I agree with everything you just said. And to your first paragraph, surely the business side of the exchange warrants capitulation to some personal dislikes. That just makes good sense.
All in all, any provider should have the right to set her own boundaries for the men she sees, based on her own preferences, however limited or expansive.
Originally Posted by funster
Funster, 100% correct man. Providers have the freedom to do this. Just like racist and homo-phobos have their freedom to express their views or beliefs. And I'm a big believe in the connection principle, where a provider/client click on more than just a sexual/monetary business but for physical, mental, and personality one. I suppose I don't see this posting as a forum to change anyone's right or belief, just one to discuss things thoroughly. And truth be told, the "spirit" beyond a policy like NBA or no AA friendly, sorta like 'the spirit of the law' phrase.
And despite the fact a provider should have the right to enforce the policy, I believe, I also believe that policy produces strong reactions due to its connotations. For example: a provider to deny service to a single individual client is nothing new. Happens all the time. Notice there when you read it, individual stands out. You haven't painted the canvas so to speak so no grouping or generalization has been made OR broadcasted (key word there). It is done on a case by case level. However when one see's that she denies service based one particular detail, i.e. skin pigmentation, then the canvas becomes colored. Automatically.
But then it doesn't just stay on the picture, does it. It colors others. It influences. It spreads. It begins to take a life of its own. Other providers naturally place the terms in their ads before they really think about the ramifications of it. Then it becomes something that most see if the real fight against modern examples of racism/bigotry. It becomes
institutionalized. It becomes a standard. A practice. Providers do it, just because it's done. It's easy. It's just a small group. Not my fight or problem. After all, separate but equal right? Etc.
That's not to say the provider is racist. And I believe most aren't. I do believe some have legitimate reasons, bad experiences that literally COLOR their opinion, while others have other influential markers like how they were raised, etc. But I believe a major point of contention for the originator of this thread was how many of these threads existed, even researched (perhaps in a sorta 'guess-a-mation' way with that 80% line) a sample, and whether this is a good thing based on the idea of social and racial progress.
Because, many (particular in the white community) want the black community to just to move on, forget about race and let's all sing kumbaya, treating prejudice and the institutionalization of it as something in America's dark past. But then black community is confronted by these institutional limits, that seemingly no other group has that pure eliminates them from contention or fairness. So, it's hard to more on when the institutional practices of limitation (ie, what most scream as racism immediately with thinking of if it truly is) are slapped back in a group's face. Not only by whites tho, but by all provider groups.
Again, just that 'preference' to eliminate any entire demographic broadcasted as a legitimate reason and not discussed/confronted lends itself to abuse and institutionalized practices, without a single thought if it's really what that provider wants to do. And that's the "spirit of the rule" bit coming for circle. I suppose, besides how it affects me choices of providers or how naturally interested I'm in about all such social affairs that make us who we are as a nation, that's the main reason to debate/discuss with anyone this pattern of limiting preference policies. To educate and perhaps see an openness. Perhaps not to change. But maybe.
I'm almost positive that in the end, Green is the most value color around these parts. And I'm not responding to your statements as a rebuttal, because you are right that a provider should have the right to see who they want, and preferences, comfort levels, and other factors should apply in her decision to see someone, especially in the context of sexual connections. However, so to, is the right for someone to consider, discuss, and bring up a pattern (such as Wulf_Princess/others have done) to raise awareness and to have those providers consider their actions carefully, of whether to have a totally exclusionary policy or not. But whether they do or don't, it is the equal right of the provider to choose this policy and for us as a community of hobbyists and providers to discuss it as a practice.
