Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[BenBurch]

My opinion is that the attitudes I am seeing on this thread that make out the woman as being some sort of evil influence on children, and deserving of punishment, are exactly the same attitudes that encourage rapists and serial killers to prey on sexworkers and women who do not have monogamist sex lives.

 

[Megalodon]

I wonder how many of the people that think teachers are a role model for their children would actually vote for a salary increase for these important professionals... or protest attempts to reduce their hability to negotiate their employment conditions...

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So is anyone suggesting children should not be aware of every single option they have when deciding what they want to do with their lives when they grow up?

 

[ProBonoShill]

....you do realize that happens in a lot of industries.

Let's go after the NFL, MLB (where women make little or no money in comparison to men).

Name me one Major League Baseball player who is female. What? You can't? Well how can you say that the MLB is good for women!!!??? There isn't even ONE female player in the whole sport!!!

That's horrible. I don't want MY daughter thinking she can't be in the majors!!!!

Hey, at least in porn, my daughter has a chance to be a star and maybe make enough money to own her own studio of business.

WOW. I've seen may bad analogies here at the JREF but this one has to be the worst ever.

Major League sports makes money based on fan attraction.
Unfortunately at this point in time comparable female leagues do not garner the same level of interest.
Hopefully that will change, if/when their gender start to support them, as it stands now, male fans are the ones sustaining the sports of both genders. One only has to look at the audience of a WNBA game or LPGA for evidence of this.

Anyway we're derailing this thread, let's get back on topic shall we:

Wait. Hold on. You're kidding right? I mean, you must be joking.

You first come into this thread saying we aren't using critical thinking and you actually say "I did a quick search to prove the porn industry demeans women"? :ld:

How very hypocritical of you. How completely pot calling the kettle black.

I really hate it when people misrepresent what I said, it's a weak debating tactic and annoying.

This was my reply to Tsukasa Buddha (I've snipped the inapplicable parts):

Your second point is way off, I suggest you do some research. The Porn industry is dominated by males behind the camera and females in front them.

The industry is almost exclusively geared toward the male population.

A quick google search produces this:

It's not exactly a secret that the porn industry is a male-dominated profession, and that misogyny runs through its products; not much exists in the way of feminist, woman-friendly viewing material. Flood cites unrealistic depictions of sex and callous, hostile depictions of women as contributing factors to boys messed up perspective on how to treat women.

http://news.change.org/stories/porn-...ault-is-a-okay

The link was provided to back up my assertion that males dominate porn, hence the portion I quoted, it wasn't meant to represent the entirety of my argument. If you have some relevant evidence that contradicts this reality, I'd really love to see it.

That's twice I've had to explain it to you, do try to keep up.

First of this is an opinion. Pure and simple. Some people, like you feels that porn does demeans women, some do not, some feel that porn empowers women. You can post opinion after opinion and I can too. It is futile. The truth is that it is how you look at porn.

I agree, but opinions matter, otherwise people would be free to host orgies in their front yards. If the secretary held another occupation, say one not involving young minds, I'd be the first on your side.

Because you were the one to post an opinion of "porn is bad" based on a study that shows boys are more prone to harass girls if they've seen porn before. I pointed out studies that shows where porn is available, crime goes down.

Tit for tat. ...err...so to speak...

Besides, boys more likely to harass girls if they've seen porn is kind of backwards to me. I tend to thing that the boys who are more aggressive to begin with would harass women AND watch porn. The opinion never asked that question and the article that opinion cited to never did either.

Explained above.

Excuse me. Those are YOUR assumptions. NOT mine. Here: re-read what I wrote:



I was addressing you're whole good example thing and how it means "role model". And in reply you STILL go on with the whole "role model" stance while trying to dodge the phrase and try to claim something I never did.

I'm sorry, do you even know what "critical thinking" is? Because you haven't shown it yet....

You're doing it again, your equating my expectation that a school secretary shouldn't be a participant in a porno movie to her being a role model.

