About 70 percent of black providers and 90 percent of providers of other races post this, and they have sound reasons too. Ive asked providers who post this why, most common answers given that black men are verbally and physically abusive, try to get their money back after a session, and bring multiple people who think they will pay one price for everybody. Black men even call providers that say no black men in their adds too just to see if they can come over anyway lol. Myself, I prefer adds that say no black men. Shows a smart provider who is unlikely to be a sting.

I think your stats are a bit off. Any provider I've seen doesn't have this on her website. I more see that on BP.

It's not just BP, there are providers whose web sites clearly state this. Most AA guys agree they'd rather see it on the site than be denied after they've already made contact.

That's an interesting point. If you want to see a girl with zero reviews, does the fact that her ad says no black me decrease the chance of it being a sting? I'm assuming your point is that the authorities would not use a "racist" qualification in their ad. I'm not sure I buy that argument, but it's an interesting observation.

I feel deeply troubled when I see "no black men" in an ad, or on a site. And, considering I'm always checking out other escorts' ads/sites, I actually see it quite often. Every client I've had has been different from the one before, and I would never generalize based on race, especially when I know what it's like to be generalized and completely disregarded because of the color of MY skin (every ISO ad that says "I'd prefer Latin, Asian, White or pretty much any race except black). If I were a client (and, obviously, not black) and saw a lady explicitly say "no black men," I still wouldn't see her, regardless of my race. That kind of discrimination just says a lot about a person...

Race doesnt matter to me, as long as they are respectable.
Perhaps they were not worth your time ,honey...

I don't see ladies if they say "no black men" in their ads.  

Excluding an entire race due to color is the very definition of racism. It's a loss for both the lady and the guy and for all that is decent in humankind. Racism is why the nazis lost Einstein.  
Screen out clients based on verification not based on color.

I get what he means, and have heard this before...

If a provider says no black men, I (a white man) will not give her my business. Such blanket discrimination on the basis of race is just wrong, as well as illegal. No one should tolerate it. Ever.

A woman has a right to refuse sexual activity with anyone she wants, whether it be race, a height restriction, an age limit, whatever. There is no such thing as discrimination in being intimate with another person. This is not illegal by any stretch of the imagination and it's certainly not illegal considering this entire hobby itself is illegal. This is not Equal Employment Opportunity and there's no law anywhere on the books that says a woman can't choose her sex partners based on her personal preferences.

then "no black men" would be illegal. It would then amount denying a legal service based on race. Just like it will be illegal to deny service at restaurant based on race.

Women can have a preference without being racist  
It is there body and there right and choice who to share it with
If you do not like it you can always go play with yourself

My sympathies Josephine. Not only have you had to deal with the stigmatism of being a minority all your life, axeman now claims that you are also a distinct minority within your own racial group, as you are one of the only 30% of African-American woman who will not exclude an African-American client simply because of his race. Of course axeman is relying on empirical data that can hardly be refuted when throwing these figures out there, isn't he? Nobody would ever publish inflammatory statistics like this haphazardly, would they?

That's a noble gesture maybe. If axeman is correct (and how could it be otherwise) you've just eliminated 70% of all African-American providers, and 90% of all non-African-American providers from consideration!

Actually, it was anti-semitism and delusional fantasies of Aryan supremacy that fueled the Nazi pogroms and caused Einstein, as well other Jewish intelligentsia, to seek refuge elsewhere. Your hearts in the right place though.

We have the right to not sleep with or spend time with someone for any reason, yes, but if the reason is race, it's racism. That's the definition.

I'm sure he took a scientific survey with an adequate and diverse sample size that perfectly adhered to the scientific method. I hear his findings will be published in The Hooker Scientific Journal next month.

Josephine has given an apt response. I'd just like to point out that it should be "their" and not " there."

Yup, and tough shit. When those same men always bitchng about this put their hooker heels on and start taking it in the ass, then they can worry about what others do. If I don't want to see fat men, old men, young men, smelly men, bald men, or black men, I don't have to. Also, I know so many black providers who won't see black men, and I also know a shit ton of white women with black boyfriends who also refuse to deal with them 'in the hobby.' That is far from being a racist, but being selective about who you see. If she's banging a black guy at home and having kids with him, she's not racist. This is BUSINESS as in risk vs. reward. Thank you.  

There are providers who refuse to see AA guys, just like there are escort agencies that specify who they are willing to hire....leaving AA women out. For example: "Seeking Caucasian, Latin and Asian ladies only!!!" I don't discriminate, although I've encountered several problems with AA men, being an AA provider myself, but to each its own.

