Disclaimer,  
 
It’s simply a statement of what the research reveals.   Just the facts, no subjective comment or accusation(s).  
   
DOES NOT repeat DOES NOT assume that everyone listed here is a potential hater, a potential self-hater, or doesn't have black best friends.  
   
That's not the point of the post, it's here to give you the information you need to make a good choice and have a good time.  
 

 

 

Chyna/Veronica/Olivia
Ad:
http://washingtondc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/incall-80-specials-young-horny-brazil-bombshell-upscale-gentleman-provider/16888367
http://washingtondc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/ultimate-experience-exotic-slender-latina-mix-goddess-reviewed/16829322
Research: http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?id=259697

 

 
Kamille
Ad:  
http://washingtondc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/smoking-hot-cajun-g0ddess/12912295
Research:
https://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?id=129524

 

Alani
Ad:  
http://washingtondc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/100-real-pictures-gentlemens-1-choice/17305106
Research:  
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?id=267885

 

 
Nikki  
Ad:
http://washingtondc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/new-usc-unrushed-pure-beauty-swet-and-rad-hghl-klld/16932938
Research:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?id=269537

 

Kacie
Ad:
http://washingtondc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/b-l-o-n-d-e-j-u-i-c-y-s-n-o-w-b-u-n-n-y/16676302
Research:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?id=270971

 

Skittle Girl / Sophia / Sofi
Ad:
http://washingtondc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/gorgeous-latina-in-town-hot-princess-sexy-and-curvy-ready-to-play100-hh-special-last-day-here/10623851
Research:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?id=22761

estiny:
http://washingtondc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/mixed-latina-tightandcreamy-extremely-addictive/16371604
Research:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?id=246758

 

Nicki
Ad:
http://washingtondc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/your-favorite-freak-is-back-new-hair-you-wont-regret-it/13904088
Research:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?id=248751

 

Nikki / Kendall
Ad:
http://washingtondc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/s-gslippery-tightknky-blonde-ready-100-exotic-treat-the-snow-is-clear-and-im-here/13714620
Research:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?id=268612

 

Nicole
Ad:
http://washingtondc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/specials-6090160-runtt-uty-g2/17240882
Research:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=17608&boardID=102&page=7

 

Melanie
Ad:
http://washingtondc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/melanie-your-sensual-blonde-girl-now-reviewed-new-number-305-306-5853/16998648
Research:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?id=268118

 

London
Ad:
http://washingtondc.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/beautiful-blondesnowday-fun-naughty-and-playful/16408484
Research:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/show.asp?id=270145

 

 

 
Last thread I'm starting for a while....I'm falling back for a minute. I addressed what I wanted to address, planted the seeds I wanted to plant, and replied to what was needed heavily the last 6months. Couple more replies and a couple more back channels mails to get to and you all can have the boards back.  

Gimme couple months, shit, I might just sneak in
A couple words and like peaches and herb
We'll be reunited and it feels so good..

Most of the ads you listed or provided are " Clearance Rack or Bottom Shelf " ladies. Black or White...either way I don't shop off the Clearance Rack at the Goodwill so it really doesn't matter what their preference is. What matters is what is our preference.

END OF MESSAGE

 
Thanks, bruh! Just pushing the convos, addressing elephant in the rooms, addressing social issues, and addressing some of the mental aspects of the game. I post to spark thought and make people look a little deeper even if feathers are ruffled.

 
Just addressing the issue in the wild. These are ladies that reflect society on our most basic level....so it explains the views and bias LE has towards blacks. These ladies grew up in communities that produced such thoughts which get played out in ferguson.  

What are new laws to combat ism when the social aspect is still off!!!

I've had some great experiences with black men under 40!! Ive been a provider off and on since 2012 and still don't fully understand this logic. I don't like to put everyone in the same category because we're all different. Can someone explain to me why black men under 40 get the short end of the stick.

There are a few problems and this cuts across all races.  

One problem is media pollution. The prevailing image of the Black man under 40 is negative. Guys under arrest on the news, "street toughs" in movies, lower middle class guys who witnessed one drug deal in their lives portraying themselves as "rock slingers" in videos and interviews, making it rain in strip clubs, and bragging about their drug-dealing past for street cred.

Another problem is minorities aren't allowed to be individuals. If a White guy is an asshole, it's "he's an asshole." If a Black guy is an asshole, it's "those Blacks." If one 25 year old Black guy robs a provider, that turns into "I don't see Black guys under 40." Because all (fill in the blank minorities) are the same, one (fill in the blank minority) screwed me over, thus I don't deal with the (fill in the blank minority).  