Please stop it, it's disingenuous.

Funny, it wasn't meant for children to watch. How did a 14 year old boy get to see it? Oh I know:

His parents figured that the whole world should babysit their children.

The point is she did NOT show it, advertise it nor tell it to anyone she works with or any students. If you have something that you share to a group of people that is supposed to know about it, and someone else, who doesn't belong there and it's none of that sneaky person's business to know comes in and steals that something, who's fault is it?

I guess the boy was right in going into a porn and exposing that horrible secretary.

Really? So if I'm having a sexual tryst with my married neighbour and her 14 year old son walks in, I guess we did nothing wrong cause he wasn't supposed to know.

Oh and teenage boys have been looking at porn since the day print media was invented, maybe you should join the real world. Her naivety (yours too) that her behavior would remain secret isn't an excuse.

The matter is now public and the school board has to deal with the fallout.

Bullpucky. Your first post with your little play revealed that you are. Otherwise why the hell would you be so worried about this "good example" bullmess.

I also find this very revealing:




That you would judge me on the fact that instead of restricting, shaming and forcing my opinions on my daughter, who will be an adult soon, I tried to communicate to her what she should expect, show her support and willing to accept her for who she is and what she wants to do.

If you want to support your daughter in demeaning herself, you're free to do so, I prefer to teach my children to have respect for themselves and would hope the education system is doing the same thing.

The first point was from someone before you but the second point is quite clearly how you feel: as evidenced by your very first post. I will correct myself. You may feel that that won't happen to your daughter but you certainly feel that, because of this secretary, it would happen to another.

More assumptions, this isn't true at all. The secretary is merely setting a bad example, her behavior is inappropriate for the position she holds.

It'd be like your weigh-loss instructor scarfing down 3 Big Macs and you catching them in the bathroom shoving a finger down their throat.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I'm a parent, who pays taxes and votes, other than that I don't matter at all, though I do like to be an active participant in my children's education. Yet I feel that what this woman did is none of our business. And as long as we don't make a big deal of it, neither will anyone else.



Would you still love them if they decided to do porn and actually liked it and made money off it?

That's great, differing feelings and all, I'm sure James Randi is smiling somewhere.

I'd love my kids if they robbed the local bank, still doesn't mean I'd agree with their decision.

 

[ProBonoShill]

My opinion is that the attitudes I am seeing on this thread that make out the woman as being some sort of evil influence on children, and deserving of punishment, are exactly the same attitudes that encourage rapists and serial killers to prey on sexworkers and women who do not have monogamist sex lives.

Congratulations, I don't think I've ever seen anyone fit this much hyperbole into such a short post. You should be proud.

Too bad all the assertions in it are unfounded.

 

[Morrigan]

...Did you just compare robbing a bank with doing porn?

Also, please explain why doing porn means you're "demeaning" yourself or that you "don't have self-respect". And does this just apply to women?

 

[ProBonoShill]

So is anyone suggesting children should not be aware of every single option they have when deciding what they want to do with their lives when they grow up?

All options should be explored, if your teenage daughter shows interest in pursuing a career in the porn industry, on career day she should hook up with that secretary and visit a live set, maybe do some fluff work to see if she really likes it.

 

[ProBonoShill]

...Did you just compare robbing a bank with doing porn?

Did you misunderstand the comparison?

Also, please explain why doing porn means you're "demeaning" yourself or that you "don't have self-respect". And does this just apply to women?

It all depends on the type of porn and I think that discussion is missing from this thread.

Some pornography is fairly mild, but there is stuff out there that is extremely nasty including bestiality and defecation.

 

[JFrankA]

DIt all depends on the type of porn and I think that discussion is missing from this thread.

Some pornography is fairly mild, but there is stuff out there that is extremely nasty including bestiality and defecation.

....why is there a big long gouge in the ground here?

Oh... I see. Someone moved their goalposts.......

 

[JFrankA]

WOW. I've seen may bad analogies here at the JREF but this one has to be the worst ever.

