Why providers don't see Black Guys

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

As for collecting a judgement, it can be difficult when the defendant has no money, but you could have an eye towards setting a precedent to use against a deeper pocketed foe.

Who? Who is the deep-pocket you are eventually going to get? High-end hookers? Or an agency? There aren't any Exxons or GMs in the hobby and there won't be even if legalized. It is legal in Nevada and they have maybe a half dozen, barely solvent brothels located in the sticks. And that is true also in other countries that have legalized prostitution. Canada? Germany? The Netherlands? Do they have some Fortune 500 brothels I'm not aware of?

You are always going to be chasing individual women to try to collect a judgment. Generally poor, desperate women who just want to be left alone. Do you think you will ever get a legislature in this country to pass laws that will essentially require women to give up control over their own bodies in order not to be sued? What jury that has women on it is ever going to find against a woman in that situation?

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

As to forcing a woman to fuck a injured member of a protected class, of course that wouldn't be required. But you have to differentiate between women who are casually indifferent to multiple sex partners and ply the sex trade, who have sex with 3-4 different whiteys per week, but no blacks - and a woman who dates in the traditional sense and stays with one man. In general, a woman in the sex trade can't credibly claim traumatization from sex with a stranger.

Wow. Holy shit, is that ever a loaded gun.

Talk about self-contradiction. You start out by saying (about forced sex) "...of course that wouldn't be required". However, you then follow with a huge "BUT you have to differentiate..." And EVERYTHING that comes after that essentially says that they WILL be forced to have sex.

You say we "HAVE TO" differentiate between a hooker and a woman who dates "traditionally" with one man? Why? Who says? Because I think the female majority in this country, which has fought for about a century to get control over their own bodies, is going to have something to say about that - namely a big "Fuck you".

And I reject the "straw woman" you set up - comparing a prostitute ONLY to the woman who stays with one man. What about sluts who sleep around, but only in their own race? Can't they be sued even if they fuck for fun, not money?

And then, of course, the coup de grace: "'a woman in the sex trade can't credibly claim traumatization from sex with a stranger". Well. There you have it. A prostitute can't be traumatized if she is raped.

It isn't just "sex with a stranger", is it? We can assume he IS a stranger. That misses the point. It is sex with someone she does NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH. That is the REAL point that you keep eliding. A woman - any woman - can be traumatized if she is forced to have sex with someone against her will. And it does NOT have to be a stranger - a woman can be raped by her husband, ex-boyfriend, co-worker, male relative - you name it.

And if you use the law to force a women to have sex with someone she does not want to have sex with, it is rape. Plain and simple. There is no getting around it with novel interpretations of the 14th Amendment or the Commerce Clause.

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Once paid sex becomes a lawful activity, it becomes a commercial act, and is thus differentiated from private, consensual, non-commercial sex, rendering the comparison with uncompensated dating invalid.

Why is it invalid? Doesn't a women STILL have the right to control her own body even if she wants compensation?

As a side note, there is very little dating that is "uncompensated" - and that includes marriage. As my dad used to say "one way or another you always end up paying for it". Prostitution is just more explicit about the price you pay going in).

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Once paid sex becomes a lawful activity, it becomes a commercial act, and is thus differentiated from private, consensual, non-commercial sex, rendering the comparison with uncompensated dating invalid. I think it would be necessary to write an exemption into the law, given the highly personal nature ... of even commercial sex, to allow blatant discrimination against blacks to appropriately balance the interests of all concerned in the event legalization of commercial sex occurs.

How is it "differentiated"? By mandating forced rape?

And why is an exemption necessary? If all prostitution laws were simple repealed, are you saying that our current civil rights laws mandate - or at least permit - a court to order the forced rape of any prostitute that won't see a particular race, unless those civil rights laws are modified by an exemption?

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Many a current precedent started out a laughable premise.

And a far larger number of laughable premises stayed that way.

Civil law or criminal law - it doesn't matter. If a hooker refuses to have sex with Race X, what do you do? What are your remedies or punishments?

Under criminal law, you can fine her or imprison her. Good luck collecting a fine on 99.9% of the hookers in this country. They know that and they'll just ignore you. They won't even show up in court.

