I resisted the idea for a long time, obviously, because it conflicts with my upbringing. My late father definitely would not approve my seeing a prostitute.
If I can carry out my plan, I have thought of telling my mother about it afterwards to see her reaction.
If you no longer agree with the views of your father, I would recommend consciously changing the language you use when you talk about it to others as well as in your own head. If you see a prostitute and then feel unnecessarily guilty, it could do more harm than good.
I notice a lack of humor among LessWrong posters. When I talked to a friend about completing my journey to the Dark Side via prostitute, he laughed at the joke.
I don’t anticipate feeling guilty afterwards. Pissed off, perhaps, because I couldn’t make this happen organically in my teens and early 20′s with young women I knew in high school or college.
The existence of prostitution puzzles me, because it looks like a dysfunction of human sexuality in agricultural societies. I gather that in some agricultural societies, many men have their first sexual experiences with prostitutes as a rite of passage.
Yet I haven’t heard of any hunter-gatherer societies with prostitutes, though I would appreciate references to documented examples if you know of any. If you look to the paleolithic hunter-gatherer as the baseline for human welfare, as in paleonutrition, then a postulated “paleo-sexuality” wouldn’t seem to allow for prostitution.
I notice a lack of humor among LessWrong posters. When I talked to a friend about completing my journey to the Dark Side via prostitute, he laughed at the joke.
In a text only medium you can’t tell at all whether people who read what you write laugh.
In this case laughing at speaking about “the Dark Side” is also a simple mechanism to avoid dealing with the substance of the issue. Laughing to avoid dealing with moral questions is not in the spirit of LW.
Did not read grandparent, but poes law is more likely to hold if speaker creates weak signals that a sentence is parody, compared to alterative hypotheses such as holding a curious view. When there is greater variance of views, a stonger signal is needed to provide same level of evidence
The existence of prostitution puzzles me, because it looks like a dysfunction of human sexuality in agricultural societies.
Prostitution might not even be a uniquely human phenomenon.
There’s also a question of what, exactly defines prostitution. It’s straightforward enough when it’s a one-time transaction, but what to make of a relationship where one party provides regular sex in exchange for food and a place to stay (a paleo sugar daddy)?
but what to make of a relationship where one party provides regular sex in exchange for food and a place to stay
Sounds like one idea of traditional marriage. The woman promises to provide sex and the man promises to provide. Some feminists (e.g. Germaine Greer) have described this arrangement as prostitution.
Sounds like one idea of traditional marriage. The woman promises to provide sex and the man promises to provide.
I think this view of “traditional marriage” comes from fetishizing the 1950s, Leave-it-to-Beaver nuclear family. Go back a bit further and you’ll find the aristocrats marrying for political reasons while a peasant’s household required everyone to work long hours each day.
No, what you described is a trophy wife, a way for a man to signal his wealth by having a wife who can spend her days being idle.
I resisted the idea for a long time, obviously, because it conflicts with my upbringing. My late father definitely would not approve my seeing a prostitute.
If I can carry out my plan, I have thought of telling my mother about it afterwards to see her reaction.
If you no longer agree with the views of your father, I would recommend consciously changing the language you use when you talk about it to others as well as in your own head. If you see a prostitute and then feel unnecessarily guilty, it could do more harm than good.
I notice a lack of humor among LessWrong posters. When I talked to a friend about completing my journey to the Dark Side via prostitute, he laughed at the joke.
I don’t anticipate feeling guilty afterwards. Pissed off, perhaps, because I couldn’t make this happen organically in my teens and early 20′s with young women I knew in high school or college.
The existence of prostitution puzzles me, because it looks like a dysfunction of human sexuality in agricultural societies. I gather that in some agricultural societies, many men have their first sexual experiences with prostitutes as a rite of passage.
Yet I haven’t heard of any hunter-gatherer societies with prostitutes, though I would appreciate references to documented examples if you know of any. If you look to the paleolithic hunter-gatherer as the baseline for human welfare, as in paleonutrition, then a postulated “paleo-sexuality” wouldn’t seem to allow for prostitution.
In a text only medium you can’t tell at all whether people who read what you write laugh.
In this case laughing at speaking about “the Dark Side” is also a simple mechanism to avoid dealing with the substance of the issue. Laughing to avoid dealing with moral questions is not in the spirit of LW.
Did not read grandparent, but poes law is more likely to hold if speaker creates weak signals that a sentence is parody, compared to alterative hypotheses such as holding a curious view. When there is greater variance of views, a stonger signal is needed to provide same level of evidence
Prostitution might not even be a uniquely human phenomenon.
There’s also a question of what, exactly defines prostitution. It’s straightforward enough when it’s a one-time transaction, but what to make of a relationship where one party provides regular sex in exchange for food and a place to stay (a paleo sugar daddy)?
Sounds like one idea of traditional marriage. The woman promises to provide sex and the man promises to provide. Some feminists (e.g. Germaine Greer) have described this arrangement as prostitution.
I think this view of “traditional marriage” comes from fetishizing the 1950s, Leave-it-to-Beaver nuclear family. Go back a bit further and you’ll find the aristocrats marrying for political reasons while a peasant’s household required everyone to work long hours each day.
No, what you described is a trophy wife, a way for a man to signal his wealth by having a wife who can spend her days being idle.