How ugly is too ugly?

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

You’re telling me that if your sister, cousin, daughter or son (let’s not make it about gender) came to you and told you that they’d got accepted to Brainyfolks University but grumbled a bit about having to take on a student loan, you’d suggest prostitution as an option to avoid running up debts? I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that for a moment.

---

Probably not. But I also wouldn't recommend that they work part time as a nurse. There are many jobs that are not for everyone.

What I would do though is pick this line of work for myself. Back in the days when I was a more social person, I hooked up with a bunch of bisexual men in AOL chat rooms. I didn't really care what they looked like. All that mattered was that they found me desirable and were willing to pay me a visit. It was a fun time for the most part, and I might as well have charged money for it.  

(I'll admit that I probably didn't do it for the sex as much as for social interaction and reassurance. But who cares? What matters is that it was a rewarding activity). 

 

---

Your profile of the typical sex-worker doesn’t match any I came across when reading up on the subject. NGO reports claim that about 85% of sex-workers in Germany are not German. If they’re in the game simply because they really enjoy it (your theory, further down), I’m perplexed by the fact that apparently it’s mostly poor foreign women who are in it for the kicks.

---

That's very strange, because I've mostly met German women. Then again, I've always stuck to brothels and clubs, and I wouldn't know about street prostitution.

 

---

I cannot imagine a worse job. I’d rather clean a million toilets. It is absolutely not a job like any other – and the “regular” health checks are an unconvincing drop in the ocean of reassurance.

---

You and I are very different then I'd take sex with a random stranger over cleaning a toilet any day. I would be inclined to think that this might be another gender difference, but apparently not all women feel the same way as you do.

 

---

Ishtara: And is it really so hard to imagine that some women work in this area because they simply enjoy sex?

Carole: Yes.

---

Ah, there is the crux of the matter. (I mean, aside from the tendency of women to condemn "loose women" for lowering their own chances at finding a mate -- after all, those 10 or 20 guys who hook up with the town bike are less likely to buy a whole cow -- and for enabling their existing mates to get some milk on the side without much effort). You personally find this occupation icky, and that's why nobody should get to work in this area.

There definitely are women who feel differently about this. Such as Nina de Vries, who says of herself that she finds her work as a sexual assistant for disabled people very satisfying. Or porn star Sasha Grey, who has made it a hobby to give radical feminists cognitive dissonance by mentioning in interviews how much she likes her job and that she wanted to work in this field ever since she was a teenager.

I personally can't imagine that a nurse likes her job, but some definitely do. Who are we to tell mature adults that their choices are wrong? 

 

---

You’re promoting the exclusion of avatars which are not attractive from sex sims, because not conducive to a sexual mood, right? Therefore you’re claiming that simply having to look upon a digital representation of an unattractive human being is a turn-off no person should be subjected to. If just looking at an ugly avatar is a turn-off, pray tell what do you truly think one would feel when having to actually have flesh-on-flesh intimate relations with someone you find unattractive? Where does the enjoyment you speak about come in?? If they chose to have encounters only with people they found truly attractive, I’m assuming those fantastic earnings you mentioned before would not be pouring down on them. Let’s say it’s safe to assume that most times they manage to put up with it. Some will be utterly revolted inside. Who knows, maybe one in 100, or 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 really, really loves it. How

would

you know though? I assume many are very good at faking it.

---

I'm not promoting anything here, and that is not what I did when I banned SL residents who were griefers in my eyes. I've already explained the difference between people that I personally don't find attractive and people who engage in the visual equivalent of forum trolling.

Anyway, I have personally had sex with men who I didn't find attractive in RL. I was only interested in one particular part of their anatomy, and so excited by it that their looks didn't really matter. Many bisexual men are like that. We are mostly attracted to women, but at the same time we also like the... erm... we also like abovementioned part of the male anatomy and are able to tolerate the rest. And I did this for kicks and not for money, mind you.

I think very few people love all aspects of their job. Most wage slaves out there put up with all kinds of things they'd rather not do. I had such a job myself, and I'd much rather have had three or four hours of sex each day given the choice. But that's just me.   

