewish girls was something pounded into him by his mother ever since he was a little kid. So he was discriminatory about the women he dated. Did that make him an anti-Christian racist?
Let me make something clear, since I seemed to have caused some confusion. My point is strictly one of semantics. I am NOT defending Memphis Monroe or any provider who chooses to discriminate against ANY group of people. I was simply pointing out the (mis)use of a very derogatory label.
>1. An inate belief that one race is superior to another, and 2. Hatred of someone based on their race.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
"2 : racial prejudice or discrimination "
Interesting that it depends on how the word is defined. The definition from dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com are not as narrow as the one you provided. The looser definition is the one I've always believed in.
I don't see how you could interpret a provider refusing to see all black clients as anything other than discrimination or intolerance. I don't believe there is any argument that it is discrimination.
My position is somewhat different from yours. Providers who refuse to see all black clients are discriminating against them solely because of their race. That's racism, IMO.
Now, I also believe her decision may well be both practical and the right way to play the odds of avoiding a bad customer. Her decision may well be entirely based on past business experience.
But it is literally discriminatory against all memhers of a particularly race and that is racism.
It may be justified because her decision is based on solid experience, but according the two definitions I provided, she is engaging in racist behaviour.
But whether or not you agree to call her a racist, there cannot be any disagreement that she is engaged in blanket racial discrimination.
As a liberal you ought to feel discomfort in not condemning her for that decision. She isn't acting in an inclusive manner, which I thought was the Holy Grail of liberalism.
By your own submitted definitions #2 is racism that is not based on a sense of superiority/inferiority. This is NOT ABOUT PERSONAL PREFERENCE! This is about PROFESSIONAL SERVICE! P-R-O-F-E-S-S-I-O-N-A-L!!!
If you deny a professional service from a client based upon his/her racial identitiy -- that's RACIAL DISCRIMINATION!
Here's a useful word for this argument....
dis⋅crim⋅i⋅na⋅tion [di-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
–noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.
>By your own submitted definitions #2 is racism that is not based on a sense of superiority/inferiority. This is NOT ABOUT PERSONAL PREFERENCE! This is about PROFESSIONAL SERVICE! P-R-O-F-E-S-S-I-O-N-A-L!!!
Curiously kyomu0 we both agree that providers are racist. IMO, Eddie is resorting to splitting hairs with how racism is defined in an attempt to excuse blanket discrimination by providers.
However, I agree with Eddie that the discrimination may have a rational and practical basis. It appears that Eddie thinks that is enough to rename the blanket discrimination into something other than racism. I don't think that is the case.
But this is where you and I disagree. You seem to believe that racism and discrimination is never justified. IMO, your position, if that what it is, is exactly what Bill Cosby rails against. The minority of black citizens who behave badly will never change their behaviour as long as people like you make excuses for them.
Other ethnic groups faced their problems squarely and solved them. The black community has to do the same.
You're doing it for the Chinese while utilizing an incredibly inept grasp of historical reality. You obviously have no actual clue about what Bill Cosby has really been talking about in the years since his son's murder.
Weren't you good at anything in school aside from calculus?
Ooo! See, that's racial stereotyping. Positive or negative -- it's still wrong.
>You're doing it for the Chinese while utilizing an incredibly inept grasp of historical reality. You obviously have no actual clue about what Bill Cosby has really been talking about in the years since his son's murder.
Huh? Making excuses for Chinese people?
I've said that Chinese people have overcome racial stereotypes by working hard, saving money and getting good educations. I make no excuses for Chinese people.
I also make no excuses for the black community. Chinese, Indian, Irish, Jewish, Italians have overcome discrimination. Black people can and must do it as well.
I've been following Cosby's lectures to the black community for years. I've also followed how the black community has consistently rejected his advice.
The rest of your post is idiotic and an ad hominen attack and isn't worthy of a response.
Generally speaking, when someone starts turning a discussion into a flamewar, it means they've lost the argument.
I've brought forward specific instances where ethnic groups have overcome discrimination.
It's time for you to bring forward your argument as to why the black community shouldn't suffer discrimination because of a minority that behaves badly.
