Women in this biz often screen.  The clearest reason is that they are women, and men, on average commit more violent crime than women, as well as being statistically more likely to be larger and stronger than the woman.   This is a generalization of course, as individual exceptions abound. Ronda Rousey could probably kick my ass. But its still a good reason for women to watch out for their safety.

Obviously personal info works best, whether bio info and ID or references and white lists.  But many screen broad categories.  One example is many won't see young men.  This might be for hassle reasons- easier to manage multiple shots on goal with older guys than an 18 year old able to go 4 times in one hour.  Or other reasons, but might be for safety too.  Young people commit more violent crime than older people, statistically.

Women also indirectly screen by income via prices, and directly by profession, and income also effects the statistical likelihood of violent crime.  Poorer people, on average, commit more violent crime than well off people.

And some screen by race, for the same reasons. This is more controversial and evokes condemnation.

So, what are the relative risk levels between various economic, age, sex and racial categories?  A rough approximation, from FBI stats, the National Crime Victimization Survey, and several studies in a paper by Freakonomics guy Steven Levitt are as follows.  These are the ratios between per capita rates for the groups named.

INCOME
Poor (15th percentile)
vs Hi Middle (85%) 2.5  : 1

AGE
18 vs 45 3 : 1
18 vs 55 10 : 1

SEX
Male vs Female 6 : 1

RACE
Black vs White 10 : 1
Black vs Non Black 8 : 1

These results are interesting.  They show that a man in his 50's is on average less of a risk than an 18 year old woman (of the same race and income level).  They show that a poor middle aged person is about the same risk as a well off 18 year old (of the same sex and race).  And they show an older black person in their 50's is about the same risk as an 18 year old white person on average (of the same sex and class).

But, race is a dominant variable.  A middle class, middle aged black man in his 40's will be, on average, statistically, still a bit higher risk than a poor white 18 year old kid.   Black women, on average, are higher per capita than white men of the same age and class.

What criteria may a woman use to choose who she will get naked with, lock herself in a private room with, and allow to perform intimate acts?  Any criteria she chooses.  And if those criteria are rational and reasonable, based on fact, all the better and none have the right to question them.    

Its a free world.  This is all illegal anyway.  No woman here has a right to any man's money or choice of her, no man here has a right to any woman's body or acceptance of him.  If she doesn't want you, because you're too young, or too fat, too poor, too unwashed, or AA, move on and find someone who does.  You choose based on attraction and satisfaction and price point, she screens partly based on fear of robbery and violent death.   Don't judge.

Got stats for them? If you say no AA...I think you would be inclined to say "no Latinos" as in a lot of places the neighborhoods are one in the same....with the same terms of endearments being exchanged and socially acceptable.  

It's clearly a little deeper than any of your stats. What's the difference between Fat Joe & Big Pun (Latinos) compared to Notorious BIG & Tupac (black) besides the hair textures and knowing Spanish?

Aside from your latently racist justifications, you're basically telling us what we already know... that ladies can choose to see who they want at their discretion. Great job.

-- Modified on 3/13/2015 2:57:11 PM

First, I don't say NO AA.   I am talking about what Providers sometimes say.

Second, Latinos are a bit harder to get stats for, because its considered an ethnicity rather than race, for various reasons.  The DOJ tracks victims by "non-Hispanic Whites" and "Hispanics" but does not track perpetrators.  Crime committed by Latinos is "White" on FBI stats. But if one looks at various sources like prison ratios, school discipline rates, victimization rates, local police data, a latino to white ratio of around 2 1/2 to 1 turns up.

In the above analysis, they are blended into the "Non Black" group, and somewhat balanced by the very very low Asian rate.  Whites are about double the Asian crime rate, so ladies would be safest on average seeing only Asians, as indeed many do screen out whites in Korea and Japan.  But here, that would leave a very small client base.

For all races the relative US per capita rates of violent crime are roughly:  
Asians: 0.5
Whites: 1
Latinos: 2.5
Blacks: 10

True.  

Plus, in the real world such stats apply black & Latino. The "fear"should be equal for providers....but that's cleary not the case. CDC saids blacks and Latinos in the inner city have "hood disease", haha.  

Apparently black men are sooooo ugly money does not make it better.... all though it's really not suppose to be about looks when it is pay4play unless it really is a dating service for many, word to Life410.