 

---

Carole: Say what? This whole thread started with you trying to rationalise your discomfort over an avatar with a pixel colostomy bag in your sex sim. Now you’re expressing admiration over someone whom you compare to missionaries because she works with disabled people? Well done, Nina! Just keep the uglies away from

my

sex sim in SL!

---

Now you're confusing RL and SL. In RL, people don't get to choose their looks. In SL, everyone has a chance to be gorgeous, but some people deliberately disfigure their avatars. In RL, I can settle for sex with people who don't really look attractive in my eyes. In SL, I don't have to.

 

---

You’re aware that for a prostitute to press charges of rape would be such a harrowing and hopeless task that most (all?) of them don’t bother? So we can safely assume that those statistics don’t include rape when a prostitute is the victim. If rape crimes have gone down since legalising prostitution, what does that tell us about the sort of clients sex-workers are having to deal with? I’m guessing that sort of man isn’t the kind who hires women just to feel less lonely.

---

I don't think this is the case in Germany. If prostitution is legal, prostitutes don't have a reason not to report sexual assault. It is also much easier to find a safe work environment where such incidents can be avoided.

What you describe is another ugly side effect of criminalizing prostitution. Prohibition doesn't protect anybody, it only puts sex workers in great danger. Which means that if you are genuinely concerned about the well-being of prostitutes, you would push for legalization, considering that there will always be people who work in this field.

 

---

Sadly (for you), I have to inform you that I

did

take the time to check statistics. Suicide among German males is higher (per 100,000 people) than in Italy, Greece, Spain, the Netherlands, Thailand. Nice mix of legalised and non-legalised prostitution countries for you, though I should point out that in Europe, the Netherlands has a higher rate of male suicides than Italy, Spain and Greece. If you really want to be in happy-man-land, then you should head for Kuwait, where the rate is only 2.5 x 100,000 – but where even looking at a woman in an inappropriate way could get you into trouble.

---

Thanks, that's interesting. My assumption was wrong then. But I can't help but wonder how many of those suicidal men were married

 

---

Deeming the denial of a sexual life to unattractive and socially inept men discrimination

does

fit the topic perfectly because

you

want to discriminate against physically unattractive men and women and people with signs of disabilities….

---

Again, you're conflating SL with RL. Besides, I don't want to discriminate, I simply want to avoid incidents of visual griefing.

This entire thread was about the thin line between virtual identity and self-expression on one hand and deliberate griefing / shocking on the other, and how to decide at which point this line is crossed. This does simply not apply in RL, where people cannot choose their looks.

[RudolphUkka]

Ishtara asked "I can't help but wonder how many of those suicidal men were married"

 

so I went and checked the

*

statistics and it appears that

*

83% of them were

*

married and the other

*

17% killed themselves to avoid getting

*

married.

***

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

I thought that any avatar which looks to be a minor wasn’t permitted to be in proximity of sexual activity? Isn’t one of 14, 15 still a minor? You find an adult woman inappropriate because she’s whatever age you consider to be “past it”, yet one who looks 14 standing by while sexual “stuff” is going on is appropriate???

 

---

First you're complaining that I'm prepared to ban child avatars (and people with giant godzilla avatars), and now you're bothered by the fact that I tolerate people with avatars that look like sexually mature teenagers? You need to make up your mind. 

There is a difference between a minor and a child avatar. A child avatar is a prepubescent looking av. A sexually mature avatar is not a child av by any definition. Unless the owner of that av misrepresents their age in their profile, they're not doing anything wrong. Beyond sexual maturity, there is really no reliable way to tell the visual age of an avatar. 

And I don't find adult women inappropriate. Geez, you're constructing one straw man argument after another I welcome sexually mature avatars of all ages, colors, and species, unless they cross the line between unattractiveness (in my subjective opinion) and deliberate visual griefing (also in my subjective opinion. It's probably impossible to be completely objective in this matter). 

 

---

No, it isn’t. I asked if everybody you found unattractive got asked to leave your sim – club

and

shop. I also asked what was the cut-off age for men and women to be allowed into your sim.

---

I don't, and there is no cut-off age. There is only a cut-off look.