Major League sports makes money based on fan attraction.

Funny, so is porn....

Unfortunately at this point in time comparable female leagues do not garner the same level of interest.

Funny, porn doesn't attract as many women viewers as men viewers....but...

Hopefully that will change, if/when their gender start to support them, as it stands now, male fans are the ones sustaining the sports of both genders. One only has to look at the audience of a WNBA game or LPGA for evidence of this.

Hopefully that will change if/when the women start becoming more work behind the camera, which is happening now, more and more women are watching porn than before. One only has to look at the number of women who run porn studios now than say, 30 years ago as evidence of this.

Anyway we're derailing this thread, let's get back on topic shall we:




I really hate it when people misrepresent what I said, it's a weak debating tactic and annoying.

This was my reply to Tsukasa Buddha (I've snipped the inapplicable parts):




The link was provided to back up my assertion that males dominate porn, hence the portion I quoted, it wasn't meant to represent the entirety of my argument. If you have some relevant evidence that contradicts this reality, I'd really love to see it.

That's twice I've had to explain it to you, do try to keep up.

Liar! You are out-and-out lieing now.

Here is what you said, exactly in YOUR OWN WORDS

I did a quick search to prove the porn industry demeans women (I can provide more if you like),

That is EXACTLY what you said. You said, you admitted that you are looking to prove that porn demeans women. Now if you had said that you are looking to see if porn demeans women or not, I wouldn't have said one thing. But you admitted to actively looking to prove that porn is demeaning to women. You are looking for the result, not testing.

That is called confirmation bias.

I called you out on it. That is why I said:

Wait. Hold on. You're kidding right? I mean, you must be joking.

You first come into this thread saying we aren't using critical thinking and you actually say "I did a quick search to prove the porn industry demeans women"? :ld:

How very hypocritical of you. How completely pot calling the kettle black.

You go on and on about how we are not applying critical thinking and you are using one logical fallacy after another. We're naming them to you and all you can do in reply is dodge, point fingers, appeal to emotions and move your goal posts.

Here's another example of how much you are using logic fallacies.

I said about the subject of porn demeaning women:

First of this is an opinion. Pure and simple. Some people, like you feels that porn does demeans women, some do not, some feel that porn empowers women. You can post opinion after opinion and I can too. It is futile. The truth is that it is how you look at porn.

To which you replied:

I agree, but opinions matter, otherwise people would be free to host orgies in their front yards.

See? Another fallacy. Slippery slope. Sheesh.

If the secretary held another occupation, say one not involving young minds, I'd be the first on your side.

I don't believe you. Given your opinion of what porn is, you wouldn't be on my side at all.

Further, I wouldn't want someone like you on my side.

Explained above.

Oh please. Your first post was about how porn is demeaning to women, and included a little play about how a teenager would decide to do porn because the secretary is doing it, and how the father would show it all over.

And one of your own reasons you gave yourself why "porn is demeaning to women" is because it's mostly males who produce it. When I showed that there are other industries that mostly males are in charge of, you tell me I'm misrepresenting your views.

Stop dancing. You're terrible at it.

You're doing it again, your equating my expectation that a school secretary shouldn't be a participant in a porno movie to her being a role model.

Please stop it, it's disingenuous.

Holy cow. You are the one posting that she isn't a "good example". You are the one with the little play of how a teenager decided to do porn because of the secretary doing it, you are the one who think that if opinions didn't matter we'd all have orgies on the front lawn.

What's the matter? Don't like image when the mirror is held up in front of you?

Really? So if I'm having a sexual tryst with my married neighbour and her 14 year old son walks in, I guess we did nothing wrong cause he wasn't supposed to know.

Really?

And I suppose her 14 year old son should blackmail you and his own father too?

Oh and teenage boys have been looking at porn since the day print media was invented, maybe you should join the real world. Her naivety (yours too) that her behavior would remain secret isn't an excuse.