-- Modified on 3/13/2015 5:50:04 PM

-- Modified on 3/13/2015 6:32:29 PM

Who did the rough approximation?

What’s the name of Steven Levitt’s paper and where could one find a copy? Or at least an abstract? Do you have any info on the individual studies that went into Levitt’s paper?

NCVS studies focus on the victim, not the victimizer. Do you know how their data was incorporated in this approximation?

“Per capita” numbers are usually used to measure rates within a large group, like, say a group of 100,000. Or a city or a state. I don't think I’ve ever seen it used to measure a rate/ratio within such small groups or even to compare two groups. Was it Levitt again who’s responsible for this innovation

google levitt income crime.  His data set was from Chicago in the 80's and 90's, so was the FBI data set on rates by age and sex, except a national data set.

as for ratios, this is simple.  One, there are no small groups in question.  These are all based on national or major metropolitan crime figures.  Two, to derive a ratio one need only compare per capita rates between two groups, group  X to Y 9:1 etc.  Same for using % of crime by race and % of population derive first a per capita proxy, then to compare them and create a ratio, which is easily understood as its the same format as odds (risk) normally are given in. X is more likely than Y to win by 4:1 etc.

These numbers are clearly rounded to whole numbers, and give an illusion of precision when they fluctuate year to year and place to place, and are approximated from all sorts of data.  For instance, the increase in crime by income is larger for blacks than for whites.   Also, as noted before, latinos are blended into whites for some stats and not others, for some data its crime rate by neighborhood or only victimization rates so the race of perpetrator, which tracks very highly with race of victim or neighborhood, is assumed.  These are very rough rules of thumb, not precise actuarial tables.  But the patterns are consistent.  Women have never has a higher rate on average than mean (of similar age and race and income).  Older people have never had a higher rate than young people (of similar age, race, sex).  Richer never than poorer.  And, blacks have never has a lower rate, or even roughly equal rate, to any other race, and always much higher.  Always 9x as high? No.  Maybe as low as 6x, maybe as high as 12x, but never just a little higher or the same.

There are no clean clear studies or data sets giving a perfect set of numbers comparing demographic crime rates.   But, reasonable questions were raised about the contribution of income and age, so I took a whack at it.    

The numbers are perfect nor iron clad nor up to scientific standards of proof. I was surprised that the male female ratio was as low a it looked, and I was surprised that the age drop from 18 to 45 wasn't more.    But they are reasonable attempts to approximate the things we all know from experience, which is that income, sex, age, and race all are factors affecting criminal behavior.

This isn't obvious to all. There are quite a few posts oh here condemning women for screening by race, though none condemning them for screening by the other less important risk factors for groups

A person is seven times more likely to be killed in a car accident than shot to death during an assault. So a provider riding the Metro to see a black client is more likely to live than a provider driving to her white client. And, since the risk of dying at home is far greater than the chance of assault, going out to see a black client is safer than not seeing any clients.

Obviously these are silly comparisons, but they illustrate how data can be manipulated to make a point.  

Yes, we screen for our safety, and yes, we are free to see whom we wish. However, I suspect that providers who don’t see AA clients didn’t reach that decision by studying the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Posts such as yours may rationalize this behavior, but deflect attention from its true motivation.

Here’s one final tidbit of data – taken directly from the 2013 FBI Expanded Homicide Tables. Less than seven tenths of one percent of blacks are likely to commit a violent assault against whites. Sounds like pretty good odds to me

I would think STD stats are a factor for smart providers.  While I have never parsed the stats, it is well known that HIV rates among DC-area AA men is among the highest in the country -- I've heard medical pros call it an epidemic.  I'm not a lady, but I would definitely rather get beat up and robbed than catch HIV.  Hell, I'd take beat  down and robbery over catching herpes!  Anyway, I always thought this was a reason why some providers won't see AA men.

“There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.”  
― Benjamin Disraeli

Diggy, diggy, diggy…

(Mistake #1 [or 1A])
The first problem, the Levitt paper you cited is about victims of crime, not perpetrators of crime, not criminals. You can’t just take the data from Levitt and invert it to figure out who’s committing the crimes. Most crime is intra-racial (within the same race), as you’ve acknowledged before, so Black 10 victims means 10 Black robbers, right? No. No. Um… no. If that’s what you’re doing, it’s not even logical. It could be one guy, two guys, or even three who are responsible for every 10 victims. So Levitt’s data is out. Or any other data where you used victimization rates to work out perpetrator rates or instead of perpetrator rates.

