Why do personal preferences justify labeling someone?

HagPig? Christ. Originally Posted by JennsLolli

Fro goo goo:

Why is a provider who is older than a specific hobbyist prefers a hag?

Why is a provider who is heavier than a specific hobbyist prefers a pig?

Why is a hobbyist who is interested in providers that a specific hobbyist doesn't find appealing a loser, pathetic, or deluded by their ignorance?

Just doin' some word play with goo-goo's premise.

I know. Pussy fascism?!!

Centaur there you go with that R word. It is no different than me not choosing to see a skinny girl. No difference at all.

Centaur there you go with that R word. It is no different than me not choosing to see a skinny girl. No difference at all. Originally Posted by tucson

Not slamming anyone for their preferences. On the contrary, I would encourage anyone to follow their own proclivities. I've seen, reviewed and recommended providers who won't see members of certain races. If I thought it wrong, I wouldn't have seen them. Nonetheless, the unavoidable fact is that it meets one of the two definitions of racism, racial discrimination (the act)...the other being racial prejudice (the belief).

Edited to touch on what TemptationTammie said below this: The whole question does seem sort of pointless to me. Technically it's racism if the basis for discrimination is race (whether it's degrading or not), but any person's just moral right to decide who they want to be intimate with completely trumps anyone else's just moral right not to be decriminated against on any basis whatsoever. In the balancing of equal liberties, one's boudoir and one's body is sovereign territory. To say otherwise is to elevate the liberty of equal opportunity above the liberty of body-sovereignty, which is absurd, IMO.

It is all personal preference.
Racism is when one person starts degrading or putting down another person because of their age, race, size, etc.

The girls in Brazil sound a lot like the Catholic girls I dated in high school.

Seriously though, I agree with some of what 7Dust and Camille mentioned before. I can only speak for me when I say, I hobby because I love the rush it provides and I am not only referring to an orgasm. The rush begins with the hunt to find the Lady who catches my eye at the moment and extends through the preparation and eventually meeting said Lady.

*Sorry if the hunting reference weirded anyone out. I spent an hour with Victoria this afternoon and our conversation ended on firearms.

Now back on topic, I have been obese all my life and I have felt the prejudicial sting that some others have for people like myself. That said, I always bring my size to the attention of a provider when I contact them and so far only one Lady had a problem with my size, but that is another story. If there are prejudices among us then, those who harbor them should count themselves lucky for being SO PERFECT.

As for me. I am a mixed (Pacific Islander&Irish) fat man who loves all the Ladies! Any Ladies out there interested in cuddling with a big fuzzy teddy bear let me know.

Everyone has some sort of bias. That's not going to change. It's human (and in some cases in-human) nature. While I have my own set of criteria, sometimes you don't know until you're in the door as to whether or not you guessed right.

Yup. Sometimes I just have to scratch my head reading some of the reviews, as well as provider ads but it's all good. And that's why we're here. Ironic that a band of "Outlaws" tries to sort out moral ground.

Well, I don't think any of those make sense except for the use of the term racism. By strict definition of racism (discrimination on the basis of race), not seeing a provider or hobbyist on the basis of race is in fact racist. We've been programmed to recoil at the word racist for good reason, and it's seen as an extreme epithet. But I don't personally think preferences for attraction are a bad thing. I certainly don't think the racism of not being intimate with individuals of a particular race is in any way shape or form morally equivalent to racial discrimination for things like jobs or educational opportunities. But in the dictionary sense, it is still racist. I'm okay with acknowledging different categories of racism, and with at least one of them not being a moral affront if logic dictates it isn't. If someone else is not, then they will need to define racism by something other than actions, but I would wonder at any definition of social behavior that didn't take actions into account at least as much as beliefs.

The implication that size is the same kind of trait as race strikes me as dubious at best. Dr. Atkins never turned a minority into a white person, AFAIK. One is self-discipline, the other who conceived you.

As a matter of course, I prefer to identify actions (e.g. that's racist) to labeling people (e.g. you're racist), but I fall into the labeling trap sometimes too. In reality probably no one acts racist all the time, and probably no one is never acts racist. Originally Posted by Centaur

A person who chooses not to see a specific race is not necessarily racist. The denial has to be based on that person believing his or her race is superior than the other. Some ppl may not just be attracted to certain types of ppl.

I certainly don't condone discriminatory policies, but I also don't automatically assume racism if hobbyist or provider discriminates.

A person who chooses not to see a specific race is not necessarily racist. The denial has to be based on that person believing his or her race is superior than the other. Originally Posted by Camille Fox

I guess is depends on whether one believes discrimination must be prejudiced to be racist, or weather discrimination alone can be racist. I can see either use of the word being valid.

A barber might not like cutting the hair of individuals of a particular race, and so refuse to do so. The barber may not consiously think the customer's race makes him inferior to the barber. The barber might genuinely just not like interacting with anyone of that race. I submit that, motives and intentions aside, what the barber is doing is still racist. However, critically, I suspect the barber's liberty in his discretion of who's hair to cut based on their racial traits ought not to trump their liberty to equal service at a barber shop. Whereas I think the liberty to decide who we're intimate with ought, for every one of us, male, female, pro, civvie or otherwise, to trump anyone else's freedom from discrimination.