 

---

So….who does and doesn’t get asked to leave?

---

I ban people for deliberately wearing an avatar that most people would consider to be disturbing or in very bad taste. 

 

 

---

Bea Arthur is sexy?? If you say so… You’re aware she probably had veins, moles, saggy bits, etc., etc., like anyone – male or female – at her age?

---

I doubt that she deliberately tried to make herself look that way. She looks like she always kept herself in shape. I don't think she painted moles on her skin, and she certainly didn't have plastic surgery in order to look more saggy

 

 

---

I went out of my way to make Carole

realistic

. In a hyper-perfected world, I found it more interesting to resist the temptation to improve and to go in completely the opposite direction, by making an avatar which was older and less attractive than me (that wasn’t a vanity moment, just stating an objective fact – Carole is worse, not better than me). That doesn’t make me an artist. She’s just an avie pieced together by buying bits here and there.

I’m still finding difficulty in understanding your attempts to rationalise something which you simply don’t like. An elf and a 14 year old kid are appropriate and are to be expected in a sex sim, but an adult human woman isn’t? A Bea Arthur avatar would be welcome, Carole wouldn’t? I’m not deliberately trying to misunderstand you (I genuinely don’t follow your logic). If you don’t like women who are past it, amputees, wheelchair users – just chuck them out and have done with it. It’s your sim – you can do as you please. I think you just want to be told that you’re somehow morally right not to let them stay.

---

How does any sim or club owner decide what is acceptable? I'd say the line is crossed when all other visitors are bothered and disturbed by a single individual. It doesn't really matter how this individual goes about causing a disturbance.

Of course I don't ask every person at my beach for their opinion. I ultimately use my own judgement and assume that if something is not simply a turn-off for me but outright disturbs me, it will probably disturb most of my visitors as well, considering that I tolerate a great many things that other people find disgusting when it comes to matters of sex.  

 

---

I already pointed out before that it seems to me that not only do you want to keep certain categories of avatars out of your sim, but you keep underlining the fact that an older woman avatar shouldn’t be on a sex sim at all. Whoever the sim belongs to. Unless she’s a Bea Arthur lookalike, of course…

---

I never said that I wouldn't welcome older women. It's all a matter of presentation. Bea Arthur was merely an example for a look that I wouldn't consider to be deliberately ugly in SL.

 

 

---

Why are you using the conditional? I have told you several times that Carole has been to sex sims all over the grid and I can’t think of a single occasion when she was asked to leave.

---

 In the nude, with your most... erm... expressive skin?

 

---

Yep, because elves in sex clubs look really well-placed…

---

 If other land owners have a problem with my avatar, I won't complain about being banned or asked to leave. I've been told to detach my genitals at a nude beach where transsexual avatars were not welcome. It wasn't a big deal for me, but it prompted me to turn my own sim into a T-girl friendly nude beach (my sim had a medieval theme before).  

 

---

Forgive me if I say so but I get the impression that the entire point of your thread is to find moral support for your decision to chuck out some guy with a colostomy bag or some such, because burdened by the moral dilemma of putting of your business interests over the interests of categories of people whose rights to sexual expression you were defending a short time ago - wondering if the poor schmuck with the colostomy bag is just some poor soul trying to come to terms with the prospect of having to pass the rest of his life with the ruddy accessory thanks to bowel cancer.

---

 I'm only interested in other people's opinion. I'd like to know where they would draw the line. Some have posted that they wouldn't draw a line at all, but I wonder if they still felt the same way if they ran a public hangout and wouldn't want to see their regular patrons leave for other places.  

 

---

My feelings are not hurt. I don’t have bowel cancer. Nor am I an old lady. Nor am I ugly. However, if I had had bowel cancer, was an old lady or was ugly, I’d object to it being implied that I didn’t have the right to sexual expression.

---

I think that's understandable. Nonetheless, I don't really understand why people have to express themselves sexually with an avatar that is bound to be found unattractive, probably disturbing even in a sexual context, by the vast majority of people. When it comes to sex, most of us want to be desirable rather than shocking.

