ChristianKl comments on Open Thread, Apr. 27 - May 3, 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (352)
In general almost no school classes are taught by domain experts.
But are the even the best experts? Prostitutes are in interactions that are focused on giving their client pleasure in the least amount of time instead of focused on the enjoyment of both parties .
On of the most important lessons that a school could teach on the subject might be: "Talk with your partner about what they enjoy and communicate your own desires." That's much different in a non-money based interaction.
Perhaps I'm just parsing your words wrong, but it looks as if you're suggesting that most non-commercial sexual interactions have "in the least amount of time" as a major goal. I'm fairly sure that's far from the case.
(I agree with your other point, and would add that many -- I suspect most, and perhaps a large majority -- of non-commercial sexual interactions are not purely sexual; they occur in a context of some kind of ongoing relationship. That can make a substantial difference too.)
(In case anyone else is confused by gjm's confusion, the words "in the least amount of time" in ChristianKl's comment used to come after "instead of focused on the enjoyment of both parties" rather than before.)
Thank you.
No, most commercial ones do. If the act is over sooner the prostitute gets the same money for less time.
So, you fixed what you wrote so that it was no longer wrong in the way I described. That's good, but now it looks like I'm an idiot who can't read. (I guess that's why the grandparent of this comment got a downvote.)
If you happen to care about not making people who help you look like idiots (which of course you're in no way obliged to), then in future you might consider acknowledging such corrections rather than silently fixing up what you wrote and then saying "No".
(And since I care -- perhaps foolishly -- about not looking like an idiot, I suppose in future I will have to go to the extra effort of quoting what I'm commenting on more explicitly so as not to be vulnerable to this kind of thing.)