What is ‘sex tourism’? It’s a subject that generates a great deal of copy and little enlightenment. Is it just ‘mongering’, the practice of buying sex, but this time in foreign lands? And if it were, would there be anything wrong with that? Or is it any sex abroad? Is having sex when you’re on holiday ‘sex tourism’? What about if you live abroad and occasionally have dalliances with the locals? Sex tourism? What about, in the same country, if you marry a local? Still ‘sex tourism’?
What does ‘sex tourism’ actually mean? Is it really a thing, or is it just another nasty epithet that the lowest of the low, rabidfems, use to try to shame men into behaving by the rules that they and other feminazis set, without ever getting a say in defining those rules? Can women be ‘guilty’ of ‘sex tourism’, or is that just holiday fucking?
I was browsing the internet, a while back when I had time to do these things, when I came across a site devoted to travel. I’m not going to give the URL; the reasons for this will become clear. Anyway the author seemed in a bit of confusion about kathoeys, ladyboys and other transsexuals, so I explained that the situation in Asia is completely different from that in the west.
Born with a dick
In Asia, if you are born with a dick, you can be one of two things: a straight guy or a gay. Doesn’t matter whether the latter are called kathoey, ladyboy, half-half, bakla, gay, whatever. The distinction is simple: if you use your penis to penetrate, you’re a straight guy and if you get penetrated you’re gay. In Asia, a man who penetrates someone also born male is not seen as gay. Only the recipient is.
Homosexuality is not, therefore, a matter of attraction, but of sexual practice. So, in the cases where males both give and receive, they are seen as bisexual. They are straight males when they penetrate and homosexual, or female when penetrated.
This is why ‘ladyboys’, as understood by most of us, exist in the first place: since males, the penetrating parties, are attracted to feminine beauty, in order to get sexual partners, the would-be recipients make themselves as beautifully feminine as they can.
If they become bisexual, that is, more in line with the Western idea of the New Gay Man who both gives and takes, they do it when they are older and no longer able to attract straight men with their beauty.
This understanding is widely held outside the Anglo-Saxon world, aka the ‘Anglosphere’, or ‘Planet Fucked-up’; in fact it is the normal understanding for most of the world, and most of the world is very happy to see things this way.
It’s not just its bizarre ideas about homosexuality that the West seeks to export
The Western attempt to impose its measures of what constitutes sexual orientation on other cultures, eg Asian ones, is simple cultural imperialism. It assumes that Westerners know best and everyone else has to go along with Western, by which we mean Anglo-Saxon and, specifically, USican ideas. It matters not whether this is being done for the best or worst of reasons, the fact that it is being done at all is wrong.
The site which I mentioned above (remember that?) seemed interesting enough for me to take a deeper look, and oh, my, did I open a can of worms. The cultural imperialism that had caused the writer’s confusion about kathoey was everywhere, and no more than in her condemnation of ‘sex tourism’.
Nobody in their right minds condones men going abroad to have sex with little children; however, and contrary to the allegation on the site, this is a very small problem. The overwhelming majority of men who travel to buy sex, buy it from consenting adults.
A simple visit to Pattaya or any of the other sex-tourism hotspots confirms this immediately. Everywhere are sex workers of every imaginable sort, but they have one thing in common: they are all, obviously, over the age of consent, which, in case you don’t know, is fifteen in Thailand.
The authorities in Thailand and elsewhere in Asia take a very tough line on under-age sex of any kind. (Note: under -age; not under 18. Relatively few countries are dumb enough to imagine 16-year olds don’t have sex, not even the terminally obtuse USA.) They raid establishments suspected of it and they lock people up for very long periods of time. This is no ‘blind eye’, this is the proper way to deal with it. But even though it is taken seriously, it is not a statistically major issue.
But more than this, the site owner went on to launch a tirade against all forms of ‘sex tourism’ by which she included going to a particular geographical area because you are attracted to a particular ethnic type, even when your intention is to find an adult partner in a non-commercial, loving relationship.
An extremist feminazi thus did reveal herself.
It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that if one is attracted to a particular ethnicity, then seeking out partners whom you find attractive, is ‘objectifying’ any more than any other expression of taste in the opposite sex. Is it objectifying to say one prefers brunettes with brown eyes? Or blondes with blue eyes? Or goth girls? Supermodels? Only a feminazi could think that.
Men have sexual preferences and so do women. So if you happen to like, say, Asian women, and go to Asia to meet them, how does that come to be ‘objectifying’, any more than meeting an Asian girl in the West and asking her out?
Huge Black Dick
If a woman wants huge black dicks and goes to Africa to find them, is that ‘sex tourism’? You’re just going where you have a better chance of meeting the type of partner you want.
Or are we saying that looks are of no account in the choice of partner? Because that is just ridiculous. Every study that has ever been carried out tells us that humans are attracted to their partners by the way they look. Are we supposed to find partners we are not attracted to, just because some feminazis think that would be more politically correct? Rubbish.
