Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[Joey McGee]

Has anyone even reviewed her work to see if it was at least good porn? Does she play a secretary in it? Perhaps she is a method actor?

I took it upon myself on behalf of everyone to view the video for research purposes. No secretary role, she has a couple over to her house, but that was truly some incredible method acting. Also, a surprise ending that I did not see coming. Four stars!

 

[jiggeryqua]

You aren't on the school board and they did fire her which I agree with. [...]
However many ways you twist it it doesn't change that.

You remember you asked us to respond as if we were on the school board? I know I'm not on the school board. Your determination not to examine your position is evident. However many ways you twist it it doesn't change that.

Critical thinking

Porn is bad, mkay?
Why?
Porn is bad!
But why?
Because it's bad, and however many ways you twist it it doesn't change that.

I've learned so much here.

 

[Maus]

So you're offering a sample of one to support your argument. Not that you have the sample, you're just citing one person who decided to make life difficult for someone else . You support his decision to invoke the prejudices of the school board (which you share), while evading every attempt to discover what your point, your motivation, your argument, your reason, your prejudice might be. Ah. Your prejudice. Fair enough, carry on repeating it while steering us away from actually addressing it.

You're sure he 'couldn't handle it', rather than the equally probable 'he wanted to flex his metaphorical muscles'. She may have turned down his immature advances - he is a sexual creature, isn't he? But his ability to handle it is only different, you say, than the analogy offered of an ignorant pig of a male co-worker because of his age. But shouldn't schools be about teaching young people what is the right way to behave? What is the right way to behave here? She did nothing illegal, he's a horse's arse, teach him to keep his prudish prejudices to himself. You could do the same.

It's a school. These are young teenagers, not co-workers. I have no prejudices or underlying motivations. I do not feel the secretary is a bad person or that pr0n is bad. I do not think that 14 year olds can handle interacting with someone they saw getting slammed in a porn video while trying to study school-things. It is distracting and the sexually immature kids don't understand it. They will react in stupid ways and create an environment that is not conducive to the educational system (evidenced by the kid who made the facebook page) and has potential to be uncomfortable for the secretary as well. The school board made the right decision.

I don't think I can make my position clearer than that. But if it is not clear then I'm sorry.

 

[jiggeryqua]

I took it upon myself on behalf of everyone to view the video for research purposes. No secretary role, she has a couple over to her house, but that was truly some incredible method acting. Also, a surprise ending that I did not see coming. Four stars!

Is she a squirter, Joey?

 

[Maus]

Critical thinking

Porn is bad, mkay?
Why?
Porn is bad!
But why?
Because it's bad, and however many ways you twist it it doesn't change that.

I've learned so much here.

The problem is out of all that I have written, you insist on reading it as that. Please quote where I said porn is bad? You need to try reading words and not reading between to pull out hidden meanings.

 

[jiggeryqua]

It's a school.

So teach them. But don't teach them that porn is bad and women who make porn can be sacked if you want to play Charlie Big Potatoes among your classmates. If you don't actually support the school board, why did you say you support the school board?

 

[Taarkin]

Please provide a link to an article where this happened and maybe we can start another thread discussing that. Otherwise, what is your point?

The 'a hypothetical student might possibly be theoretically distracted, somehow, maybe' argument, even if true, is not necessarily a good reason to fire her.

 

[jiggeryqua]

The problem is out of all that I have written, you insist on reading it as that. Please quote where I said porn is bad? You need to try reading words and not reading between to pull out hidden meanings.

Make your point then. Not the chaff you've thrown up, which has blown away in the wind. Give us the kernel. I think it's patriarchal prejudice (I use the first word more for alliteration than for the evocation of the worst of feminism, but the point stands).

If the kid can't handle it, help him, teach him, punish him if it's appropriate, I think his actions were vindictive, spiteful, hateful and prejudiced. Why punish her? Because porn is bad, and uppity women who make it must be punished.

 

[Oualawouzou]

I do not think that 14 year olds can handle interacting with someone they saw getting slammed in a porn video while trying to study school-things.

She was a secretary, but not the secretary kids routinely interact with. She worked closer to the direction side of things than to the students side of things.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
You're sure he 'couldn't handle it', rather than the equally probable 'he wanted to flex his metaphorical muscles'. She may have turned down his immature advances - he is a sexual creature, isn't he? But his ability to handle it is only different, you say, than the analogy offered of an ignorant pig of a male co-worker because of his age. But shouldn't schools be about teaching young people what is the right way to behave? What is the right way to behave here? She did nothing illegal, he's a horse's arse, teach him to keep his prudish prejudices to himself. You could do the same.

Could you expand on that? How could the school teach young people what is the right way to behave in this specific case?

 

[23_Tauri]

I think I've made my position pretty clear. I don't think that's the school board's job.

Of course it is! A school board is responsible for a school. A school is an institution where we teach children about the world we live in. This includes social aspects as well obvious things like maths and languages.

The school board is teaching the kids that porn is bad....mmmkay? That's just so regressive I can't really get my head round how dumb it is.

 

[Maus]

Make your point then. Not the chaff you've thrown up, which has blown away in the wind. Give us the kernel. I think it's patriarchal prejudice (I use the first word more for alliteration than for the evocation of the worst of feminism, but the point stands).

If the kid can't handle it, help him, teach him, punish him if it's appropriate, I think his actions were vindictive, spiteful, hateful and prejudiced. Why punish her? Because porn is bad, and uppity women who make it must be punished.

