I do not only have a materialistic, but also a differentiated, ambivalent, and dialectical view of morals.
It contrasts sharply from what, in high philosophy, is the Kantian categorical imperative, and, in household philosophy, the golden rule.
Why should I not do to others what I do not want to be done to me? I eat slaughtered animals, and I do not see this in conflict with my own interest in not being slaughtered and eaten.
Morals sometimes are strange constructions. But just as I eat slaughtered animals without wanting to be slaughtered myself, I can see a certain usefulness in seeing morals, especially sexual morals, enforced on others without wanting them applied on me.
Furthermore, I understand that moral prescripts have a specific function for people with limited intellectual capabilities.
Sexual morals demand that people be not overly promiscuous. Men ought not visit prostitutes, and women not become prostitutes.
For people with sufficient intellectual capabilities, morals are not needed for either. For men, it's a stupidity to be overly promiscuous and to visit prostitutes, because they can have more profound sexual joy in a genuine love relationship (provided both partners are sexually literate). For women, it's a stupidity to become prostitutes, as this totally detroys their own capacity to experience ultimate sexual satisfaction.
So far, education would be a great substitute for sexual morals.
But I realize that a large percentage of people anywhere in the world lack insight and intelligence, and in fact are stupid.
I aim to achieve for myself the highest sexual market value not because I would want to utilize this ranking in order to bed the largest quantity of women possible, but in order to qualify for a woman who herself has a very high sexual market value: a woman of exceptional beauty, great charm, high intelligence, an advanced education, and great sexual desire and curiosity who, furthermore, hasn't wasted these resources on men of low standards, just as I never wasted myself on women of low standards.
This relationship, I do not want disturbed by any morals. And in this context, I don't really care whether disturbing morals are not imposed in the first place, or whether morals that are in place are easy to circumwent.
No morals needed for the two of us.
Now, regarding morals for others.
I do recognize that anti-sexual morals in many societies can be in my favor as long as long as these anti-sexual morals cannot be enforced legally on me and the person with whom, in whatever form, I am in a love relationship.
In such societies, if a large number of men are pious, they may withdraw themselves from the sexual competition. That suits me fine. It gives me an edge. The point is: in any case, that most fantastic woman I described above, with the highest sexual market value, is, of course, not only aimed at by me, but by local men as well. Furthermore, local men would typically target her earlier than me. And they would target her before she has reached her full potential. This would be bad news for me.
I would be a fool if I would not endorse restrictive morals for those other men, so they will keep their hands off the very few women I consider for myself.
Another aspect is that I want to live in peace. If a large number of the members of a society are non-violent for moral, even religious reasons, such a society will likely be less dangerous than a society in which there are few moral inhibitions to use violent means to achieve one's ends.
As long as morals are not enforced as a disturbance to me, or the woman I am in love with, I can well accept them as the backwardness of a local population.
And as long as the woman I love does not have to fear punishments because she transgresses local morals in her relationship with me, I feel that I will be able to entice her to abandon local customs and to walk a more reasonable, non-moral, and sexual, path with me.
