Providers lock themselves in a private room with a stranger, doing an illegal activity which lessens the protection of police, and makes police a hazard.   Providers are women and clients men, and men are on average larger, stronger, and more violent than women, adding more risk. So screening makes good sense.   Screening individuals, as well as discrimination by income via prices, is the best way to avoid these troubles.

But individual screening takes time and organization, and deters some clients.  So it is done by girls who charge about $240 / 45min and up.  For those who cannot, BP girls, individual screening doesn't fit their business model.  McDonalds does not take reservations, and its pointless to argue they "should" because a Cordon Bleu restaurant does.

If a lower cost BP girl wants to lower risk of violence and STD's with minimal screening or impact on customer base, with a method that she can verify on sight or via voice over the phone, screening on race and age are easy and effective.  

Blacks commit 49% of all homicide, yet are 12% of the population resulting in a per capita ratio Black vs Non Black  of 7 to 1. Other violent crime and STD rates and ratios are similar, though less extreme. This is about the same as the difference between Men and Women.  Young people are similarly disproportionately violent, though by a lesser degree.   Providers cannot screen out men as a group, so screening out blacks, or young blacks is an easy and effective way to remove lots of risk with little impact on income.

This is in the self interest of those women.  Moralistic arguments that they should not, whether placing the interests of "the biz" first, or the interests of black clients (don't be racist!) will ultimately fail.  All people, will generally do what is in their self interest unless forced not to.  After all, who pays attention to the laws and mores that say they should not engage in prostitution?

 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf

I have seen several African American gentlemen and younger gentlemen who were very classy, upper income, and most importantly willing to comply with my screening process.  Screening is the key, and being willing to say "no" if there are any red flags. Race and age, do not make a person dangerous.  Attitude and consideration go a long way.  

My criteria are simply that I need to establish that someone is who they claim to be (real name, email, phone, verifiable employment, etc. are all helpful here.) and that he is safe to be with...(this is where references come in.)  Exceptions can be made under certain circumstances where there is enough available information for an informed decision.

Talking to someone on the phone does nothing...even serial killers can come across as nice in a phone conversation, and just because they say something does not make it true.  While discretion is important on both sides, WELL REVIEWED ladies have enough information out there for gentlemen to make an intelligent decision and we need the same type of consideration!

your first point was a strong one but then you start talking about race as if that was really the point you wanted to make in the first place

This is why white men cut off the black man's phallus during slavery, and played with them, kept them as keep sakes, and other sick perverted games. I feel sorry for digdirkler, its not his fault, its in his DNA, and burried in his sub-conscious.

Totally agree that statistics apply to groups, not individuals.  There are nice, and or intelligent, and nor gentle people of all sexes and races and ages.  So individual screening is the best method, though only applicable to higher cost providers.

Disagree that talking on the phone tells nothing.  Accent is a reliable indicator of race and class status, with some exceptions.   So if a girl wanted to screen just on race, a phone voice tells her a lot.  Voice is a less reliable indicator of age, but still somewhat useful.   But of course trusting the answer someone gives to a question tells you nothing.  Its like gun control only disarming the law abiding, those questions only screen out the honest, but criminals and trouble makers tend not to be honest.

it's "envies" and "man's"  
Also, it's "the truth", not da trufe
full of profound wisdom and learning this one... must be that powerful phallus.

Instead he chose to attack grammatical errors.. The truth is a mighty sword, and I keep mine sharp on both sides..

Tells us what about you...

END OF MESSAGE

You swinging it both ways, we know.  You just don't want to admit it brotha.  We know, that why you so angry, angry black man in da' house!

Cruz'n Anacostia park with his hands in his pockets, eyes down low, but looking both ways.  Now that is Da TRUFE!

Which you base on a common misuse of statistics - overgeneralization.  The crime stats you provide and your reference to 2012 FBI crime stats does not inform us of anything because these stats are of the overall population, and is not representative of the group that you're attempting to discuss.  The more relevant category would be ppl who engage in person-to-person criminal activity.  I'm pretty confident that the crime rates for that sub-group is likely significantly higher than the overall population, and whether there is a statistically significant decrease in this crime rate if one party limits their person-to-person activity to one racial group is not known and you don't address it.  Comically, the FBI stats you reference show that whites made up the overwhelming number of arrests for rapes and sex offenses (excluding prostitution) for that year, D'oh!  