The Chinese did nothing of the kind to overcome racial stereotyping, they just changed the nature of the stereotype. You are making excuses for the Chinese to be racists against Black people. The number of Black lawyers, doctors, professors, etc. in America is GREATER than the number of Chinese lawyers, doctors, professors, etc. in America. That's just the fact. Yet, you say it's just fine for these people to be discriminated against -- because they are inherently more dangerous simply by being Negro.
Remember, Michelle, it's 9-1-1.
>Where exactly did I make excuses for Blacks?
I forgot to answer your question.
I refuse to make excuses for blacks. So I have repeatedly said that when providers discriminate against black clients. I think that is because of the minority of black citizens who engage in destructive behaviour.
Your position appears to be that all discrimination is irrational and should be forbidden.
IMO, that is making an excuse for bad behaviour among some black citizens. I think that by saying all discrimination against blacks is inherently bad, you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge that that very discrimination has a sound basis.
How many Chinese, Korean, Jewish, Italian neighourhoods would a pizza delivery person, or taxi driver, refuse to go to?
How many Chinese, Korean, etc, songs are there about doing violence to women, or encouraging the listener to commit criminal acts?
There probably are some, I would imagine (but I think the number of dangerous Asian communities is probably zero), but the number is vanishingly small compared to the number of rap songs that encourage criminal behaviour.
That's my point and one that you seem to refuse to acknowledge, other than with insults.
For some reason, the black community has a bad behaving minority that besmirches the entire group. Other groups have similarly bad behaving minorities but in vastly smaller numbers.
This is even true at the level of nations. China and India have car and electronics industries, but Africa has virtually none. Japan has no natural resources, Africa is full of oil and minerals, yet Japan is a successful first world country, no country in Africa has attained that status.
Why is that that case?
You can't argue discrimination. Chinese, Indian and Japanese citizens all suffered discrimination by Europeans and Americans, but they overcame it. What's the problem with Africans and especially, African Americans?
I agree with Eddie, it's probably due to culture. But it doesn't matter, for some reason, black citizens as a group haven't been as effective as almost every other ethnic group. IMO, that's the rational basis for whatever discrimination blacks have to endure.
It's up to them to fix that problem. Many other ethnic groups have overcome discrimination over the very same time period and within the same legal and cultural environment that blacks exist in.
IMO, your apparent position of absolutely disagreeing with any discrimination is, in effect, making an excuse for bad black behaviour.
You're saying that some blacks can behave badly and (this is the important part) in the very short time frame that a commercial transaction must be completed, blacks as a group shouldn't suffer for that badly behaving minority.
I think this is the nub of the problem. How can a provider know if a particular black client isn't one of the few who will harm her? Practically speaking, how can she check him out?
She can't. So, given a choice of the non zero possibility of potential problems with a black client and virtually no chance of a problem with any other ethnic group, she takes a short cut. She refuses to see all black clients.
IMO, that's racism. But is it justified? Eddie seems to think so based on semantics. I think so based on practicality. You don't think it's ever justified.
But you're not the one who has to deal with the issue. None of us hobbyists are.
So you can condemn those discriminating providers, that's your choice. Eddie and I don't condemn them, but for different reasons.
It seems you believe that by engaging in discrimination that will lead to further problems. IMO, by exposing and speaking out against bad behaviour, that is the only way to eventually reduce the numbers of black citizens who engage in that bad behaviour. That worked for Chinese people and it will work for blacks.
READ MY LIPS... I'm not making excuses for anyone... I'm making a point about semantics. What part of that don't you understand?
Yes, you're absolutely right... you made my point. It IS discrimination, but it is not NECESSARILY racism. Did you ever walk into a store that had a sign that said "No shoes, no shirt, no service"? Are they discriminating aginst the shoeless or shirtless? Yes they are. But do they hate people without shoes or shirts? Doubtful.
And you're arguement about it being a business is ridiculous... it's not a business, it's a criminal act, if we all want to be honest here.
It all boils down to whether a woman has the right to choose who's cock she's going to let inside her pussy. To say that by accepting money for the act, she abrogates that right is absurd.
If she was working at the Bunny Ranch and refused to see a person of color, then you might have a case of legal and actionable discrimination. But the fact is that there is no law agains racism, while there are laws against discrimination. The two are not the same. Racism is a state of mind, discrimination is a legal definition. You can prove a case of discrimination, but you cannot prove a state of mind. Racism is not actionable; crimes stemming from racism are.