That leaves prison. If a hooker cannot avoid a year in prison except by having sex with someone, is that not rape? If you told a woman (non-hooker) you were going to hold her hostage in your basement for a year, but you'll let her go immediately if she has sex with you, isn't that rape?

Under civil law, you can sue for monetary damages or seek a court order requiring her to do something (i.e., suck your dick).

Sue for damages? If you get a judgment you are in the same boat as the criminal fine. Good luck collecting the judgment.

A court order requiring her to have sex with the plaintiff? What if she says "Fuck off"? Does the judge send the marshalls out to drag her over to the plaintiff house and hold her down while he fuck her?

The fundamental problem is that you start out with an incorrect premise: that once a cash exchange occurs, you can treat paid sex the same way as renting an apartment.

You can't. Doing so necessitates acting as if a woman has not right to choose. That incorrect premise sets up a conflict between a woman's fundamental right to control her own body and anti-discrimination laws.

If I'm wrong, tell me how. Walk me through it step-by-step. I want to know how the law can be used to force an unwilling woman to have sex a man - just because she took money for it from other men.

And while you're at it, throw in a discussion about forced lesbianism. Because if paid sex is a regular commercial transaction that removes a woman's right to control her own body, then if the law won't allow her to discriminate based on race, why would it allow her to discriminate based on gender?

[Jewish Lawyer]

Wow - you New Yorkers are forceful - let me give this a shot.

Collecting judgements - always onerous and frequently fruitless. Of course, you have seen the news reports about the simple AMP's here in Dallas where cash was forfeited to the Feds?

http://www.justice.gov/usao/mow/news2009/xu.sen.htm

She had 60 grand in cash alone seized - not enough to get out of bed for your 40%?

You said, "Talk about self-contradiction. You start out by saying (about forced sex) "...of course that wouldn't be required". However, you then follow with a huge "BUT you have to differentiate..." And EVERYTHING that comes after that essentially says that they WILL be forced to have sex.

You say we "HAVE TO" differentiate between a hooker and a woman who dates "traditionally" with one man? Why? Who says? Because I think the female majority in this country, which has fought for about a century to get control over their own bodies, is going to have something to say about that - namely a big "Fuck you".

And I reject the "straw woman" you set up - comparing a prostitute ONLY to the woman who stays with one man. What about sluts who sleep around, but only in their own race? Can't they be sued even if they fuck for fun, not money?"


Commercial transactions change the nature of the application of discrimination laws - that was my main point. The secondary point is that a jury of self defined virtuous women aren't going to look pityingly upon a women who has had sex with 500 men and listen to her babble on about how horrible it was to have sex with a black man, if he was number 501.

You said, "And why is an exemption necessary? If all prostitution laws were simple repealed, are you saying that our current civil rights laws mandate - or at least permit - a court to order the forced rape of any prostitute that won't see a particular race, unless those civil rights laws are modified by an exemption?"


I do think it brings up a conflict that must be addressed. At the very least, some language needs to be inserted qualifying the woman's right to choose as superseding the protected class and its right to not suffer disproportionately.

You are right, of course, about the difficulty of forcing a woman to have sex. Notwithstanding the fact that if she freely chose to enter into the commercial sex business, she is almost certainly having sex more often and with people she would normally find repulsive, dirty, beneath her, and of a disagreeable lineage, she should still have iron clad guarantees that she is, as the great Milton Friedman said, "Free to Choose."

Right to choose is not really guaranteed in commercial tranactions when you injure a protected class. Can I force a black man to leave the whites only counter in my drugstore soda fountain?
Of course not! It is therefore neccesary to explicitly address the question of whether a professional sex worker may refuse the exact same sex act with a black man if she would perform it with a white man.

My fundamental premise is not that paid sex is the same as renting an apartment, but rather it is different than unpaid sex. Unpaid sex doesn't include paying a woman's dinner bill and hoping for sex. Surely you realize that one must offer to engage, agree to engage, or actually have sexual contact for a consideration, and the consideration must be understood and agreed upon by the parties to the act. While you may well expect that buying a woman a $300 ticket to the showing of "Rent" and dinner at a fancy restaurant entitles you to TUHA, she may see things differently, and in that case, she has a well established expectation of choice by default.

[guest043013-2]

If a frog had wings...