The same fallacy applies to your statements on STDs, overgeneralization, as well as healthy dose of bad assumptions.  The overall STD stats does not tell us anything because that's not the group you're looking at.  I'm pretty confident that STD rates among ppl who engage in high risk activities, such as hobbying, are higher than the rate for blacks as a whole.  In particular, STD transmission rates among "BP girls" who charge $240/45 min up are probably high regardless of the race of the client.  BP is the bottom of the barrel, and those girls more likely than not have (keeping with your food service analogy) high "table turnover rates."  Lastly, you make the bad assumption that a $240 BP girl does not start off with an STD.

Just lame...

Given the choice, tough shit.  You can argue the statistics back and forth, but reality bears out the truth.

People are tired of your kind of shit bitch complaining.  Go whine to the river, cause the rest of the country is tired of hearing your whining.

Who is the privileged class in this country?  All black schools, NBA is mostly black, where are the Indians, Asians, Hispanics, and all the other minorities.  When YOU say minority, you mean black.

Who gets special treatment all the freaking times, just for bitching.

Girls safety versus your feelings, tough shit brotha.

You just dont get it George.

So the answer to all safety concerns is “just ban Black men.” Right.  

Instead of using what you apparently assume are your impressive powers of persuasion to make a case that ladies should sign up for something like P411 where they could reduce the chances of running into robbers and maniacs of all races, possibly charge more and work less often, be even pickier about their clients, network with other ladies, and possibly deal with even more affluent men, you decide to say, “Hey, just ban Black men — that’ll make everything all right. It’ll still leave you vulnerable to whatever White, Latino, or Asian assholes are out there, but when your family claims your body, at  least they can say you weren’t a n!&&er-lover.”

It’s all about safety, right, not racism? Valuing life. So even though this is a life and death matter, if it takes time and effort to screen, screw it. Just ban Black men and keep it moving. Because at no time in the history of civilization has a White man ever harmed a woman.

http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/19735-cops-release-disturbing-video-of-craigslist-killer-preparing-room-before-murder-of-pregnant-teen

http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/04/01/files_tell_more_about_craigslist_killer/

If they’d only said “No Black men”…

Lots of stupid and racism.

I am not going to knock a gals preferences of who she sees... it is her body... but

I do not agree with it. If you screen properly, there are plenty of good guys of any race. I look at the individual when deciding who to see.

The Black guys I have chosen to see have been just as nice, if not more so, than a white guy.

I just have a no-idiot policy. It's fair to everyone, well except for the idiots lol. I don't really care about their feelers.  

One should be able to see all sorts of good in the world and not be jaded. Not everyone is the same. I don't assume all white guys are serial killers, chomos, or cannibals. Statistics say they are more like to be than any other race.

The thing is, the gals do have a right to deny service as it is our bodies. Some just don't like certain types and it may not even be for racist reasons. Other reasons DO exist. They may not be attracted to a certain race and don't want to give a shit performance for lack of chemistry. I know that this may be rarely true, but I am just saying.

I think a no trash policy works better lol. I don't like seeing younger guys. I do see a few but rarely. I could have a non under 35 policy but I just go by the individual.  

Dcpoorboy, thanks for the sarcasm. White guys can be just as idiotic or crazy as any other race. Depends on the individual.

Your argument is because your feelings are hurt, girls should just take ALL black men. Now that's stupid for a many providers. You should notice that there was a sharp increase in no AA after the girl was murdered in Maryland by who? Oh, yeah.

It's their choice, aren't we all about freedom and choice? You and everybody of your ilk is bitching to make somebody do something they don't want to do. Playing off of 'white; guilt. That's just bullshit. Those days of you shouting louder and louder and gathering all your friends together to shout louder and make people feel bad are coming to an end.

Just stop.  

And I'll ask you like I've asked every single stupid poster like you, how much did you tip the last five girls you've visited?  

Um, yeah, right....his grammar you're worried about.

Everytime you’ve posted on this issue, you’ve been a sweetheart. Insightful, compassionate, balanced. I tell you, if I wasn’t retired (and you toured) you could get me in trouble.