My thoughts exactly. Either that, or he is one of our elected representatives, so shoveling sh$t like that comes second nature!

Blunt and to the point I hear ya Sister !

...most providers who don't see black men would institute such a policy. You honestly think that most providers wouldn't see a guy who looks like Taye Diggs but would see a guy who looks like Jim Belushi's older, fatter, shorter, balder brother because of attraction? Give me a break!

I am applauding!

If you advertise you offer services to the public, you cannot discriminate on the basis of race. Even if the business is illegal. I won't repeat the entire argument here, but the essence is that neutral laws apply to illegal businesses. You could not argue--my business is illegal, it is illegal gambling, bootleg liquor, selling illegal marijuana, or prostitution or sexual massage, so I don't have to pay taxes. Illegal income is taxable. Likewise an unlicensed bar could not legally refuse service to someone on the basis of race. Nor should escort services be able to. There is no exclusion in the federal, state, county, or municipal laws about race discrimination for illegal services. Even more so as to ADVERTISING a policy of race discrimination. That is even more unquestionably illegal. It may not be likely to elicit enforcement action, given that prosecutors have an entirely different agenda, but that doesn't change the facts

That maybe the case but the African American providers I've seen in the past have been very sweet.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that...

You find me one dumbass brave enough to call the cops and report us to the freaking EEOC because a provider refused to see him based on race, and one judge that will bother wasting time with such an idiot.  I'll check back in five years for that evidence. That's about as dumb as saying a hooker can't rip you off or she used false advertising and you're gonna call the cops bwahhahaa.  Um, ok... call the cops when that happens and watch both of your asses go to jail. Thanks for the laugh.  

There's a couple things wrong with this response.

Don't you have some provider to marry since she'll like you for you who you are? Delusional imbecile.

This is sex and even though providers are getting paid for sex, they have every right to exclude whomever they want. It's her body and we'll never see a legal ruling on who someone can have sex with regardless of whether escorting is legalized.

And, I did not imply anything... I flat out said it. Most black men have said point blank they would never pay my rate, or pay that rate for any provider. I saw some, but my highest paying clients were white and asian. That's not racist... it is a FACT. It is also a fact for many other providers with high rates. The majority have said black men were eliminated once they raised their rates to a certain point. I really can't help what has been experienced and reported so you'll just have to deal with it.  

It is not your place to tell anyone what to do with there body AssClown !
Is that blunt enough for you.

No judge can or will ever rule on what color dick a woman must allow inside her. Ain't never gonna happen, this isn't eating food or shopping. This is about an intimate act and every woman will always have the God-given right to refuse a dick inside her, lol.

I've had white men tell me that same thing: why is it that white men can quite literally get away with murder without being generalized, but black men and other races get completely ruled out with the mistakes of a few? Most of my longer appointments are with white men, true, but I've had plenty of high rolling clients of color, too. Why the double standard? Sure, it may happen LESS with men of color, but white men are the majority of the country, anyway. I'd be willing to bet these experiences just match up with demographics.  

Let's say the shoe was on the other foot
 What flavor of Dick do you like ?
If you do not like them all your racist that is your logic

You're obviously an intelligent young woman and being black has given you this unusual perspective that every person who refuses to have sex with a person from another race is a racist. I don't know if this perspective was gained as a result of your real-life experiences as a black woman or from those around you who taught you to think this way. Most of us picked up our parents views on other races because we were taught to think their way and as we got older we realized that what our parents taught us wasn't the actual truth but a version skewed to what was popular in the old days.

When a woman is raped by a white guy, it seems like she's not scared of all white men, but let a black man do it, and it's totally different. I have never really tried to understand that, but I don't. I just think people act in ways that make them appear to be racists, even though deep inside it does not really line up. I've asked my father, "So dad, if you had to choose between me being with a white guy who beat me, was always broke, and was an alcoholic or a successful, gentle, black man what would you prefer?" He could not answer lol. I am not above pointing out inconsistencies in my own family and friends when I think they are wrong either.  

No, no, you're misinterpreting my words.

So, if your daughter comes to you and says "Daddy, I don't ever want to sleep with black men" does the same go for her, or is it just those dirty whores you pay to fk?

-- Modified on 2/3/2014 4:46:01 PM

No one should do something they're uncomfortable with, obviously, but, with the way society beats the stereotypes about black people into our heads and, well, elevates white people, you do have to wonder where it comes from. I spend a lot of time studying this kind of thing so obviously, I could write at great lengths about it and even back it up with facts in a lot of cases, but, I won't. And I won't say that someone who does something racist is ALWAYS a bad person, it's just not something I'm personally going to deal with. One strike, you're out, for me. I've dealt with too much in the past from well-meaning people, it's as much about protecting myself as some of these girls who don't see AA men. But I digress.

