= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Error comments on Open Thread, Apr. 27 - May 3, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (352)
Random policy thought I just had: Hire retired whores to teach sex ed classes. There are no better experts, and they'll (hopefully) be more inclined to teach what people actually want and need to know, rather than transparently disguising scare-em-straight tactics as education.
[Edit: I'm not entirely sure why this got downvoted as heavily as it did; it's the sort of pulling-policy-ropes-sideways thing that I would have expected to go over better here than most places. I'll retract it, but I'll wait a few days first in case someone cares to enlighten me.]
Since you seem to be sincere in asking for reasons:
"Whore" is considered an unpleasant word by many people. That combined with the overall tone may have made people think your intention was trollish
You seem to deeply misunderstand the dynamics that lead to ssex eduation being the way it is. There is no plausible transition from the way the world exists at present to one where retired sex workers were employed in the school system to teach sex education.
a) Because the majority still have moral objections to sex work and it is illegal in many places.
b) there is no common agreement that children should be taught about sex full stop, much less about sexual techniques aimed at pleasure. The only way the very minimal sex education that does exist has been allowed has come to exist is because it framed in terms of health
Thanks for paying the karma toll to answer me.
I picked up the usage from a couple of sex workers' blogs. Now that it's brought to my attention, though, I think they were explicitly trying to reclaim the word, which implies there was a problem with it to begin with. I should have caught that before using it in other venues.
Guilty on tone if not trollishness. I'll admit I'm seethingly hostile to grade school in general and sex ed/drug ed/anything with the same general characteristics in particular; I consider the latter fundamentally dishonest and an insult to the students.
Agreed. I presented the idea because it seemed both good and original; I know it's not politically tenable. The issues you mention are real ones; I just file them both under "people are crazy, the world is mad."
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.)
There are no better experts at impersonal sex carefully walled off from the real "you". They are probably pretty good at separating johns from their money, too...
I suspect part of the downvoting is not just due to the content but the use of the loaded word "whores" which has very negative connotations.
Edit: Nevermind. I see that Fiftytwo made the same point. Sorry for wrecking signal/noise.