In all truth, if this had been about a provider refusing to see anyone under 35, or refusing to see Asians, these threads would have died out long ago.
That assumption that I wouldn't care if I was the one being discriminated against is not only racist -- it's intellectually insulting to think nobody cares about anti-Asian racism.
You're losing your liberal cred, Ed!
You're the one not paying attention. Why do you think I posted a defintition for discrimination? I did it to point out the difference between simple racism and racial discrimination.
And to point out how stupid your argument is, I'll quote you: "It all boils down to whether a woman has the right to choose who's cock she's going to let inside her pussy. To say that by accepting money for the act, she abrogates that right is absurd."
That is an absolutely ludicrous position you have taken! That doesn't counter my argument that racial discrimination makes one a racist. Nor does it counter my argument that racism is irrational. Nor does it counter my argument that all classes of worker should be held to the same moral standard. Nor does it counter my argument such people should find some other line of work where their racism won't come into play.
A PSE contracts herself out for 60 MINUTES of HIRED SERVICE not 60 YEARS of LOVING WEDLOCK. If she can stand being fucked by a total stranger looking like YOU (Ed), she should to be able to fuck any other guy who has the same physical and anatomical dimensions (Reginald VelJohnson?) without compunction. There's no RATIONAL, moral, scientific or ethical reason to argue she cannot. Any attempt to deny such is beyond apologism -- it is EXCUSOLOGISM!
I'm often the one who has pointed out in the past that this is an illegal hobby, and as such the rules are made up by "criminals". That doesn't excuse them from being labeled as racists when they engage in purely racial discrimination.
> There's no RATIONAL, moral, scientific or ethical reason to argue she cannot. Any attempt to deny such is beyond apologism -- it is EXCUSOLOGISM!
kyomu0, read my earlier post where I wrote about my own experience with provider racial preferences in NYC.
I absolutely disagree with you that there isn't a rational basis for provider discrimination.
The issue is one of probabilities. In that NYC incall apartment, they found that there was about a 20% chance that a black client would treat the provider badly.
Put yourself in the position of a provider. When dealing with White, Asian or Indian clients they never had any problems. When dealing with black clients there was about a 20% chance of having a bad client and in once instance, they had been robbed at gunpoint.
What would you do? Why would you choose to accept a 20% chance of a bad session with a black client over a 0% chance of a bad session with every other racial group?
That's the reality of life. There are plenty of clients who don't cause any problems. There are sadly plenty of black clients who do cause problems.
You're asking providers to choose a 20% (or more appropriately non-zero) risk of a bad session with a black client vs a 0% chance with every other racial group.
It's a no brainer, completely rational choice for a provider to refuse to see black clients, if she's experienced problems with black clients in the past.
IMO, Eddie is right. Hip Hop and Rap music is a symptom of cultural issues within the black community that encourages destructive behaviour.
OTOH, I disagree with Eddie on whether or not to call this racism. IMO, it is.
I disagree with you that the discriminating behaviour by providers is irrational. IMO, it is.
"It all boils down to whether a woman has the right to choose who's cock she's going to let inside her pussy. To say that by accepting money for the act, she abrogates that right is absurd".
This actually is a very interesting question. What is the point at which a vendor may discriminate against a client?
Should a business be forced to give credit to customers with had credit history? After all, to refuse credit to certain people is discrimination.
That's not a trivial issue. The current financial crisis occurred because the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to give mortgages to people who didn't have regular jobs or regular income and did have bad credit histories. Millions of bad mortgages was the result and that is caving in the financial credit system.
Should a provider refuse to see members of white biker gangs? Should a provider refuse to see physically disabled clients? Or elderly clients? How about HIV+ clients, or clients with tuberculosis or other communicable diseases?
If you were a provider would you accept clients from those groups?
Since when did a provider, or any vendor, have to provide service to every single customer?
I discriminate against customers with bad credit histories and bad payment habits. I also discriminate against customers who don't know what they've buying and need so much time and support that they're money losing propositions.
I agree with Eddie. A provider has the right to choose her clients, as does every vendor. You certainly don't have the right to force a provider to see black clients, or Asian clients, or anyone she doesn't want to see.
" If she can stand being fucked by a total stranger looking like YOU (Ed), she should to be able to fuck any other guy who has the same physical and anatomical dimensions (Reginald VelJohnson?) without compunction."
