Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[BenBurch]

... it shows society's bias against sex workers (as long as they are not purchasing their work at the moment).

QFT.

I have been a sexworker's rights activist for MANY years. I have seen that dichotomy played out many times.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Why is real sex bad?

Why is violence bad?

 

[Dorian Gray]

It mentions nothing about her having sex anywhere in the school.

What article did you read? Or are you creating Santa Claus?

Now please man up and answer this question:
Rights are rights no matter who you are and what you do so long as it's legal. So someone please tell me why a porn star doesn't have the right to work at a public school?

sigh. No one has the "right" to work anywhere.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Wow, you so twist peoples' words, don't you?

I did not say that schools had to have porn actresses to ensure children don't get sexual hang ups. I said that seeing as this situation had arisen (no pun intended) the adults should treat it in a manner that demonstrates to the teens that this is a normal part of adult society and not something to be ashamed about and swept under the carpet. To do so runs the risk of kids associating sex with something shameful. That is religious bullpoo and it is that which I don't agree with.

I'm an atheist.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Why is violence bad?

Because it damages people/things, pretty much by definition.

 

[Dorian Gray]

A thought just occurred to me.

To the people who feel she should've been fired. If, instead of being in a porno, it was found out that she ran a swing club on the side, would you still feel she should have been fired? How about if she ran an adult web site? Why or why not?

(And to clear and above board here, I am not asking this sarcastically nor as a "gotcha". I am honestly curious.)

No, and no. Because owning something is not the same as doing something. Pretty sure I've said this. She can do whatever she wants in private. Filming it for money and distribution doesn't make it private anymore.

If you want to make the "what I do in my private life is my business" argument, shouldn't it actually be private?

 

[Dorian Gray]

"Ma'am, I appreciate your concerns. Here at School X we strive in every way to further the best interests of our students and, of course, the school. We want the very best for your child, as well as for our adult employees, who are very much a part of the vibrant school community.

But she did nothing illegal, and we don't believe it's in anyone's best interests for her to be sacked - least of all hers. We are not a church school, and while we might hope to inculcate good moral values we do not have a puritanical agenda.

Among the values we would like our students to learn and live by is 'live and let live'. We do not encourage the imposition of elective, judgemental standards on anyone, our students or our employeers. We certainly don't wish to be seen to reward the student whose own lapse of judgement became a tool with which he could exert power over our staff. We will not give him satisfaction in that regard, whatever his motivation.

Again, please understand that I do appreciate your concerns. It is natural and proper to want what you believe is right for your child. But we have very many parents here, and very many ideas of what is right, some of which inevitably conflict.

In summary, then: get over it, you puritanical prude, and stop trying to use your children as a tool for your own petty power games. You are free to remove him or her from the school. Now get out of my office before I puke."

I don't think throwing a tantrum will add anything to this discussion.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Because it damages people/things, pretty much by definition.

But if someone fights for money, is that okay?

 

[quixotecoyote]

But if someone fights for money, is that okay?

I was going to answer this, but since the original comparison has been shot down, this would be a derail.

 

[Dorian Gray]

The quality of the arguments for firing her convinces me that the outrage is solely the old scarlet letter/harlot/dishonest trade meme still existing in our society, consciously or subconsciously.

The best way to get rid of it would be to NOT give in to it, like this school board have done.

Sexist. They would have done the same thing had a male secretary..... made a porno for money. In fact, many of you would be singing a different tune then, and some of you would be accusing the man of being a pedophile and doing it on purpose SO the students would find out.

 

[BenBurch]

Why is violence bad?

Because people injured or murdered and that is the point behind it.

*********** rarely injures or murders anybody, and that is not the point behind it anyway.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Sexist. They would have done the same thing had a male secretary..... made a porno for money. In fact, many of you would be singing a different tune then, and some of you would be accusing the man of being a pedophile and doing it on purpose SO the students would find out.

I'm sure that if the situation was different enough to make what you consider your ideal point, we'd obligingly slip into silly hypocrite roles to make you feel better.

Or not.

 

[Puppycow]

But if someone fights for money, is that okay?

Like a boxer? Sure, that's OK. I doubt that a gym teacher who was a boxer in his spare time would be fired.