It's "you are racist" not "your racist" and it should be "their preferences" not "there preferences"

and I could not find any test case for this where prostitution is legal. It will be interesting to see if there is any legal precedent that we could go by. If you find any let me know or post a thread. I will do the same.

Thank you for your kind words. I do beg to differ on Hitler. Hitler's declaration of his belief in a “master race” was an indication of the inherent racism of the Nazi movement

Racism is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin color or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally

Differ all you want, but the last I looked, Nazism was a socio-political extension of the fascist/socialist movement that swept through post WWI Europe in response to the various communist entreaties spawned by the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the installation of a Marxist-Leninist oligarchy that eventually morphed into the absolute tyrannical dictatorship of Stalin and his progeny. Hitler simply created a myth of a greater Germanic Nation as a means of excusing his Austrian heritage and allowing him to claim kinship with his idols like Frederick the Great and Bismarck. It wasn't race that fueled his satanic obsessions, but nationalistic supremacy and political ideology.

But I defer to the sex act which is universally recognized as being the private domain of each of us. A shrink can get inside your head legally without your consent but nothing gets inside a woman's vagina legally without her consent. Courts have ruled that people must get psychiatric help and can lock them up in an institution if they're a danger to themselves or society. I guarantee you that no court nor judge will ever force a woman to have sex without her consent.

Good luck in suing for racial bias because a hooker wouldn't see you. For that matter, good luck in suing a civvie woman for not having sex with you because you're Asian, lol.  

I can never understand the mindset of anyone in the white majority ever lecturing a member of an insular minority in this country about what does or does not constitute racism. Having never been subjected to the cruelties and lingering effects of state-sponsored slavery, government instituted segregation policies (yeah, I'm from Chicago), and substandard education and housing programs, how could I possibly fathom what racism actually means, let alone explain it to someone who wakes up every morning burdened by the fact that they live in a country that is politically and economically dominated by a race of individuals that have been historically antagonistic and hostile towards them simply because of the pigmentation of their skin.

Of course one can't sue. I was just saying it's racism to decide solely based on the color of one's skin.

but underlying all that is the belief of Aryan supremacy which is based on race. It is the notion of racial supremacy that fired up the Nazi's

Nope, nothing could be done even if it were legal UNLESS the provider was dumb enough to flat out tell someone "I am not seeing you because of your race." She can simply say "Sorry, I am booked" and she can be booked for the next five years every damn time he contacts her, or she can not respond at all. Do people really think employers don't refuse to hire certain people, and tell them the reason is race? AHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Ok now, done laughing.

It gets interesting does it not as we dig deeper

If a psychiatrist like some providers explicitly says "no blacks" will he be sued? Yes of course. Is he racist? Yes of course.

If it were legal and a provider said "no black men" in her ad like the OP mentioned, then she could get sued. But since we don't have any legal history we don't know if she will be convicted.
But a racist provider can hide the fact that she is racist by using all the things you mention and of course it's difficult to sue.

Let me start by saying I'm usually the one calling people out as being racist, but this is different. I know MANY civie white girls who are not racist at at all, but will never have sex with a black guy.

It's legal in Nevada brothels so that's where a test case could be tried. The scenario is a black guy asks to see a specific brothel girl and she refuses to see him. He could sue for civil rights violation but what judge would find in his favor? She refused to have SEX with him and she always has the right of refusal.

Great post and this is nothing more than 21st century lynching of and entire race of men. There are plenty of providers that have problems with white men but do not stop seeing all white men. You are correct, the majority of killers of providers are white males, yet most providers do not stop seeing white males. What a double standard. You may say it's my preference not to see black men. However,  how did you reach that conclusion?  More than likely, stereotypes. I do not see bigots regardless of race. I also know a lot of providers who have told me many white males openly ask if they see black men. So, many of you white males are just as guilty as providers with such a policy. As far me, I prefer seeing this rather than show up for a date with some fool hooked on race.  Most of those with this policy are nothing more than trash anyways.  

Then you are just as guilty as the biggots who ask you if you see black men. It should be none of their business who you see.

Your post makes no sense. How were those view points formed? As you stated, it's how you were raised, images they saw etc. Enough said. If you were raised by bigots with overt or covert racial attitudes, you more than likely will be the same. However, I know plenty of people raised by bigots who are just the opposite. This has nothing to do with PC but just ignorance.