Again, this cuts across all races when it comes to minorities, even within one's own group. Internal racism is real and it's powerful.

Another problem is exposure. If enough of the young Black guys a provider knows (possibly from her neighborhood) are misogynistic, violent, and criminal-minded, you might end up seeing a young Black provider saying "I won't see Black men under 35." (And if you're not a young Black provider, but all you know of young Black men is what you see in the media... see problem one.)

The truth is, of course, not all young Black men are like this. And disrespectful, criminal behavior isn't the exclusive province of young Black men. Reading some of the hostility on review boards is enough to tell you that. Let alone real-world evidence.

As I've said before in this forum, a "no disrespectful men" warning might be as meaningless as a "no LE" warning, but at least it leaves the door open for the young Black attorney, the young Black doctor, the young Black IT guy with deep pockets and no ill intent to come in.

Well done.

Doesn't solve the issue, but is a good explanation and perspective.

Thanks, Guarddog. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is a solution. Not short term. It’s the ladies’ bodies and persons and they should feel no compulsion to share themselves with somebody they don’t want to see. And I certainly don’t want guys to boycott these ladies, either. Bigots have to eat, too.  

The closest we can come to a solution is quitting this idea that it’s a matter of preference. Preference makes it sound like it’s within the realm of normal, non-judgmental choices.  

I’ll give you a real world example of how preference is different from bigotry. There’s a porn star named Arianna Jollee who said she’s not attracted to Black guys. Nothing insulting there, we’re all probably genetically encoded/neurologically hard-wired to prefer our own races. Yet, I’ve seen her in scenes with Black guys, squirting her little heart away. We aren’t her preference, but she didn’t think it repulsive to do scenes with us.

There’s another porn star named Kelsey Michaels who said she refuses to even do a scene with a Black guy (think she’s from the South). I saw her in an anal scene where she is crying because it hurt so bad. Not weeping. Not sniffling. Mascara running, almost wailing, crying. It’s heartbreaking. Really cooled me off on porn. I have no idea why the studio even released it. Yet that horrible, painful experience is less disgusting to her than doing any scene with any Black man at any time. No matter how gentle he might be. Because there’s something inherently foul about Blackness that she wants no part of. That, my friend, is bigotry.

I don’t want ladies to have sex with anybody they find disgusting or even unappealing. I don’t want to have sex with or give my hard-earned money to somebody who doesn’t think I’m human, no matter how hot she is. I don’t want guys to boycott them. I don’t want guys jeopardizing their good time with their ATF by calling her on her racism or anything like that.

What I do want is for guys to stop defending bigotry as "preference." Because if mongers normalize it here, they’re going to take that same approach into boardrooms, courtrooms, garages, or wherever the mongers here work. That’s the only solution I see. I’m off the soapbox now.


-- Modified on 3/8/2015 1:32:20 PM

Excellent post! This is a forum...all be it small. But I like the uneasy to be discussed here and there! But "autonomy of body" will always be the answer from those ladies.  

Things do change if the privilege boycott them based on ads containing such speech...and boycott her denying blacks based on legitment word from hobbyist. A lot of Bros are selfish because it is tolerated...more seeds planted!

Powerful! Guess not everyone is uncomfortable with some of my social/deeper-meaning post. I like bringing up non daily topics here and there.

And I understand what you're saying or what society says......but I would think in a community such as this people would be more open. Being a young black woman in this area, I'm well aware that there are great....educated...generous....kind black men under 40, so it's only right to assume there are some in the hobby. I mean look at the area we're in.....that speaks for itself. I would think I might be missing out on something by shunning every black man under under 40.

One motive that has been overlooked is that the phrase "no black men.." adds a level of exclusiveness to the providers goods, a,  "I'm a $80 whore but at least I don't do niggers" or "BBC hasn't gapped my ass" sort of appeal.

I completely agree that there is a huge difference between preference and prejudice, and I think you did a really good job of explaining the differences and why one is valid and one is... Well, just kinda sad.  

My "preference" is decent guys, so that is who I will see. Just before I continue, I've never turned a guy down for his race. Just want to make that clear.  

