Why providers don't see Black Guys

I don't give a fuck if you are from Tonga, The Balken Islands, Antartica or Kenya. If you are respectful, clean and you pay, then it's all good in my book. I situationally discriminate, not generally discriminate. To each his own, but I like a little variety in my life. Taste the motherfucking rainbow!!!

"Situational discrimination". I LOVE that phrase. And who in the world isn't guilty of that?

Awe come on, where's your sense of fair play? The OP asked a question and we should answer it. So, here it goes:

It's because Black men beat up the pussy, steal from the pussy, try to recruit the owner of the pussy. It's because it's the provider's choice to be ignorant and exclusionary. It's because they had bad experiences. Take me for example, I hate llamas. Mind you, a llama bit my sister once. Therefore, I don't care for llamas and I don't apologize for it.

The other 90% of providers either don't have a problem with it and will see you or there are a few that say they will but are magically booked whenever you call for an appointment. Some won't admit they see black men because some clients will then not ever want to see said provider. Occasionally, someone will get really bent out of shape one way or the other and points are issued. The rest is a historical debate, some finger pointing, self defense, denial and eventually, the thread is either locked or combined with the other threads like it, without resolution.

In truth, this is a subject that has merit. But as long as there are two sides to this story, there won't ever be resolution. The only logical answer is to see the providers who have no problem with a client based on their ethnicity. Don't argue with the ones who don't want to see men of a darker color because you'll only increase your frustration. I don't get upset when a client doesn't want to see me because I'm 47 and a bigger woman. I just happily see the ones that want to see me. Play some ball and have some fun!

If all the bases have been covered, can this be closed? Originally Posted by Dharma

LOL

I think you could easily make the "disparate impact" argument to prove discrimination, thus negating the need to prove individual discrimination. Let's just say that the business had a written policy outlawing discrimination, but that the impact of their actions created an environment conducive to discrimination against African Americans, even by just a few of their practitioners. As a protected class, if they (African-Americans) can't get pussy like the rest of us whiteys, they could sue the business.
American Airlines got sued because a few mechanics (out of hundreds) harassed a black guy and hung a rope (with a noose) from the guys locker. In spite of policies and training classes, they still had to pay out money. So I maintain legalization would benefit protected classes in their procurement of pussy. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Uh, no.

Why would legalization make a difference? All that means is you won't prosecute a prostitute for having sex for money. There is nothing that would prevent the state or feds from charging a hooker with racial discrimination right NOW. That would be an extra charge on top of the prostitution charge.

And why is it necessary for money to be involved to support discrimination? Why can't they prosecute ANY woman who doesn't date outside her race? It's still discrimination causing harm to a protected class.

I don't know why people apply the same legal analysis to prostitution that they apply to renting a car or eating in a restaurant. Sex is NOT a regular commercial transaction, even if money is involved.

Unlike virtually ANY other activity you can name, sex with another human being is a deeply personal act that each participant should have complete control over. The fact that some providers may fuck just about anybody doesn't mean all providers will.

If you don't want to do something, sexually speaking, NO ONE can force you. What about a woman's right to choose? How exactly would you square charging or suing a woman for racial discrimination with her right to control her own body?

And what exactly is the legal remedy going to be? Suing a woman who has little or no money to begin with? Good luck collection that judgment. it is as useful as suing a homeless vagrant for pissing on your car.

Getting a court order requiring a UNWILLING woman to present her body at a time and place of the plaintiff's choosing to be fucked by the plaintiff? Court ordered rape? Put her in prison if she disobeys the court order and fails to show up for her rape?

Does the hooker then get to have the plaintiff arrested for raping her?

The law can't solve everything. Let's not lose our minds here.

Hmm. I don't claim to be an expert on discrimination laws, but doesn't a business have to cross state lines or use government money to be sued for discrimination? (And when it comes to personal services, I don't think that means she crosses a state border!)

I seem to recall from class (back in the dark ages) that the government had little recourse to certain companies. For example, why did it take so long for Augusta to admit women? Didn't they just admit 2 this year for the first time in history? Don't you think others would have tried the lawsuit route by now?

Anyway, back to the original question . . . does it matter why? Be it racism, fear of possibly offending a racist regular client, stereotyping, safety concerns, fear of the giant black mamba (not all stereotypes are bad! ), whatever--bottom line is that even if you fight the misapprehension and win a chance to see them, chances are it's not going to be a stellar session because something made her think 'no' in the first place.