OK, so you guys have stated all of these neat ideas of what could happen if we legalize prostitution and force ladies to have sex with any race? With any guy?

Can she discriminate because the guy is fat? Can a 18 year old licensed prostitute refuse to have sex with a guy old enough to be her grandfather? Great-grandfather? Can a 50 year old prostitute refuse to have sex with a guy who is 18, and younger that her own son?

Is it discrimination if I, as a hobbyist, refuse to pay my money to a BBW? To a TS? To a black/yellow/red/white prostitute? Can I discriminate against a gay mail who is licensed?

Heck, if I only wish to have sex with my SO, can the government force me to have sex with a prostitute, and I don't get free choice to choose who, because it is discrimination for me to only have "free" sex with my SO?

At what point do we say that our rights as individuals are not as important as the rights to free commerce in the area of prostitution? Surely the government would never stop my rights in this area if they legalized prostitution?

Of course, there would be taxes involved in these transactions...

Oh crap, they might just do all of the above. After all, they have passed a tax law that forces one to participate in the health care industry.

Think what they could do if they could (1) legalize prostitution, (2) order all unemployed persons to engage in sex for a fee or be fined, (3) order all persons employed to have sex with prostitutes (both male & female workers) or be fined. Overnight unemployment goes to zero, we shift money from the "rich" workers to the unemployed, and we churn a lot of money in the economy, with taxes collected at each turn.

Would the government be forced to set a minimum wage (rate) for prostitution? Would there be a high roller tax on prostitutes who were able to collect a substantially higher rate for their services? Would the prostitutes and their customers be required to have a minumum number of encounters per week?

You guys go off on your legal mumbo-jumbo fantasy. The absurdity of the picture you begin to paint is wonderful.

[Iaintliein]

Not that any of this has anything to do with the subject of the thread. But why discuss this as a theoretical? Prostitution is legal in some parts of Nevada, what are the rules there?

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Not that any of this has anything to do with the subject of the thread. But why discuss this as a theoretical? Prostitution is legal in some parts of Nevada, what are the rules there?

Someone addressed this on another site, so I copied and pasted his response in green. It appears in the USA, an establishment of over 15 people may not discriminate, but the girls individually can, or do, it seems. One person in the brothel must service blacks - presumably willingly if not enthusiastically. So, the baby has been split.
In Australia, apparently they had the foresight to write a specific right for the girls to deny service to anyone, for any reason - I don't know if that lets the whorehouse off the hook for discrimination against aborigines or not.


"Hamlet
02-03-2004, 11:24 AM
This is a mostly unresearched, uncited speculation on my part, so take it for what's it's worth.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that "[a]ll persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodation of any place of public accommodation ... without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, or national origin.

Title III identifies twelve categories of entities that are defined as public accommodations provided their operations affect commerce. These entities include:
• places of lodging;
• places serving food or drink;
• places of exhibition or entertainment;
• places of public gathering;
• commercial sales or rental establishments;
• service establishments;
• stations used for specified public transportation;
• places of public display or collection;
• places of recreation;
• places of education;
• social service center establishments; and
• places of exercise or recreation.

Now, these sections do not apply to specific people, but rather to businesses that meet certain minimal guidelines, IIRC the place must employ 15 employees.

With these things in mind, I would say that it would be fine for a prostitute to refuse to have sex with a person who they don't wish to. Your average working girl on the street is not bound by the anti-discrimination laws, and should have the choice in who her partner is.

The only time it may become an issue is in Nevada with brothels that have more than (again, don't quote me on this) 15 people. If such a brothel is considered a "service establishment," which I think it would be, it would be considered a violation of the Civil Rights Act for the brothel to refuse to service people on the basis of race (or for that matter, gender, religion, etc.). Thus, it would appear to me, that the brothel must have at least one worker who is willing to service anyone who might be discriminated against.

So, my off the cuff response would be that it is fine and dandy for prostitutes to discriminate on the basis of race, but a large enough brothel cannot."

[txcwby6]

Thus, since woman's body is not "public domain" she not only has the right to be selective (call it whatever you like but it's HER BODY) but also the to ignore anyone and everyone that starts another thread like this.

