Why don't all of you come up with a list of the girls that do and don't see black men.
All of you seem to come up with lists for everything else including all the UTR girls and playmates.
This way when someone asks "Hey, does so and so see black men?" You can refer him to the thread.
All you have to do is email the Porn Stars and ask them if they do or don't and I am sure 8 out of 10 will reply back. And the ones that don't reply back probably don't see black men.
Hope all of you are having a great day!!!
it's funny how IR is mainly considered a black thing. how about latin dudes? or asians?
i should shut up before providers stop seeing latins.
I love your spirit Bridgette, I hope to see you someday....
Because for one I have learned if you ask a lady a racial question like "do you see this type of man" they can get really offended..
Also I know of some ladies who will advertise that they will not see a certain ethnic background but they really do as long as the guy keeps quiet..
It's like one lady who advertises white gentlmens told me "Its not like Brad Pitt walks in that door it is usually some white guy who if he approached me in a bar I would not give him the time of day...And yes if a black guy slipped thru the cracks I probably would not turn him away if he had the money and I needed it!"
J
Bridge, Once again you are dead on.
This is getting much too much play as far as I am concerned.
The girl in question hasn't even bothered to respond.
Listen, I get asked all the time in e-mails if I have a problem seeing a man of color, I certainly never get offended, if the girl does,,,, move on!!
There are far too many great ladies that are providing,,,, find one the suites your needs, communicate with her and if it doesn't work out,,, simply move on.
This is not a big deal, it is a personal choice, cut and dry!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From a man of color, good point and well said Kathy.
reading all the posts about this I'm just wondering what it is or why is it that someone gets so upset if a lady chooses not to see someone because of color or age or whatever. is it an ego thing or are they insulted and if so why. Everybody has their proclivities whether they want to admit it or not.I'm not trying to be rude or flippant here. just really trying to understand the offense.
it's not like someone showing up for an appointment and the provider is a no show. Being upset about that I can understand because of the waste of time and energy. but if a lady chooses not to see someone because they aren't comfortable because of their color or age, so be it and move on. I'm self employed and even though i have many reviews, have been turned down numerous times because a provider requires an established work information record. I just turn the page- on to the next one.
hobbyist choose to see who they want to or are attracted to, why not allow the ladies to try to keep their clientele to whom they feel they can provide a great service. would anyone really want to spend time and money with a lady who might be uncomfortable with them. Quite frankly I'm always surprised as it is at how these ladies are able to see such a variety of men whom they have never met before.
like i said scratchin' my head
Why is this issue continually framed as a "Black" problem? I don't understand why ALL hobbyists are not offended at the girls who won't see certain men because of their race. Do you just shrug your shoulders and say "Too bad for them..."?
Apparently it's OK to say "No Black Men" on your website. What if a girl's website said "No Zionist Jews"? Would you still not have a problem seeing her? Are swastikas OK? Links to stormfront?
Do you have any empathy for others? Is your motto "Anything goes, as long as they don't bother me?"
Why would any hobbyist want to patronize these women?
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing." (paraphrased from Edmund Burke)
"...Then they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew..." (Martin Niemoller)
...therefore, we aren't the most ethically forthright of individuals for starters. In order for us to see PSE's most of us have to sneak around on our friends, family, and partners. Not to mention churches. How many of us have jobs with morals clauses included in the employment contracts? Hmmm?
In short, the playas in this game have learned to exist in a state of constant hypocrisy and moral contradiction.
Seriously, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Hypocrisy does indeed run rampant on TER, so I am probably wasting my time looking for ethical decision-making among the hobbyist community.
I have to disagree in a sense. Some people have to sneak around etc etc because of their community, family, and what not. Some of us however, do not. I think there is a difference between hiding the hobby because of family etc, and hiding it so you don't get in trouble with the law. Those who feel guilty are the one's who aren't the most "ethically forthright". Those who don't feel guilty and simply keep to themselves for legal purposes and because they don't go around sharing their sexual experiences with other in general may be ethically forthright individuals. Simply because you don't conform to one American society doesn't make you unethical.