If you were looking to have sex as Carole, I'd wonder if sexual gratfication is really the goal, or if you rather did it for... erm... for the lulz, as the kids say nowadays. Not that the latter would be wrong, but it that would be at odds with the interests of my other visitors, who definitely do seek sexual gratification.

 

---

Puh-lease don’t go down that other well-worn sexist path too – implying that a woman can’t support an issue out of principle, but speaks out only in reaction to being hit where it hurts – her emotions. I’m fonder of rational debate than you could imagine and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this exchange, these topics and the fascinating reading up that it obliged me to do. Sorry it took so long to reply but I’ve only been able to dedicate snippets of time to answering you.

---

 Rest assured that I'd never do that   I'm not a sexist, I'm a realist (much unlike many feminists).

 

 

PS: I have also banned people who only visited my sim in order to make fun of the regulars. Wearing a controversial avatar for the heck of it can also be a way of doing that. There is a certain "look at all these losers who are getting off on pixel sex" mindset that I find very insulting. When I see avatars such as the giant walking turd that I mentioned in my OP, I assume that it's exactly this mindset that prompted them to visit a sex sim in this outfit.

This is very similar to the feminist protest at Hard Alley, where the protesters were dressed as meat products. Such things are simply disruptive. And not by accident; they are meant to be disruptive, which is the definition of griefing. Perhaps that helps to explain where I was coming from.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Nacy Nightfire wrote:

My synopsis:  Ishy has a dress code on his sim and mature women, by being themselves, are in violation of the dress code.

---

Mature women are very welcome in my sim, actually. This is only about extremely and deliberately disturbing avatars that are bound to drive other visitors away. 

 

Rabid Cheetah perfectly summed it up, imho: 

---

Rabid Cheetah wrote:

So, no:  Choosing an avatar appearence that disturbs others,

slightly

, would not be griefing.  On the other hand, it all goes back to common sense;  Choosing a disgusting avatar appearence that

greatly

disturbs others is a no-brainer vis-â-vis whether or not it's griefing -- with the caveat that it depends on context.  A beautiful supermodel, naked, with a suggestive AO might be fine at the local SL dancehall.  Same avatar, at an SL church holding a 9/11 memorial service?  I think not.

---

Emphasis by me. It's a matter of both degree and context. And of course a matter of intent, as far as I'm able to gauge that.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

He grimaces a lot because of Dr. Chaney; the brilliant half of the relationship.  

---

Oh that's just not right... this sentence immediately made me think of

song.

...Dres

[Drake1 Nightfire]

so, only attractive avs are allowed.. i shall be sure to no come visiting then. I have been told many times that non-humans are not attractive. so i will stay away. kinda sucks though.. mheh.

I would like to point out one thing though.. not all men are sexual beasts that get aroused by two lines on a piece of paper. I, for one, need a bit more than pixels. i am more of a hands on type of guy, my hands on her body.

And to Carole.. Should you ever find yourself looking for a realistic beast to spend time with, look me up.

Sorry Ishy, but this is SL, your world your imagination and all that. If someone is going to be banned for looks alone then you are more shallow than i ever imagined. I have seen Avatars of all shapes and sexes sitting and talking around a campfire, with no one having an issue. Ever stop and think that some people dont care what the av looks like?  What if one of these "beauties" of yours wanted to boff a big burly werewolf that you just banned?

just my $.000005 L

[Nacy Nightfire]

I could just as easily had my facts wrong so I'm glad you chimed in the first time, and no need for a "mea culpa".  As these things evolve, another thoughtful forumite (Celestial?) brought more facts to the table.  Information from the internet or traditional news sources, yes even from the NYT,is often wrong, unreliable or incomplete, so the more folks chime in with their personal expertise or experience, the more we all get a clearer picture.  Everything's working as it should.

[Void Singer]

if I bork a call I'll admit it, I try to always be accurate (if not always precise).

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

so, only attractive avs are allowed.. i shall be sure to no come visiting then. I have been told many times that non-humans are not attractive. so i will stay away. kinda sucks though.. mheh.