(If there's a figure or table I missed somewhere, let me know the page number, if you don't mind. Or if there's another paper?)

“The Changing Relationship between Income and Crime Victimization.”
http://www.ny.frb.org/research/epr/99v05n3/9909levi.pdf

(Mistake #2)
Another problem, which Levitt tries to address, is that socioeconomic factors like income, location, and tell you much more about criminals and victims than race. Black people are represented disproportionately as both victims and perpetrators because we are represented disproportionately amongst the poor. That doesn’t mean there are more poor Black people than poor White people, it means our percentage within the impoverished is greater than our 13-14% of the general population. Say, 20% of the poor in America are Black when we’re only 13-14% of the general population.  

The way you state things implies that race is the main determining factor in criminality when the real determining factors are things like class, income, and location. Things that most robbers of ALL races have in common. Race is (or is practically?) an incidental. If a lady really wanted to screen for robbers, she’d screen for that stuff. Good luck with that.

http://what-when-how.com/interpersonal-violence/socioeconomic-status-offending-and-victimization-by-class/

Why we’re higher amongst the numbers of the poor is a discussion best left for the political board (but it involves inherited wealth, wage discrimination, red-lining, Jim Crow, de jura and de facto segregation, etc.)

But this is the “hobby” board, so let me bring it back to “the hobby.”  

(Mistake #3 – cue Boy George)
Robbery of a provider is not a street crime, which is what Levitt, the FBI, and everybody else is measuring. It’s not like ladies are walking to their cars with an Escort uniform on and Black guys are jumping out on them. These are very specific, targeted crimes. Someone has to scan a website, pick out targets, call them (and probably probe for weaknesses), and then go rob them. The guy doing that is not the average robber that’s going to show up in crime statistics. He probably won’t show up in crime statistics at all because it will probably go unreported.

So, we can’t take these numbers for street crime and apply them to this ultra-specific, targeted crime.

 
(Mistake #4)
We’re also making the mistake of acting like the provider who is afraid of being robbed is the only one who says “No Black men” or “No Black men under nn.” “No Black men under nn” is sometimes an assumption about how they’re going to act. As a godfather, uncle, cousin, co-worker, etc. of many Black men under nn, I can tell you the majority of them do not act like they’re in a hippity hop video. Even if they listen to the rapping, hippity hip hop music. I’ll go you one further and say the majority of men who can afford to participate in this “hobby” do not carry themselves like “thugs,” rappers, gangsters, or any other young Black man stereotype people want to apply.  

The ones that say “No Black men” period, there are no FBI stats to justify that. As Mocha or Jaye astutely pointed out, sometimes a Black provider might say “No Black men” or “No Black men under nn,” but that might be for personal reasons, to keep from running into somebody they know, or seeing a client who reminds them of their son, to not run into their son’s friends, etc. The rest? Well, there might be some KKK stats that justify that exclusion, but not FBI.

Speaking of the FBI, let’s look at some FBI stats, diggy, some of the stats you claim prove your case.

(Mistake #5, or 1B, or even 3B)
Let’s take the robbery figure in FBI Table 43 for 2013, the one where Blacks “outshine” Whites. And let’s ascribe all the robbery arrests to young Black men, aged 18 to 34. Of the population of young Black men, a whopping .44% were arrested for robbery. Let’s pretend that’s a.45 and round it up to a full .5 Half a percent.

Double that if you want and say for every guy who got caught, another wasn’t caught. You’re only at 1%. That means 99% of the young Black men in America did not rob anybody. For you to claim it’s justified, you’d have to be saying it’s logical to judge the 99 by the actions of the 1. Or, again, as somebody said before, “minorities aren’t individuals.”

(Young Black men aged 18-34, total number roughly 11.9 million in 2013, but I rounded down to 10 to make it harder for my case.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Ages) .

(Arrests for robbery for Black people, man, woman, and child: 44,271. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43)

(44,000 / 10,000,000 = .44% If I used 11.9 million, it would be even lower.)