When it comes to personal services like this one, if you have to convince someone, you've already lost out.

I like the example you tried to use lawyer. Please allow me to compare apples with oranges, it would be easier than trying to rationalize your moronic post.

Many a current precedent started out a laughable premise. ExNyer, I'm sure you understand a major difference exists between charging someone with a crime, and a mere civil action.
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.
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.
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 neccesary to write an exemption into the law, given the highly personal nature (as ExNyer appropriately pointed out) 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 much does it cost for engineer brain?"

"Three dollars an ounce."

"How much does it cost for programmer brain?"

"Four dollars an ounce."

"How much for lawyer brain?"

"$1,000 an ounce."

"Why is lawyer brain so much more?"

"Do you know how many lawyers we had to kill to get one ounce of brain?"

Wow, I agree use the Search option, nothing good comes from this topic. I personally don't care if your purple or green as long as you are safe and respectful, no problem.

It doesn't matter why any Provider decides not to see you. Maybe she doesn't like black men...Jewish men, too liberal..too conservative..too loud..too brash...too shy..Episcopalian men, uncut, cut, pimpled, fat, too young, too old...too smart, too stupid, too big...too small...too much cologne, stinks...too country...too city...yellow teeth...no teeth...oversized manboobs.... etc...etc.. .etc...

Desn't matter why a Hobbyist decides not to see a particular Provider..class,..race...age.. .appearance. People have the right to choose with whom they associate. Nobody owes you an explanation or an analysis supporting his/her decision(s). There's enough variety on here to satuate the desires subtle and gross...quit writhing about looking for an answer to whatever bugs you...get a life and enjoy it for God's sake.

Wow, I agree use the Search option, nothing good comes from this topic. I personally don't care if your purple or green as long as you are safe and respectful, no problem. Originally Posted by adriana_paige

Um... I totally care if they're purple or green. That can't be healthy, ewww.

I kid, I kid

Fwiw, I've noticed that it's almost always the white male arguing the hardest when this subject comes up.

I wonder if it's the same core group of guys that's saying to NBA providers, "You better not start seeing __________!!! (insert your favorite term to describe BM). If you do, I'll never see you again. I'll get my boys to stop seeing you. I'll __________ you (insert favorite threat word(s)."

I used to be full of rage when it came to this subject, but not anymore. I actually sympathize with the ladies who are put in this predicament, because not all of them choose this rule on their own free will. When you have a sizable group of regulars who are putting money in your pocket it wouldn't be worth it to cross them just to appease 2-3 black guys that may really want to see you.

This is why I GUARANTEE COMPLETE DISCRETION should you decide that you would let me see you. No bragging, no mention of the encounter, no review, no 'backdoor' PM's. What they don't know won't hurt them.

White guys also get screwed by black guys - it is called affirmative action. Even President Obama noted that the people who have to suffer from it are often not guilty of doing anything wrong. So we are all in this predicament, and have to deal with the rage in different ways. Given the secretive nature of this forum, those of us who cannot express our rage in polite society choose to do so here.
Rambo, you make a good point about sympathizing with the girls who are put in the awkward position of having to make that decision about an NBA policy. I think your solution is rather clever, I commend you for it.

Um... I totally care if they're purple or green. That can't be healthy, ewww.

I kid, I kid Originally Posted by Dharma

I thought the same thing!

Fwiw, I've noticed that it's almost always the white male arguing the hardest when this subject comes up.

I wonder if it's the same core group of guys that's saying to NBA providers, "You better not start seeing __________!!! (insert your favorite term to describe BM). If you do, I'll never see you again. I'll get my boys to stop seeing you. I'll __________ you (insert favorite threat word(s)."

I used to be full of rage when it came to this subject, but not anymore. I actually sympathize with the ladies who are put in this predicament, because not all of them choose this rule on their own free will. When you have a sizable group of regulars who are putting money in your pocket it wouldn't be worth it to cross them just to appease 2-3 black guys that may really want to see you.

This is why I GUARANTEE COMPLETE DISCRETION should you decide that you would let me see you. No bragging, no mention of the encounter, no review, no 'backdoor' PM's. What they don't know won't hurt them. Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

rambo, i agree, white guys dont like black guys doing their women in the real world. some of that might be happening here too.