Readers' Submissions

The Difference In Perception Between Male And Female Sex Tourists In Western Media Explained

  • Written by Harry J
  • October 26th, 2007
  • 10 min read



The Media in the western world is always very harsh when writing about Western white male tourists who go to the shores of Thailand in search of willing women. These guys are always portrayed in the Western media as disgusting old, ugly, fat and bald white perverts who cannot get a woman in their own (western) country and therefore need to travel to Thailand to take advantage of poor Thai girls who are forced to engage in carnal activities with those white western monsters for only small money.

However when those same media report or write articles about white Western women who go to for example Gambia for the exact same reasons (looking for a black hunk to make love with an exchange for money or goods) we hear a completely different tone. Now we are suddenly dealing with honourable ladies who are looking for romantic encounters with nice African guys who are flattered by the attention of these lovely ladies, fall for them after which both parties engage in mutual satisfactory non-commercial sex, or something in that fashion.

Where does this difference in opinion / perception come from? Does it come from jealous and frustrated white feminists who can’t accept that all those Western guys reject them in favour of pretty Asian girls write these articles? Even though there is no doubt Western women write many of these articles, I don’t think that is the reason. Are there really so many differences between Western male and Western female sex tourists then? Are these Western ladies not sex tourists? Do they really have different motivations than Western guys? Are all these ladies beautiful models and therefore loved by those black hunks? Are the male western sex tourists all fat, ugly, bald, old losers with whom no girl in her right mind would want to have sex with unless she was forced and paid to do so?

A couple of years ago I made the mistake to book a short holiday to Gambia. I did not have much money then and I found a very cheap package holiday deal to that small African country. When I got on the plane the first thing I noticed was that it was absolutely chocker block and I mean really full with elderly (older than 50 years old) white ladies. Back then I did not know that Gambia was a favourite female sex tourist destination hence my surprise. I have always been a keen observer and I noticed too that many if not most of these women were not exactly blessed in the looks department to put it mildly. Most were grossly obese and in dire need of plastic surgery. Had they had an audition for the cast of a horror movie, they would definitely have been hired on the spot.

While it was a shock to see all those ladies, it was nothing compared to the shock I got when I arrived on the beaches of Gambia. In no time all these ladies had found young slim and muscled beach hunks a quarter to half their age with whom they were openly kissing and fondling or making love in the sea or a pool. I lost a lot of meals that holiday. I observed many of these women showering those guys with gifts from expensive candlelit diners to brand new motorbikes. Never again did I return to Gambia.

Anyway the myth that all female sex tourists are sexy and young and gorgeous model types can be expelled in my opinion as can the myth that all those women are honourable. Also the myth that we are dealing with non-commercial holiday romances is not true. The myth that the African hunks fall for them is in my opinion not true as well (although I must admit that some anthropologists claim that Africans fall for fat women). Frankly speaking I saw no difference in the actions and dealings of those women, compared to the sex tourists that go to Thailand. The only difference I saw is that the women who engage in sex tourism (at least the ones I saw) are on average older and fatter than their male western counterparts who frequent Thailand.

So myth expelled, how is it possible that there is such a big difference in judgment of male and female western sex tourists if they are not so different in looks, age, actions and motivation? For this we have to look at the political correctness movement in cooperation with the feminist movement, both of which have not only declared the white western male as public enemy number one, but who have also moulded and brainwashed each and every Western mind into believing that the left-progressive politically correct laws, thoughts, ideas and values were the only and universal truth, and nothing but the truth.

A few universal politically correct laws used in the Western World are enough to explain why white western males who engage in sex with, let's say, Thai women can only be despicable sex tourists who take advantage of poor and innocent Thai girls who are forced into things they don’t want to do, and that white western women looking for the same thing with third world guys can only be nice romance seekers looking for romance and mutually satisfactory sex with those willing, nice third world hunks.

According to the politically correct priests, each person living in this world has been assigned / is forced to play one or more roles. They actually distinguish two roles that people can play namely the role of oppressor / victimizer or the role of oppressed / victim. The role that a person plays depends on and is determined by the labels that / specifications or qualifications that belong to that person such as his or her gender, race group (western / non-western) religion, physical and mental state (disabled or healthy), sexual preference (gay or straight) etc.

Victimizers / oppressors are classified as possessing most or all of the following specifications: Male, white Western, healthy, Christian and straight

Victims on the other hand possess all or some of the following specifications: female, non-Western, disabled, not-Christian, lesbian / gay.

