The sentiment is exactly that white males shouldn't visit these places - or at least she doesn't want to hear about it, it says so in the very title.
And she's quite pointedly attempting to paint any such visit or presence as sex tourism.
If her point had been direct, to decry tourists (white or not, male or not, heterosexual or not) getting sex "on the cheap" in impoverished nations, we might agree. But then we'd also have to decry the way corporations and financial capitalism gets other forms of labor and resources on the cheap in impoverished nations, and a whole lot of other arguments. Sex is not some magic pixie dust, to be bestowed by royal fairies, after all; it's just another thing people do.
She does seem to make two separate points which is perhaps the flaw in this article. On one hand she is pointing to the economic disparity the locals face compared to the Western Tourists, but at the same time she cannot seem to help herself from commenting on the "sexual tourism" that as she points out has "been on her mind".
"To boast of cutting corners in countries where human beings depend on literal dollars, table scraps of your hourly income, to feed their families for entire weeks holds no repute for me." <This is the point I was arguing and I can see her point of view. (I also have no problem with financial capitalism and corporations seeking out cheaper labor and resources as long as it is humane).
However to broadbrush all White Western Males in Asia as individuals on a Sex Holiday goes too far.
"To boast of cutting corners in countries where human beings depend on literal dollars, table scraps of your hourly income, to feed their families for entire weeks holds no repute for me."
The thing is that capitalism does indeed thrive on cutting corners in these kinds of situations, albeit often indirectly, by selecting the most "cost effective" supplier, building the factory in low-tax, or low-labor-protection states, and so on.
It's no different when Nike, or even the more enlightened conglomerates, do it than when an individual privileged white male imperialist tourist does it. It's just more personal, rather than systematic, perhaps.
But I suspect the systematic pressure is much more damaging than disrespectful tourists. And since when have tourists been known to be respectful anyway, in SEA or anywhere.
I agree with you, but i can understand her point of view. Her coworkers are mostly male, so most of the braggart she talk to are probably male too, and this skew her view. This is not a skin color or gender issue, this is a cultural/civilisation issue. Most of the westerner tourists going to SE Asia are acting in a weird way, it doesn't matter if they are sexual tourists, backpackers or others. Respectfull, non-arrogant westerners are not that easy to find in SE Asia.
This is unrelated but i think USA focus on gender and skin color for every subject is unhealthy. Yes, you have some issues related to those caracteristics, but you are forgetting about class and/or culture discrimination.
And she's quite pointedly attempting to paint any such visit or presence as sex tourism.
If her point had been direct, to decry tourists (white or not, male or not, heterosexual or not) getting sex "on the cheap" in impoverished nations, we might agree. But then we'd also have to decry the way corporations and financial capitalism gets other forms of labor and resources on the cheap in impoverished nations, and a whole lot of other arguments. Sex is not some magic pixie dust, to be bestowed by royal fairies, after all; it's just another thing people do.