In issuing an abatement notice banning a brothel from operating near a school and the homes of retired people, John Banks stated “My first and foremost interest in all of these matters is making sure that the residents, particularly elderly families and families, can live in suburbs without fear of intimidation by the kind of people that tend to frequent these places.” Instead of highlighting the brothel and its exploitative business, Banks conveniently blames the customers. That’s like blaming drug addicts while failing to criticize the pushers. It’s a shame that Mr Banks and others critical of the prostitution industry tend to be so mealy-mouthed. They seem to be frightened of standing up to a feminist whitewashing campaign regarding prostitution.

Banks’ comment of course has little validity. Most brothel customers are ordinary employed men who earn reasonably well. A good proportion will be shy and unconfident and the proportion who are criminally oriented may well be lower than that in the general population. They will need enough disposable income to pay women the kind of hourly rate people could otherwise expect ony with professional qualifications requiring years of study. The poor ethical standards of the brothel owners, prostitutes and their associates present a much greater risk to the local community than the customers ever will. The prostitutes and brothel managers are more likely than the customers to come from a criminal underworld, and the prostitutes, brothel managers, their boyfriends and associates are more likely to be responsible for any increase in burglaries, drug supplying etc in a neighbourhood the brothel moves in to.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a campaigner against prostitution or some legalization of it. However, few topics ever gave rise to so much official denial and b.s. Prostitutes were seen as poor, defenseless, exploited victims forced into degradation to indulge men’s depraved sexuality. The result was the Clark government’s prostitution legislation that largely ignored customers’ interests and essentially gave prostitutes open slather to exploit men’s sexual needs for profit. Aside from some basic rules, e.g. about hygiene and brothel location, the legislation placed no ethical responsibilities on prostitutes but instead seemed to assume they would all be benign providers of personal care services. In contrast, other service providers such as doctors and health workers are thought to be particularly untrustworthy and therefore are covered by strong legislation enforced by a powerful commission with judicial powers, obliging them to operate under strict codes of ethical conduct in order to protect the public from them. Other industries that present special risks to customers (e.g. used car sales, alcohol and gambling providers) are also covered by restrictive ethical rules intended to protect their customers. Not so for prostitution. Not a hint of special protection against the fostering of sexual addictions, against deceptive ploys to lure customers (e.g. initially pretending to be a woman out socializing and wanting to get to know a man), against exploiting drunk or drug-affected men, against damage to family units and children when spouses find out their husbands have been spending money at brothels, against false representation of what services customers can expect for their money, against thieving from customer’s wallets, or even against extortion that is so conveniently available to prostitutes who have direct knowledge about the secret and potentially embarrassing activities of customers.

One can understand why feminists have promoted the cause of prostitution and associated propaganda that led to the current privileged status for prostitutes and their industry. The ability for women to make a lot of money easily from men due to biological forces is a power they do not want constrained, certainly not by any notion of wider ethical responsibilities to men, society, families or children.

Community pressure everywhere has made things difficult for brothels in spite of the aims of the Clark government’s law changes. Here’s hoping that some of that pressure will include enough bravery and integrity to discuss issues honestly rather than resorting to the politically-correct convenience of blaming customers, i.e. men.