Where in my post did you see me make the claim that these women had to see Black men? I need you to point that out for me.

I’ll give you a challenge. I have posted on this issue several times. Search "No Black men" / "No AA" on this board and the GD board and you’ll see that I’ve said exactly the opposite. Several times. Emphatically. I even have a phrase for it: her body, her person, her rules.

That doesn’t mean her rules won’t be offensive, though. You made some noise about freedom. Well, if she has the freedom to offend me, I have the freedom to take offense. Part of living in a free society is accepting that rights and freedoms clash sometimes. Maybe often. Or do you prefer the days when White people could offend certain folks and they had no choice but to slink off in silence?

I’m not saying you’re a racist, though. But if you’re not a racist, you certainly think like one. You think you know more than you do, you draw gigantic conclusions from almost no information, and you think you can predict behavior based on what you assume is someone’s racial profile.

Which led to you dropping the stinking pile you thought was a gotcha question. Tipping. I shouldn’t even dignify that with a response, but you stepped in it so deep with that one, it’s up to your ankles and seeping into your shoes.

From the day I started this so-called hobby, I have taken care of the ladies I’ve seen even when I didn’t have an appointment with them and some even when I wasn’t seeing them anymore. I have never been chained to the fee-for-service model. Some things a woman gives you you can’t put a price on.

But maybe I’m overreacting. Maybe Alexandra should be thanking you for your sarcasm because you cannot be serious.

Trust any lady who has had the pleasure of spending time with me knows Im not angry, so who cares what you think.Also your park remarks are just stupid, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. I deal in truth and will defend my people from anyone who tries to hurt them, because I love all black people. Who are your people as you are not white? Maybe indian or asian, as you guys got this market cornered, I could be wrong, but most ladies say thats who they see most, and some of the stories, I hear are funny as shit, lol....

Even before I saw Silurifirmes' reply I thought exactly the same thing --- that Tippecanoe was misusing statistics that do not apply to the sub-group of men who see escorts. For example, how many black serial killers do you know? Probably none, because that subgroup is almost exclusively white men. I would imagine the same is true of hobbyists. Economic status and social class are important factors. Screening is the way to go and race is irrelevant. Racists are fond of misusing statistics and with the election of Trump are not ashamed to flaunt their beliefs.

Of course you're not going to 'dignify' my question with a response because "DaTrufe" hurts.

Taking care of 'your' women. How fucking condescending is that.

Poor for a reason, boy.

Add to the list another angry black man and a pain in the ass.  No wonder you're banned.  

Reality hurts, doesn't it.  Enjoy your ban.  

And keep rounding up all your black friends to keep posting and making noise.  Just adds to the reality that you all are just complainers.  No wonder nobody wants to see you except for those that are desperate for money.

So you're disassociating yourself from being white datrufe? You realize you're at leat a quarter white? Makes sense that you're angry because of that white blood in you.  Your great grandpappy was probably from South Carolina.  

You know your mama is a better man than you'll ever be. I hit dat phat juicy ass BBFS, your mama don't discriminate on who she sees so you should be proud of her AA policy.

 
Still no answer on if you were successful in the park, play'a. You find a nice stallion to take care of you?

crickets, because you know its true, play'a.  Your secret is going to come out soon.

-- Modified on 3/1/2017 5:41:09 AM

Keep sucking up to her, maybe she'll give you a discount you cheap ass non-tipping George.

How pathetic, you have to grovel for a discount.  Poor boy indeed.  

Retired, hahahaha.  You mean limp dick and can't afford the blue pill.

-- Modified on 3/1/2017 5:26:02 AM

OP, wherein I say individual screening is the most effective, and that there are good and bad of all races, ages and sexes.  You write an excellent refutation of things nobody said except yourself, but unfortunately having nothing to do whatsoever with the points I made.

Just to be clear, for the logic challenged:  you cannot refute a statistical difference in average risk with an anecdote of individual behavior.  Just because you can find a news story wherein a small, 76 year old Chinese lady killed someone, or where an 18 year old black boyscout saved someone, would not mean that elderly Asian women are just as dangerous as black teenage boys, on average.

All your little insults just display how you have no facts, this is what happens when people have a below average intelligence.

