The main cause of the phenomena is, in fact, the tourism itself. Since flying with big jets has become so cheap and convenient, the world tourism began in less than fifty years ago. Before the sixties we could see people travelling within their own country, or more or less so. In history we can see people moving only if they were forced to: during military actions, moving troops, refugees, etc. Even in these situations peoples met with one another and of course several times discovered that other people were sexually very attractive. But in the era of the world tourism, the main reason for travelling is the free will. You can reach to the most popular locations in 24 hours almost from everywhere, and if you plan your trip carefully, the expenses may remain on a reasonable level.

In every human population there have always been certain sexual ideals, models, perfect types. Dark skin in the northern countries is regarded to be very sexy, and people are trying to get tanned while the short time summer lasts. People in southern countries believe that you are more attractive if you have lighter skin. In some countries men prefer small-shaped girls, with tiny tits etc; in other countries men seem to believe that only plump and chubby women are the best ones, and so on. The world tourism is going to fulfil everybody’s desires. If a blonde from Sweden spends her vacation in either Turkey, Greece, Italy, Spain or Portugal, she will return and sigh for the dark men forever – and nobody calls this ’sex-tourism’. If an Englishman spends some weeks in Pattaya every year – we all know how to entitle his activity. Actually, in both cases this is, no doubt, sex-tourism.

Other cultural aspects arise from traditions. In countries based on the Christian tradition, all sexual activities are, in principle, sinful. All people are determined to be guilty because of the original sin. Or, as Nietzsche said: "Christ gave Eros a poison to drink. Eros did not die because of that, but he degenerated, became vice". In SE Asia, for example, people are free from that kind of poison and they meet all sexual activities like children, just for fun, innocently. If an average white man with his hang-ups and unsatisfied desires finds himself in that kind of society, he can call this a paradise. It is not only by chance that one of the famous places in Bangkok is called the Eden Club.

In the traditional Asian society the man is the dominant part in the family and in all other relations. In the Western society there has been added a special accent to the similar male-dominant environment – gallantry, knightliness, chivalry, from which derives courtesy, politeness, suavity, especially towards ladies. Women in Asia do not expect that kind of behaviour from men and they are very much delighted about such kind of attention and regard. All Western men, farangs, seem to be very considerate and regardful comparing with the local rough-mannered men.

All these aspects mixed together produce a very strong and even dangerous cocktail. There is no hope for Thai ladies and farang men: both fall in love instantly. Unfortunately, this is not the never-ending love. The girls remain complaining about the ’butterflying’ of farangs, and the men do not understand how their girls can continue ’prostituting’. They both are wrong. No one can cut off their roots decisively. Misunderstanding caused by the roots will remain and only few relationships will end in a happy marriage.

But, is a happy marriage the ultimate purpose?

(To be continued..)

This is an odd posting -- it seems to be in response to something, but the something remains implied. There's a degree of "disapproval" of sex-tourism ("the main cause" is her first sentence, as though it's a symptom of a disease, for example), and several unstated objections and questions seem to be addressed one after the other. Therefore, the posting doesn't hold together on its own, but instead leaps from topic to topic as though we readers are supposed to know where the author is coming from and are supposed to share in the objections and questionings. If we DID agree with the objections, for example, then the leaps from (a) addressing one objection to (b) addressing another would make sense. But since the objections aren't stated, and are probably generally things we in this community don't agree with, I can't follow the post.

In fact, I consider it flame-bait. It's a post that radically diverges with the many common assumptions of the group into which it's been inserted, but presumes (through its language and its assumptions) that its own assumptions, rather than the group's, are "obviously" better.

Who is Lulu? So far, a troll ... dragging a net in the hopes of catching an argument. I won't address the many ridiculous assumptions behind his / her / its post, or the many incorrect conclusions, or point out the few (and far-between) citations I DO agree with. I'll just say, umm, ...

AND WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

This post was cut-n-pasted from some other website which was posted a while back. I deleted my link after I read the article, but recognize the writing.

My mind use to wander around like that back in the sixties when I was eating alot of acid. Sad part is I believed much of what I said.