Pick up artists

The world is not fair. This might seem like an irrelevant point to begin on, but it's at the root of all problems. Some of the unfairness can be reduced by systems we construct, but if you remember the line from the propaganda officer in the film 'enemy at the gates', not all. "In this world, even a soviet one, there will always be rich and poor". The situation he speaks of is love, but there are many others.

The idea of pick-up artists seems sick, that women can be manipulated into giving up their bodies, and that it is a skill. But it's obvious the 'artists' themselves are hateful, as are the Westboro Baptist Church, what causes concern is their popularity. (Here I have to say Magnolia is a great film, with a good performance by Tom Cruise as a pick up artist with a hidden history.)

The popularity is a necessary part of the trade. Pick-up artists make money from what they do, from followers, so what they say must appeal to some people. The question is why. As a side note it also raises the possibility that they don't in fact believe in what they say and are simply taking money from desperate men (whilst spreading dangerous ideas). Much as the profitability of evangelical preaching casts doubts on the true belief of the preachers, or equally the honesty of a man who sells tips on horses. Where speaking words is remunerated, it raises the possibility these words are spoken without belief. I once read in shock an anti-scientific 'article' suggesting Ebola was a conspiracy by the vaccine industry. But following the article to it's source I noticed that the website had an abundance of adverts targeting suggestible people. I realised there was no point asking if the author actually believed the text, dangerous in encouraging anti-vaccine sentiment, as it was profitable to bring in readers. It's harder to argue with someone who doesn't believe what they say!

But, whether true believers or merely amoral motivational speakers, people pay for their lessons. Who? Let's assume men who match the following
They have no success with women, or perceive that they have less success than others are having
Its possible there are 'successful' men who simply want more, I wouldn't want to leave alternatives to my assumption unmentioned.

The first response, as others have written, is that they are making a mistake. They have chosen the wrong solution to remedy their position. Women don't exist to serve them, they aren't owed sex, they need to start treating women as free human beings. Women are not a homogenous group that has slighted them, but independent free individuals. Perhaps that they need to change themselves to become desirable, instead of relying on deception. The 'friend zone' is simply a typically male construct to justify hatred towards women who don't return 'friendship' with sex. Where there is the anger at not being seen as a potential partner, there should be acceptance.

But, suppose they begin to treat women as human beings, what if they are still rejected. Here is the point: sexual selection is 'unfair'. To clarify what I mean by fairness, that we are not born with equal opportunity to attract a partner, or the partner that we desire. Outside of Disney movies love is not destined, appearance and perhaps innate personality are factors. I'd like to think the importance of superficial traits is something that greatly reduces with thought and consideration, but can anyone say that their selection of partners was completely free of physical attraction. After all, we're talking about sexual partners, a biological drive, not our platonic friends.

An old wisdom is that everyone is different, and perhaps that there is someone for everyone. It seems reasonable that each person's desires are different, but different does not mean uncorrelated, or specifically matching the distribution of available traits. You might think of the issue of body size, where yes, contrary to the homogenised ideal of the media, some men like curves. And when curvy was the ideal, some men liked skinny. But what about something subtle, good skin, or facial symmetry. To use the most dangerous phrase in ill informed blogging, 'studies have shown that' facial symmetry is important in attraction. Height in men is also correlated with first impression attractiveness. I've chosen these two examples because they are reasonably accepted, as statistical trends not hard and fast rules, whether your friend Jane happens to like short men or not. It's easy for us to see that peacock with fewer eyes is less attractive to potential partners, but do we apply the same to humans. Simply because the brain is a measure of fitness does not mean we've escaped selection.

In short, I've tried to demonstrate that it is possible to be physically less attractive, and that this isn't explained away by 'everyone is different'. Even if we each had a match who we found desirable, we are jealous and competitive beings, and it would never be equal. But isn't this obvious? Well what if there is a systematic tendency by the attractive, where I include myself, because attractive in this case means able to attract the partner they desire, to dismiss the plight of the less attractive. We would feel better about our own achievement if it wasn't simply something we were born with, and wouldn't have to imagine the suffering of others. Why should someone 'ugly' have any less drive to find a partner, but none of the success. If you don't believe this, why is desperation so frightening to see?

Perhaps I was started into this way of thinking by a documentary following a number of disabled people. The father of one man took him to a brothel once yearly, so he could experience what he was missing. I don't want to start on the issue of prostitution, but isn't there an acceptance in this act of his position regarding sexual selection. The people at the bottom may resort to less pleasant actions. Men who pay for sex, or training in the hope deceit can get them what they feel they lack, women who pay for cosmetic surgery, turn to anorexia, suffer body hatred, competing with the attractiveness of others. People who are deprived of what others enjoy.