Who are your people, are you digdirkler signed in under another username, lol...

You say that the UCR stats that black men have much higher violent crime rates as a group, cannot support any conclusions about screening out that group for low cost providers (BP girls).   OK, make your case.  

I challenge you to provide documentation proving that your individual screening methods are effective, to the same standard of evidence.  You can't, you just trust it is true because it is a very reasonable extrapolation from what you do know, and I fully agree.  Same for my hypothesis.

For your counter theory to be true, that overall trends for blacks have no bearing for the subset of blacks who patronize "cheap hookers" you need to posit that these men are MUCH less criminal than average black men.  About 1/4 to 1/7 as violently criminal, to be exact.   My theory is that this subset are about the same as black men as a whole.  I think your theory of the massively higher virtue of consumers of low cost illegal sex services is much less plausible, and therefore bears the higher standard of proof.

My theory is like an automobile insurance company believing that if teen boy drivers are much higher risk overall, then teen boy drivers in Arkansas in summer in the suburbs are also high risk.  Yours is that somehow those suburban Arkansan boys of summer are some bizarre exception to the rule, without any evidence that this is so.  

When in doubt, and say your personal safety when locked in a room with a stranger is on the line, believing the general rule rather than very low plausibility exceptions is the way  to go in life.

Your counter theory is that the hobbyist subset of blacks and non blacks could have behavior patterns much different than the population over all.  Or that "person to person" crime rates are much much different than overall crime patterns. Or that the higher risk STD subset of hobbyists are much different in racial distribution than the overall population.

You are correct that my theory doesn't have direct statistics narrowly tailored to it as support, proving it to a scientific certainty.  Neither does your counter theory. Both must rely on more general evidence for which is more plausible. I have the UCR, school discipline rates, observed trends in local reported robberies and assaults on prostitutes, etc. etc etc as inferential support for my theory.  You have none, save reliance that the burden of proof is only on my theory and not yours, because yours is not "racist".  

Well, I believe that following the far more plausible theory, even if not proven beyond a doubt by exhaustive research, is reasonable for someone locked in a room naked with a stranger.  Your approach to proof would allow nobody ever to make any decision discriminating between any two things, Apple vs Android, whatever.

BTW, on the STD thing, we already have a test of your "higher risk subgroups are very different on racial patterns" theory.  Gay men are as a group much higher risk, but CDC reports that, surprise!, gay black men are still even higher risk than gay non-black men.   The pattern holds in the high risk subgroup after all.

GOOD JOB!!!! Actually if they have been reading this thread and the previous they already know my stance, but if you choose to spread the truth, I appreciate it...

what r you girls bickering about...WHO CARES? i learned nothing from reading this. the only thing i learned was that you guys have some tension between each other. just meet up and fight. and let me know where it is so i can watch. DONT POINT OUT MY GRAMMATICAL ERRORS, IDC

Name the cherry picking, or the assumption, specifically, cite data.  I did.  You have not.

- The UCR is a measure of arrests, only, this is true.  But blacks do not SOMETIMES get arrested in much larger numbers (per capita), they ALWAYS DO, year after year, decade after decade, without exception, for all crime types, and the more violent, the larger the difference.
- Also the National Victimization Survey, reporting the race of the perps by victims, independent of arrests, confirms the pattern, except blacks show slightly higher rates relative to non-blacks.  This shows it isn't police arrest practices creating the pattern.   Same pattern year after year.
- Also discipline rates in schools show the identical pattern, year after year.
- this national data is consistent with state level, city level data on relative crime rates by race, just like patterns by ages and sex also hold at different geographic locations and scales.

Together these show blacks commit, on average, more violent crime and behavior...no assumptions needed.  It is indeed an extrapolation that the subset of black men who see cheap hookers would be similar to the pattern for the whole group.  
But, it is the most reasonable inference consistent with the data.

DaTrufe = Mr. Dolezal.  

Hahahahaha

At least it's somewhat entertaining from the usual posts, ads, and shills.

Nothing at the park play'a?  Hitting the airport bathroom stalls now?

You've never answered any of my questions, so we know its "da trufe", play'a. Hanging out at the bathroom stalls at the inner harbor play'a?

Hahahahahaha.

