Question on Racism and Escorts

[Guest MrB]

Traveller

 

I don't mind lean or tall, actually :-)

 

Andreas and I have become friends almost since, so don't let's go there. I'm just happy we won't be fighting over him :-) and you can have Sergei all to yourself.

Won't be in NYC till January or February next year, though I normally visit quite often. I'll let you know as soon as I know for sure. It would be fun to have a drink and exchange stories. How about Stella's? I usually stay at the Mariott Marquis anyway. Do you live in New York yourself?

 

euromalebox@gay.com

[Guest MrB]

Will:

 

You deserve to win all the prizes!

[Guest regulation]

Most states have statutes forbidding what are called "places of public accommodation" from discriminating against customers on the basis of racial origin. Such statutes originally applied to hotels, restaurants, theaters and other businesses that offer services to members of the public but were later expanded, both in terms of the list of "places" and in terms of the types of discrimination that are forbidden.

 

It was such a statute in New Jersey that was the basis of the recent Supreme Court decision on the Boy Scouts and gay scoutmasters. The New Jersey statute forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as well as race. The New Jersey Supreme Court had held that its statute applies to the Scouts. The Supreme Court held that it may not be so applied.

 

Prostitutes, for obvious reasons, are not covered by such statutes, but the arguments here for and against allowing them to discriminate are familiar to those who follow this issue in other contexts.

[Guest Hanover]

>Prostitutes, for obvious reasons, are not

>covered by such statutes, but

>the arguments here for and

>against allowing them to discriminate

>are familiar to those who

>follow this issue in other

>contexts.

 

Spoken, well, like a lawyer. Why use blunt precision when a euphemism will do, such as "familiar". Why not just say that those who don't agree with your position are bigots, like the Boy Scouts?

[Guest regulation]

>>Prostitutes, for obvious reasons, are not

>>covered by such statutes, but

>>the arguments here for and

>>against allowing them to discriminate

>>are familiar to those who

>>follow this issue in other

>>contexts.

>

>Spoken, well, like a lawyer.

>Why use blunt precision when

>a euphemism will do, such

>as "familiar". Why not

>just say that those who

>don't agree with your position

>are bigots, like the Boy

>Scouts?

 

For one thing, because I didn't take a position either on the subject of this thread or on the result of the Boy Scouts case. For another, because I don't happen to think that agreeing with the position of BSA in that case makes one a bigot. Is that enough reasons for you, or would you like a couple more?

[Guest Hanover]

>For one thing, because I didn't

>take a position either on

>the subject of this thread

>or on the result of

>the Boy Scouts case.

>For another, because I don't

>happen to think that agreeing

>with the position of BSA

>in that case makes one

>a bigot. Is that

>enough reasons for you, or

>would you like a couple

>more?

 

You didn't take a position. You didn't make an argument. So what WERE you doing?

[Traveller]

RE: Traveller

 

>I don't mind lean or tall,

>actually :-)

 

Excellent. I've got your email address, so I'll email you after the first of the year regarding your trip to the City and our drink at Stellas. I haven't decided yet whether it'll be BA or Rio for New Years.

 

Later.

 

PS. Should I have Tommy (Chase) join us for the drink? It's always a trip bar and club hopping with him.

[Guest regulation]

>You didn't take a position.

>You didn't make an argument.

> So what WERE you

>doing?

 

Is there some reason why I need to explain my actions to you? I'm trying to think of one, but nothing is occurring to me.

[Guest MrB]

RE: Traveller

 

Deal. I may actually spend New Year with friends in New York, in which case we could meet soon after... if you're not still in Rio :-) I'm beginning to think you and I share a lot of (excellent) preferences...I've always wanted to go to Rio but never quite made it... is it everything I have been dreaming about and more?

If this is THE Tom Chase you're talking about, let me check if Concord will be back in service... he's the ultimate stud, I'd kill to shake his hand.

Feel free to email me before January if you like. We're twins already.

[Guest travisnyc]

What if "sexual arousal" is not needed? If a minority wanted to hire an escort to be a bottom where sexual arousal is not "required" shouldn't the escort have NO reason for not seeing that person? Escorting is a BUSINESS and should be held accountable to nondiscrimination. If you can't "serve" all races get out of the business!

