Never let the facts get in the way of a good grudge

So, Asenati Lole-Taylor and NZ First have held their mob meeting about the horrors of South Auckland men paying for sex workers.

Telling quote of the day:

[Lole-Taylor’s] comments received cheers and support from the crowd.

But a spokesperson from Streetreach, which provides a confidential support service for those involved in prostitution, was heckled when she said there has been a drop off in the number working the area’s streets.

What?  Facts?  WHO LET FACTS INTO THIS DEBATE?  We’re here to whip up panic and justify our whorephobia, you silly little woman who wants to “support” sex workers instead of publicly shaming them!  Who invited you?

People at the meeting said officials don’t understand the scale of the problem

Because when the agencies supporting sex workers and the Police agree that there isn’t really rampant child sex work taking placing, but one conservative MP whose voter base are kept loyal through judicious panic-mongering says there are, I think we all know who’s on the side of reality.

Here’s a thought, though:  maybe the people attending NZ First’s meeting are better informed about the number of child sex workers on the streets of Papatoetoe.  Because they’re the ones paying to rape teenagers.

I know I harp on about this, but the cognitive dissonance never stops baffling me.  There are sex workers on the streets of South Auckland because the men of South Auckland are paying them for sex.

Maybe Asenati Lole-Taylor is happy to brand a large number of her male constituents as “greasy lowlifes”, but I couldn’t possibly comment.

Advertisements

11 comments

  1. Mr Wainscotting

    But we must Protect the Children™ against becoming little Slutty-McSlut-Sluts! How can we hate the enemy if you try to show that they’re not really the enemy at all and largely don’t exist?

    I have never understood the objection to prostitution, and certainly not the focus on shaming the prostitute rather than the client (I know it’s all about those evil sluts polluting the minds of those poor, innocent men). It’s sad that they have to put blinders to the evidence on to whip up their hate like this.

  2. Megpie71

    There’s at least one fairly sure-fire cure for streetwalking that I’m aware of: prosecute the ones creating the demand. A man is found soliciting sex from a person on the street, he’s the one who gets prosecuted or fined. The person being asked to supply the demand gets a warning, along the lines of “if you’re thinking of working in this line of business, you’d be safer if you worked from a brothel”. This is pretty much the reverse of the way things are done in most countries where street-walking is considered a “problem”.

  3. No.

    Yah it is not just men from South Auckland, men from other whiter parts of Auckland as well. Thanks for your concern………

  4. No.

    You know what, fuck you. Nobody asked you to comment on the men of south Auckland. I’m a woman of south Auckland & I don’t need your help. You’re happy to accuse everybody else of racism but you’re no better. Moderate my comment & play the victim.

    • QoT

      All comments are moderated on this blog, No, it’s nothing personal to do with you. And while I agree that it is not only men from South Auckland (which includes a number of incredibly wealthy white-dominated suburbs) paying for sex, I also feel entirely okay with questioning the constant complaints of anti-sex work people in all suburbs who seem to want to pretend that it’s just coincidental that sex work is carried out there. You can for instance check out the link I posted in a comment upthread to a previous blog post on brothels in Sandringham – another fairly white middle-class suburb – where exactly the same attitudes are on display.

      And frankly? I’ll comment on hypocritical whorephobic bullshit when I want to. So fuck you too.

    • MJ

      Because, you know, when an MP raises an issue about “growing prevalence of girls as young as 13 offering themselves for sale on the streets of South Auckland”, and a blogger decides to talk about prostitution in South Auckland as a result, it’s clearly her latent racism and not the fact that it’s the fucking issue being discussed.

      • UGH. No.

        That’s bullshit. You could have talked about exploitation of sex workers without insulting us. You didn’t declare the men of Sandringham inferior or make about the entire region because a few people in 1 suburb said something you disagree with. You know exactly what “South Auckland” means. This is what white people always do to outsource their social problems to brown and working class areas then blame the people in those areas for being immoral and inferior. I know you can say whatever you want about anything because you’re a white lady and that’s your right. You just want to talk to yourselves and pat yourselves on the back but you don’t want to hear from the people you’re talking about. Obviously I didn’t and don’t expect this comment to make any difference at all because I know talking to white women about anything is a waste of time.

        • QoT

          Since you obviously didn’t even read the post on residential brothels in Sandringham, I’ll quote a relevant passage:

          Because apparently residential brothels only exist because the operators are disgusting jezebels seeking to taint Innocent Family Suburbs with their degeneracy. It’s not because, um, men and even women from said Innocent Family Suburbs might, you know, occasionally employ the services of sex workers.

          See that, right there, where I do, in fact, imply that it’s the (well-off, predominantly white) men of Sandringham paying for the services of the sex workers of Sandringham? That means you can fuck right off.