Oh, well, boys will be boys, I guess. It's okay for them to look at porn when they are not supposed to but if a woman who is old enough to participate in a porn, she is demeaning herself and she should be punished! That little boy was right to blackmail that harlot!

The matter is now public and the school board has to deal with the fallout.

Yes, yes!!! BURN THE WITCH!!!!

If you want to support your daughter in demeaning herself, you're free to do so, I prefer to teach my children to have respect for themselves and would hope the education system is doing the same thing.

You know, it's not the school system responsibility to teach self respect to your children. That's your job.

And porn is not demeaning. What I think is demeaning is how you are treating women. You have let the boy in this scenario go scott-free, yet you punish the woman and all women who choose to be in porn. You've judged them to be unable to use their brains, or lazy and not even try, you've judged women in porn as people who love to be demeaned, and yet, not once, NOT ONCE, have you said anything bad about the men in porn. You have not once said that the boy did anything wrong, in fact, you let him do something illegal and looked the other way so you can scream and point fingers at the secretary who did NOTHING illegal.

What a hypocrite you are. You scream that porn is demeaning to women and you blame the women in it.

The first point was from someone before you but the second point is quite clearly how you feel: as evidenced by your very first post. I will correct myself. You may feel that that won't happen to your daughter but you certainly feel that, because of this secretary, it would happen to another.

More assumptions, this isn't true at all. The secretary is merely setting a bad example, her behavior is inappropriate for the position she holds.

I put my quote in to be clear. Where could I possibly get the assumption that you may feel that a girl would be influenced by the secretary to become a porn star.... Oh wait. It was this:

Whether you like it or not, children spend almost 1/3 of their formative years in somes type of an educational setting. Principals, teachers, counselors and yes secretaries have an influence over children. They're certainly not strangers.

It'd be like your weigh-loss instructor scarfing down 3 Big Macs and you catching them in the bathroom shoving a finger down their throat.

Why? Why is a someone who performs in porn inappropriate to teach or work near children? Why?

Let me ask you this: should a couple who perform in porn be allowed to have children? Now let me clarify: the question is not "have the right to have children", of course they have the right. The question is in your humble opinion, if you had your way, should a couple, or even if it was just the mom who performed in porn, raise a child?

Careful, now. Don't move your goalposts again...

 

[ProBonoShill]

Funny, so is porn....


Funny, porn doesn't attract as many women viewers as men viewers....but...



Hopefully that will change if/when the women start becoming more work behind the camera, which is happening now, more and more women are watching porn than before. One only has to look at the number of women who run porn studios now than say, 30 years ago as evidence of this.

So you agree at present porn is dominated by males, you could have done that several posts ago and saved me the trouble.

Liar! You are out-and-out lieing now.

Here is what you said, exactly in YOUR OWN WORDS



That is EXACTLY what you said. You said, you admitted that you are looking to prove that porn demeans women. Now if you had said that you are looking to see if porn demeans women or not, I wouldn't have said one thing. But you admitted to actively looking to prove that porn is demeaning to women. You are looking for the result, not testing.

That is called confirmation bias.

I'm not explaining it to you for a third time, if you want to remain obtuse that's entirely your problem.

I called you out on it. That is why I said:



You go on and on about how we are not applying critical thinking and you are using one logical fallacy after another. We're naming them to you and all you can do in reply is dodge, point fingers, appeal to emotions and move your goal posts.

Oh please, could you be any more dramatic? Stop distorting the discussion with your falsehoods.

How ironic that you're accusing me of committing logical fallacies when your posts are littered with red herrings, strawmen and abundant cherry picking.

Here's another example of how much you are using logic fallacies.

I said about the subject of porn demeaning women:

To which you replied:



See? Another fallacy. Slippery slope. Sheesh.

Before you make idiotic accusations it might help if you understood what the fallacy is first. Look it up, it doesn't mean what you think it does.

I don't believe you. Given your opinion of what porn is, you wouldn't be on my side at all.

Further, I wouldn't want someone like you on my side.