(I’m setting the same trap I set for you before, diggy. Do you know what it is?)

 
As I said in another thread, I don’t want any lady to see anybody they’re uncomfortable with, repulsed by, or whatever. Her body, her person, her rules of consent. It’s sacrosanct. I don’t even want people to stop seeing them (as I also said in that thread, bigots have to eat, too). What I do want is for people to stop calling bigotry “preference.” If an escort was to run her business by “preference,” she’d starve to death. So throw the “preference” defense out the window.  

When we look right at bigotry and call it something else, we allow bigotry to flourish. Could we at least stop doing that? You’re tired of talking about race? Then acknowledge that there is racism in the world and we’re on the way to not talking about it. It’s like we’re at the foot of a mountain, trying to figure out how to get around it and you keep saying “What mountain?”.

What you’re doing, diggy, is worst of all. You’re making the case that it’s justified. And even worse than that, you’re using misapplied or misunderstood figures to do it, which gives it the illusion of "fact" or "science."


-- Modified on 3/14/2015 2:42:14 PM

While HIV can certainly be a factor for any provider, I believe most screen AA men because they are more violent. I am a 40 year old AA man who speak with providers regarding this issue. Potential AA customers take it personal when a providers say "no AA" but they should not. It amounts to a business decision and playing probabilities. I had a couple providers change their mind about me communicating with me because I put them at ease.  You have to respect women and understand the inherent dangers they put up with.  

I admit to getting pissed when providers give me their location just to change their minds as I am there. I have no problem being turned down by a provider for security reasons but do not waste my time. After all, time is the one thing we cannot get back

You are perfectly right to point out that there are methodological issues that would make those numbers fall well below the threshold of a peer reviewed journal.  As I said, very rough numbers.

But many of your objections are also similarly troubled.  For instance, robbery isn't a street crime only, and robbery of prostitutes in hotel rooms would get aggregated in that. And why would you think blacks would be higher risk for all rapes, all murders, all robberies, all thefts, all crime and suddenly be low risk for the narrow niche of assault on prostitutes?  I'll go with the rule that where there's lots of smoke there is probably fire.  

There isn't one statistic, for one crime, where blacks don' t "out shine" everyone else.  Its not just robbery and murder, those are only the crimes where blacks actually commit an absolute majority.  The crimes where they commit only, say, 30% are still examples of blacks committing LOTS more crime (per capita), because they again are a smallish minority.  

But here's the real root of our real disagreement.  For argument's sake let's say we use your figure of 0.5% -1% of young black men committing robbery of prostitutes (and therefore non-blacks 0.05%-0.01%). You  think it is not justified for a girl to ban the other 99% of black guys based on the risk posed by the 1%.   I say that if you are asking a woman to get robbed by 1 of every 100 black guys she sees on average, which might be say every 5 months if she saw 1 a day during week days, that's a LOT to ask.  You are asking them to get robbed regularly so that nice non-robber black guys won't be traumatized by not being able to see them. A LOT TO ASK.  Especially if they can cut the risk of robbery to once every 50 months (4 years plus) by banning black guys.

I agree that, whatever the number, black men who rob or beat or murder prostitutes are a minority of black men who see prostitutes.  I don't agree, when that small minority are 10 x larger than the  minority of every other customer race, that a woman is morally obligated to see them.  If she can dis 18 year old guys of all races because they are a higher risk, despite unfairness to nice 18 year olds, then she can dis black men for the same reason.  

And it will be moral, because it is reasonable and well founded.  Her right to safety trumps the black guy's right to equal access to illegal pussy.  Period.

Humans are not consistent in how we manage risk.  We over emphasize some risks, so we pay more attention to shark attacks than we do to drowning.  We pay more attention to plane crashes than car accidents.

But, nobody is morally obligated to balance their risks perfectly per actuarial tables.  And the ladies who ban AA's are not morally obligated to have formed their accurate judgments thru sufficiently rigorous statistical review.  It turns out their stereotypes are accurate.  It turns out that the gut impression they might form from seeing reports of prostitute robberies on BP are true.  Who cares where they gathered their data, if it is true.