---

In other words, tl;dr This wasn't about attractiveness, nor was it about species. Furries, quadruped animals, demons, dragons (within a reasobable size range) etc. are all very welcome in my sim. Not only because a great many people are into these avatars, but also (and mainly) because they don't use their avatars to deliberately offend and disgust people.

I only swing the banhammer when I have reason to assume that someone is trying to cause a disturbance with an outrageous look. 

[Carole Franizzi]

Ishtara: And is it really so hard to imagine that some women work in this area because they simply enjoy sex?

Carole: Yes.

---

Ishtara: Ah, there is the crux of the matter. (I mean, aside from the tendency of women to condemn "loose women" for lowering their own chances at finding a mate -- after all, those 10 or 20 guys who hook up with the town bike are less likely to buy a whole cow -- and for enabling their existing mates to get some milk on the side without much effort). You personally find this occupation icky, and that's why nobody should get to work in this area.

Carole: “town bike”??? “buy a whole cow”???? You might want to re-examine that claim that you’re not a chauvinist....

You’re going to have to take my word on this – I would not want a mate who viewed women in such a way. The “loose women” are welcome to him. They have my commiserations.

Seriously, Ishtara, that last passage revealed exactly where you’re coming from. It is indeed the crux of the matter. I don’t find prostitutes “icky” – I see them as vulnerable human beings that life has been terribly hard on. What I find “icky” (read: utterly revolting) is the attitude of their clients who see them as sub-human and treat them as such, whether in a legalised or criminalised context. Your attempt to present yourself as a liberal-minded man who’s simply claiming that women have the right to love sex as much as men (and make money out of it, if they so wish) just went up in jaw-droppingly sexist smoke. You, not me, see prostitutes (and women in general) as something of lesser worth than yourself. I think nobody should be allowed to work in this area because there’s the high risk that they have to deal with men who share your own view of them. Because when men think like you do, women have the tendency to end up getting hurt.

No wonder my Carole avie bothers you – she doesn’t conform to the image of women as instruments to be used for your pleasure.

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

so, only attractive avs are allowed.. i shall be sure to no come visiting then. I have been told many times that non-humans are not attractive. so i will stay away. kinda sucks though.. mheh.

I would like to point out one thing though.. not all men are sexual beasts that get aroused by two lines on a piece of paper. I, for one, need a bit more than pixels. i am more of a hands on type of guy, my hands on her body.

And to Carole.. Should you ever find yourself looking for a realistic beast to spend time with, look me up.

Sorry Ishy, but this is SL, your world your imagination and all that. If someone is going to be banned for looks alone then you are more shallow than i ever imagined. I have seen Avatars of all shapes and sexes sitting and talking around a campfire, with no one having an issue. Ever stop and think that some people dont care what the av looks like?  What if one of these "beauties" of yours wanted to boff a big burly werewolf that you just banned?

just my $.000005 L

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Oh, you’re okay with your beastie avie. Beasts, demons, dogs, wolves, marble statues, blow-up dolls, elves etc., I suspect, are all welcome there. Apparently, it’s all to do with genetics and anthropology – so, marble statues are acceptable because our ancestors liked to do it with rocks and women find effeminate elves a big turn on because… erm… I guess that, at some point in our past, there really were effeminate elves (yeah, I know, it’s all new to me too). Anyway, don’t worry about it. Ishtara will fill you in. 

I wouldn’t mention to him about needing more than a cartoon and a couple of typed lines though. Or that some people don’t even look at avies. He thinks all men and all women work in the same way and you’ll mess up his theories.

Anyway, your kind offer was noted. I’m not playing SL at all these days but if/when I get back into it, I’d be happy to spend time with a “big beastie” who looks beyond the avatar illusion.

---

 

 

 

 

[Nacy Nightfire]

(shhhh! don't tell anyone I'm here...I'm trying to exit the SL forums with my sanity.  But, what Carole said!)

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

Carole:

“town bike”??? “buy a whole cow”????

You might want to re-examine that claim that you’re not a chauvinist....

---

 

That was an attempt to be funny. But even if you misread it as a pejorative comment, you should know from my previous posts in this forum that I talk just as frank and unadorned (some would say irreverent) about men and people in general. And about myself, for that matter. 

