Index of all articles, click
here
By Sam Zanahar
Version 1.4, Tirana, 16. February 2010
Drugs are a viable tool of mankind to overcome, with practical means, the philosophical dilemma that in principal, it would be better to be dead than alive.
Who is against drugs (those that are currently classified as illicit)?
Parents and governments.
Parents are against illicit drugs because they want their children to continue their (the parents') procreative strategy. This means, make their parents proud, and have children who then make their parents (and grandparents) proud.
Children who achieve nothing in life, and who themselves have no children, are a loss for parents. After all the efforts and costs it has taken to raise them: nothing.
From the perspective of a young adult, it may make perfect sense to choose a path of life that ends after a short career in extremely satisfying morphine and heroin with a gentle, painless death.
From the perspective of his parents, it's a waste. Parents gain nothing from a child that chooses this kind of destiny.
Sons may die as heroes in wars, defending their country or democracy. They may die as martyrs or suicide bombers for their religion, or in protest against foreign occupation. Great for the ego of their parents, and no waste at all.
Or sons may be nothing special, but good procreators.
As long as they have offspring, the more the better, they have fulfilled their most important purpose, which is: to give grandchildren to their parents.
This is why most people are vehemently against their children becoming addicted to hard drugs, but don't mind if their parents do.
Which, once more, proves that parents have children for mostly egoistic motives.
--
Governments are always against the kind of drugs, which, for precisely this reason have become illicit.
Drugs that are a viable option for young adults to lead an unproductive life followed by an early, painless death, are totally against the interest of governments.
As children, all members of society are a cost factor. They also bind part of the productivity of their parents who typically are in their productive prime.
Once children are young adults, it's payback time. They are expected to work, earn money for themselves, and pay heavily into social security systems, be they formal or informal.
When young adults opt for hard drugs, they don't pay back. Not their parents, not society as a whole. In the contrary, they continue to be a cost factor. And a public order risk.
Governments are not against opiates and other drugs they have made illicit because these drugs would be bad for their users. These drugs have been outlawed because they are bad for the governments.
Look at the type of busybodies who typically make up the top of the executive and legislative branches of modern states. These are people of a mindset easily unveiled. Theirs typically is an ideology that derives justification for their own lives from outside their own lives. They may understand themselves as agents of a specific religion, or as working for the social good, or another irrational entity.
They work for social progress. At least that is what they claim (and even actually believe of their motives).
Of course it is a lie.
These busybodies on all levels of government primarily derive satisfaction from interfering in common affairs. Because they assume they are of value to their social units, they feel able to attach a value to their own lives, which these lives per se do not have.
It's a particular brand of escapism that lands people in government positions (unless they are after opportunities for gains through corruption). They attempt to overcome their own fear of death by claiming (in their own minds) to be important parts of social structures that ideally persist eternally.
These busybodies typically cannot accept that other, more rational contemporaries prefer to just opt out. They cannot accept that young adults do not care about the social good, don't intend to have families, are not bent towards a successful professional live, but just want to take drugs, and die early.
After all the previous elaborations you may be surprised that I myself am not a consumer of illicit drugs.
Not yet.
Because I still have another, better option.
Sexual enjoyment. Lots of it. The best sex ever.
--------------------
By Sam Zanahar
Version 1.4, Madrid, 16. February 2010
I live alone and work alone. I do not have an editor who would read and judge my articles. Unlike other authors, I also do not have a wife with whom I would discuss my work.
This has its advantages and disadvantages.
The primary benefit is that I can be totally honest. I do not have to be politically correct. I am not subject to any censorship.
So, in one way, I can consider myself lucky.
But to be outside of any control can also be a handicap. Nobody can tell me reliably, which of my articles are good, and which one are not.
Sometimes, I can put down a grand idea in a few paragraphs, and everything fits. And sometimes, what I produce is off the mark.
My best pieces have all been written in a single go, from start to finish, without second thoughts. And the same is true for those pieces that are over the top or below my standard of quality.
People who do not write have little awareness of how difficult it is to judge one's own work.
It's as if an author gets desensationalized for his own sentences, just as everybody gets desensationalized for one's own odors.
This is why in a professional setting, authors have editors.
I do not have an editor. The best I can do is to reread an article after a few months, when my brain has sufficiently rewired itself. Only then can I recognize what is expressed well, and what is just quatsch.
