513
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
513 points (100.0% liked)
News
23770 readers
3283 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I would think that would make her uniquely qualified to teach it.
Yes, many academic disciplines view fieldwork as essential. Those who abstain can even be labeled as armchair theorists.
“No officer, you don’t understand! I offered her a large grant for her to do research. Not research for me, it’s for the high schoolers! How else are they supposed to learn proper technique? Jail? For what? Providing a proper education?!”
Sex ed is ideally about healthy relationships and safe sex. A prostitute is probably the exact opposite of what you want for that.
Sex-as-industry is a deeply fucked up field that is almost guaranteed to build resentment and unhealthy associations with sex.
I dated an ex-escort for a while and the relationship was just fine. I think you're talking without any real experience.
A friend was an escort for a while and she's one of the most loving and caring people I know. I would trust her with everything, especially relationship advice.
It can be fine. That doesn't make them the "most qualified to teach sex ed"
So what would you pick? I'd rather take her than some religious nut that preaches/screeches abstinence.
Someone with education in anatomy and experience studying the body in a field that isn't prone to abusive conditions.
If that's available, good. What if that person was a prostitute to finance the education? I wouldn't exclude them because they had one career step you might find immoral.
I would have them checked by a therapist to make sure there is no history of trauma or abuse that hasn't been resolved which could then be passed onto the kids as hilariously unhealthy expectations or more specifically "rules for how things are with guys".
I would also make sure they aren't currently a prostitute. Not exactly an example you want to set for a bunch of kids.
The former president of the United States is a convicted rapist who bragged about his dick size and paid a porn star thousands of dollars to have sex with him. That’s an example I wouldn’t want set for a bunch of kids, but it appears that’s just fine. An underpaid public servant working a side gig to make ends meet though…
Would you.... Want Donald Trump to be your teacher?
If not, why bring it up. You aren't actually supporting your point.
Nah, I don’t want Donald Trump to be a teacher. Not because he’s had sex with porn stars, but because he appears to be illiterate, lacks empathy, and would probably die on the spot if some seventh graders made fun of his shitty toupee.
Just admit you hate women already lol. Be honest with yourself.
So you do that with every potential hire? What about military vets, should they be evaluated to make sure they aren't encouraging kids to be killers?
Yes.
A former military vet in my school pulled a gun in a McDonald's drive through once and got arrested.
So, a medical professional who did sex work to pay for med school, right?
I agree, people with those credentials would be ideal.
e: oh wait, I ignored part of your comment.
Yes, it’s been difficult for women in the medical field. Thanks for bringing attention to that.
Eh.. do you hire the person with the degree or the one with ten years of industry experience?
The degree. We aren't teaching kids how to be prostitutes.
It was a trick question. This lady had the degree AND the work experience. You just missed out on the perfect candidate because you're biased.
The people who are actually there and know the situation more deeply than either of us seem to disagree.
They didn't say that she was unqualified. They said eww yuck an escort. They clearly have the same bias as you do, but that doesn't mean they made an intelligent hiring and firing decision.
The people who are there and know the situation can still be wrong. This is a thought terminating cliche.
A woman who has sex for work would be very concerned about doing so safely. She is likely going to know about STDs and pregnancies as well as how to prevent them and how to deal with them if/when they come up.
She has experience in setting expectations, limits, and breaking off sex when she needs to.
She is going to have more experience with the human body, what's "normal" physically, what warning signs are for various STDs.
She'll likely be the least judgemental person for someone to talk to when it comes to sex and sexual relationships.
Wouldn't this kind of be like drug addicts telling children why drugs are bad?
Very few ways to better learn why something is right than far reaching consequences for doing it wrong.
I don't think we should teach that sex is wrong or bad, but yeah, she probably is experienced in what can go wrong and can talk from more experience than most of us.
More like a drug dealer telling children why drugs are bad. (The role analogous to the drug addict would be the prostitute's client.)
And, frankly, that's not a bad idea either.
It's an imperfect comparison because sex workers sell their body and take on risks that way. Drug dealers sell a product and aren't necessarily endangering themselves in the same way.
Yeah, you’re talking out of your ass.
You need to actually research this topic instead of believing conservative talking points about the sex work industry.
No you're right. They don't have extremely high rates of being sexually assau....
45 to 75 percent.
And this isn't exactly a conservative source. Turns out the people playing for sex aren't always the greatest people.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://swopusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/FACT-SHEET-Sexual-Assault-Prevalence-Among-Sex-Workers-USA.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwipyp-E1-yCAxWDlGoFHdfiDGIQFnoECBQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw06F00deZ5se8DU56cXaMyP
I never said they don’t have extremely high rates of being sexually assaulted - you did and then you proceeded to argue against yourself.
If you read the document you linked though, you’d see that it actually supports the decriminalisation of sex work because this would reduce the amount of violence experienced by sex workers.
It also says that the proportion of men who are violent against sex workers is quite small and those men are serial offenders.
Again, stop listening to conservatives on this and actually read the documents instead of trying to find things to support your own point of view.
It supports my whole point. The world of sex work is filled with abuse and all sorts of nefarious stuff going on. You don't want someone involved in it teaching kids anything about sex.
Doesn't matter if it's a small fraction of offenders, because those small fraction of offenders still affect the majority of sex workers.
The sex workers aren’t the perpetrators of the violence though.
The clients are.
You’re not making sense. Are you blaming the sex worker because they are abused by the client?
Yea, the world of sex work is filled with abuse. Because it is illegal. Because when I had to do sex work, because I am transsexual and was unable to pass at the time, because I had gotten fired from my minimum wage job for daring to present as the gender I am, I had zero protections. Because sex work is illegal, if someone chose to not pay me after the fact there was nothing I could do.
“Hey cops, this guy decided to shove a knife in my cunt when I was fucking him for grocery money, can you fix that please?”
I know it doesn’t mean much, but I’m so sorry you were made to experience that. It’s inexcusable, and you should have had support from society for that. I wish I could hug you, and I sincerely hope you’re in a better place now.
It’s literally not. In fact, some people who do sex work develop an almost therapeutic relationship with their clients, since the intimate environment promotes emotional sharing.
It’s literally one of the oldest professions of human society, and the stigma against it is entirely rooted in puritanical religious attitudes, which have been proven to be antithetical to healthy relationships, if not actively promoting abuse.
To be fair, throughout history most marriage have been completely transactional.
The idea that a marriage should be based on romantic love is a new concept that would have been seen as unhealthy throughout most of human history
There are love stories and sonats that are thousands of years old.
Nah, I'd argue that you're both partially correct.
The romanticized ideal of starting a family/marriage on the basis of "true love" has been around forever.
Reality has been more of a mixed bag throughout large patches of human history. Accidental pregnancies, dynastic politics and plain economical necessities were probably foundations for many more marriages than actual love.
(There's also that whole can of worms of whether "True Love at First Sight(tm)" even is a good foundation for marriage, but that's neither here nor there.)
Victim blaming. Wow.
They are experts in the industry and it’s not a justification. If it was your justification I’ll just let your next doctor know that you don’t want a lecture by an expert in the field but someone else entirely. I’ll just grab today’s horoscope. Holdup.