Not that it really matters what I write here. Since you have pegged me as a chauvinist for daring to suggest that men and women are not 100% equal (read: alike), you'll manage to find something sexist in everything that I post. Stereotyping is only unacceptable if it's women who are being stereotyped.

 

---

You’re going to have to take my word on this – I would not want a mate who viewed women in such a way. The “loose women” are welcome to him. They have my commiserations.

---

I see that my sarcasm-indicating quotation marks around the term "loose women" were just as lost on you as my humor.

I wrote that women often condemn "loose women", and that is exactly what you're doing here. I don't care how you rationalize it. Your commiseration is as condescending and insulting as the attitude of a Christian who tells an atheist that he feels sorry for his poor unsaved soul and pities him for his empty and pointless life.  

Having been a pretty loose person myself when I was younger and less sociophobic, and still being one when it comes to Second Life, I think I'm entitled to say on behalf of all loose people out there that you can stick your commiseration where the sun don't shines, because we loose people don't need it.

 

---

Seriously, Ishtara, that last passage revealed exactly where you’re coming from. It is indeed the crux of the matter. I don’t find prostitutes “icky” – I see them as vulnerable human beings that life has been terribly hard on.

---

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Unlike you, I view all humans as vulnerable human beings, but I don't want to rob them of their right to make their own decisions.

You are extremely judgemental when it comes to prostitutes who freely chose their line of work. It doesn't matter to you that some profess to like their job. You victimize them by insisting that they must be victims, and seek to deprive them of their own opinion on the matter as well as their right to sell sexual services.

 

---

What I find “icky” (read: utterly revolting) is the attitude of their clients who see them as sub-human and treat them as such, whether in a legalised or criminalised context.

---

Well, this client doesn't. I treat them like professional business pople and don't judge or commiserate them. But just like the notion that some prostitutes like their work, or the fact that some prostitutes are males with a female clientele, the idea that their clients are able to see sex workers as proud human beings who have nothing wrong with them has no room in your narrow-minded view of a world full of misogynist men who are out to exploit and abuse poor helpless women. It doesn't matter what prostitutes and their clients say, you know better than them. 

 

---

You

, not me, see prostitutes (and women in general) as something of lesser worth than yourself.

---

I don't see anybody as a person of lesser worth. I view myself as a disease-ridden genetic waste product that should never have been forced to be alive, so how could I possibly have an even lower opinion of other people? At least I try my best to be somebody else in Second Life and don't render myself undesirable on purpose. 

 

---

I think nobody should be allowed to work in this area because there’s the high risk that they have to deal with men who share your own view of them. 

---

And I think that women should be allowed to work in any job they choose. I also think that women ought to be allowed to engage in consensual sex on their own terms and for any purpose. Yes, I'm that much of a chauvinist. Good thing that there are feminists who try to protect women from having too much freedom.

[Pamela Galli]

Ishy, just want to interject here -- here in this little community and in the old Xstreet one, you have been one of the most respected posters. Aside from your intelligence and erudition, you fight fair, are helpful, and are often kind. I can't help but believe this is who you are everywhere, and it's no small thing.

Since I have chosen a premise different from yours to operate from, I don't always agree with you, but I appreciate the thought that goes into your opinions.

[Dresden Ceriano]

...Dres

[Carole Franizzi]

 

Imagine reading this….

“Black people are different from white people no matter how much some want them to be equal. Should a biology teacher be accused of racism simply because he teaches children about the inequality of the biology of black and white races? Just because a few million blacks were enslaved against their will, raped, beaten and killed during the slave-trade, why try to stop some black people from selling themselves if they need the money? Yes, okay, in lots of places blacks are still being kidnapped, sold and brutalised - even young children - but why let that cast a shadow on the purchasing of black people in areas where it’s been decriminalised? Racial equality activists want to take away the freedom of choice of blacks who want to sell themselves to pay debts and they victimize them by insisting that they must be victims, and seek to deprive them of their own opinion on the matter as well as their right to sell themselves, because many black people actually really enjoy selling themselves. Blacks should be allowed to keep selling themselves because often their only alternative is cleaning toilets. Biology and related sciences are inevitably racist and politically incorrect, because that's what nature is. Blacks are either work mules or studs – har! har! Aren’t I funny?”

