I live in Asia, and the primary reason why I came here has been the fact that my sexual market value is much better here than it was in Europe.
Though some countries in Southeast Asia are famous for their prostitution infrastructure, I personally never went to prostitutes and never provided information on having sex with prostitutes.
I only enjoy sex if I also feel love. And I am only interested in translating my comparatively high sexual market value into the best quality of sexual experience, not a high quantity.
I am a writer by profession, and I have been making a living, through this website, giving advice to other men on the boost in sexual market value they can experience in Asia (well, some parts of Asia).
But I have always felt uncomfortably ambivalent about giving advice to other men. The reason is that guiding foreign men to the locations, and even the countries, where I live, actually works against my sexual interests.
And not even only sex tourism works against my personal interests. All forms of tourism to the countries where I live only bring me disadvantages.
By and large, Western tourists who visit Third World countries have a colonizing effect. They contribute to globalization. The plain presence of Western tourists, and even more so of sex tourists, causes a certain amount of assimilation of Third World countries to Western countries.
But I am in favor of the diversity of world cultures. I am bored with Old-World culture and New-World hypocrisy. I like cultures that have not yet been influenced by the West. I would love to visit the South Sea as it presented itself to Captain Cook. Or the Thailand of King Chulalongkorn. Or Baghdad when it was part of the Ottoman Empire.
The presence of tourists, especially sex tourists, is disadvantageous to me not only because it causes assimilation but also because it undermines my exclusivity.
I am an elitist. Even now, Third World countries are all the better for me the fewer Western tourists visit them. Especially mass sex tourism messes it all up.
In such countries, the typical sequence of developments goes like this: First sex tourism, then local resentment, then the involvement of Western anti-sexual exploitation groups and general anti-sex lobbies (such as the Catholic Church), and then legislation that is directed more or less against sexual relationships between Western men and local women.
I am a materialist. Not in the sense that I would strive to amass material wealth. I am a materialist in the philosophical sense, as it has been used by Marx to differentiate himself from Hegel's idealism.
Materialism, in this sense, means that the Sein determines the Bewusstsein, or that our interests shape our opinions, or ideologies.
On this basis, it is obvious that I must be against sex tourism, or any form of tourism, to those Third World countries where I live.
I know who, from a materialistic perspective in the philosophical as well as the vulgar sense, is in favor of tourism, even sex tourism, to Third World countries. Airlines who want to fill the seats of long-haul flights. People who invest into hotels and resorts in Kingston and Kinshasa. The publishers of guidebooks to far-away and difficult-to-get-to places.
The Yemen and Tibet were once lonely places. Now they are visited by considerable numbers of Westerners who bring an essential tool to find their way around without being overcharged: their Lonely Planet guidebook.
So why, if I am so critical of providing information for Third World countries, have I been doing precisely that for the past few years?
