What I mean is there are some girls in every agency who refuse to see certain ethnicity but not the majority of them
No Black men
- Thread starter Joe Thighsman
- Start date
In Paris they always explicitly ask for ethnicity, and even give you an address across the street instead of the real one, so they can see you from their window before the appointment.
In my experience, there is a correlation between ethnicity and behaviour.
And even though that might be caused by other factors, escorts can't really adjust for those other factors. They have to make do with what little information they see.
I've made this point in a roundabout way the gazillion times this topic has come up. Why is it only black men carrying the burden for other black men's bad behavior when I can bet my life some segment of all ethnicities also behave badly? This is all to say the "I don't see ALL black men because I had (a) bad experience(s) with..." rationale to be the shakiest one if you think about it enough. I'm sure the real reasons are myriad, including this rationale that generalizes every black guy.
But for the love of Beelzebub, ignore anyone who won't see you because of your race. The main entry fees in this business are money, good hygiene and behavior. If you possess all three and happen to be black, you still have options with many SPs where your race doesn't matter to them.
It's a matter of proportion. Low proportion of whites poses difficulties, much much higher proportion of black. SP have no choice to adapt and minimize risks. The ideal client for SP is mild mannered middle age married white men: low chance of STIs, of no payment, of agressiveness during sex, etc.
Agency can screen or blacklist clients much better than a single SP, Agency also offer better protection to the SPs during meetings. "No black gent" is cheap way of screening for independent escorts who probably don't have any other protection than themselve.
About a decade ago, I was in France for couple of months and had a white Quebecoise fuck buddy (met her there, didn't bring her from here), we were in an open thing... she was seeing others and so was I.
One of her fuck toy was a black dude she had met in a bar... I also saw him, he was the friend of the bartender and one of the nights, she decided to leave the bar with him.
She told me the guy was the most endowed in all her encounters, round 1 was somewhat fun. Round 2 was not, the guy kept going and going well after she was done... resulting in her getting dry and the act being painful, so she stopped him when it was hurting too much.
Moral of the story: she didn't like the overall experience
One of her fuck toy was a black dude she had met in a bar... I also saw him, he was the friend of the bartender and one of the nights, she decided to leave the bar with him.
She told me the guy was the most endowed in all her encounters, round 1 was somewhat fun. Round 2 was not, the guy kept going and going well after she was done... resulting in her getting dry and the act being painful, so she stopped him when it was hurting too much.
Moral of the story: she didn't like the overall experience
Oh god I have news for you about white men... There are even white men on this very board with a reputation for their lack of hygiene and manners. Every sp has at least 10 stories of a white client being trash one way or another...
Agencies have access to the exact same blacklists that we use though... And from what I've heard they actually tend to do much less screening because they want money above all else. I have no problem believing the girls who told me this considering one of the agencies on this board basically told me to get fucked (pun unintended) when I reached out for a reference. Independants screen for their own safety, agency bookers have a much higher volume of appointments to set up and their own safety isn't on the line so they have no incentive to screen. They also realistically don't offer much protection - a violent client isn't going to casually let a girl call the booker/driver etc to come help her if anything happens. She'll have to defend herself and tell the agency what happened afterwards. I'm not saying all of this to diss agencies, I'm just speaking from what I've heard from former and current agency girls
Agency also act as a deterrent, much less likely to cause trouble knowing there is a driver waiting for the girl's call. A lone girl is more vulnerable, easier to take advantage of. That doesn't mean an agency protection will work for all the violent clients.
You'll also be blacklisted for all the girls of the agency, not just one.
When I said independent I didn't just mean high end independent that we see on this forum, I meant the girls posting on LL who don't have the reputation or an established clientele that allow them to screen clients and ask for references: that would be too bad for their business.
You'll be blacklisted for all the girls at the agency except the one who had an argument with the booker, or the new girl who has no experience, etc... I've heard stories of agencies sending new girls to known blacklisted clients because then they could get the money without risking being outed as predators (since the new girl doesn't know better). Of course this isn't the norm but it 100% does happen - remember that as a client you'll almost never get insight from what truly goes on behind the scenes.
When it comes to indies we use a blacklist that we share. Agencies also have access to it, I imagine. So when one of us blacklists a client he's blacklisted for everyone that uses the blacklist.
I wish everyone could screen, honestly. I remember when I couldn't afford to screen - even when I was already well reviewed - I had to take risks and had so many fake calls and bad clients. It sucked!!
CaptR : Mayne it does. Not the intent, I was just pointing out things I've been told and why the logic didn't exactly track. Why would an agency be better at screening than an independent? Arent we all human with brains lol? And if indies can't screen as well as agencies, why do we find posts on merb from established clients saying that all you need is a real phone number to book with most agencies? That's not "better at screening" imo, am I missing something? If agencies did thorough screening then surely we wouldn't constantly deal with having to explain why we screen as it would be the norm.
I think every SP has had far more of these experiences with white men.
We've discussed this in the past. My clients are not 90% white.
Screening and refusing clients based on race, ethnicity, or skin tone has nothing to do with safety. Any provider who claims this is either lying or dumb.
Feel free to make a list but the most recent ones:
The 2 Quebec men who each murdered a sex worker in most recent years were white.
Robert Picton : White
Bruce McArthur : White
Paul Bernardo, while not as recent : White
Last edited:
The irony in all of this is that there are way more men of all nationalities that will refuse to see a black girl than there are sp’s who will refuse to see black or east asian men.
You are 100% correct in this assessment. The worst ones being Asian and East Asian men who literally blacklist all Black women.
On the client side, it is not a matter of security but of taste. Personally, I just dont find them attractive at all, but I have tried in the past. I rarely see asian escort for the same reason.
Not to say that many of the white men who seek WOC are not racist as well but simply express it by fetishizing instead rather than blacklisting.
This is also 100% true. You can still be racist and have a fetish of WOC.Not to say that many of the white men who seek WOC are not racist as well but simply express it by fetishizing instead rather than blacklisting.
I know, it was more a response to what Doc Holliday posted. I am the opposite of you, my preference is for WOC specifically Black girls. I am not too attracted to White or Asian girls.
So, racist if you do… and racist if you don’t! Sounds like woke logicNot to say that many of the white men who seek WOC are not racist as well but simply express it by fetishizing instead rather than blacklisting.
So, racist if you do… and racist if you don’t! Sounds like woke logic
Awww, you're using a buzzword instead of thinking about a different point of view. Aren't you original!
It's not really that complicated if you understand the difference between attraction and fetishization. and are capable of self-reflection as to why you might be fetishizing if this is the case.
If by woke you mean being open to understanding there are other perspectives and experiences than mine and I will never fully understand because I exist in a white body, then I guess so. If it means I can listen and learn about the experiences of people who exist in non-white bodies, then sure. If it also means that I'm capable of realizing that there are many layers to everything and that the present is a product of the past, then that's accurate. If it also means I can do this with an open mind, get over myself, and not take everything as a personal attack, then yes.
Bonus: If it means I change how I view things after listening, then absolutely. If it means my default is empathy and not a need to reject and control, then I guess I'm 100% trying my best to be "woke". I personally just call it trying to be a good human but if you prefer woke, you can call it woke.
Btw we live in a racist system, so all of us, including myself, have some level of racism, whether internalized or not. The idea of being a good human is to try to understand that and change it.
I'll keep an open mind about you in spite of your use of the word 'woke' and failure to even try to give some thought to my comments before responding the way you did. Maybe you'll surprise me.
Similar threads