[Traveller]

RE: Traveller

 

LAST EDITED ON Oct-24-00 AT 05:01PM (EST)[p]>If this is THE Tom Chase

>you're talking about, let me

>check if Concord will be

>back in service... he's the

>ultimate stud, I'd kill to

>shake his hand.

 

Yeh, that would be the Tommy, but his hand is all you'll shake as he's got a new BF. A great guy from the legit side of the film biz. This is either number 8 or 9 of his BFs that I've met, generally all very nice. Only Joe Cade (also a nice guy) was in the porn/escort line of work. In fact, one of the dudes I was at the Gaiety with a few weeks ago was one of Tommy's exes that's become a good friend of mine. He did a couples of adult flicks when he was with Tommy, but he's back on the legit side of the biz again. And also a very big WOOF.

 

Later.

 

PS. Rio is the ultimate candy store. Big, big fun. If I go for New Years, it'll be my 4th trip in 2 1/2 years. It's very, very easy to get free tall, lean, gorgeous studs down there, but I still pay every other time just to keep on top of my hobby.

[Guest MrB]

RE: Traveller

 

Yes, i did hear Tom had retired from the business... still, it would be great to shake his hand if nothing else.

I'll have to do Rio one of these days :-)

[Guest Hanover]

>Is there some reason why I

>need to explain my actions

>to you? I'm trying

>to think of one, but

>nothing is occurring to me.

 

As you ask, here's one: in the middle of a debate you post a public message, the meaning of which is opaque. (To me at least.) I seek clarification of the point you are trying to make, which isn't at all self-evident to me. I'm not interested in an explanation of your actions, so much as the meaning of your contribution.

 

There, not so difficult.

[Guest Hanover]

>What if "sexual arousal" is not

>needed? If a minority

>wanted to hire an escort

>to be a bottom where

>sexual arousal is not "required"

>shouldn't the escort have NO

>reason for not seeing that

>person? Escorting is a

>BUSINESS and should be held

>accountable to nondiscrimination. If

>you can't "serve" all races

>get out of the business!

>

 

This point seems well-taken to me. Granted, there are a number of acts that pretty well ANY escort could perform for ANY client that do not require sexual arousal on the former's part. With respect to these acts, I think that discrimination by escorts would be odious.

[Guest regulation]

>>Is there some reason why I

>>need to explain my actions

>>to you? I'm trying

>>to think of one, but

>>nothing is occurring to me.

>

>As you ask, here's one: in

>the middle of a debate

>you post a public message,

>the meaning of which is

>opaque. (To me at

>least.) I seek clarification

>of the point you are

>trying to make, which isn't

>at all self-evident to me.

> I'm not interested in

>an explanation of your actions,

>so much as the meaning

>of your contribution.

>

>There, not so difficult.

 

 

Sorry I was unclear. I meant that I'm trying to think of a reason that has some meaning for me, not for you. Still can't think of one.

[Guest Hanover]

>Sorry I was unclear. I

>meant that I'm trying to

>think of a reason that

>has some meaning for me,

>not for you. Still

>can't think of one.

 

Had I known that you post messages only to persuade yourself, and not those reading your messages, I wouldn't have bothered to solicit a reason from you in the first place.

[Guest regulation]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-25-00 AT 11:07PM (EST)[p]You'll know better next time.

[Guest Hanover]

>You'll know better next time.

 

I'll know better next time not to ask. I'll also know better not to bother reading your messages either. Thanks.

[Guest regulation]

Mission accomplished.

[Traveller]

Way harsh dudes. On a pleasanter note, and more akin to what this site is about, Greg aka Brett Michaels, has a great bod, big dick and a bit too clinical for me. Review to come.

 

Later.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>has a great bod, big

>dick and a bit too

>clinical for me.

 

Are we talking rubber gloves, tongue depressors, and isopropyl alcohol?? :-)

[Traveller]

Wrong word. Should've said Stepford (the Tina Louise role, of course).

 

Later.

[Guest allansmith63]

Matt, we know an "Abercrombe & Fitch" kind of guy, don't we?

 

Allan :-)

 

Remember - I saw him first!!