However, I will not see some decent guys. Why? Maybe they remind me of a family member, maybe they live in the same area I do, maybe they even go to school with me... Another example would be (sorry if it's already been mentioned but I'm pretty sure it was brought up in a K-girl discussion) the way some cultures are very tightly knit, so ladies won't see guys they may run into. That is not a prejudice, and that is the only reason I am "ok" with ladies being able to say no to someone based on something as blanket and non-indicative of anything as race. Even if yeah, they might be racist, they also may have a good reason. Just like there are some guys who are jerks, there are some ladies too, but I try not to apply that to everyone. Whether I like it or agree with people's decisions, I still believe each of us has control only over ourselves, and only she knows why she's willing to turn down an entire segment of the market.  

So, what do "we" do? I think you're right... It's not going to be fixed by shaming anyone, or starting an "us vs them" situation. That's only going to make it worse. I mean, even I can understand the psychology behind "see, this is why I don't see black guys, they think I shouldn't be allowed to say no.", even if I don't understand how you get to the place where you would turn down an entire population, regardless of anything but color unless it was in line with something like the above. So what do we do? My best guess is that we are just going to have to wait for some people to catch up... Sometimes progress is frustratingly slow...

Glad to see some level headed discussion of this! It usually doesn't go so well.

 

...I bet my life savings some do not PASS UP DRAKE, LIL WAYNE, JAY-Z (over 40, but still), LEBRON JAMES, CAM NEWTON if they showed up at the damn door!!!!! lol.  

it's those same verified black men that Hugh Hefner used to invite to the playboy mansion in the 1960's that "they" would see w/o issue as they were mesmerized....they just hated the common/unknown brotha, haha.

Great post!  

I'm just sparking discussion and digging into the pysche to get to some root issues...hopefully to figure out the truths/principles of the hobby.  

-- Modified on 3/8/2015 5:05:45 PM

You asking all these questions about racism proves to me that you don't have a clue about the subject or how deep some racism runs.

There are women in this country who would not see ANY black man for ANY amount of money, it's not a pretty thought, but it's true.

BTW, I agree with the consensus here, you are an idiot. Have a nice day.

FWIW guarddog makes more sense in just a few short sentences than you do with all the thousands of words that you have subjected us to.  Maybe it's because he is black, not a thug, and not an idiot. Unfortunately you fail on two out of three.

END OF MESSAGE

All these posts try to refute screening by race because not all black men are criminal or infected with STD's.  OK, granted.  That would be true if only 99.9% of black men were criminals, would screening by race then still be irrational or wrong?  OK, not all men have STD's, in fact only a small minority do, so providers shouldn't be bigoted and require condoms, right? Not every ejaculation causes a pregnancy, so providers shouldn't use birth control, right?

The fact is most men are not criminals, but men on average pose a risk and ladies have a rational and moral motive to screen.  Not all black men are criminals, but they are FAR more likely to be than any other group.  If a lady wants to cut her risk by 88% without any significant change to her screening regimen, then all she need do is exclude black men.

Does that penalize nice black men? Yes.  Does their right to equal access to illegal pussy out weigh a lady's right to freedom from rape and robbery?  No.

Discrimination is making distinctions in the original sense.  We were taught that discriminating by race was wrong because it was irrational, color was only skin deep.  But that isn't true, and these ladies are making rational discriminations, as all ladies who screen in any way are doing.

And I’m back on the soapbox. I would have replied sooner, but I was watching “Jane the Virgin.”

Before we get to the facts, let’s take on your assertions. I don’t know how you got your 88% figure, but it seems to be implying that 88% of criminals are Black. If the pool of criminals is 100 people and eliminating Black men as criminals reduces the risk of encountering a criminal by 88%, then the idea must be that 88% of the people in the criminal pool are Black.  

Let me introduce you to the famous but obviously not famous enough FBI Table 43. Criminals and arrests broken down by race. There are twice as many White criminals in America as Black.  

(Don’t click this: it would probably be better to copy and paste this than to link to it directly from TER. Just sayin’.)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43

You can check the table for years that pre-date Eric Holder and they all say the same thing: most of the criminals in America are White. Roughly 68 to 70%. So, by your logic, it would make more sense to have a no White guys policy, right?

Because when you say “criminal,” the numbers say you’re probably talking about a White person. A 70% chance in fact. So, ladies, your new policy should be “No White men.

The Ferguson Effect

Let’s throw in some more facts that show there are waaaay more White criminals in America than Black and that providers are more in danger from White guys than Black guys. Some of it will be anecdotal.

There are more White guys hobbying than Black. Some of that’s cultural, some of that’s economics. Even Black providers say they see more White guys than Black. There’s a discussion on interracial interactions on the GD board where a few sisters say it and the sisters I’ve seen, where the subject has come up, tell me they see more White guys than Black guys.