I have stated my position the best that I could. If you don't get it, then that's your problem. If you want to dig deeper and try and find polarity in my statements. Also your problem. If you want to try and think you're clever by performing amateur "psychoanalysis" and attaching some kind of social stigma on me as a woman hater because of my position then you are a troll.

I am firm on my position.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Of course it is! A school board is responsible for a school. A school is an institution where we teach children about the world we live in. This includes social aspects as well obvious things like maths and languages.

The school board is teaching the kids that porn is bad....mmmkay? That's just so regressive I can't really get my head round how dumb it is.

How could the school teach young people what is the right way to behave in this specific case? Real world examples, please.

 

[jiggeryqua]

I have stated my position the best that I could. If you don't get it, then that's your problem. If you want to dig deeper and try and find polarity in my statements. Also your problem. If you want to try and think you're clever by performing amateur "psychoanalysis" and attaching some kind of social stigma on me as a woman hater because of my position then you are a troll.

I am firm on my position.

I said 'patriarchal', not woman hater, and I qualified that. It's just that when the chaff has blown away, you just keep repeating that she should be sacked for making porn. I was hoping for a reason, and the only reason I can see why you don't give one is evident - you stand by your position because it's how you feel. That's not 'amateur psychoanalysis'. A duck is a duck is a duck, you don't need a professional duckologist. I don't promote stigma (that's your schtick, apparantly), but you're right, some people might look down on your for your prejudices.

Am I a 'troll', now? I can bear that stigma, I'll lean on the knowledge that you said it after I pressed you for an alternative explanation than the one that looks increasingly obvious. You're firm on your position because you're firm on your position. That's not a position, it's a prejudice.

 

[23_Tauri]

How could the school teach young people what is the right way to behave in this specific case? Real world examples, please.

Well, this is a real world example. What is wrong with acting in a porn movie? Why is that not a 'right way to behave'?

 

[jiggeryqua]

How could the school teach young people what is the right way to behave in this specific case? Real world examples, please.

I was going to get round to your earlier iteration of this question, and in the meanwhile you repeated it.

By not sacking her. Isn't that obvious?

 

[fuelair]

The first time I remember seeing porn was when I was 4 and I saw my dad and his poker buddies watching it as I peeked through a window. When I was 6 or 7 I found a deck of hardcore pornographic playing cards in the woods. I found a trash bag full of dozens of magazines in the creek when I was 9. I used to be obsessed with turtles as a kid and teenager and I frequently found porn under bridges in the country when I was on a turtle expedition. I didn't really know any kids who had not seen porn when I was a kid.

This was in the 80s and early 90s. Now we have the internet. Expecting kids to not see porn is silly, and it's not by any means condoning children to look at porn to acknowledge it.

I don't think a secretary at a high school should be considered a role model or bothered for this sort of thing.

Actually did the same thing in 4th or 5th grade (it was near Stanford State Pen oops Elementary School and I frequently walked home - found five or six on a rock under some shrubbery near a creek (it meandered a lot but eventually passed my house). Not like your haul, but...hey!!

 

[fuelair]

Something I've always wondered is who is looking at all this porn in the woods?

Other kids or those tramps who wander around waiting to kidnap and do unspeakable things to you and your little friends now I bet you won't never go in them woods no more will ya sunny!!!!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

These analogies are terrible. Yeah, a dollar's worth of latex is an unreasonable safety measure.

If you're a stuntperson in a film, what you wear is to some extent determined by safety and to some extent determined by what the director wants/needs. As long as you aren't doing anything that's risky in an objective sense (the way delivering pizza or cutting down trees is risky in an objective sense) it's simple inconsistency to think this makes porn work in any way morally special.

The plain fact is that she was fired over sex, not over job-related risk.

I don't know how anyone would reasonably expect to be taken seriously working with teens after the entire school, again full of teenagers, learns they're doing porn in their off time. Do something like that, and you can't do your job effectively. I think that'd be the main problem.

I think the idea that children won't do their homework because a secretary they hardly ever see was in porn once has been lampooned sufficiently by others already. I don't think I need to mock it further myself.

Of course, the double standard is present. Tiger Woods cheats on his wife (off film), take away his sponsorships. He's a role model, can't do that. It's all arbitrary.

That's not a justification as far as I can see. It looks like a relative of the tu quoque fallacy if anything.

So there are, what, three arguments in play now, all silly?

1. The "unprotected sex/role model" argument. ("Sex with an STD-checked professional is too risky!"). It's just plain factually wrong. Porn actors are at substantially less risk of dying as a result of work-related activities than many people with jobs that schools would never sack people over.

2. The "distraction" argument. ("Little Jimmy can't settle down to his trig lesson if he knows there's a porn star in the admin block somewhere!"). I think this is just plain factually wrong too. Lots of other things are greater threats to children's attention spans, and she offered to move to a role without student contact.

3. The tu quoque argument. ("Society is inconsistent in all sorts of ways, so we can do whatever we want and you can't criticise us"). Canonically fallacious.

None strike me as sound.

 

[dirtywick]

Was there any suggestion she was making porn and couldn't do her job effectively? Is there any mechanism by which the knowledge of her making porn would impact her ability to do her other job effectively? It doesn't seem she got an opportunity to continue being effective.

I doubt the teens would take her seriously, which would impact her job performance in the office at school working with them.

I'm not sure where you get a double standard from, since you're the first to mention Tiger Woods. My opinions actually have no impact on either case, even if you knew how I or any other poster felt about Tiger, please don't hold me to account for events I have no control over.

I'm not sure why you'd think I directed that remark towards you.