This is acceptable in many other countries and is not considered unethical or immoral.
I am personally not offended if a provider doesn't want to see me because of race (as i posted previously, it has happened before in Amsterdam. The lady either thought I was a different race or I was too tanned of a Latino).
That is the reality. You're making the excuse for your less-than-legal hobby, that "I don't have to lie to people about it because nobody asks me about it, so I'm not unethical" is self-serving and delusional. Do you also take drugs, because it's that kind of logic?
No... I'm simply saying that I don't think conforming to certain segments of society makes me a moral or immoral person. All I'm saying is that sneaking around is a requirement. Some sneak around because they are ashamed, others just because they don't want to get in trouble. I think these are 2 completely different things.
Are you going to tell me just because someone may smoke weed it makes them an immoral horrible person because the laws says its illegal? In that case, all of us who speed are immoral according to your line of reasoning.
If one habitually speeds, even after multiple tickets or accidents, that would certainly be considered amoral behavior. Look what happened to Nick Hogan.
Justifying secretive behavior which would diminish one's reputation in normal society should it become public knowledge is considered symptomatic of sociopathy.
>Why is this issue continually framed as a "Black" problem? I don't understand why ALL hobbyists are not offended at the girls who won't see certain men because of their race. Do you just shrug your shoulders and say "Too bad for them..."?
Because it seems to be a purely "Black" problem.
I've never come across a provider who refused to see a Chinese client (i.e. me).
I have met providers who refuse to see elderly clients and some who refuse to see younger clients in their 20's. When I asked them, they said they didn't like the look of older clients (one provider said older men reminded her of her father) and that occasionally younger clients would become violent.
But you didn't answer the question...
You are not Black, so if you read a provider's website which said "No Blacks," would you still see her?
You asked them why they don't see clients under the age of 30, and they responded that they don't see clients old enough to be their fathers!
What they say about Chinese dudes and virgins must be true, then?
[There, see how you like negative stereotyping]
All this talk about whether or not a lady will see a black man and no one has mentioned possible reasons for it. It may not have anything to do with the color of ones skin.
My urologist has told me that penis stereotypes usually ring true.
African Americans have huge ones.
Asians have small ones.
Hispanics are uncircumcised.
Caucasions are a little of all of the above.
I'm sure my urologist has seen his fair shar of penises and knows what he is talking about.
So perhaps if a lady chosses not to see a black man it is because she is afraid of his big dick Poking out her spleen during sex.
I know some ladies don't like huge dicks so maybe thats all it is.
For the record I would see a provider of any race and have seen many of various races.
So no I would say I am not racist in any fashion.
Just a thought.
I only have one thing to say to that! IF YOU CANT HANDLE A BIG COCK YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING PORN!!! And you might want to stay away from the sex industry all together!!!
And how come these girls can take Julian, Ron Jeramy and Peter North? And how about all the little white girls that took John Holmes cock?
IM just sayin... Thats all...
-- Modified on 12/9/2008 6:49:16 PM
Maybe some ladies have a double standard. I know that applies with doing greek.
I've seen several PSE's that perform greek on film but it is off limits in a provider situation. Maybe the same double standard applies for big cocks.
I think BettleJuice (from the Howard Stern show) had seen a number of the porn stars in question
I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Like Bridgette and Kathy have said, it is a matter of personal preference. I really can't think of any job where people need to be (and already are) more straightforward and accepting than being a provider. Just stop for a moment and think about the social taboos they break and the emotional discipline they have to do what they do, and the wide range of people they see.
It isn't about racism. Racism is thinking that races are better or worse than each other. Or it is about companies, institutions or governments denying equal rights based on race. A provider's decision doesn't really fall into any of those categories. There is no law that dictates who a woman must have sex with.