-- Modified on 3/2/2017 3:07:50 AM

you have every right to screen your clients, but maybe there would be less untouchables in the world if we tried to understand why they exist in the first place

-- Modified on 3/2/2017 2:22:14 AM

-- Modified on 3/2/2017 2:24:13 AM

I didn’t think you would.

I got that you said individual screening is best. I also got that you were saying (taking a big shortcut here) the next best thing is banning Black men.

My point was simply that’s not going to keep anyone safe because there are psychos of all races out there.

Safer? Well, banning any race will keep a woman safe because that necessarily shrinks the pool of psychos.

Safer because you think Black men are more likely to be criminals? That’s where you run into trouble.

Because you’re taking national statistics and treating them like they’re indicative of all situations everywhere. That is, you’re taking numbers skewed by a particular group of people in specific locations and saying this tells you something about the behavior of Black people everywhere.

Let me make that more concrete.

If you’re going to go by national statistics, then you need to take some other things into account. Like…

Do these numbers hold up across all socioeconomic strata in all Black communities or are they concentrated within a particular demographic?

 
Are the statistics skewed by location? For example, how do the numbers read when you take places like Chicago and New Orleans out of the equation?

Do the murder numbers reflect individuals killing each other or are these numbers inflated by gang warfare?

And if they are inflated by gang warfare, why would you extrapolate them to mean something about the Black population in general?

And whether they’re gang related or not, why would you think they tell you anything about whether or not escorts are in danger?

 

The link between crime and poverty is consistent across all races in all countries. It’s so old and so obvious that there’s even a saying from Plato that “poverty is the mother of crime.”

So if these murders and robberies are concentrated within a particular demographic (and they are), why not ban men from the corresponding demographic in the White, Asian, and Latino communities, too?

 

 
What you’re doing is like taking the numbers for White people hooked on meth in Harper’s Ferry and saying they tell you something about the drug habits of White people in St. Paul and Bethesda.  

It’s like taking the cast of Duck Dynasty and saying they give you some insight into the life of Paris Hilton.

Do you get that even a little bit? Your conclusions depend on the existence of context-less, theoretical people out there with identical carriage and identical backgrounds and there is no such thing.

I can’t tell if that’s because you’re somewhere on the spectrum and you have a problem conceiving of fully realized people (no insult intended) or because you have a problem conceiving of fully realized Black people period or because you know keeping things generic and context-free allows you to apply the same odds and circumstances to all Black people which allows you to keep it all about race.

Having dealt with you before, I suspect it’s the last one.  

(P.S. for the nuance-challenged, the two anecdotes I submitted were not even hinted to address the statistics but to illustrate one big, gaping hole in the "No Black men" policy. To suggest otherwise is a real example of the straw man strategy.)

If you weren't a broke ass poor boy, maybe you'd have a chance
Keep sucking up to her, maybe she'll give you a discount you cheap ass non-tipping George.  

Tippecanoe, ladies and gentlemen. Keeping the ‘Review classy. This is where things must go when people post racial propaganda.

 
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/name-george-was-racial-slur

(I didn’t have to look that up, by the way. It’s an old slur I’ve heard before. I just included the link so you could see I’m not making it up.)

TER, I wouldn’t argue if you closed this thread, but don’t take it down. Let people see the quality of individuals we’re dealing with here.

So... Where do we go from here? How much worse will we allow it to get?

In answer to your specific objections:

Yes, the racial patterns hold within age, or sex, or geographic, or Socioeconomic subgroups.  In other words, sure middle aged middle class black women in the Atlanta suburbs are much much less likely to commit violent crime than young, poor black men in Chicago.  But they will still reliably and provably have a higher per capita violent crime rate than middle aged, middle class Asian women in the Atlanta suburbs, on average.

So no, it isn't taking West Virginia meth heads and saying all whites are the same as them, nor saying that black Chicago gangs represent the crime rates of all blacks.  But, unfortunately, blacks have RELATIVELY higher violent crime across categories.

The extrapolation is that a currently unmeasured category, Blacks and Non-Blacks Who Patronize Low Cost Prostitutes, will share the same pattern as the heavily measured, well documented categories.   We don't have any good statistics proving that Men in that subgroup, or Youth, or Poor, are more likely to be violent than Women or the Middle Aged or Rich either, but it sure is a good guess.