I hope that sounds appalling to you. I hope you manage to finally hear what it is that offends me so – for the exact same sentiments, but about women, are contained in your posts.

I hope…but I’m not holding my breath.

[Ima Rang]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Imagine reading this….

“Black people are different from white people no matter how much some want them to be equal. Should a biology teacher be accused of racism simply because he teaches children about the inequality of the biology of black and white races? Just because a few million blacks were enslaved against their will, raped, beaten and killed during the slave-trade, why try to stop some black people from selling themselves if they need the money? Yes, okay, in lots of places blacks are still being kidnapped, sold and brutalised - even young children - but why let that cast a shadow on the purchasing of black people in areas where it’s been decriminalised? Racial equality activists want to take away the freedom of choice of blacks who want to sell themselves to pay debts and they victimize them by insisting that they must be victims, and seek to deprive them of their own opinion on the matter as well as their right to sell themselves, because many black people actually really enjoy selling themselves. Blacks should be allowed to keep selling themselves because often their only alternative is cleaning toilets. Biology and related sciences are inevitably racist and politically incorrect, because that's what nature is. Blacks are either work mules or studs – har! har! Aren’t I funny?”

I hope that sounds appalling to you. I hope you manage to finally hear what it is that offends me so –

for the exact same sentiments, but about women, are contained in your posts.

I hope…but I’m not holding my breath.

---

Yes, it is appalling...appalling that you posted it, and appalling that you compare such to a legal work trade that is not gender specific. 

 

 

 

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Imagine reading this….

“Black people are different from white people no matter how much some want them to be equal. Should a biology teacher be accused of racism simply because he teaches children about the inequality of the biology of black and white races? Just because a few million blacks were enslaved against their will, raped, beaten and killed during the slave-trade, why try to stop some black people from selling themselves if they need the money? Yes, okay, in lots of places blacks are still being kidnapped, sold and brutalised - even young children - but why let that cast a shadow on the purchasing of black people in areas where it’s been decriminalised? Racial equality activists want to take away the freedom of choice of blacks who want to sell themselves to pay debts and they victimize them by insisting that they must be victims, and seek to deprive them of their own opinion on the matter as well as their right to sell themselves, because many black people actually really enjoy selling themselves. Blacks should be allowed to keep selling themselves because often their only alternative is cleaning toilets. Biology and related sciences are inevitably racist and politically incorrect, because that's what nature is. Blacks are either work mules or studs – har! har! Aren’t I funny?”

I hope that sounds appalling to you. I hope you manage to finally hear what it is that offends me so –

for the exact same sentiments, but about women, are contained in your posts.

I hope…but I’m not holding my breath.

---

That makes no sense whatsoever in this context. 

 

I called women and men biologically inequal (biologically different) in appearance and behavior. Anybody who has seen both genders naked will have to agree with that. I didn't say that any of the two genders was inferior or should be oppressed, and I'd strongly oppose anyone who suggested that.

If you want to compare gender-related studies in biology, evolutionary psychology and anthropology to matters of ethnicity and population genetics, a comparable example would be the study of population-specific diseases such as sickle-cell anaemia or Huntington's disease. Or the medical fact that certain drugs are less effective for some human populations and their descendants.

Your comparison of rotten apples and fresh oranges is the equivalent of the senseless outrage over population-specific pharmaceuticals (such as Nebivolol versus traditional beta blockers that have proven to work significantly less well for people of African descent). Treating people with drugs that simply don't work for them -- or referring male patients to gynecologists, which would be the gender-related equivalent -- is idiocy, not social equality. It is entirely possible to establish and support social equality and still study the human biology without blinders.

 

As for prostitution, I think I have made very clear that I was talking of the legal and voluntary variant, not of human trafficking or procuration. The latter is illegal in Germany and I would never support it. German prostitutes are self-employed business people, which makes them less akin to slaves than all those minimum wage employees out there. You might not like oranges, but that doesn't turn them into rotten apples.