‘Sex Tourism’ is just rabidfem pap
This is just the usual feminazi, rabidfem pap. The blog author is really saying that she knows fine well that men go to other countries to find the kind of young, beautiful, sexy women they couldn’t hope to attract at home, and have liaisons with them.
Of course this strikes at the heart of feminazi philosophy, because what it means is that these men do not need to put up with the bullshit they get from women back home.
Why should a man tolerate women rebuffing him because they think he’s too old/fat/ugly/bald whatever, when he knows perfectly well he can find women who are far more beautiful, who think he’s some sort of knight in armour and will throw themselves at him, if only he spends a few hundred on airfare? Why would he bother looking for an older Western woman, with all her prejudices, road miles, idiosyncrasies and ill humour, when he could have a twenty-something who thinks the sun shines out of his arse?
Now I am under no illusions: I was a lot better looking 25 years ago. But I am in decent shape, have all my hair and most of my teeth, I can be very charming and I don’t usually break the mirror. Have you any idea how often I get propositioned just wandering around in Asian cities? It’s several times a day. Every day. And it’s not just me: I’ve seen men I’d consider a sight less attractive being actively courted by women well under half their age; and we are not talking about whores here, just ordinary women looking for a partner.
And this is not exploitation: both parties get what they want. She gets financial security and he gets plenty of sex. It’s perfect; indeed it is the social contract upon which all of human society was based, at least until rabidfems came along to fuck things up: the exchange of sex for security.
In any case, Asian women prefer older men, whom, they believe, will have the financial and emotional stability that they seek. Sure, they like young men when they are younger and fooling around but when they get serious, the target age goes up. So actually, who loses out here? The Asian girls aren’t complaining, nor are the Western men.
That only leaves one group. The Western feminazi, who has just seen her most powerful cannon, her control of access to sex, well and truly spiked. I mean, that is what the whole feminazi philosophy boils down to, isn’t it?’ Do as we say or we won’t fuck you.’
And don’t give us that BS about ‘developing mutual relationships’ because it’s utter pish. Age and ethnic differences have nothing to do with how well you can relate as partners, and those who suggest otherwise are akin to those who would ban inter-racial marriages: their ideas are outrageous.
So with the suggestion, that travelling to find non-commercial romantic arrangements is somehow morally wrong, completely demolished, lets look at the more conventionally understood form of ‘sex tourism’, where men travel to foreign countries to buy sex. Here there are two moral questions. The first is, ‘Is it OK to buy sex?’ and the second is ‘Is it OK to go abroad to do it?’
The first of these is the important one, irrespective of any smokescreen.
So is it OK to buy sex? Well, what is the purchase of sex? It is the exchange of services for money, that’s all. People exchange services for money all the time; it’s the foundation of our economies. So why should sex be different? As long as both parties are old enough to decide what they do with their bodies, how does anyone else have the right to comment?
Well, the traditional reason was religious. But, you know, this is the 21st century. People are free to believe whatever they want, but that does not give them the right to impose their perverted morality on others. Strike the religious objection.
Two bogus responses
Feminazis, divested of this traditional response, which was in any case too ‘patriarchal’ for most of them, usually come up with two others.
The first is that selling sex exploits women. I’m sorry, but the simple fact is that an uneducated girl with good looks will make many times what she would stacking shelves at Tesco by serving up her coozie, hot, to he who has the wherewithal. Is she being exploited at Tesco or in bed?
I am not suggesting that she would want to, or that she should; I am just saying that as long as she gets what she wants, money, and he gets what he wants, sex, and both feel a good deal was struck, then no exploitation has taken place. If you think otherwise, then you need to come up with something that can successfully replace capitalism and the market economy.
The other is that selling sex puts those selling it in danger. However, this has been proved time and again to be wrong. It may be true that sex providers are endangered, but it is not the act of doing it that endangers them, it is the social conditions that surround them.
Study after study has proven that when prostitutes are given safe areas to work, violence against them decreases drastically, and conversely, the disastrous total ban in Sweden, where feminazis, after years of pressure, finally got their way, has led to a huge increase in prostitutes’ vulnerability. In areas where the sale of sex is accepted, such as Pattaya for example, there is very little risk of physical violence to the girls.
A woman has the right to decide what she will do with her own body and society has no right to prevent her. It is her choice whom she fucks and whom she does not, and whether it’s for money or not is totally irrelevant. At the same time, men have a right to choose how they spend their cash, and if that happens to be on fucking someone who is perfectly at liberty to have sex with them, then it’s nobody else’s damn business.
So if the sale of sex cannot be morally condemned outside of some Bible-thumping bullshit philosophy, and it is obviously unreasonable to suggest there is something wrong with being attracted to people of different ethnicity, and travelling to meet them, then what is wrong with sex tourism?
The answer? Nothing. And let’s be quite clear: outside of the politically-correct West, no-one is listening to the feminazis and their drivel anyway; and long may that last.
Happy whoring, wherever you may go.