Mutual feelings and all that.

Oh please. Your first post was about how porn is demeaning to women, and included a little play about how a teenager would decide to do porn because the secretary is doing it, and how the father would show it all over.

More lies and fallacies, my you're quite the hypocrite aren't you.

And one of your own reasons you gave yourself why "porn is demeaning to women" is because it's mostly males who produce it. When I showed that there are other industries that mostly males are in charge of, you tell me I'm misrepresenting your views.

Stop dancing. You're terrible at it.

Are you really this dense? I didn't say that at all, what I said was your comparison of the porn industry to major league sports was terrible.

Maybe you should reread it.

Holy cow. You are the one posting that she isn't a "good example". You are the one with the little play of how a teenager decided to do porn because of the secretary doing it, you are the one who think that if opinions didn't matter we'd all have orgies on the front lawn.

What's the matter? Don't like image when the mirror is held up in front of you?

I'm not sure why you continually misrepresent my posts, is your reading comprehension really this bad?

My scenario in no way suggests the teenage girl wants to do porn because the secretary also did so. It was to show that people like you would approve of such activities. You proved my point in your next post when you suggested if your teenage daughter wanted to do hardcore porn, you'd be perfectly fine with it. You'd probably even pack her a lunch and coach her too.

Really?

And I suppose her 14 year old son should blackmail you and his own father too?

Speaking of dodges.......

Oh, well, boys will be boys, I guess. It's okay for them to look at porn when they are not supposed to but if a woman who is old enough to participate in a porn, she is demeaning herself and she should be punished! That little boy was right to blackmail that harlot!

One gigantic strawman.

Yes, yes!!! BURN THE WITCH!!!!

More proof you're the master of the faulty causation fallacy.

You know, it's not the school system responsibility to teach self respect to your children. That's your job.

Yes I know, in your world the little brats should do some reading and writing and get the hell home.

And porn is not demeaning. What I think is demeaning is how you are treating women. You have let the boy in this scenario go scott-free, yet you punish the woman and all women who choose to be in porn. You've judged them to be unable to use their brains, or lazy and not even try, you've judged women in porn as people who love to be demeaned, and yet, not once, NOT ONCE, have you said anything bad about the men in porn. You have not once said that the boy did anything wrong, in fact, you let him do something illegal and looked the other way so you can scream and point fingers at the secretary who did NOTHING illegal.


What a hypocrite you are. You scream that porn is demeaning to women and you blame the women in it.

What a bunch of nonsense. Tell me, is it demeaning if a young lady is being filmed lying on floor naked while 15 guys ejaculate on her? Oh wait you've already answered, you'd have no problem with your daughter doing that.
Hey as long as she's making money, maybe you'd hand out free copies too.

I put my quote in to be clear. Where could I possibly get the assumption that you may feel that a girl would be influenced by the secretary to become a porn star.... Oh wait. It was this:





Why? Why is a someone who performs in porn inappropriate to teach or work near children? Why?

The same reason I wouldn't want a member of the KKK working at my children's school. But hey what he does with his free time isn't any of our business, RIGHT?

Let me ask you this: should a couple who perform in porn be allowed to have children? Now let me clarify: the question is not "have the right to have children", of course they have the right. The question is in your humble opinion, if you had your way, should a couple, or even if it was just the mom who performed in porn, raise a child?

Careful, now. Don't move your goalposts again...

Do you beat your kids?

 

[Taarkin]

The same reason I wouldn't want a member of the KKK working at my children's school. But hey what he does with his free time isn't any of our business, RIGHT?

I'm sure if you invest just the tiiiiiiiiiniest modicum of thought into that you'll be able to figure out why it's a terrible analogy.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I'm sure if you invest just the tiiiiiiiiiniest modicum of thought into that you'll be able to figure out why it's a terrible analogy.

I agree it's not the greatest analogy, but let's think about it for a minute.

It's not against the law to hold racist views and as long as his views don't interfere with his work and he keeps them to himself, why should he be fired?