How do you even begin to compare the mutilation and public hanging of an African-American, done in the most barbaric fashion, with an escort declining to exchange in sexual relations with an African-American for money. I'm sure the loved ones of those that were so brutally slaughtered would whole-heartedly agree with your absurd, inapprpropriate, and completely insensitive analogy.

We don't know how the judge would rule if any one sues.  

to the point and succinct.

But, there are over 500 million black men in the world. All different colors, shapes, sizes, personalities, everything. To lump all of them together and decide you're not attracted to them all is to disregard them as individuals which denies them their humanity which is, yes, racist. Like, why is being called racist worse to everyone in this thread than the actual racism us black people who are chiming in are quite literally experiencing right this second?  

My daughter's first two boyfriends were black men. I am really sorry that she broke up with the second one, as I liked him lots, am still in touch with him, and gave him some money last fall to help keep him in college.  The words "dirty whores" are yours, not mine. I would never talk that way about providers.

Your response to my post shows just how shallow and uninformed you are. Are black men still being lynched as they were in the past in the traditional sense. No. However , even though my post was not talking about murder as you seem to think, black men in this case are being targeted and discriminated against just as they were in the past, thus a 21st century form of lynching or as Clarence Thomas would say, a high tech lynching..  Only difference now is black men are not lynched for seeing white women in the traditional sense. Thus a 21st century form of lynching in a different form by stereotyping all black men just as those who were lynched were stereotyped as if all of them wanted to rape or kill white women.  So spare me with your half hearted analysis and your false concern for the family of victims lynched in years gone by. Hell, as far as I know, some of your folks could have be the leaders of the lynch mob during the 20th century.

I did address the question. It is just that some people here don't like my answer and prefer to call me names. The legality or illegality of providing makes no difference, as general laws apply to illegal businesses. The examples I cited included tax. If you were renting out an illegally converted basement apartment, renting it might be illegal, but a newspaper or craigslist etc. could not allow you to run an ad that said "whites only," "no women," "no rentals to the disabled," "no couples with children" (with the exception of senior set aside buildings meeting a set of several criteria as to the nature of the facility).

It's obvious you did not understand my post. I was referring to those white males who ask providers if they see black men. As stated, it's none of their business. If a provider do not see black males based on those few white males, then they are a bigot too IMHO.

I say this because I'm friends with and hang out with 90% white and asian women who are not in this business. And most of them have been assaulted and disrespected by white men. Some have told me privately ( while crying)  that they were either date raped or cheated on by white men. And I feel so sorry for them. Yet these same women boyfriends or husbands are white. Even though they have had bad experiences with their own kind, they didn't stop dating them. You all make valid points here. And as for myself I would prefer to see "No Black Men" in the ad before I waste time and money.

How is it any different from being pro or anti gay? I am pro gay rights, yet I would never have sex with a man nor would I want to even watch two gay men having sex, does that make me homophobic or anti-gay? Can you call me a homophob or "ignorant" because I choose not to have sex with a gay guy?  

Your first post made no sense and this one is worst. You're talking about two separate issues. The issue is how did you develop your preference, that's all. Your first post concerning this issue is clear, enough said. You even tried to make this a PC  issue in your previous post! Now you are comparing it to gay v. Straight. It is amazing how some people try and justify being a bigot or a covert racist. What's sad is they do not realize it or refuse to realize it. However, words have meaning and are very revealing. Let me say this. I am a southerner. One thing about southern racist and bigots,  they are clear about it. In the north and Midwest , many racist and bigots are undercover, thus making them very dangerous IMHO.

-- Modified on 2/5/2014 3:07:17 PM

It's called The Civil Rights Act. That's the legal precedent, at least concerning discrimination in places of public accommodation.  And you know how that law got passed constitutionally? The Interstate Commerce Clause. We could also talk about how prostitution was technically made illegal through that same clause because transporting a woman across state borders automatically involves interstate highway systems, and therefore becomes a federal issue, but that's another messy legal matter all together (for more on the White-Slave Traffic Act, also known as the Mann Act, see this charming Wikipedia entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act).

and I'm sure this one wasn't directed at me:

I have to disagree - please note I have only read the first post.  

You are nuts if you truly believe this. This isn't the same as a NO BLACKS lunch counter. No law will ever say that a woman cant refuse to have sex, regardless of the reason.  

Look on Backpage and see how common this requirement is. I mean it, do it right now. The 80 to 90 percent who post this cant ALL be doing it because they are pimped out. I've asked many providers why they have this requirement, and the answers are black men are rough, immature, violent (one was beaten up by one wanting his money back), cheap, more likely to have diseases, and more likely to try to rob them.