Now depending on the labels that can be put on a person a person can either be a complete oppressor, a complete victim or a combination of oppressor and victim / oppressed.

An example (the only) of a complete oppressor is a straight White western Christian male. Because of his nature (straight, male, white western, Christian) this person can never play the role of victim. According to politically correct law the straight Western male is the worst creature around. Because of his roles (only oppressive) he will by nature be racist, imperialistic and neo-colonialist and oppressive in his dealings with citizens from any Not Western nation. He is also naturally oppressive and discriminating towards the weaker sex, a.k.a. women, whether these are white western women or women from third world countries. This means that he will never deserve sympathy or compassion because he is always bad and he is always the perpetrator / only guilty party if he comes into conflict with somebody who carries one or more victim roles. All his dealings with these people should be met with suspicion, especially when he deals with complete victims (people who by nature only carry victim roles). In this case his intentions will most likely be bad even if he pretends to be nice etc.

Examples of complete victims are a North African Muslim woman and a Buddhist Thai woman. Every label that these persons carry (Non Western, not Christian, woman) qualifies them as a victim, they don’t have even one oppressor label and therefore they can never play the role of oppressor. This means they are naturally good, vulnerable, not capable of doing anything bad and they should therefore be protected and loved by all.

A white western woman is an example of a person who is partly oppressor and partly victim. Why? The fact that she is of the white Western (Caucasian) race group qualifies her as an oppressor but the fact that she carries the female gender makes her a victim (oppressed minority in politically correct terminology). Another example of part oppressor and part victim is a Gambian male. The fact that he is male makes him an oppressor but the fact that he belongs to an African race group makes him a victim. Persons with mixed roles can sometimes play the role of victim but sometimes the role of oppressor depending with whom they deal with. This means that if they have a conflict with a person who is a complete oppressor, let's say a white western straight male, they will always get the sympathy of the politically correct, because in this case they can take advantage of / play their role of oppressed. On the other hand when the person who is partly oppressed and partly oppressor comes into conflict with a person who is completely oppressed he will lose the sympathy of the P.C. and will therefore be forced into his or her role of oppressor. Lastly if he or she gets into a relationship or dealings with somebody with the same qualification (also partly oppressed and partly oppressor they are seen as equal, meaning both parties will receive the same amount of sympathy and sides will not be taken by the politically correct.

Sometimes this can be a bit tricky and not as easy as it seems because a person can carry more or fewer victim and oppressor labels than the person he or she comes into conflict with. Lets look at some examples. A North African guy comes into conflict with a Caucasian gay guy (happens all the time in Holland) The North African can bring 2 victim labels (Non-western and Muslim) and 1 oppressor label (male) into play. The Caucasian gay on the other hand can only use 1 victim label (gay) but unfortunately has at least 2 (maybe 3) oppressor labels (male and Western and maybe Christian). This means that in the politically correct world (Western world) will automatically side with the North African guy who will thus have the advantage and sympathy of the media and public opinion. In simple English this means that if a Muslim guy living in for instance the Netherlands bashes a Dutch gay guy into hospital he will not get sentenced for it because the Moslem guy is more victim and therefore deserves more sympathy then the gay guy.

Now I think we are starting to get the picture, so lets put it into perspective with sex tourism.

White Western women who go to Gambia to have paid sex with young Gambian guys are not bad or disgusting and are not taking advantage. The politically correct media sees their dealings with Gambian beach hunks as encounters of equality and therefore nor bad or disgusting. Both parties (western woman and Gambian guy) are partly oppressed (victim) and partly oppressor. They both have one victim label and one oppressor label as I explained above thus they are equal and therefore the woman can never be a disgusting sex tourist. However if the western media would pick up rumours of healthy western white women having sex with physically disabled Muslim males, the women would probably not receive such a nice and warm report in the media.

The white Western guy who sleeps with Thai girls on the other hand is a completely different thing. Here we are dealing with a double if not triple oppressor (white western, probably Christian and male) which automatically qualifies him (according to politically correct laws) as a bloody racist and imperial bastard who takes advantage wherever and whenever he can. The Thai girl is a double victim at least (Non western and woman) which makes her automatically a poor and innocent person that is being taken advantage of when penetrated by the white guys imperial and neo-colonial dick. No doubt why the Western press is so angry with these guys, they should be shot for what they are doing. Hypocrite I hear you say? No way. This is called politically correct.

Stickman's thoughts:

Very nicely explained. I enjoyed this submission.