[Juan Pablo de Marco]

but what about the Motherfucking Green Llama, not to be confused with the Motherfucking Pteradactyl?

http://greenllamamusic.com/

[guest043013-2]

Esteemed Jewish Lawyer,

I suspect that most brothels employ very few people. I bet the ladies are contractors.
Now you get into the IRS defining are they a contractor or an employee. I think it can be argued that if the lady gets to choose who she fucks, whether color, weight, age, or smell, that is enough control over over her own employment to maintain the contractor status and not become an employee of the brothel.

Aren't most strippers treated as contractors? Can see it now, Obama will classify them as employees and force the strip club to supply insurance. Can you imagine the rates an insurance company would quote a strip club for an employee base of mostly child bearing age employed in a dangerous field where many get pregnant, contract STDs, sometimes get shot, and where they have a myriad of mental and health problems, including chemical dependencies? Cover charge just doubled for the SC, expect the clubs % of take from the ladies to go up, and drink charges out of the roof. On the other hand, the number of ladies willing to work the SCs in exchange for insurance coverage will expand.

Curiously, with all of the huffing and puffing about the ladies with NBA policies, do you guys see that in the SCs?

Of course, the next thing would be a survey of ladies with published NBA policies, determine a %, then add in the ladies without published NBA policied but unwritten ones.

Why don't some of you guys with nothing better to do than this jump right on those census numbers?

[Juan Pablo de Marco]

Better Call Saul!

http://www.bettercallsaul.com/

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by tigercat

Esteemed Jewish Lawyer,

I suspect that most brothels employ very few people. I bet the ladies are contractors.
Now you get into the IRS defining are they a contractor or an employee. I think it can be argued that if the lady gets to choose who she fucks, whether color, weight, age, or smell, that is enough control over over her own employment to maintain the contractor status and not become an employee of the brothel.

Aren't most strippers treated as contractors? Can see it now, Obama will classify them as employees and force the strip club to supply insurance. Can you imagine the rates an insurance company would quote a strip club for an employee base of mostly child bearing age employed in a dangerous field where many get pregnant, contract STDs, sometimes get shot, and where they have a myriad of mental and health problems, including chemical dependencies? Cover charge just doubled for the SC, expect the clubs % of take from the ladies to go up, and drink charges out of the roof. On the other hand, the number of ladies willing to work the SCs in exchange for insurance coverage will expand.

Curiously, with all of the huffing and puffing about the ladies with NBA policies, do you guys see that in the SCs?

Of course, the next thing would be a survey of ladies with published NBA policies, determine a %, then add in the ladies without published NBA policied but unwritten ones.

Why don't some of you guys with nothing better to do than this jump right on those census numbers?

TigerCat, I think you are right - strippers usually are contractors. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be much discrimination in lap dances that I have ever seen.
Saul looks like my kinda guy!

[LovingKayla]

Am I the only one that sees the answer here? If she raises her rates, that eliminates 99% of the problems, no matter what they are. If your rates are over 200hr, it doesn't matter what your problems are, they magically go away.

And dharma I told you not to tease the animals. We've still got that guinea pig in a straight jacket.

[David426]

Thanks for the info everyone!

[Dharma]

@Loving Kayla~ Fine. Damnit. I suppose you want the feathers back...

[VIP Mya Michelle]

Women don't want to see black men in this buisness because they have a stigma just like they do in the regular world, simple as that, i know that just because you got a degree and 6 figure or more job all of a sudden blinded you to the prejudice that is still practiced by many americans of all races. It has been taught, through society and i doubt that the sterotypes will ever die. My advice, don't sweat it, there are plenty of providers who will see you and treat you like a king. Be happy you didn't give your money to a prejudice provider anyways. Its 2012 people, the only justification anyone can have now-a-days is to just admit they are prjudice, and basing their decision on these stero-types

1. black men don't have $250+
2. black men are pimps
3. black men will rob you
4. black men will fuck you so hard your pussy falls out and no one else will want it
5. black men hold their cum to prolong intercourse
6. black men simply do not have/cannot learn the hobby ettiquiette
7. some also prejudice white men, don't want to see a provider who see's black men
8. provider had a bad experience with a black man or a friend that did


hope this doesnt make anyone mad, i am not trying to be a bitch about it or sound like however one might take me sounding. i am just laying it out, these are the reasons providers dont see black men. Get used to it.

[Thuck Fat]

I'm just glad to be under Mya.