Why do you write stuff like that? Can't you keep this discussion at a high level?
BTW, I'm an Asian Canadian. You can't use the white race card on me.
>A PSE contracts herself out for 60 MINUTES of HIRED SERVICE not 60 YEARS of LOVING WEDLOCK.
I've noticed that you've tried to equate the purchase of sexual services with other commercial transactions. That is wrong for at least two reasons.
1) The legal situation.
You've said that a provider is engaging in an illegal act, which is true. I don't expect that you'll dispute this part of my argument.
Practically, this means that a provider isn't able to rely on the police if something goes wrong. There have been instances mentioned on this board where providers have been robbed of cash and they couldn't do anything about it.
There are several reasons for this. The clients tend to be anonymous, the transaction tends to be in cash, so it's hard to find the client. Obviously since the provider is engaged in an illegal act, it's impossible for her to go to the police.
The client knows that. So the usual deterrence effect of breaking the law is lost. That raises the probability, probably significantly, that a provider may encounter a bad client. It's the same as drug deals, a bad drug deal is never reported to the police.
2) The nature of the transaction.
Think about the act from the point of view of the provider.
At some point, she will be completely vulnerable to the client. Her arms won't be in a position to defend herself, she'll be so close the client that she won't be able to run away if he becomes violent. Not only that, the provider is almost certainly alone with the client, there is no help readily available.
That is unlike virtually every other commercial transaction. Even a convenience store clerk will have some separation from a robber, along with a video and alarm system.
The combination of no legal remedy against a bad client plus the physical vulnerability of the provider would make any provider have a vastly lower threshold against potential bad clients.
This might explain the conundrum of the black provider who also refuses to see black clients. She can't be a racist against men of her own race, she probably has a black boyfriend. But she's probably more aware of the higher risk of dealing with black men than the rest of us, hence her policy.
So it's the physically intimate nature of the job and non existent legal protection that makes providers uniquely vulnerable.
I came across that myself when I was talking to the telephone receptionist in a NYC incall apartment. She said they had been robbed by a black client but they couldn't do anything about it.
I never really thought about the risks a provider takes, but thinking about it explains the one provider I met that really confused me. She was white and had a black boyfriend (or maybe pimp) but refused to see black clients. But I see it now, it's just a question of risk management.
01) That argument only makes sense if you operate on the assumption that ALL Black clients don't pay up -- which is racist bullshit!
02) That argument only makes sense if you operate on the assumption that ALL Black clients are violent whore-beaters -- which is racist bullshit!
I've been robbed twice in my 39 years and it was by Black teens both times -- and yet, I'm the one pointing out that you are the RACIST asshole.
I spent my childhood in a Black neighborhood -- The Fillmore district of San Francisco. Eventually we moved to a more suburban area. We were able to afford it because the White folk were clearing out after the government housing project opened nearby. So, I went to school with the Black, Latino, and Samoans from those projects. The highest rate of criminality turned out to be the Samoans. However, I wouldn't racially discriminate against them either.
I reakkt wish life was as cut-and-dried as you seem to think it is; but it isn't - it's filled with grey areas.
I wish I had your ability to know who was a racist without ever meeting them or knowing their situation.
I wish that you could discuss the subject with civility instead of resorting to name-calling. Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't make him an asshole...
There are big asses and small asses. All asses have holes by definitions. If you care to make your argument at an NAACP meeting or a JACL meeting and not be considered an asshole, yourself for doing so, I dare you.
The racist person DOES racist actions KNOWINGLY. Discrimination by race is by definition a RACIST action! It doesn't matter what you feel on the inside that you never express. It's what is expressed physically or tangibly.
Is Don Imus a racist? No! He's proven through years of charitable work that he's beyond that. Is he capable of saying something racist without realizing that it was? I expect everyone in his age group to at some time or another regardless of ethnicity. He got a bad rap. It would have to be something tangible like not having Black guests because they are BLACK guests or something to that effect -- yet Harold Ford was guest on the Imus show every other day!
In this hobby, you have to ask what's worse, a provider who denies Black clientele outright, or a provider who takes them but diparages them with racial epithets when they aren't around. Case 1 is more personally ethical, but Case 2 is a better human being because she did not deny a class of person an aspect of the human experience based upon an irrational bias.