This is an exaggeration, but if it exists, what does it mean. Well, sadly that pick up artists and diet book pedlars will always have a target market. That you can't pretend that for these people everything will be alright if they respect themselves and the opposite sex. That expecting these people to be content constitutes a form of denial, but with the note that understanding motivations doesn't imply justification or support.

In some ways the problem arises because partners are symbols of success. Try and picture someone successful, they are probably also attractive? If we want to lower the pressure we need to decouple the ideas of personal success and having a partner or sexual success. To reduce the sensation that everyone else is having more success, that we are liable to feel. To challenge the ideas of the normality of finding a partner. For the happy couples not to boast their joy. What if simply promoting your joy can reduce someone else's.

Of course it isn't all perception, loneliness exists. We can hope the less often selected find deep and meaningful relationships, perhaps in being lost something stronger. But never pretend life is fair. Never say there is someone for everyone. And if you are so smart that your matching algorithm has succeeded for all humanity I'm very curious to know how you've matched up India and China's 30 million (each) surplus men.

On a more serious note

Here its acceptable to take from a shared plate with your spoon. This is a big contrast to India where things which touch the lips are considered dirty, while the hands are considered clean. I hope this is the last comparison I make between the two countries, anything more could develop into an abhorrent attack on culture. Its worth explaining before I continue that I don't consider culture, the ways and thinking of a group of people, to be sacred. I see culture not as belonging to people but people belong to cultures, into which they were born without choice, even if they choose to defend it. Culture develops with time, it can change without a sense of sadness over its 'loss'. People should not be condemned to live as museum exhibits. Giving women more respect and status costs nothing, but it can make life so much better.

Best kept secret

If it's got 174 reviews on TripAdvisor I don't see how you can call it anything but a poorly kept secret.

Locally extinct

Despite my normal bias towards conservation, as I walk alone along the forest roads I've never been so glad that tigers are locally extinct. It doesn't stop me starting each time I hear a rustle in the undergrowth.

Internet point

There is a mound at the top of the village, if I stand on it I can get mobile data.

Briefly staying in a school teachers rest house, it's not exactly glamorous, but they get by. Quite a few boxes of Hong Thong whiskey strewn about, I guess that's international.

The biggest scam of all

Is right where you begin. Travel insurance is essentially the business of misleading people into thinking that they might be covered should something happen, at least for policies sold in the UK. We're all familiar with the idea that insurance comes with a big list of terms and conditions, and its always this way. Don't let that trick you into thinking that the terms are reasonable.

So let's consider a case: for my first trip I selected HolidaySafe backpacker travel insurance. With cover extendable up to 18months it seemed perfect, but in reality under the terms I was never actually covered. The problem term: you must be able to show intent to return home, primarily by a booked return flight. This exclusion is common to many backpacker policies, as the policies do not cover people who are emigrating, but what if you are not able to prove your intent to return home? As a backpacker its extremely unlikely that you will want to fix your return flight 18 months away, let alone all the intermediate flights. This leaves you searching for other proofs of intent, which I have had to email at least one company to have clarified. I'm slightly suspicious that this list of proofs does not appear in the terms of the contract, and is provided separately by some insurers. Common alternatives are a university place (if you have one, which could potentially be deferred for over 12 months), a job offer (deferred for 18 months?) a doctors appointment (deferred for 18 months? very unlucky), a Wedding Invite (if you have one, on the list for my latest insurer). None of these matched my first travel, though I am now equipped with both a wedding invite and doctors appointment to satisfy my latest policy.
(Update: I initially suggested proof of intent to return for the HolidaySafe policy was only by a booked return flight, as I inferred from the website and claims form at the time, a useful list of what you will be asked to provide, however HolidaySafe suggest they too accept other forms of proof of intent to return home, and possibly one that would have applied in my case, that is 'holding a UK bank account' see comments).

World nomads are noteworthy for avoiding this term, however this leads me onto my second complaint, weasel terms. If insurance is supposed to be a safety net would you choose one with holes in it. World nomads present UK underwriter doesn't insure trips where motorbikes are the main form of transport. What is the main form of transport? I'd say that by number of kilometres its aircraft but do you want to take the chance that the insurance company says otherwise. That they say it was motorbike because you had hired one for your whole time in town.

