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
“Whore” is considered an unpleasant word by many people.
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.
That combined with the overall tone may have made people think your intention was trollish
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.
There is no plausible transition from the way the world exists at present to one where...
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.)
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.
(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.)
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.
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.)
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.)
No, the downvote was there before I made the edit.
The English language isn’t as good as Lojban at clearly specifying which proposition belongs to which part. My original formulating doesn’t parse unambiguously and needs thinking to be parsed correctly. In particular expecting it be be parsed the same way, rests on it being obvious that “in the shortest amount of time” applies to prostitutes.
It’s no failure in reading 101 but in reading 201.
As far as silently editing, LW provides the * to show that the post is edited.
Interesting. I wonder what whoever-it-was didn’t like. Oh well, never mind.
LW provides the * to show that the post is edited.
Yup. And that tells you nothing about what was done to it, so if there’s a comment saying “blah blah blah 2+2=4 blah blah blah” with a star, and a reply saying “I’m not sure your arithmetic is correct” there’s no way to know that it used to say “2+2=5”.
and needs thinking to be parsed correctly
OK, now I’m going to stop trying to be tactful.
Your original comment was simply incorrect; the only way to parse it “correctly” is to ignore the way the English language actually works; it just didn’t say what you intended it to say. I didn’t suffer a “failure in reading 201″, I didn’t fail to think, I pointed out that you had suffered a failure in writing 101 and I did it tactfully so that (e.g.) you could correct what you wrote and call it a clarification.
In response to which, you edited your comment to make it look as if I had made a mistake, replied to my comment as if I had in fact made a mistake, and are now doubling down and attempting to make out that the problem was my inept reading rather than your inept writing and that you did nothing wrong in making me look like an idiot for trying to help.
Sorry, but two consecutive defections earns you a defection in response. You did wrong, you tried to hide it, and you acted so as to make someone else look bad for it. I’d been assuming that last bit was unintentional, but your latest response is making me reconsider. Anyway: Please don’t do that. It’s rude.
(Of course it’s also an extremely trivial pair of consecutive defections and it’s not like it matters much. I hereby acknowledge that it doesn’t matter much. But, still: Rude. Don’t do it.)
Your original comment was simply incorrect; the only way to parse it “correctly” is to ignore the way the
English language actually does allow the construction I used.
Prostitutes are in interactions that are focused on giving their client pleasure instead of focused on the enjoyment of both parties in the least amount of time.
Both
A : ((giving their client pleasure instead of focused on the enjoyment of both parties) in the least amount of time)
and
B : (giving their client pleasure (instead of focused on the enjoyment of both parties in the least amount of time))
are possible way to parse the sentence. You mistakenly read B. I do grant that original sentence is ugly and my edited version is easier to read. Writing ugly is a mistake, but it’s a stylistic one and not one of content.
Language is about communicating ideas. In this case it’s kind of obvious what I meant.
You either miss the obvious or you pretend I didn’t mean the obvious. Both are not actions that are good cooperation.
Hire retired whores to teach sex ed classes. There are no better experts
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...
Eh, I have a problem with the current “sex ed” model because of the trend towards exclusion of more and more boys from the possibility of having sex lives, a trend thoroughly analyzed and discussed in Manosphere blogs dealing with love-shyness, involuntary celibacy and PUA. Also refer to my downvoted and currently hidden post above about some idiot sex expert’s ideas about the future of sexbots and orgasmatrons in an essay she published on the website of the Wall Street Journal, of all places.
Basically I find it, well, cruel, to teach these boys about sexual experiences that girls could quite possibly withhold from them indefinitely because the boys don’t meet young women’s emotionally immature criteria for sex appeal. I would like to make sure that the sexually laggard boys get their sexual debut at an appropriate age, and that means setting aside our inherited religious superstitions about fornication and the like out of practical necessity. if these boys need to see prostitutes, with the approval of their parents, and with the permission of legal and medical authority figures, to overcome this hurdle—well, at one time that idea would have bothered me. But I have come around to seeing it as highly preferable to leaving the sexual debut to the haphazard in the current environment where more and more boys will likely wind up alienated from society through sexual eviction. Sex as a rite of passage signals to the young man, “Welcome to the tribe.”
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.)
No, the downvote was there before I made the edit.
The English language isn’t as good as Lojban at clearly specifying which proposition belongs to which part. My original formulating doesn’t parse unambiguously and needs thinking to be parsed correctly. In particular expecting it be be parsed the same way, rests on it being obvious that “in the shortest amount of time” applies to prostitutes.
It’s no failure in reading 101 but in reading 201.
As far as silently editing, LW provides the * to show that the post is edited.
Interesting. I wonder what whoever-it-was didn’t like. Oh well, never mind.
Yup. And that tells you nothing about what was done to it, so if there’s a comment saying “blah blah blah 2+2=4 blah blah blah” with a star, and a reply saying “I’m not sure your arithmetic is correct” there’s no way to know that it used to say “2+2=5”.
OK, now I’m going to stop trying to be tactful.
Your original comment was simply incorrect; the only way to parse it “correctly” is to ignore the way the English language actually works; it just didn’t say what you intended it to say. I didn’t suffer a “failure in reading 201″, I didn’t fail to think, I pointed out that you had suffered a failure in writing 101 and I did it tactfully so that (e.g.) you could correct what you wrote and call it a clarification.
In response to which, you edited your comment to make it look as if I had made a mistake, replied to my comment as if I had in fact made a mistake, and are now doubling down and attempting to make out that the problem was my inept reading rather than your inept writing and that you did nothing wrong in making me look like an idiot for trying to help.
Sorry, but two consecutive defections earns you a defection in response. You did wrong, you tried to hide it, and you acted so as to make someone else look bad for it. I’d been assuming that last bit was unintentional, but your latest response is making me reconsider. Anyway: Please don’t do that. It’s rude.
(Of course it’s also an extremely trivial pair of consecutive defections and it’s not like it matters much. I hereby acknowledge that it doesn’t matter much. But, still: Rude. Don’t do it.)
English language actually does allow the construction I used.
Both
and
are possible way to parse the sentence. You mistakenly read B. I do grant that original sentence is ugly and my edited version is easier to read. Writing ugly is a mistake, but it’s a stylistic one and not one of content.
Language is about communicating ideas. In this case it’s kind of obvious what I meant. You either miss the obvious or you pretend I didn’t mean the obvious. Both are not actions that are good cooperation.
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.
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...
Eh, I have a problem with the current “sex ed” model because of the trend towards exclusion of more and more boys from the possibility of having sex lives, a trend thoroughly analyzed and discussed in Manosphere blogs dealing with love-shyness, involuntary celibacy and PUA. Also refer to my downvoted and currently hidden post above about some idiot sex expert’s ideas about the future of sexbots and orgasmatrons in an essay she published on the website of the Wall Street Journal, of all places.
Basically I find it, well, cruel, to teach these boys about sexual experiences that girls could quite possibly withhold from them indefinitely because the boys don’t meet young women’s emotionally immature criteria for sex appeal. I would like to make sure that the sexually laggard boys get their sexual debut at an appropriate age, and that means setting aside our inherited religious superstitions about fornication and the like out of practical necessity. if these boys need to see prostitutes, with the approval of their parents, and with the permission of legal and medical authority figures, to overcome this hurdle—well, at one time that idea would have bothered me. But I have come around to seeing it as highly preferable to leaving the sexual debut to the haphazard in the current environment where more and more boys will likely wind up alienated from society through sexual eviction. Sex as a rite of passage signals to the young man, “Welcome to the tribe.”