So the chances of a lady seeing a Black criminal would go down by a some percentage points while the chance of her seeing a White criminal would go up by a some percentage points just by the fact that the clientele in this world skews more White than the general population.

I’ll give you something less anecdotal that will skew the numbers even more. Black neighborhoods are more heavily policed than White neighborhoods, so the numbers in FBI Table 43 will show more Black arrests than they would otherwise. Kind of hard to find a White criminal if you’re not even looking for one. Or to put it another way, if the security guard is following the Black shopper with cash in his hands, the White shoplifter is free to rob the store blind.

I’ll connect that to the real world so you can better see what I’m saying. Ferguson, Missouri. The DOJ just completed a review of Ferguson’s police practices. Let’s look at one thing they found (among other things). Ferguson police were twice as likely to stop and search Black drivers as Whites. Guess what else, though? They found 26% more contraband on the White people they stopped than they found on the Black people.

To give you a clearer picture of what this means, picture this. If they stopped and searched 200 Black people and 100 White people, they found 26% MORE contraband on the 100 White people, HALF the sample size of Blacks, as they found on the Black people. I’ll say it again. They found 26% more contraband on half as many people. I'll beat the horse some more: this 100 people had contraband on them as often as a group TWICE their size PLUS 26% more. So this group of 100 is more criminal minded than the larger group of 200 right? There should be more of a focus on them, don’t you think?

Did this change their policing practices? Did this change their view that 88% of Black people are criminals? Or did they continue to stop and search twice as many Black people as they did White people? You know what the answer is.  

Because racism and reality are mutually exclusive terms. Nothing has the power to erase facts like racism. If a bunch of racists read FBI Table 43 tonight, I’d bet you half of them will have erased every single number from their mind by Friday night. The other half will hang their hat on “disproportionate” and mumble “Uh, told you so?”

The numbers on White criminals and Black criminals would show even more White criminality if police didn’t make the Giuliani-esque assupmption that Black people are committing all the crimes and devoted some of their fervor to non-Black neighborhoods. So providers have a much greater chance of seeing a White rapist and/or a White thief than they do a Black one. So “No White men,” ladies. “No White men.”


-- Modified on 3/9/2015 11:34:31 PM

Wow, you really have trouble with statistics.  Are you REALLY trying to use those stats you cite to show whites are higher risk than blacks?  Here, I can help.

OK, your fist error is that you are mistaking aggregate and per capita rates of crime.  Whites outnumber blacks by 5.6 to 1 (2010 census)http://www.census.gov/2010census/data
So, if the per capita rate of crime by race was the same, which is to say the RISK of any individual man, on average, was the same for all races, then we would expect the White percentile to be 5.6 x the black one.  BUT, the white total percentage of crimes is only 2.4 x the black rate... hmm, so by your statistic, the RISK of any individual black being a criminal is higher.  hmmm

But, that's all crime.  Let's look at violent crime.  Here Whites average 54%, and Blacks 43%.  How about murder and robbery, which have the most accurate reporting? Whites 44%, Blacks 54%.  

But wait.  That FBI table and the Census conflates Whites and Latinos together racially, but other data, such as imprisonment figures and school discipline figures, and victim surveys show Latinos commit crime at about 2.5x the non-latino White rate.   So, about 42% of "white" crimes are committed by Latinos.  

So, only 25.4% of violent crime(M&R) is committed by non-latino Whites, who are 56% of the population, and 54% of violent crime is committed by blacks who are only 12% of the population.  In other words, Blacks commit murder and robbery combined at 9.96 x the White rate.

So, the risk of violent crime of any individual black is 9.96 x the risk of any individual white, on average.  Blacks are per capita 8.7 times the risk of anyone of any other race.

Let me then rephrase my original more precisely.  A lady, to lower her risk per customer of being Murdered or Robbed, can reduce that risk by 89.6% by excluding all black men (89.6% = per capita black rate / total per capita rate all races).  If a woman saw men strictly at population demographic ratios, then she would only reduce her total risk of murder and robbery by 54.3% by excluding all black men, only 12% of her customer base.  Her remaining non-black customers, 88% of her income, would present a total risk to her of only 45.7% of her risk if she saw all races proportionately.

Conclusion, screening by race is a rational and effective way to heavily reduce the risk of violent crime while modestly reducing the loss of income.   Individual screening could be more effective, but racial screeing is still effective and rational.

