Commercial sex establishments
Version 2.2, January 2005
While I believe that making use of the services of prostitutes is clearly inferior compared to having sexual intercourse in a love-based sexual relationship, the sexual experience is bound to be even worse if the contact with a prostitute happens within or through the arrangements of a commercial sex establishment.
The reason is that when a sexual contact happens in or through a commercial sex establishment, a third party is involved: the owner of the commercial sex establishment (in primitive settings just the pimp).
The interest of this third party always is to maximize his profit. In order to achieve this, he will take care that a) no customer is turned down, b) a customer is served as swiftly as possible, and c) a customer spends as much money as possible.
The sex available through commercial sex establishments becomes all the worse the richer a country.
The richer a country, the more will commercial sex establishments be garnished with accessories (all added in order to increase the value of the transactions). In poor countries, a commercial sex establishment may just be a roadside hut (and what is sold is sex, nothing else).
The richer a country, the "nicer" the surrounding. Brothels in rich countries are equipped with nice rooms, plus modern bathrooms, and they are furnished.
In rich countries, the commercial sex establishments typically are located in zones that fetch the highest rents.
In rich countries, commercial sex establishments run at a high financial overhead, and this puts pressure on the owner of a commercial sex establishment, as well as on the prostitutes, to have a maximum of commercial transactions within a given period. "Time is money!"
While sex in or through commercial sex establishments is inferior to sex in love-based sexual relationships in poor societies, the fact that there is an additional element of time pressure in the commercial sex establishments of rich countries makes the experience even worse.
The existence of commercial sex establishments anywhere is counterproductive for men who pursue optimal sex.
This is the case because, where commercial sex establishments exist, comparatively "easy" girls and young women may be drawn towards them, as these establishments provide girls and young women with an direct opportunity to cash in on their "easy" attitude; but once they are involved with commercial sex establishments, sexual encounters with them are of an inferior kind.
If commercial sex establishment were non-existent in their environment, then the same girls and young women would probably just look for rich boyfriends. Sex with them would be a much better experience. Because the process of entering a sexual relationship would not be industrialized as it is when it happens through commercial sex establishments, they will not have sexual contacts as indiscriminately as it would be in or through commercial sex establishments. This will preserve many of the positive elements of a sexual encounter with them, even if the girls or young women have financial interests.
I have analyzed in a different context that often, societies as they become wealthier, do not necessarily provide a better quality of life. They don't, because in many ways, wealthy societies become desexualized. That even commercial sex is worse in rich societies, compared to poor societies, is just another aspect.
Actually, the poorer a society, the more likely it is that commercial sex establishments are less developed (though many of them may exist; it's just that each of them isn't as developed as commercial sex establishments in rich countries).
Because in poorer countries, men have less money, a commercial sex industry in which customers can be blatantly ripped off, has less chances to develop. It may sound funny, but in poor countries, the commercial sex industry is somehow more honest. Girls and young women in commercial sex establishments typically have fewer customers (maybe just 1 or 2 a day, compared to 10 to 20 in rich countries), and more men are more likely to achieve better satisfaction.
The point is: for a sexual relationship to be satisfying, even if the relationship starts right away with sexual intercourse, it is essential that the two parties involved have time for each other. And that's exactly what is minimized in commercial sex establishments in rich countries. The third party involved (the owner of the commercial sex establishment, or the pimp) will take care of that.
I am not personally in favor of commercial sex establishments, certainly not in rich countries, and not even in poor countries. But I know a good number of Western men, who frequent commercial sex establishments in poor countries, but have no inclination to do so in their home countries.
Promoting sex tourism?
Version 2.3, January 2004
It has been claimed, and I have been blamed, that my work promotes sex
tourism.
But I cannot be judged that easily.
Yes, it is true that I charged for access to articles with information
on promising strategies for sexual relationships in certain countries.
But actually, the primary purpose of the membership fee never was to
generate income for me, but to keep the information rather exclusive. I
was willing to share it, but only with a few people.
If my primary interest would have been to earn money by providing
information to sex tourists, I would have charged a much lower price, a
price that more readers would be willing to pay. But with the high access
charges, I effectively priced myself out of business.
Anyway, because access charges are high, most of those who are
interested in access choose either to exchange information with me, or to
translate articles. And in that, I am interested for political reasons.
For several years already, I no longer write to earn money, strange as
this may sound. I earned my money writing travel guides, and if earning
money were my concern, I would continue doing this. Less effort, and
less controversial than writing political articles. But I live a simple,
low-key life, and for that purpose, the money I have earned in previous
years will last me until I die.