Many motorbike terms are understandble, you must wear a helmet and have a UK licence. I'm sure you have heard stories about how easy it is to get a local licence, I can understand that one. But wait, if a passenger, the driver must have a UK license. How many Thai or Indian riders, who are probably more experienced at the roads, have this. How many tourists understand they are not covered to use the registered motorcycle taxis of Bangkok in their fluorescent bibs, or of Goa. Even if their local friend has a spare helmet there is no cover, this small term borders on misleading.

It gets worse. Motorcycle cover of course only covers legal behaviour, but wait, what is legal. Does the fact that there is almost certainly no correct vehicle insurance make any bike hired in India illegal. If you made a mistake at the junction where you crashed you were probably driving illegally. If the country you are in legally requires an international diving permit (really a meaningless translation with a stamp) but has informally decided not to enforce this are you driving legally.

Then there is the question of alcohol. Who on holiday doesn't have a drink in the evening, and by the wording of the contract is then subject to reduced levels of cover. At first this sounds reasonable, until you read about the people accused by their insurer of drinking. Best not to get hit by a car in the evening in a town with a bar, and never have more than one beer. Because who knows what level of alcohol they say is diminished responsibility, the low driving limit might sound like a yardstick in court. As a fairer Australian company said in their FAQ, its relative. But if they pay half of bills which are 10 times what you can pay, you're still up a murky creek.

God forbid you have a disaster on holiday. Insurance policies most definitely do not cover disasters, or terrorism. Why did you buy insurance, well if like me you read the fine print you certainly weren't protecting yourself against the worst. There is a small catch here that sometimes your government will handle repatriation in the case of disasters, but isn't terrorism, something we've been told exists and that our government definitely needs powers to prevent, something you'd want to insure against. This exemption sounds like a joke, but it isn't.

My policy only covers care in state or government hospitals. In some countries government hospitals will refuse foreign patients. The policy covers this case by saying 'be insistent'. I can see how this one resolves, in intense pain the tourist abandons negotiations and arranges the deposit for a private hospital.

But let's say you claim, well, who are you talking to. The sales company is always a reseller for an underwriter. But in an emergency you contact the emergency assistance company, and after the claims company. The claims limitations company deals with the hospital. While I know specialisation yields results I start to become suspicious, is the seller responsible for all stages? This battle, as I have heard it can be, to get an insurer to pay for anything, comes when you will be least able to cope.

This isn't just hypothetical. A British holidaymaker in Turkey broke his neck diving into shallow water. According to his insurer this was reckless, and he wasn't covered. His family and employer were left to try and raise 100,000 GBP for bills and repatriation. Part of me wonders, and what if they failed. Has anyone been left to die through these games. It's worth noting that a reckless term is common, and that a lot of things which seem reasonable at the time could be reckless when told by your insurer. Is the path you are walking on a path or 'an unmarked rocky track on the hills behind your guesthouse'.

So here is the question, what would it take to get an insurance policy that actually insures you against medical expenses and repatriation. Insurers tell you that you should behave as you were uninsured. Here is the problem, it implies they believe people are responsible for accidents. Nobody wants to get hit by a car, I'm quite sure it really hurts without trying it. Has anyone said, you know what, I'll jump in front of that car, what the hell I've got insurance. Does anyone want to be paralysed in 1-4 limbs?

But if we're playing the spin game, insurance companies are preying on the weak, who are less able to determine the extent and therefore value of their cover. I'm one of the weak I've lost money to a company because I missed a term on the contract. (Considering the product then had no value to me). But I'm also a know it all, and I can see the solution. Just as for housing there are standard contracts, a standard insurance contract published by the government as an optional base for companies to follow.

The question is, how much more would real insurance cost. What if you challenge the very idea of having terms and exclusions for the most serious cover. The answer is, probably less than the worst case estimate.  In the united states they have recently had this situation with the creation of a state standard medical insurance. The quotes were lower than expected given that the target market was the previously uninsured. Travel insurance now is ridiculously cheap, which should give you a clue that their paying for anything is legally optional. There is scope for it to rise several fold and still be acceptable, especially given the question: do you want to put family members in the position where they have to choose between selling their home and leaving you to your fate.

For your amusement, my bonus to patient readers is a selection of people who are on my list. Judge for yourself the merits of being 'on the list'.
1. People who review insurance companies based on how easily they took the money without having claimed on the product.
2. The person who gave a positive review to a battery because it 'charged quickly'. A battery is a lot like a bucket, the electricity is water going into it. I have a few 'instant fill' buckets I could sell this guy from a sewing kit.
3. Feminists who use the gender derogatory term 'mansplaining', to categorise and dismiss the unpleasant reactionary opinions of, clearly male, opponents.

It's been discovered.

What does it mean for a spot to be discovered. It's a theme I have covered before, tourists are a group who in certain situations hate to be around each other.