About your 0.7% of all blacks likely to assault a white and that being good odds.  Since men commit violent crime about 6x more and are half the population, that would make their rate 1.2% of all black men likely to assault a white.  So more than 1 of every hundred black men who a woman saw assaults whites, on average.  Compared to about 1 of 1000 white men.  Let's use your car comparison.  Would you call that good odds if someone had two cars to rent, model B and model W.  He said only 1 of every hundred of model B had mechanical failures resulting in accidents...but hey, those are pretty good odds!  And model W has 1/10th that frequency of failures....

Everyone can assess their own risk tolerance.  Soldiers can reassure their mothers that 99% of soldiers don't get harmed in war zones so there is nothing to worry about!   But certainly those odds don't make it irrational or immoral to avoid black customers.

Don't ever go into the insurance biz, stick with your day job... "hah, 16 year old boys are the same risk as 45 year old women, what, am I gonna believe some damn statistics!"

Not to say statistics can lie in how you use them. Holder's use of the Ferguson stats is a god point.  The 85-95% rates for arrests, stops etc are used to imply bigoted treatment.  But actually they prove the FPD was likely acting with perfect probity.  If you apply the stats from Holder's own DOJ to the 67% black 33% white demographics of Ferguson, voila, you get the same rates Ferguson has! So yes, the Statistic isn't a lie, but the use of them by Holder and Obama sure is.

but you are proof that liars figure.

Why don't you come right out with it and admit that you think black people for whatever reason should not be trusted, are dangerous, and should be avoided by anyone who values their safety?

Or I suppose as an Asian person, I should avoid all of you round eyed devils, as I am sure I would be much safer sticking to my "own kind", right?

Or how about if you simply Go Fuck Yourself!!! and leave the racism to the professionals like Eric Holder and Al Sharpton from the left, and David Duke and countless others from the right.

Of the 22 murders with circumstances involving prostitution or sex offenses reported in the table, 13 of the victims were male. Twelve of the 22 were already acquainted with the assailant. So a female provider seeing a new black client is not exactly on the front lines in Afghanistan.  

Again, providers have the undisputed right to turn away anyone they choose. But let’s at least have the intellectual honesty to realize that some of these decisions are based more on preference than protection

I fully agree that a providers seeing a new black client isn't on the front lines of Afghanistan.    
But clearly most providers agree that customers present a security threat, which is a major reason so many screen, and clearly black customers, on average, present more of one.

I don't know the reasons girls turn screen AA's, and it may be very different woman to woman.  But, I have notice that the phenomena is recent.  5-10 years ago, BP girls saw anyone.  Recently, within maybe a year or so, it seems maybe 1/3 screen AA's.  That coincides with a few reports in a row of local incidents of robbery, all involving black men.  Within the last month another case of a black guy posing as a cop robbing a handful of girls around BWI came out.    

I don't think it would be morally wrong for a girl to not provide as intimate a service as sex to black men just because she doesn't like them.  But that doesn't seem to be the reason, it seems to be fear of crime.

Hmmm, I seem to have touched a nerve, though you don't specify what lie I've told.   I think it would be fine and moral if Asians decided to so screen, as they do in their home countries where whites are a minority and a higher risk both.  I also have no problem with the black men seeing white providers who want to see them.  High end providers, generally not on BP, don't seem to screen by race at all, because their in depth personal screening is a much more reliable method, and their prices alone screen most trouble makers of all races and ages.   That's fine, more power to them.  But the poorer more marginal BP girls, the ones more likely to be doing this because they have few other choices, screen by race often, and I say that is also perfectly fine, reasonable, and moral.   I say its immoral to condemn them.

Yes, whites commit about twice the amount of crime per capita as Asians in the US. It would be rational from a purely security perspective for any provider  to restrict themselves to Asian men over 45.  But, they would lose the large majority of their income base at the cost of a moderate improvement in safety.   If they screen blacks and young men of all races, as they actually do, they screen a large majority of risk, with only modest loss of business.    Sounds reasonable.  Life is a balance of risk and rewards, and I'm telling nobody what to do, but it seems most Asian providers agree with me..

Look, most people of all races and all political parties screen by race in their real estate choices, as census maps make clear in the obvious patterns of segregation.  In fact, the most liberal diversity-mouthed people screen the most in their revealed preferences shown in their place of residence (see Portland, or NYC).   I'm just advocating less hypocrisy and grand standing, and more admission of the plain facts.   People know the facts, and actually act on them, but everyone has to strike big poses and show puffed up outrage about them ("go fuck yourself!!!").