I have introduced version numbers for all my articles. A piece with a version number 1.0 should be considered a draft. I have never even read it again after I published it. At the time I wrote it, I may have considered the piece important enough to publish it. But many of my 1.0 versions are totally rewritten after a few months.
I do want to formulate a consistent ideology for a world in which optimal sexual experience, followed by a gentle death, is recognized as guiding principle.
I cannot do this in one sitting. I sometimes work on one portion, and at other times on another portion of my ideology. As I go along, I often discover discrepancies. I try my best to make them fewer.
--------------------
By Sam Zanahar
Version 1.3, Lausanne, 16. February 2010
European and American men who come to Asia for sexual gratifications typically have little awareness of the Asian hierarchy of sexual market value, and of how deeply ingrained it is in Asian societies. Much more than in Europe or North America, sexual market value in Asia depends on factors other than beauty in women and age in men.
For women, a major aspect is sexual freshness. Throughout Asia, the highest sexual market value is attached to virgins from age 15, who are living with their parents and so far have only gone to school. In many Asian societies, their sexual market value is so high that they are normally available only to young men who are willing to go for a marriage, supported by both families.
As girls grow older, their sexual market value declines, even if the keep on staying with their parents (and remain virgins).
In comparison to 18-year olds who go to school and live with their parents, 18-year olds who no longer go to school, but work, or those who live in apartments in big cities, whether they work or go to school, have a lower sexual market value, as their freshness is questionable.
There is a very definite fall in the sexual market value of women who have been married and now are divorced or widows. And there again is a steep decline when they have given birth.
But among these, those who have work and an orderly income are still regarded higher than those who have no job, and whose only choice is to rely on finding a man to help make ends meet.
Prostitutes anywhere in Asia have the lowest sexual market value, though those whose virginity is on the block can ask for a high price once. It only takes a few weeks for their sexual market value to drop sharply.
Obviously, younger prostitutes get more customers, and ask for higher prices, but prostitutes are prostitutes, and even just as girlfriends (not talking about wives), their sexual market value is at the bottom of the scale.
Now enter Western men into the equation. In Western societies, especially in Europe, the sexual market value of women is less hierarchical. What counts in Europe is a beautiful face, and a sexy body. The age of a woman plays less a role, and as long as she doesn't have an infectious disease from it, it matters less how promiscuous she has been.
Furthermore, Europeans typically think that in an ideal match, the woman is some two to seven years younger than the man. This means that even women in their forties can still expect a sexual partnership if they aim at men in their fifties, and they could even end up with a reasonably wealthy one.
You'll have to look for a long time in Asia to find a rich man in his fifties marrying a woman in her forties. Rich Asian men in their fifties will marry young women in their twenties.
For in Asia, not only does the sexual market value of women (but not of men) relate strongly to their age and the degree of sexual inexperience; the sexual market value of men also is often determined simply by his economic status. For this reason alone, older European men will always find their sexual market value increased if they move to Asia, while older Asian women always experience an increase in sexual market value when they move to a Western country.
Divorced Asian women in their forties, when they stay in Asia, have either made their luck previously and then can be with a man who values the opportunity to marry a rich woman, or they will have to be content with a low-class male, or they stay unattached.
In a number of Asian countries with comparatively high divorce rates, Western men have a very easy time making live-in arrangements with local women... who all are divorcees, or widows, or have otherwise (been) separated from their husbands.
Western men in partnerships with local women in these countries often have the wrong impression that it is rather accidental that their women have been in previous marriages, and they think that in principle, they could have found single girls or women, too. But they are wrong: in these countries, where they can easily find a divorcee as partner, they would have a very hard time, indeed, to qualify for a previously unmarried woman.
I don't mind seeing other Western men with local divorcees, or even wit ex-prostitutes. But my personal choice, definitely, are young women who have not been previously married.
Yes, one can go for previously unmarried women in Asia (who definitely are not prostitutes), if one knows where to go to. The member area provides definite information about what to realistically aim for in different countries.
Index of all articles, click
here
http://www.asiatour.com/drugs.htm
Jan Garanoz
Juhu Tara Road, Juhu,
Mumbai - 400049 India
Who is Jan Garanoz?
Last updated: August 19, 2010