Moralizing on Sex Tourism -- A Bedroom Dialogue

Sex tourism is tourism involving travellers, usually business men who visit a country and hire sex workers for sex.  In some Third World countries, the prostitutes may be poor children and teenagers.  This intriguing play by Erin Shields is set inside a hotel bedroom, probably in India because the young prostitute played by Miriam Fernandes is wearing a sari, and the married middle aged business man played by Derek Boyes is probably from Canada since his phone numbers which she found on his business card are Toronto area codes of 416 and 647.  The intimacy of the set, with the central bed and the setup of a typical hotel with dresser and chair, closet, gives the viewers an inside view of an experience, which although written about by news media and politicians is usually from a detached cold distance.  The dialogue between the play's only two characters personalizes the experience, although it probably does not happen that way in reality -- the argumentative, moralising tones to elicit guilt and conscience of what is wrong or right about their temporary relationship.  It would kill lust and they basically end up doing just that, talking themselves out of the possible sex encounter!  What both internalized are the rationalization against prostitution and the differences going against them, voices usually formed by outsiders who are critical and consider such immorality as evil, rather than allowing curiosity and adventure to take control and lead them into giving into temptation.  He would have been committing adultery with a female a quarter of his age (?), out of curiosity sparked by his co worker's previous trip and advice to 'take advantage' of the situation, ie. probably the poverty in Third World countries.  The first shock was when after his initial monologue of being tempted by his friend's stories, and his fascination for her differences in physique by age, skin, height, etc., she suddenly replies hostilely in English!  Yes, she can 'speak English'!  They end up arguing through most of the play, with her accusing him of being a pedophile rapist and he ends up accusing her of being a lesbian or virgin!  In the end, nothing happens.  

The audience laughed at some of the dialogue but everyone clapped in the end.  For those who are seeking such sex encounters while travelling, it would be advisable to watch this play and remember not to argue nor accuse each other as these two characters did, or else one would miss out on the possibility of enjoying a no strings attached temporary experience overseas.  As for those who are not seeking such experiences, all your arguments against it are mouthed by these two characters, which probably explains why the audience clapped instead of booed at the end.  Instead of getting it on with the titillating scandalous action, they both talk themselves out of it!  Everyone goes home feeling moral, having done the right thing, instead of immoral and doing the wrong thing...

Note:  a friend's advice 'hmmm... thought provoking, makes you think of or from a different perspective...'  So for curiosity seekers of adventures, this play can seriously make you think before you travel and give in to such temptation!