>READ MY LIPS... I'm not making excuses for anyone... I'm making a point about semantics. What part of that don't you understand?
I was going to post a reply to disagree with your post, but after thinking about it, I've come around to your point. I've changed my mind and I agree with you, it's not racism.
But not exactly for the reason you mention, that racism is a state of mind, but very close. I'll explain my thinking.
The racial experience in Canada, compare to the US, has been very benign. No slavery, no race riots, no systematic discrimination against black voters. So from my point of view as a Canadian, a provider who refuses to see a black client is an example of the kind of mostly harmless racism that occasionally occurs in this country. There isn't much of it (except against Chinese medical students, something I mentioned in another post) and when it does happen, it's almost always of a trivial commercial nature.
However, in the US, it has been very different. Racism in the US meant lynchings, the KKK, whites attacking and beating black people, civil rights violations at every level of government.
I began to question my line of thinking when I posted those two dictionary definitions of racism. I've always believed that when you start relying on book definitions of words, there's something smelly somewhere. I eventually sniffed it out.
The fact is, racism as defined in a dictionary is just a word. However, racism as a term used in the real world is a completely different thing.
Is it fair to lump a provider who refuses to see black clients in with the KKK, lynch mobs and segregation? No, that's absurd.
When a provider refuses to see a black client, no harm comes to the client. The provider is giving up a lucrative fee, so she's literally putting her money on the line. For her it's not a free decision.
There's no way that refusing a sexual transaction with a black client could be conflated with the violent people for whom the word "racism" has been historically used as a label.
So I agree with you Eddie, racism as a term generally used in the US doesn't apply to a provider who refuses to see black clients. She is engaging in race based discrimination, but it is not racism as it has been culturally defined in the US.
Anyway, I think that wraps up my contributions to this discussion.
Just to remind you that you are an ignorant FOREIGNER who has made no intelligent contribution whatsoever...
Rosa Parks wasn't harmed in anyway by being asked to move from the middle of the bus to the back of the bus, by your ridiculous standard, that's not a racist policy. Furthermore, Blacks weren't physically harmed in any way by having to drink in separate water fountains, or bathrooms, so that wasn't racism either -- oops, when my non-Negro Grandfather came to Los Angeles in 1953, he had to use the COLORED MEN's Room (there was no law for or against such things it was at the discretion of the business owner).
Condoning racism enables further racism. In California whenever some discrimination issue pops up, the group which is always most in the forefront is the JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE. Although, their main emphasis is Asian American discrimination, they will throw down for any oppressed minority. Just in case you think only I get supersensitive about these things. Check out their nit-pickiness over what they think constitutes racism. Compared to them I'm a reactionary.
Well, as I've said before, my ONLY point to this whole thing is that you can't call a provider SIMPLY based on her refusal to see men of color. She may very well be racist, but more facts are needed in order to know. I know a PSE who not only saw black clients, but particularly enjoyed being with them. She got back with her husband and suddenly stopped seeing black men. After she and her husband broke up for a second time she went back to seeing them. Obviously it was her husband who was imposing limits on who she could or could not see.
Labeling someone can be a dangerous thing. Whether it's "racist", "pedophile", "thug"... they are all powerful accusations, and one should be sure of himself before casually throwing them out there.
Zero more facts are needed!
Your example is logically stunted. Allowing another individual to redirect one's own moral compass for the sake of a romantic relationship is CRAZY! No psychological counselor (or even Jerry Springer) would advise any woman to stay in such a relationship. Of course, one would also advise her to quit providing but that's another topic entirely.
I wouldn't label someone without sufficient evidence and racial discrimination is racism regardless of the EXCUSE.
My example is what it is; it's a fact - logic has nothing to do with it. Have you ever been in love? Relationships don't follow the rules of logic.
Your views are pendantic and narrow-minded; they exist in a vacuum. Life is not objective and MOST of us, whether we know it or not, apply situational ethics to how we live our lives.
Not to ackowledge that a girl can have reasons other than racism to choose not to have sex with someone of a different race is, to use your words, "logically stunted".
Just because something doesn't jibe with your moral compass doesn't mean it's wrong, and there is a difference between a reason and an excuse.
Your logic is still stunted and your example of a decision made by an individual acting within the confines of an unhealthy psychological relationship as an excuse for bad behavior not being labeled as bad behavior is in itself irrational.