OK, lets try again.
First nobody is saying that 88% of black are criminals. Please lets try rudimentary math and reading comprehension skills.   Please do lets consult the numbers... your problem is, they don't say what you think they say.  Ferguson's differential arrest rate, for instance, almost perfectly mirrors the differential crime rates shown in your FBI table, adjusted for Ferguson's high number of blacks.

You do have a partial point.  A lady reduces her total risk of robbery and murder by 89% by excluding blacks only if she saw black and whites in equal numbers.   So there being more whites in the hobby has an effect.  BUT, if the ratio of black customers only equaled the ratio of blacks in the entire population (12%) a lady would STILL reduce her risk by 54.3% by avoiding blacks only.

Also, your contraband during search Ferguson stat, though incorrectly understood by you, does indicate that if the vehicular stop is for purpose of finding contraband, then blacks are being stopped at too high a rate.  

But, let's look at victim surveys, which are considered a check on the arrest rates and police bias.  Victims of all races report the race of their assailant at roughly the same ratio as the arrest and imprisonment rates.  The massive disproportion of black crime is a fact, not an artifact of police behavior.  

Let's look at murder, the single most reliable stat, because it has an almost 100% reporting rate (police can't ignore a corpse).  Most murder is intra-racial. Which race has the highest homicide rate by far?  Blacks, because they murder at far higher rates.  Again, your FBI numbers.. Blacks Committ a Majority of All Murders, Though Only 12% of Population.

Again... Do You Honestly Believe Blacks Commit Less Crime Per Capita Than Whites? (or any other race?).  Quick, name 5 Rappers who have been shot or arrested for shooting somebody.  Quick, name 5 (or 23 by population proportion) White musicians of any kind that have.  OK, John Lennon, and not because he hung out in a criminal milieu.  Come on, seriously?

I'll end with an anecdote, a quote, from somebody you probably respect, Jesse Jackson:
“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.

I could care less if a lady does not see AA.  As I've noted in threads before I appreciate it that ladies communicate and make it plain that they don't see AA.  It saves me time and effort and I simply say next!!!  Tooo many ladies who do and will see AA to worry/fret/feel insulted over it.  I don't want to see anyone who does not want to see me!!!!!  I want a genuine experience.

I do observe and apporve of the trend in ladies noting they only see AA of a certain age.  I know it does not help those who don't make the age cut but it's "progress.

OK, I’ll simplify for statistical understanding, and switch places for empathy with the lady’s plight, though remain accurate numerically to those FBI stats.  Lets switch the places of hobbiests and providers, and made the risk not murder but STD’s.  Let’s get rid of black, white, latino, asian and just have Provider women of an alien race- Sneeches with Stars, and Sneeches without Stars.  Let’s say instead of murder we have HIV, instead of lesser crimes we have all other curable STD’s (and its planet BareBack, no cheating to get out of risk!).

So, there are 100 ads on Backpage.  12 ads are by lady Sneeches with Stars, 88 by No Star Sneeches.

The 12 Star Sneeches are known, as a group, to have caused 5 cases of HIV, and a total of 28 cases of other STD’s.
The 88 No Stars are known, as a group, to have also caused 5 cases of HIV, and a total of 72 cases of other STD’s.
You are super horny and wish to see 2 girls today (no cheating, you can’t decide not to see a Sneech at all).
You don’t know the individual STD rates for any Sneech, just their Sneech group.

Which Sneeches would you call, to risk your vulnerable bare wiener with?
Call 2 of the No Stars, the 88:72 STD ratio and 88:5 HIV ratio group?
Call 2 of the With Stars, the 12:28 STD and 12:5 HIV ratio group?
One of each, or random?

You are free to call randomly, to avoid dissing any STD free Sneeches solely because of their Star Status, and accept greater risk of disease or death.  Or you could go to lots more trouble to request testing info to avoid Star based discrimination.
But if you wanted to maximize your chance of health, without lots more trouble…

You would choose the No Stars to put your vulnerable bare wiener inside of.  Obviously.

So, why resent so terribly the woman who wants to similarly reduce her risk of violence or violent death, the risk when she locks herself bare inside of a hotel room with a strange man

END OF MESSAGE

I knew better, but I took the bait anyway. Shame on me.

First, I left out the per capita/disproportionate issue to see if someone would bring it up. Because that usually tells me where a person is coming from.

Second, your numbers are gobbledygook. Maybe in Sneech World 25% and 54% have some kind of 9.96 relationship to each other, but in this world… It’s like you’re mixing and matching figures and hoping something sticks.

Third, you’re taking figures which for the most part represent Black on Black crime and trying to use them as a predictor for crimes committed by Blacks in the outside world. They’re two totally different phenomena. I feel safe saying it’s beyond both our skill levels to make that extrapolation.  