Shouldn't educators be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it's kept from the students?

How about a school principle starting a Charles Manson fan-club and spending his free time advocating for his release.

There are a myriad of scenarios one could come up with, the point I'm trying to make is that educators have a different standard they're expected to uphold, they have a special job in society, compared to other occupations..

Those standards have to be enforced on a case by case basis.

If a teacher attends a nudist camp every weekend I don't think she should be canned, but if she's shoving her tongue into a certain part of the male anatomy on film, she needs to go or at least be reassigned.

Of course that's only my opinion and school boards are elected to deal with these situations. But I side with this school board in this particular case.

 

[JFrankA]

So you agree at present porn is dominated by males, you could have done that several posts ago and saved me the trouble.

I've never denied it! Sheesh! The whole point of what I am saying about that (and I came out and said it) is that there are many many many industries that are male dominated and geared towards the male aggressiveness.

The porn industry is dominated by males behind the camera, but the number of females in that position is growing. Further, the women in front of the camera always make a lot more money than a man in front of the camera.

In short, my reply to "it's a male dominated industry" is "So?"

I'm not explaining it to you for a third time, if you want to remain obtuse that's entirely your problem.

Oh please, could you be any more dramatic? Stop distorting the discussion with your falsehoods.

How ironic that you're accusing me of committing logical fallacies when your posts are littered with red herrings, strawmen and abundant cherry picking.

I know the point you're trying to make, once again, I was calling out on the fact that you are trying to prove your opinion, when, by your own admission it is just an opinion and can't be proven.

You say "porn is demeaning to women - I will go prove it"

I say "porn is not demeaning to women - I will go prove it".

So? You can't prove porn is demeaning to women just as I can't prove it isn't. That's a matter of opinion. However, you saying that you are searching for proof then posting opinions and saying "Ha! See?" is a fallacy, then turn around and accuse us of doing the same thing. And when I point out to your fallacies, you have accuse me of being wrong.

For example:

Before you make idiotic accusations it might help if you understood what the fallacy is first. Look it up, it doesn't mean what you think it does.

was your response to this exchange:

I said about the subject of porn demeaning women:

First of this is an opinion. Pure and simple. Some people, like you feels that porn does demeans women, some do not, some feel that porn empowers women. You can post opinion after opinion and I can too. It is futile. The truth is that it is how you look at porn.

To which you replied:

See? Another fallacy. Slippery slope. Sheesh.

from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.

Sounds like I got it right.

Mutual feelings and all that.

Well. We know where we stand.

More lies and fallacies, my you're quite the hypocrite aren't you.

Okay, I'll admit to being wrong in this. I re-read that post, and your play was what you thought the JREF would do, not the secretary's influence. My mistake I read it wrong. I'm sorry.

But you are trying to appeal to emotion and making assumption. There. I stand corrected and you were still using a fallacy. Further, you were judging us on your morals simply because we don't see the secretary doing anything wrong.

But I am sorry about reading it wrong.

Let me ask you again: would anybody who works with children be in porn? You do know plenty of teachers have been in Playboy. And if that is not bad, then what is the line?

Are you really this dense? I didn't say that at all, what I said was your comparison of the porn industry to major league sports was terrible.

Maybe you should reread it.

Okay, to be fair, I re-read that too.

Here is the exchange I'm reacting to:

Second, I'm going to point out that there male sex workers in at least half of all pornography, and I dislike the "victimized women" approach to sex work (Though since it is a female in this particular case, I'll give a bit of a pass).

The industry is almost exclusively geared toward the male population.
A quick google search produces this:

It's not exactly a secret that the porn industry is a male-dominated profession, and that misogyny runs through its products; not much exists in the way of feminist, woman-friendly viewing material. Flood cites unrealistic depictions of sex and callous, hostile depictions of women as contributing factors to boys messed up perspective on how to treat women.