Many things, I now write either for myself, or in an attempt to bring
some sense to the world.
While I live in a world, or a part of the world, that allows me a
considerable level of sexual satisfaction, I would happily live in a world
that would be even better suited for what I consider the most important
aspects in life: optimal sexual satisfaction, followed by a gentle
death.
The chances may be slim that through my writing, I will achieve enough
social change to ever feel a benefit from it. But nevertheless,
attempting it (and not earning money) is the principal motivation for much of
my publishing on the Internet.
The social change that I would like to see is the implementation of
more personal, and yes, sexual freedom.
Over the past 25 years in Southeast Asia, ever more legal sexual
restrictions have been implemented, and the general social climate has become
ever less accepting of sexuality per se.
Southeast Asian politicians and activists with an anti-sexual agenda
usually proclaim that they want a reversal to previous sexually more
sober human relations. They lie. In all countries of Southeast Asia, the
trend has clearly been anti-sexual, for both social and legal parameters.
And what has been sold as moral restoration has usually been a
first-time sexual restriction.
If nothing would have changed in Southeast Asia since the early 1980s,
I would probably have written much, much less. Or, at least, I would
have written less in the way of political activism.
But anyway, not all of my writing is political activism. I also write
and publish to establish and promote a better understanding of the most
important aspect of life before one's death, which, definitely, is
sexuality. And as I have been living in Southeast Asia for a quarter
century, it is only natural that I discuss sexuality from a Southeast Asian
perspective.
But promoting sex tourism to Southeast Asia would be very much against
my interests.
While I do recognize that men do have common interests (for example: to
live in
freedom), I also know that sexually, other men are my competitors. Men
who are similar to me all the more than those who are very different.
Here, in Southeast Asia, other Caucasian males are my competitors more
than locals.
I don't want competitors around… the fewer the better. They spoil the
exclusivity of the turf. For this reason, I would be a fool to promote
sex tourism.
Anti women
Version 1.3, September 2003
Some critics think I am anti women. This is of course total and absolute quatsch.
If anything, than I am anti men.
My favorite omni-potency imagination is to be the ruler of an island. No men there, except for me. I love to imagine women in every position. No, not in bed, but as managers, physicians, architects, and bankers.
Even in a modern society, I would happily go with a sex distribution of 95 % women and 5 % men. I grant that we need some men, as construction workers, or in other jobs where physical strength is required. The fewer the better.
I am no Kantian fool. While I am a man, and while I want the best for me, the conclusion that I would want the best for all men is a medieval philosophical fallacy.
This doesn't mean, that I wouldn't recognize the benefits of solidarity among men. Even though I may enjoy fantasies of societies with no other men, or just a limited number of other men, I realize that my chances of ever living in such a society are so slim, that I will do absolutely nothing to pursue it.
On the other hand, I can reap in some tangible benefit for me from acting in solidarity with other men and women, even though I am aware that other men are my competitors, and even though I am aware of the fact that women usually have sexual strategies quite different from those of men.
As an activist, I do not seek solidarity for my sexual lifestyle. Yes, my sexual lifestyle is elitist. I am aware that such a lifestyle is available only for a relatively small number of men.
I am also aware that my sexual lifestyle is contrary to what most women would want it to be, even those women who tell me that they love me.
I am an activist for men's rights, but I do not preach my lifestyle to others. I am aware that it cannot be implemented on a general scale.
But even more than for men's rights, I am an activist for personal freedom, especially in sexual matters. And on that level, I'd like to be part of a large coalition. Like everybody else, I wish to be as unrestricted as possible in pursuing happiness.
But personal freedom needs personal safety to be enjoyable. This is why my advocacy for personal freedom, and non-interference of the state in private, especially sexual matters, does not mean that I would preach the absence of states in future societies, or even just weak government (which would result in nothing but mafias lording it over).
To the contrary, the best guarantor of the personal freedom of the members of a society is strong government by a political party with a strong ideological commitment to the personal freedom of the citizens of a state. Such a strong government could even be proactive towards the optimal sexual satisfaction of the members of a society, and even concern itself with matters such as assuring as gentle a death for as many of a country's citizens as ever possible.
However, Western-style democracy, in which those who want to get elected preferably play to the sentiments of hate and jealousy of those who vote, will unlikely lead to a society with a strong government, which is benevolent in matters of personal freedom.
|