 

[JFrankA]

Why is violence bad?

I find it very interesting and revealing that you balance violence and sex.

And apparently, violence isn't bad. Well, not as bad as sex. People allow teenagers to play violent video games and don't say boo. But if there is sex involved the game, then you can hear the screaming from parents for miles.....

 

[Toke]

Sexist. They would have done the same thing had a male secretary..... made a porno for money. In fact, many of you would be singing a different tune then, and some of you would be accusing the man of being a pedophile and doing it on purpose SO the students would find out.

I don't see the sexist part.
The whole sex as amoral does not only apply to women, I am sure it is really "bad role model" "against our values" to be a male porn actor too.

 

[JFrankA]

Sexist. They would have done the same thing had a male secretary..... made a porno for money. In fact, many of you would be singing a different tune then, and some of you would be accusing the man of being a pedophile and doing it on purpose SO the students would find out.

It's amazing to me how much you think you know all of us so well just by reading this forum. Funny. As I recall another thread we are also involved where you were complaining to the other people that they were making assumptions about you and couldn't possibly know you well.

Why the double standard?

At any rate, I can tell you emphatically and with all confidence that what you said would not be the case for me.

Why are you being so sexist and presumptuous?

 

[JFrankA]

No, and no. Because owning something is not the same as doing something. Pretty sure I've said this. She can do whatever she wants in private. Filming it for money and distribution doesn't make it private anymore.

If you want to make the "what I do in my private life is my business" argument, shouldn't it actually be private?

Sorry. Doesn't fly. I know I said I wasn't looking to do a "gotcha" moment, but I'm so so sorry. You've just contradicted yourself.

Please tell me what part of owning a website NOT private? Why does someone who owns a website considered private when, indeed, we are on a website now? Ownership of a domain name and a website is registered with ICANN. This is true especially with an adult website, where it is the law to list your name and address, etc, as per the 2257 codes if there are models on the website.

The verbage goes something like this, and this is for any website that has images of adults in "adult situations":

In compliance with United States Code, Title 18, Section 2257, all models, actors, actresses and other persons appearing in any visual depiction of content whether actual sexually explicit conduct, simulated sexual content or otherwise, displayed on {Webpage name} were at least eighteen (18) years of age at the time such depictions were created.

Records required to be maintained for such materials pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 are kept by our Custodian of Records:

Person name
Company name
000 Street
City, State, Zip
work telephone number
alternative telephone number

Owning a website, especially an adult website, is just as "public" as being in a movie: perhaps even more so because a real name/address and telephone numbers are there for all to see. Now one will try to keep such a website private from her/his work, just like someone performing in a porn movie would try. The the porn star has the advantage of make up, false name, and even (in some rare cases) pixelation of features.

As to swing clubs, well, those are on the internet too. Also, if one has an "on-sight" club, they need to register what kind of club it is with the state and local government.

I'm very sorry. But your "logic" has fallen through the hole it's been standing in.

 

[JFrankA]

sigh. No one has the "right" to work anywhere.

I have admitted before that this statement is correct and I was wrong.

We have gone beyond that statement, but basically what I was saying is that does someone who presently works at a school should have their rights to continue working at said job taken away only because that person moonlights in a sex film? (Assuming that the person in question has a good work record and there is no "no-porn" clause in their contract or job description).

If so why?

 

[stevea]

Long past but ....

Well, I hope she wins. This is a kind of bigotry every bit as loathsome as homophobia.

I hope a day will come when there's no stigma in this, but obviously we're a long way off yet.

But is it bigotry or is there a functional problem with her performance as a teacher as a result her background ? I think it's pretty obvious why having a recognized porn actress teach 14yo boys could be disruptive to the learning process.

The reason why kids can't vote and are in school is that they are immature, and we can't expect otherwise. If the teacher specifically incites classroom disruption among the immature, then they really can't teach. It's a functional job requirement.

You are awfully quick to make the "bigot" accusation without any evidence. Amazingly cheap-shot at people who's motives you cannot know.

 

[Taarkin]

Long past but ....
But is it bigotry or is there a functional problem with her performance

There is no evidence of this.

as a teacher

What teacher?