I haven't had sex with a black woman. Does that make me a racist? What about midgets or senior citizens? Am I discriminating on height and age? No. It is simply my preference not to have sex with people with those attributes. If I said that I thought people in those groups were inferior, then that would in fact be discriminatory. But I don't think that. They just don't do it for me sexually. Ladies that choose not to have sex with a certain type of person probably aren't saying they are inferior either. So there is no need to throw out the racist tag where it doesn't apply.
Or look at things pragmatically. We are only paying for time spent with the lady. Right? Anything else is simple free choice between consenting adults. How do you want your time to be spent? Personally, I would only like to see women that are comfortable seeing me, and being intimate with me. Knowing their sexual boundaries lets me choose to act respectfully within those stated limits. If they say no people of some race, that is their choice. If they say no anal sex, again, their choice. If they say no kissing, that would be their choice too, and I just would use my freedom of choice and not see them. But in no case would I try and remove their right to choose. Sex simply has different rules than those scenarious covered by anti-discrimination laws. Deal with it.
We (of whatever race) shouldn't be offended by a woman's decision on who she shares her bed with. The fight for enforcing equal rights doesn't extend that far, nor should it. Redirect the effort to where it should be. Equal pay for equal work, equal access to higher education, elimination of unfair racial profiling by police, etc. I'm not saying the world is as fair as it should be, or that the world is free of racism. Far from it. I'm just saying that the battle should be left out of the bedroom.
To be fair, the court has identified race as a "protected class", so discrimination against race is not on equal footing with discrimination against gender (which is in an intermediate class). So, the court will give virtually no deference to reasons for discriminating against race, but will give some deference to discrimination against gender. Discrimination for height and weight get substantial deference as these are not protected classes. So, from a legal standpoint, discrimination based on race is not the same as discrimination based on age, height, or weight. If that was the case, airlines that prohibit or force large passengers to purchase 2 seats on a plane would be engaging in impermissible discrimination.
As far as Porn Stars and reasons for not seeing clients based on race, I am reminded of Natalia Cruze's interview in the Howard Stern Show where she claimed she would not do scenes with white men because of a traumatic experience in her past. Now, it appears she has overcome it.
I am wondering if kyomuO finds a reason such as this still a despicable case of racism/discrimination. Or if some discrimination based on a traumatic sexual experience justifies such a behavior. I'm not looking to pick a fight, I am just curious.
I've only ever been mugged by Black dudes (twice) and here I am saying that anyone who discriminates against a class of people as a race -- is a Goddamn racist!
I'm not saying one can't be racist without being a Nazi Skin-head. I'm saying that one cannot give racism a pass and make excuses for it, whatever the past personal trauma. It is not in the best interests of a society. Condoning it enables it and that allows for the expansion of it. If Natalia Cruze couldn't handle fucking White dudes, she should have found some other line of work.
My Grandfather fought in Bataan and never referred to the Japanese as anything but "Japs" for the next 50 years. Yet, he had no problem buying Japanese televisions, radios, VCRs, or automobiles. He was a Jap-hater, but not in a discriminatory way.
I put this link for the JACL in with another post but I'll do it again here. I'm not the most supersensitive in the world about this issue.
Wow! I can't believe how dogmatic and closed-minded you are about this subject. I mean, come on... Do you actually believe that if a person is violently beaten or raped by someone of a particular ethnic group, that just because she chooses to become a sex-worker she not only has no right to refuse to see anyone of that race, but if she does she's a racist?
It's easy to say "if she can't handle it she should get another job". But let's face it: What other skill set would most of these ladies have that would allow them to find a job that generates as much money as providing.
So you're saying that if she can't handle seeing clients of a different race, she should forego a better lifestyle for herself and her family.
You say you were mugged twice by black "dudes". One has to wonder if you'd been paralyzed or shot as a result of those muggings, or if you had a mother or sister beaten and raped, you'd still feel the same about this subject.
Personal experience DOES skew our perceptions. Because you were mugged by two black dudes, you may not hate them, but I'd bet you fear them more than you would have had you not been mugged.