The Levitt paper was used only to attempt to get stats on the effect of income on crime.  Many have noted that poorer people commit more crime, and have insinuated that this may explain the racial disparities or be the real dominant risk factor.

Stats on Income and crime by perpetrator are very hard to get.  Police don't collect W2's when arresting or charging.  So I used Levitt's stats on income level of neighborhood and victimization rate as a proxy for perpetrator rate in that same neighborhood, to derive a relative ratio of crime rate as affected by income level.  Victims for perpetrators, Neighborhood economic profile for individual income level....Rough indeed.

But, that was NOT about race, and your point about intra-racial etc for Levitt is entirely off base.  The stats on RACE, SEX, and AGE are all much firmer, and come from FBI data on individual perpetrators themselves, although the AGE stats are from the 70's thru 90's.  Current Stats are harder to find, because Obama's main action to deal with the huge race gap in criminality seems to be to stop collecting data or make it harder to find.   Obscure Inconvenient Facts For a Better Tomorrow!  Even so its easy to show his claims about Ferguson's policing are entirely bogus using his own stats.

I'll bet he's about to explode, though I hear he's PMing up a storm.  Lots of folks seem to be putting him on "Ignore."

As someone who looks at statistical models all day long and can tell you if and when events will occur biased on data, your data has absolutely no meaning to me. I bet if you take out drug possession related offenses, which I think is an economic crime because most of those guys are trying to make money to take care of their families, the numbers will paint a completely different picture. Tell me the ratio of blacks to whites who commit assault related crimes. I bet it's closer to 1:1. You have to the data to a much more granular level to have any predictive value. It is posts like yours that keeps me away from this forum. Some of the bigotry and downright ignorance disguised as "intellectual debates" are not my cup of tea but I just had to put in my 2 cents as someone who uses statistics everyday.

This community is always painted with a broad brush. All the ladies who partake in this lifestyle are depicted as either victims of abuse or human trafficking. If anyone one should know not to paint with a broad brush, it should be this community

I never made the argument it is immoral for an escort to refuse to see a Black man. My argument was that it is illogical. And bigoted. Interesting that you acknowledge there’s a moral component to bigotry, though. That explains a lot.

My point about intra-racial crime wasn’t specifically about the Levitt paper. I was trying to work backwards to figure out where you were getting these ratios from.

But it’s time again to wrap this up. You’ve been undone, diggy. There’s so much water in your lungs, it doesn’t matter if somebody pulls you out now. Your numbers are bogus. Your facts are unsupported. Your understanding of odds is deeply flawed. Either you really don’t understand the studies you’ve read or you’re so determined to find some logical underpinning to your bias that you’re willing to bend reality itself to fit your flawed worldview. If you have to work that hard to justify yourself factually, logically, and morally, maybe the thing to do is change.

But I’m sure there’s less than a 1% chance of that happening.  

Speaking of 1%, there is not a mathematician in the world or even an unlearned 1st grader who would say a 1% risk is unacceptable. If a 1% risk is unacceptable to you, then I advise you to never flick a light switch, never walk in the rain, never cross a street, in fact, never leave the house. And don’t eat, either. You know, choking and all. Perhaps the reason the 1% is unacceptable to you is that would mean some White woman somewhere is having sex with a Black man? What you’re really trying to say is that no White woman should sleep with a Black man ever?  

Equally astonishing is that you take it as a certainty that the 1 out of 100 is guaranteed to rob an escort. Like it’s a fact waiting to happen like today’s sunset. Odds are about what could happen, not what will happen. I don’t know if you’re blinded by bigotry, or again, if your understanding of odds is that off.  

Because you do know the 1% can’t be used as an odd, right? It’s just a small percentage of a particularly small population. There would have to be a separate set of calculations using the figures that 1% represents to determine whether any given escort will ever even encounter that 1 out of 100. Which would bring any given escort’s chances of being robbed by a Black man even lower.  

(By the way, given the overall size of the White population and the predominant Whiteness of the “hobbying” community, an escort still stands a greater chance of being robbed by a White man than any other race. But of course you either can’t or won’t see that. Because White people don’t do such things.)