Perhaps this can be described using a wonderfully torturous analogy with the concept of critical mass (slightly more geeky readers may prefer the better analogy of the instability of large nuclei). At lower masses attractive forces dominate and tourists gather together to exchange Higgs Bosons, Gluons and perhaps a few travelling stories. Past a certain critical mass however, some of the tourists become agitated by the density of tourists. It's as if in each direction the mean free path terminates with another tourist and the local culture is no longer visible. Energetic adventurous tourist neutrons then collide repeatedly with their blogs before they fly off and irradiate the surrounding country in search of fertile nuclei. Here they can share their tales, mostly cliché relating to the 'overrun' (depleted) state of the town they've just left, and may induce such adventurous states in other travelers.

Sorry, if you're not big on physics you were probably happy to use the phrase critical mass without any indulgence. If you are, then stop explaining the flaws in the analogy to your computer screen that isn't listening.

Still, I like to think there is more to it than a bunch of pretentious clichés who can't see themselves as one of the crowd. Myself I see three alternative reasons, the depersonalisation of large groups, the different types of tourist, and the chosen illusion of adventure.

The first point is closely related to a question I asked this free spirit some time ago:
 http://wishfortherainbow.wordpress.com/. Can people ever be happy living in cities. There seems to be a rule that the fewer people the closer the relationships which form. The example is quite simple, if only two people lived in a town you would think it strange if they did not know each other very well. The same goes for tourists, if you ignore the apparent transparency of the local population. If there are only two tourists in town the chances are you will talk. But what if the town grows. Well then you have a community, and this in the historical fantasy is the natural state of a bygone small village. Everyone just about knows the other residents, and can interact with them as individuals. But if you grow even more the change is disproportionate. At the point it becomes unlikely that we will see a person again we just don't bother knowing anyone. People become their relationship to you: customers, commuters, crowds. What incentive is there to get to know someone you are unlikely to see again. The London effect develops. You can smile and be polite but for god's sake never talk to a stranger. Instead of knowing a subset of the whole we know nobody beyond a small pool of friends. This is the oft lamented loss of 'communities'. The same effect occurs with tourists, as the numbers grow it becomes harder to interact. We see others as members of the crowd.

Tourists are not homogeneous, and the different styles of travel add to the friction. For some the illusion of adventure is spoiled by the arrival of crowds following a standard route. A simple reason for 'discovery' is the addition of a place to the guidebook, although this can also happen when it spreads by word of too-many-mouths. However it's not as simple as an us and them division, there are many shades of adventure, and we each have to recognise that we're just part of the spread. While I may avoid package and piecewise package (organised activities but independent travel) I'm not myself adventurous. I stick to countries which are themselves distinctly on the beaten trail and largely interact with established businesses. There is also a separate spectrum of the level of cultural respect different tourists show. Again divisive, though again I hope I lie somewhere in the middle. Perhaps I should avoid this one given my ideological disagreement with sacred status of the concept of preservation of culture.

To return to the main point, the adventure is an illusion. In a country which accepts vast numbers of tourists with open arms you must accept this. But it's an illusion that you can enjoy. You know there have been others before you, but without hearing about them in graphic detail it need not spoil the fun. If there is no official tourist map with 'the sights to see' marked on it you can explore again just as the first. If there are too many tourists or the going has become too easy, the illusion is broken. It's business now.

As a bonus to any diligent readers, taking bets on the first mosquitoe borne disease I catch first. The key runners are malaria and dengue fever, but I'll include sandflies to widen the field.

Money doesn't grow on trees, unless.

Money doesn't grow on trees, unless you push this thing in-front of a bus station full of Thai Buddhists, flanked by uniformed guards. I've seen similar 'money trees' before on the walls of houses in Ladakh (Tibetan Buddhists), but this seemed to be more of an organised collection. Other bus station curiosities involved the entire bus station standing for the national anthem and tribute to the King, played over the address system. But I don't stand for hereditary power, anyone truly deserving of this position would give it to the people, and so the Dalai Lama did.

The Bangkok Butterfly Garden

has butterflies, and is free. It's inside the Wachira Benjathat Park which is near the 'Mochit 2' northern bus terminal in Bangkok. Though if you're approaching from this side you do have to find a footbridge over the main road, cross a construction site and jump a fence. It seems to work, despite the ample security cameras and uniformed guards nobody has challenged me. It's a curiously high level of security for a park. If you're sat around in the bus station and its about mid-day except Mondays this is definitely a better place to wait. You might see the monitor lizards roaming freely in the park

Feels a bit like shooting butterflies in a cage