Low Cost Prostitutes aka BP girls aka "cheap hookers" who don't individually screen and never will, also cannot discriminate using easy, broad categories other than race, which would also be effective screens.

They can't screen out men, because they'd lose 99.99% of their business, or more.
They can't screen by income/ SES, via price point, because then they wouldn't BE low cost prostitutes.
They can't screen by Gang Affiliation because that would require even more research and individual screening than the usual Hi Dollar prostitute screening, if it could be reliably determined at all.

All that are left are Age and Race of the big categories tracked in crime data and easily verified with no research.   Both are large factors, and both will have modest effect on income.

Maybe that makes me stupid?  IDK, probably I was just so bored with what this board had become.  I find the discussion and emotional involvement from so many to be engaging.

-- Modified on 3/2/2017 7:51:04 PM

Girl, I hope you're enjoying the whether here.

-- Modified on 3/2/2017 7:50:43 PM

I threw a lot of stuff out there and I think you actually managed to address none of it.

The central issue was what makes you or anyone else confident that they can take these numbers from FBI Table 43 or any other crime stats and come to some conclusion about the behavior of Black people in general.

One question, the central question, was do these numbers hold up across all socioeconomic strata in Black communities. The answer is no, the rate for crime perpetration and victimization drop precipitously as you move “up” in class.

The numbers are indeed skewed by certain high poverty/high crime areas, so they don’t even give an accurate picture of how people behave in “typical” poor neighborhoods.

So there is absolutely no basis for taking these numbers and claiming they are in any way representative, predictive, or even informative of Black people in general.

I answered this point directly before, but I'll try again.  
My theory which you dispute is that Averages are, roughly average for the group.  Youths of all races or incomes are more violent than the middle aged for those races or incomes, for example.  The greater average violent crime commission of youth is consistent across the distribution.  Same for men.

Your counter theory is that a few hyper criminal poor black neighborhoods skew the averages so greatly they conceal that the rest of the black income spectrum have the same average crime rate as non-blacks.  This has been studied.

(Zaw and Darity 2016)"Using the 1979 cohort of the National Longitudinal Study of Youth to explore the interwoven links between race, wealth and incarceration, this study examines the data on race and wealth status before and after incarceration. Data indicate that although higher levels of wealth were associated with lower rates of incarceration, the likelihood of future incarceration still was higher for blacks at every level of wealth compared to the white likelihood"

Blacks at the highest deciles (70th percentile income level and above) were about 3 times more likely to be imprisoned as whites in the bottom deciles (30th percentile and below).  Blacks in the top 10% were about equal to whites in the bottom 10% in imprisonment rates.

Yes, hi income / class blacks commit much less violent crime than poor blacks, but still significantly higher than other hi income/ class non-blacks.

Predicting your next objection is that you can't use Prison as a proxy for Crime or Violent Crime.  Other studies have found that blacks are not imprisoned at higher rates when the crime being punished is controlled for.  Prison is a decent proxy.

Already addressed your objection otherwise as well.  BP girls can't screen by income/ price/ socio-economic status, or they would not be BP girls. A Tautology.

So, the cohort being compared is all median to low income.   Even if your objection were true that higher income blacks are not more dangerous on average than non-blacks of the same income, it would be irrelevant to the case at hand.

I'm convinced you walked in on your mom getting boned by a couple (or more) black dudes when you were a kid.  Then you were further scarred when she told you it was willing.  I mean, that's all I can think of.  Only some kind of deep, fucked up childhood trauma can explain you being so fixated on this.

I'll add yours to my collection of the bizarre psycho sexual obsessions and insults of deranged liberals who dislike facts.   Like the constant denunciations of that poor dentist/ hunter who shot that lion a year or so ago as having a small penis, it is fascinating that the Left always brings disagreement on any and everything down to some childish sexual theory/ insult.

Hmmm, wonder if there is a psycho sexual theory to be conjured about this obsession / projection by the Left?

Straight clown. Cutting the check is power....Only one owner is black!!!! Why are 96% of publicly traded companies headed by a white CEO!?!?  

This clown bitchin' about workers when whites got ownership....Laaaaame!