I apply materialistic reasoning and biological understanding to moral issues.

"Materialistic", in this context, does not mean: based on financial considerations. Rather, "materialistic" expresses adherence to the assessment that everything that is has a cause, and that the cause is in the material world.

The antonym to materialistic is idealistic. As a philosophical category, the term "idealistic" expresses that people believe that what exists in this world has its causes in the realm of an invisible force that has no material representation in this world. For example, those who believe that man has been created by a God, and that there is a parallel world, named heaven, would be classified as idealists.

In an everyday sense, those who adhere to a materialistic philosophy are more likely than idealists to see down-to-earth causal connections for what exists, and for what we do. Idealists would believe that a person's actions are guided by his moral values, while materialists would assume that practical interests guide these actions. Or, one step further, idealists falsely believe that our moral values are based on rational contemplations about what is wrong and what is right, while in reality, our moral assumptions are just a form of window dressing for our naked interests.

"Biological understanding" implies an awareness that some very basic biological axioms apply to us, just as they apply to chimps or orangutans, among which is the pursuit of sexual satisfaction is central.

From a materialistic and biological perspective, our civilization appears much less complicated than politicians, ideologues, writers, and philosophers make us believe. Much of what we consider culture, from a biological point of view, has about the same value as a rooster's comb.

I do not intend to involve myself in the debate on the degree to which sex tourism is deplorable. I generally do not think in moral categories. They are too arbitrary, and apart from that, they are tainted by a lot of hypocrisy and hype.

Sex tourism, which is not just prostitution tourism but covers any sexual relationship down to lifelong marriages, is a natural social phenomenon. It is the migration, usually of men, to locations where one has a better chance to find sexual partners, whether for long-term or short-term relationships.

The sexual relationships of humans aren't naturally as exclusive as the sexual relationships of some birds. Both men and women naturally desire a variety of sexual partners, though this desire may be more explicit in men.

That most sex tourists are men does not mean that women would feel less appetite for sexual adventures. It just reflects the fact that women, as long as they are attractive, do not have to migrate to find men interested in a sexual relationship. Most male sex tourists, on the other hand, are men with a low sexual market value.

While in their home countries, women rightfully have very little interest in them, they can still travel to Thailand and purchase, rather cheaply, the services of prostitutes, or find themselves a wife, or have anything in between a prostitute and a wife, or a person who is both a wife and a prostitute.

Both men and women have a natural interest in parallel sexual relationship sthough fewer women than men will admit it. Women are also more discriminate in their partner choice, especially when they select a man for a purely sexual relationship, and not as a economic provider.

Such men for whom the chances to achieve parallel sexual relationships in Europe or the US are slim, or would require great effort or expenses, will move to more favorable grounds (cheaper or poorer countries where they will find it easier to buy themselves into sexual relationships).

Their behavior can be regulated, but as long as the basis on which it grows is not withdrawn, it cannot be rooted out.

The basis is that for as long as in Third World countries, the sexual interests of North American and European men are a perfect match for the economic interests of a considerable number of local women, the business of matchmakers will thrive.

A standard interpretation of anthropology as well as evolutionary biology is that men are guided by sexual appetite, and women by a need for protection and material support.

But I doubt that men and women are essentially different. Everybody, whether man or woman, will always be geared first towards achieving a base level of safety and comfort. Once this is achieved, promiscuous sexual appetite appears. The difference is just that it is much harder for women to attain this base level of sacfety and comfort than it is for men.

Sex tourism clearly takes advantage of the fact that many women in Third World countries have not attained this base level of safety and comfort, and they expect a sexual liaison with an European or American man to solve the problem.

So, is sex tourism opposed on moral grounds? At the onset of this article I argued that moral concerns are always just disguised interests, and often enough, these interests are sexual.

It doesn't matter that often, people are not even aware that they pursue certain agendas because they match their interests, and instead believe that they do it out of virtue. To behave in accordance to one's interests, and to hold corresponding views, does not require awareness. Natural selection assures that only those whose behavior matches their interests will procreate.

If we take the phenomenon of sex tourism, we will see that the ideological positions taken by each and every social group are in tune with their biological interests.

Western male sex tourists usually find nothing wrong with their behavior, or at least they claim that what is wrong is none of their business. In Third World countries, they frequent cheap local prostitutes, marry attractive local women, and play around in other modes.

Young local women who derive material benefit from the sex tourists also find nothing wrong with it. They need the income… for themselves, and for their families and offspring.

In both cases, the opinion they subscribe to matches their biological interests.

Now to the coalition of those who oppose sex tourism, allegedly out of moral concern.

The women in the countries from where male sex tourists hail are usually strongly against sex tourism. No wonder. Their biological interest is that "their" men stay at home and compete for the females of their own societies… and do not go abroad for easier, younger, and more attractive women. They have reason to be jealous. The women sought by male sex tourists in Third World countries are their immediate competitors.

They may love their men, and hate their female competitors, but this will not be the issue they publicly address. Publicly, they deplore the exploitive character of the relationships of Western sex tourists in Third World countries.

When sex tourism issues are discussed anywhere in the world, I know ahead the position occupied by representatives of Western womanhood. No sympathy with sex tourists!

And in order to provide substance to their cause, they will lobby Third World governments to implement laws pertaining to the sexual conduct of foreign men, or they will lobby their own government to outlaw sexual contact of their own country's men with women in Third World countries.

I know already their coalition partners: the local men in Third World countries. How could they possibly accept happily the presence of Western men who prey on their girls and women? The local men themselves want to prey on their girls and women. Western men are unwelcome competitors; all the more as Western men usually have a substantial economic edge.

It is no surprise that young women in Third World countries dream of husbands from North America or Europe. They may even be able to migrate from the Third World to the Old World (Europe) or the New World (the Americas). A haven of social and financial security awaits them.

Local men in Third World countries can't offer such prospects. Therefore, they hate Western sex tourists and want girls who consort with them severely punished. (Mentally, gang rape by angry local men would be the preferred punishment, but in our times, such measures are difficult to implement in many countries, at least in peacetime.)

Somebody missing in the anti coalition? Oh yes, of course: elder local women in Third World countries (at least those whose daughters aren't about to marry Western men, thus providing an emigration route for the whole family).

With predictable accuracy, all social strata involved propagate opinions that are in accordance with their biological interests. This cannot be an accident. It's their being part of, and member in, a specific social group, which determines the opinion they subscribe to; they do not arrive at specific opinions out of moral consideration, or concerns of human rights, but because they match their biological interests.