Fear is a strong emotion, whether it's a rational fear or not. Nobody wants to be around someone they're afraid of but that doesn't mean they hate them. I don't hate middle-easterners, but that doesn't mean I don't get nervous boarding a plane with one, and truthfully would prefer not to fly with them. Intellectually I know that's an irrational fear, but there it is, none the less.
Jesse Jackson once said that if he encountered a group of young black me walking down the sidewalk at night, he'd cross the street. Does that make him a racist, or simply a pragmatist.
Yes, she should get by with less. Your line or reasoning that it's OK to discriminate based upon personal preferences, means the restaurants and taxi cabs and all those racist workers and business owners who wouldn't accomodate my Grandfather based upon his skin color -- which was brown -- off the moral hook!
I absolutely will not accept that intellectual integrity of that argument. As everyone knows, the teenage Jenna Jameson was gangraped by white guys in high school, yet it's black dudes she doesn't do porn with! Your position is entirely irrational.
If I had been seriously injured by Black dudes I know I wouldn't have turned into a racist because by that time I had known too many Black people to fault the ALL over the some. My father, who was not Black, was himself a minor criminal with major rage issues and quite literally had to flee the PI for America (he was technically a US citizen) after attacking a police officer. Since there were no electronic background checks in those days, he eventually became a mercant seaman and worked on passenger liners. He had an affair with a White woman who was on the staff and after some altercation he was rumored to have thrown her overboard. The other Filipinos on the crew, who had built up quite a bit of anti-White resentment gave him an alibi so he got away with it.
Beat that, Negroes! My father never spent a day of his life in American jail, not for murder, not for beating my mother, nor for beating my stepmother (a White hippie who looked slightly like a blonde Jenna Haze), nor beating his kids, nor for letting his former shipmate (and brother-in-law) molest my 8-year-old half-sister, nor for ditching his child support payments by fleeing the US to raise fighting dogs back in the PI.
In East Asia, Filipinos are considered the "Niggers" of the Orient. Only good for menial labor or criminality. My father WAS that guy! Yet, this crazy-ass bastard would have had no problem getting a PSE appointment.
In Manila, if a "White" woman encountered a group of young Filipino men, especially on a Friday night, I'd advise her to RUN across the street. I know my people. Oh, wait, something like that did happen to my half-sister when she was 16. Some girls just have bad karma, I suppose. I suppose I should be racist against MYSELF, then.
Salaam....
Are you capable of posting ANYTHING without name calling? Has anyone called you a name or labeled you with anything? No... but it seems you have a label for everyone. Isn't name calling and labeling one of the indications of racism?
"In Manila, if a "White" woman encountered a group of young Filipino men, especially on a Friday night, I'd advise her to RUN across the street. I know my people"
So, it's OK for you to say that because you're talking about your race, but if a white person said the same thing, even if it's justified, they'd be racist?
You simply refuse to acknowledge the distinction between discrimination and racism. They are NOT one in the same.
Calling people names is a basic drill tactic. The "Stupid" person, for example, is more likely to step up his game to prove he isn't. Every army lives by it -- or ours did in the 1990's.
My half-sister looks ALL white and in her teens was a ringer for Jenna Haze. The stereotype in Asia is that ALL Filipino men are rapists and prefer to rape women of paler races. That's what White AMERICANS promote about Black Americans, no?
This is a racist stereotype perpetuated even by FILIPINO movie directors! Haven't you ever heard of Cirio H. Santiago?
She was not gang-raped, by the way. She was kidnapped by the crew of a rich jerk who had a crush on her. He did all the actual raping and his buddies provided him with an alibi that it was consensual.
For a provider, the bedroom is THE WORKPLACE! So argument has no merit on its face, because the only relationship being sought is a COMMERCIAL one. Sex does not have different rules because sex is simply a physical activity, don't try to give some kind of mythical metaphysical value that massage therapy, arm-wrestling, or table tennis does not.