And you tripped the trap again, diggy. The per capita/disproportionate trap. The trap reveals what axe a person is really trying to grind and yours has nothing to do with the safety of escorts. But we all knew that. You just dressed it up in that so you could deliver your real message. Kind of like the safety of a hood. When a bigot is undressed and his fake facts and twisted logic are revealed, he falls back on the “per capita” attack.

And so did you

The nerve you hit comes from me telling black people to simply "get over it" where it comes to most racism, but then a putz like you comes along and makes it his mission to PROVE that black people are more dangerous, and that not only is it a woman's right to not see black guys (and yes it is her right, for whatever reason she likes), but actually prudent, and I guess by extension something all hookers should do.

I don't call all women with an NBA policy racists, but I sure do consider you one. I guess the race baiters have a point after all, racism is alive and well and even living in Washington DC. I hope you are proud of your mission of justifying racism in the hobby. Now will you please Go Fuck Yourself!!! and notice I did say please

Numbers flawed: they're your own numbers in the FBI page you originally linked to.  And they show that for ALL categories of crime, Blacks are much higher per capita, and for 2 of the worst, Murder and Robbery, they commit an absolute majority of crime though only 12%of population.
   
1% risk acceptable say all the mathematicians and 1st graders?  Really?  Tell your car insurance provider you have a 1% risk of crashing each time you drive, see what they charge you, or if they'll even insure you at all.  Damn, you are really really bad with numbers.  Don't go to Vegas.
   
 "Astonishing is that you take it as a certainty that the 1 out of 100 is guaranteed to rob an escort."
I was just using your number for argument's sake, and yes, 1% means on average, 1 out of 100. Law of Large Numbers Please go back to school.
   
 Disproportionate and per capita not relevant?  shows lack of concern with provider risks?  Wow.
OK, I'll make this really very simple.  Let's say there are 1000 total customers.  A group, lets call them the purples, has only 4 members.  Those members as a group commit 3 violent crimes a year.  The other 996, lets call them greens, as a group, commit 7 violent crimes per year.   The purples commit "only" 30% of total violent crime compared to the green's 70%.   To you, this would show the greens are REALLY the highest risk.   I say that when you see a purple you have a 3 out of 4 chance of meeting someone who committed a violent crime that year, but only a 7 out of 996 chance when seeing a green.  I say the purple are obviously a higher risk, because their Per Capita rate is 10,600% higher, they are massively Disproportionately higher risk.

You go ahead and think per capita and disproportionate don't matter to the odds, just don't expect anyone to agree with you.

you may look at stats all day, but clearly never at crime stats.  OK, no drug or economic crimes.  FBI and Census stats.

% of total population who are black: 12%
% of total murders committed by blacks: 50%
% total robberies by blacks: 56%
% total rapes by blacks: 33%

% of total population non-black: 88%
% of total murders: 50%
% total robberies: 44%
% total rapes: 67%

Per capita ratios, black vs non-black
murder: 7.3 to 1
robbery: 9.3 to 1
rape: 3.6 to 1

Same pattern for ALL crimes.  Much higher per capita rates.

First please send my your proceeds from your bet.  
Second, the question isn't "Can we predict if and when a girl will get robbed from these stats?"
the question is "Are blacks as a group much higher risk than all other customers as a group?".    
As a pro statistician how do the above numbers not answer the question YES

OK this seems to come up again and again. So, an example.

Red brand cars have 9 fatal wrecks a year due to mechanical failure.
Red brand only makes 10 cars a year.
Blue brand has 10 fatal wrecks a year, but make 1,000,000 cars a year.

Blue has more Aggregate fatal wrecks, 10 vs 9.
Red has higher Per Capita wrecks, 0.9 vs 0.00001
The ratio of Per Capita wrecks, Red to Blue is 90,000 to 1

If you will rent a car a day for the next year, which brand would your rent?
Would your really say Blue had more total wrecks, so they're higher risk?  
This isn't that hard.

I notice you say I'm morally wrong, not that I'm factually incorrect.
You believe it is wrong to ever discriminate by race no matter what the facts.
I do not agree. I think its ok to privilege your own safety and security over somebody else's fair treatment, depending on the details.  Most people agree with me, only some are more honest about than others.

Thanks for that please, but I guess I'll pay someone else to Fuck Myself!!!