In this light, Black providers probably have more standing saying “No Black men/No Black men under 35” than providers of other races, ironically enough.

Fourth, even with your 42%-of-crimes-ascribed-to-Whites-are-actually-committed-by-Latinos, that still leaves Whites committing more crimes than Blacks. We just don’t have the numbers to “keep up,” so to speak. With Whites outnumbering Blacks 5 to 1 (you did get that right), there are more White criminals than Black criminals in America.

So what you’re left with (taking a shortcut here, a big one) is asserting that race is an accurate predictor of a person’s behavior. If you can’t see that that is the essential definition of racism, we’ve got nothing to talk about

You didn’t say a single thing to refute my point: the numbers on White crimes and criminals will of course skew lower if police forces are devoting the bulk of their resources to “keeping the Blacks under control.”  

Or to put it in the form of a question, how many more White criminals would Ferguson police catch if they hadn’t already made up their minds that Blacks are the ones they have to watch? According to their own reports, maybe twice as many?

Your comment on the rappers… I hope you see that, again, you’ve provided one of the working definitions of racism. Or as somebody said before, “minorities aren’t individuals.” You’re going to take this one group, this one, tiny, tiny sliver of the Black population and try to say they’re somehow illustrative of Black behavior? You really think you’re getting an apples to apples comparison just because you used the word “musician?” You’re kicking the ball in your own goal.  

Also, I hope you won’t take offense if I believe the DOJ understands their own report better than you do

As a man who appreciates analogies, I applaud your effort. But it doesn’t work for me. The more tortured the analogy, the weaker the point. For one thing, I dispute what is “known” in the real world, the non-Sneech world. For another, it has the same flaw as the rest of your arguments: you, like the providers, are using race as a predictor of behavior over something far more reliable like demeanor. Or outlook. Or energy. Or even to be biased and classist, speech.

The only way you or anybody else could justify using race alone as a predictor is if you believe all members of a particular race are essentially the same. If one of them did it, that means the other nine will do it, too. Or, again, “minorities aren’t individuals.”

We’re done, dig. I’m sure in your mind, you’re not racist. Feel free to pull some more stuff out of The Eugenics Handbook if you want, but I can’t read them. I’ve spent too much time and energy on this already

I was trying not to be classist, so I didn’t fully connect the dots.

Most people who commit violent crimes have a lot of things in common that don’t include race. Socioeconomic status, education, occupation, or more exactly, the lack of an occupation or the lack of one with an upside. These things hold true for the White robber, the Latin robber, the Asian robber, the Black robber, and on and on. It would be highly unusual for a CPA to come home after 8 hours of work and go out pistol-whipping people. Same for an HVAC technician or teacher or even the office mail clerk.  

To ignore that is to, in essence, deny that there are Black accountants or Latin lawyers or Latin doctors or Black administrators. Or that there just aren't enough of us to even bother to account for. (Or worse, to imply even when dey gots it good, dem blacks cain’t hep stealin’ and robbin’.)

The only way to “screen” for that is to actually engage the person. And even then you’d have to make some big, big assumptions based on things like diction, vocabulary, dress… the “class” indicators. And hope they're not good con men.

(Rape, unfortunately, is an equal opportunity abomination.)

In a race-based society, it’s more comforting to try to make race the secret ingredient

You're porn star example does little to illustrate your point, IMHO.  Whether the lady in question is not "attracted" to black guys or is simply a racists the point is moot.  I don't want to fuck her if she does not want to fuck me....for whatever reason/s.

Per my criteria and the goal of the hobby, again I dont want to be with anyone who does not want to be with me regardless of the reason/s.  So for Arianna, if she were a provider, I doubt she would even note who she is  "attracted" or not attracted to as long as she is getting paid.  Hence, I would suspect she would not show any "discomfront" while I pound her and she would be "civil" and provide the fantasy during our time together which is all I care about.

Now to transfer this "thinking" (who a girl allows to fuck her for whatever reasons) to the "boardrooms, courtrooms, garages," etc..  Is a big leap.  Typically, the racists in these environments are white males and the effort they exert to be racist is much less than BBBJ, DATY, CG, etc..  So comparing the two does real racism an "injustice," if I'm allowed to use that term.  Hell, all I need to do is a get a minor moving violation and the judge in the courtroom can be all the racists he wants to be with the stroke of a pen and a 5 minute conversation

Very much appreciate the homework....  Thanks...