I am an equal opportunity Monger. I've seen blacks, Asians, Irish, Latinas, Whites...I am making a map of the world and fucking my way around it. Still on bucket list is middle eastern, Icelandic (is that a race or just another form of Caucasian).

What I find is we are more alike than disimilar. Media has put up most of the stereotypes, not upbringing or social interaction.

I guess is depends on whether one believes discrimination must be prejudiced to be racist, or weather discrimination alone can be racist. I can see either use of the word being valid.

A barber might not like cutting the hair of individuals of a particular race, and so refuse to do so. The barber may not consiously think the customer's race makes him inferior to the barber. The barber might genuinely just not like interacting with anyone of that race. I submit that, motives and intentions aside, what the barber is doing is still racist. However, critically, I suspect the barber's liberty in his discretion of who's hair to cut based on their racial traits ought not to trump their liberty to equal service at a barber shop. Whereas I think the liberty to decide who we're intimate with ought, for every one of us, male, female, pro, civvie or otherwise, to trump anyone else's freedom from discrimination. Originally Posted by Centaur

Then said barber should ask himself why he dislikes doing so. If he finds that he just refuses to work with a different race because he thinks he may not be capable of doing a good job with a different race's hair, then the answer simply lays on his lack of skills. If he finds that his dislike is because it really evokes negative feelings towards the race in general, then there you go, I call it racism.

The sad thing is that, most ppl that find themselves isolated from different races miss out on great ppl. Great ppl come in all shapes, races, etc.

What I find is we are more alike than disimilar. Media has put up most of the stereotypes, not upbringing or social interaction. Originally Posted by Toyz

It may be a wholly contrived concept to begin with...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evoluti...ace-exist.html

My guess is that the racial grouping of phenotypic characteristics falls along a variety of intersecting continua and that, if there is such a thing as race, it has no definite boundaries. If where the boundaries are drawn is a social convention, then race exists purely as a social division and not as a genetic one. However, I'd guess that certain physical traits (from the superficial to things like Tay-Sachs disease) disproportionately occur within certain ethnic communities due to the resistance to miscegenation resultng from those social pressures (both from within and without communities).

Disclaimer: I'm not a biologist and I'm only speculating.

The sad thing is that, most ppl that find themselves isolated from different races miss out on great ppl. Great ppl come in all shapes, races, etc. Originally Posted by Camille Fox

I couldn't agree more

I'll also add that in the final analysis, it doesn't really matter what I think of it for anyone other than myself. The only person morally accountable to me is me.

Not slamming anyone for their preferences. On the contrary, I would encourage anyone to follow their own proclivities. I've seen, reviewed and recommended providers who won't see members of certain races. If I thought it wrong, I wouldn't have seen them. Nonetheless, the unavoidable fact is that it meets one of the two definitions of racism, racial discrimination (the act)...the other being racial prejudice (the belief).

Edited to touch on what TemptationTammie said below this: The whole question does seem sort of pointless to me. Technically it's racism if the basis for discrimination is race (whether it's degrading or not), but any person's just moral right to decide who they want to be intimate with completely trumps anyone else's just moral right not to be decriminated against on any basis whatsoever. In the balancing of equal liberties, one's boudoir and one's body is sovereign territory. To say otherwise is to elevate the liberty of equal opportunity above the liberty of body-sovereignty, which is absurd, IMO. Originally Posted by Centaur

I wanted to avoid this round of Whispers bait, but Centaur I hope I can help widen your perception.

racism

noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

I know you are one to split hairs from time to time, but having a preference isn't the same as a prejudice or discrimination.

With ample options and limited funds, we are going to spend the money where we most desire it first.

I'll use myself as a lighthearted example: I don't feel all that comfortable around short women. I'm tall and I don't like the feeling that I am overpowering or overwhelming a woman. So 90% of my funds have ben spent on the 5'10"+ category I am not a heightist I have seen short women in part to examine why I feel like I do, nothing went wrong, I didn't freak out have a Nam flashback and kill her in a blind rage. However, my preference still lies with the tall women.

Why do you guys get so caught up in what a book says and quote it as if its the only TRUE truth?

I'm not being smart assed, but does pulling up Wikipedia somehow make you think you can look inside someone's soul & know how they feel at that moment? YOU ARE THIS BECAUSE THIS IS THE DEFINITION I FOUND WRITTEN IN THE HOLY FUNK AND WAGNALLS DICTIONARY. Are people in your worlds always bound by what reference you can find to label them?

Just wondering...and notice I didn't aim this at anyone in particular just as an open comment...drop the dictionary & realize you can't possibly know much of ANYTHING about anyone based off of what they write on a hooker board! Its absolutely MIND BOTTLING to me that people think in this manner.

Tammie you and I have met at socials did I appear to be racist? I like all women and get along with every one. Come to think of it I have tagged and branded several women of color.