Invisible Hookers

I feel I should have known that this story, discussed in DUFC-featured post Words fail me at The Hand Mirror, was a breeding ground for wank.

Because I would have been so right.

The case:  immigration officials went on a raid on a brothel accompanied by a reality-TV film crew.  One patron of said brothel leapt to his death out a window, presumably out of fear of being identified.

Anna at THM saw this from the angles of 1) potentially safety concerns if sex workers don’t consider brothels safe, and 2) the fuckwittery of Tuariki Delamere acting like the real problem is that suspected trafficking victims might have, oh no, broken immigration law.

Karl du Fresne (whose blog’s title, “Curmudgeon”, should prepare us for some Aren’t I A Practical Old Bastard, Those Yoof Don’t Understand The Realities of Life bollocks from the get-go) thinks this is terrible, too.  You see, it’s a matter of privacy, and how … certain people’s privacy is threatened when reality TV cameras go into brothels.

Go on, guess who Karl’s worried about.

The other question arising from the Auckland brothel death relates to privacy.

If a man wants to patronise prostitutes, and it’s legal to do so, he shouldn’t have to indulge in panic-stricken coitus interruptus for fear of being caught on camera and having his face, not to mention other body parts, broadcast on network television.

But a man embarrassed at being caught in a bordello – and bear in mind that he may have had a wife and children – doesn’t have the luxury of time to think these things through. His fatal instinct was to run for it.

But it’s hard to argue that there’s an overwhelming public interest in knowing that a private citizen is enjoying clandestine nooky with a hooker.

Did you spot it, gentle readers?

Here’s another clue: the only mentions of the sex worker who may have been employed by that private citizen –  who might have a wife and children – are thus:

If a man wants to patronise prostitutes

… a private citizen is enjoying clandestine nooky with a hooker.

Who might be worried about getting caught on camera again?

He might.

Who might be worried about having their body parts broadcast on national television?

He might.

Whose privacy is Karl du Fresne oh so fucking terribly worried about?

The man’s. The client’s.

From this, one can only assume that prostitutes who work in brothels don’t care if their faces are broadcast on national TV – or their body parts. It’s not like being in sex work is something people look down on, or something that some sex workers are unable, unwilling or uninterested in having publicized.

For fuck’s sake, Karl, it’s not like some of those women might be victims of human fucking trafficking, or anything. I’m sure they’re fucking breathless with anticipation at being splashed all over some bullshit new Touchdown production, being sensationalized and yes, fucking exploited by reality TV.

But no. When you want to get on your fucking high horse about “public interest in knowing” things, what’s the problem, Karl? That a private citizen (it’s difficult to be a private citizen when you’ve been trafficked, Karl) – who might have a wife and children – might get caught having nooky with a hooker.

Your priorities speak fucking volumes.

Advertisements

6 comments

  1. notafeminist

    An odd departure of sorts – last year when a female teacher in Auckland was revealed by a parent to be moonlighting as a sex worker, the newspaper couldn’t tell us enough about this lady. It was almost as if men are not, you know, an integral part to the whole sex work industry.

    So female sex worker is in trouble: fucking immoral skank.

    Male client is in trouble: poor man!

    (Who may, in fact, have a family!)

    (and on that topic, in this article we’re meant to sympathise heavily with the fact he may have a family. When sex workers have families, though, they are seriously neglecting their roles as wives as mothers.)

  2. QoT

    Yeah, the “may have a family” bit was something I noticed, but didn’t want to cloud the “lalala prostitutes don’t deserve privacy” rantage.

    I also didn’t want to be too uber-blunt, since a person is dead here and that’s never something to be taken lightly.

    On the other hand, I totally read that as meaning “and he has to think of the HORRIBLE SCANDAL that will descend on his Wife And Children if they discover he patronizes brothels” – which is not, however, something Karl thinks he should have thought about *prior* to doing so.

    Sex workers’ families get no such concern, since they’re just the relatives of identity-less hookers.

  3. QoT

    Also with regard to the earlier reportage on the police officer, I guess in that case there was no denying that the woman was a real person with an actual identity who might be *someone you know* – after all, she was a police officer, not a reality TV producer’s fetishized, nameless prostitute.

  4. jcuknz

    The de-crininalisation of prostitution was a major step forward but a lot of people have to catch up with and accept that progress. It just shows how immature Karl is, disguistingly so, but typical, without any thought for the working woman who should be a private person equally with client unless she/he chooses to walk the streets, even then they should have their relative privacy, and not violated by money grubbing TV crews.

  5. Sex Toys Canada

    Typical double standards here eh! It is the girls generally that get treated like sex toys and not human beings not the poor punters. Well written!