A sexworker like any worker can choose not to do work for any reason she/he feels like. However, if that reason for not working is discrimination against a customer ONLY because of that customer's racial constitution, then the worker is a RACIST. There is no other way to describe it or label it. It's plain fucking racism and to deny it or make excuses for it is to condone it. And to condone it is to enable it. If the sexworker won't do the work, that makes her/him a bad WORKER in my view. It also makes her/him a less than ideal human being.
Call me whatever you want, but I still think you are missing the picture here.
I think you are either denying or ignoring the fact that sex work really is different than other types of work. You say it is the same as massage therapy, arm-wrestling, or table tennis. Do any of them have the same risk of transferring an STD as sex? Is there any chance whatsoever that one of those activities could get a lady pregnant? Not only can this work impact the sex worker, it can transfer to their loved ones (if they are in a relationship). Weigh in the risks of stalkers and rapists. These are all things that providers have to protect against, because they are potential threats that are different than in other types of jobs. To say that all workplaces are the same just because there is an element of commerce is laughably unrealistic.
Furthermore, you are denying that there are biological and emotional aspects to sex that can be out of a person's direct intellectual control. How attracted to a person can another one get? Does their body react positively to the situation or not? Does the person remind them of a bad memory that makes them uncomfortable? Sex workers are better at overcoming these types of very intimate and personal challenges than most.
Beyond even the physical acts, guys make decisions on providers based on "chemistry" and "clicking with her". How abstract and intangible can you get? The criteria on which we grade the experience can be impossibly demanding. If there are situations where a provider knows beforehand that these ethereal things will be below standard, is she not making both a good personal and business decision to only give of herself when she thinks it will work out well for you?
If sex work really was the same as every other type of work, you would be right that making decisions and denying service based on race would equate to racism. But it isn't the same. And I'm sure that some ladies who don't have sex with people of a certain race can have absolutely fair and equal dealings with those same people out of the bedroom. Not having sex with someone does not equate to saying they are a person of lesser value. That is what you are claiming, and it does not have to be true. Some people are racist, but you are drawing a 100% correlation where it does not exist. You are claiming sex work is the same as everything else, when it isn't.
To thoroughly dismiss you:
01) Condoms, fool!
02) Stalkers and rapists are more likely to be Caucasian because clients are more likely to be White dudes!
03) You can't make a decision based on "chemistry" with you ain't yet met! Blanket racial discrimination makes the assumption that all people of a particular race have the exact same cultural proclivities -- Alan Keyes listening to Ludacris? I think not. Most Asian-Americans under 35 love that Hip-hop. Yet, a Nashville-loving provider would not discriminate on that basis.
04) Sexwork IS exactly the same as every work. At least that's how Nina Hartley and the other COYOTE spokeswomen for decriminalization made the case for it as guest lecturers in the PSYCH 450 class at San Francisco State back in the 1980s and 1990s. That was the crux of THEIR argument, that it was just another job and that it should even be regulated if necessary -- meaning civil litigation liability.
05) As stated elsewhere, a worker can choose not to do work for any reason. However, choosing not to work for a person because of skin color, is RACIST and can't be described as anything other than that. If Racism is considered a negative character trait, then the Racist sexworker is neither a good worker, nor an ideal human being. Allow no excuses for it, because doing so will only expand the scope of it.
It would save a lot of time for guys like me if they would would post it on their websites
It should not be on TER
I don't have a problem asking the ladies and they should not have a problem telling me before I get there - there are thousands of beautiful women to see both in and out of the hobby
Also, I find if you can have a good conversation before a session you usually have a great session, so it ain't really about color anyway
You know, nobody has yet pointed out the following: even a provider who sees black men can still be a racist! From the other side, Strom Thurmond (U.S. senator) was one of the most famous racists of the 20th century, and he fathered a child with a black woman. Countless examples like this exist throughout American history.
So IR preferences of providers or hobbyists are not necessarily indicative of whether or not the person is a racist.