I'll apologize for that too. I did think that you were saying that since it's male dominated, it's automatically demeaning to women. I was wrong.

...but you are still basing your "fact" on an opinion. The little blurb you quoted is still just an opinion.

You cannot prove that porn is demeaning to women. Period.

I'm not sure why you continually misrepresent my posts, is your reading comprehension really this bad?

My scenario in no way suggests the teenage girl wants to do porn because the secretary also did so. It was to show that people like you would approve of such activities. You proved my point in your next post when you suggested if your teenage daughter wanted to do hardcore porn, you'd be perfectly fine with it. You'd probably even pack her a lunch and coach her too.

Again, I apologize for that.

And so what? I've explained quite clearly that if certain conditions were met, no I would not have any problems with her being in porn. Further, if she was under-aged and told me she wanted to get into it, I would talk to her about it first. Did you notice one of my recommendations to her was to hold off and get to know what her sexuality is because they may ask her to do something she didn't like?

And I wouldn't pack her a lunch. ....I'm a terrible cook... And hopefully, she'd be making money to be in her own home.

So, if you had your way, should my children be taken away from me?

Speaking of dodges.......
One gigantic strawman.
More proof you're the master of the faulty causation fallacy.

Again, to be clear, here's what I'm reacting to:

Really? So if I'm having a sexual tryst with my married neighbour and her 14 year old son walks in, I guess we did nothing wrong cause he wasn't supposed to know.

<snip>

Oh and teenage boys have been looking at porn since the day print media was invented, maybe you should join the real world. Her naivety (yours too) that her behavior would remain secret isn't an excuse.

Here, I was making a point and I won't apologize. You have, essentially, absolved the 14 year old boy of any wrong doing. Really. The 14 year old boy. You have punished the woman, when she has done nothing illegal, and let the boy go off with a slap of the wrist for doing something illegal and getting away with it.

In response to your first statement, that's a terrible analogy. Two people having sex in the same house and being discovered by someone else who is in the house is NOT the same as discovering one person that you know that did porn on the entire internet, though you may think so.

The boy lives in the house and belongs there.

The fourteen year old boy doesn't belong on a porn site, and, although I'm sure he goes there, the chances of him seeing someone he knows is remote at best. He got lucky. Further, you seem to gloss over the fact that he tried to blackmail the secretary.

With this analogy you have absolved the 14 year old of any wrong doing.

Further, in your analogy, the adults were doing something that most people would see as wrong.

In what happened in real life, the secretary didn't do anything that most people see as wrong.

You know, it's not the school system responsibility to teach self respect to your children. That's your job.

Yes I know, in your world the little brats should do some reading and writing and get the hell home.

Another ad Hominem?

Okay, let me clarify. It is not the school's job to teach self-respect based on the morals YOU set. That is your job. What you see as teaching self-respect based on what you think self-respect is, to me, it's shaming your children. How is a school going to teach self-respect based on our vastly different beliefs of what self-respect is?

They can't.

That's your job. And that's my job. Not theirs.

What a bunch of nonsense. Tell me, is it demeaning if a young lady is being filmed lying on floor naked while 15 guys ejaculate on her?

Let's see. How did someone else put it? Oh yeah like this:

Oh please, could you be any more dramatic?
Speaking of dodges.......
One gigantic strawman.

But even though you dodged my point, I'll answer your question if you respond honestly to my claim.

So, is it demeaning if a young lady is being filmed lying on the floor naked while 15 guys ejaculate on her?

Not if a) it was consensual on everyone's part b) if she is enjoying the experience c) her safety was kept in mind during the filming, d) she is an adult and e) she's making money, then, no, it is not demeaning.

Oh wait you've already answered, you'd have no problem with your daughter doing that.

If the criteria I listed above is met, then you're right. I have no problem with it. If any one or more of the criteria is not met, then I would have a problem with it.

Hey as long as she's making money, maybe you'd hand out free copies too.

No, I would never do that. She'd lose money if I did.

Now my turn:

What I think is demeaning is how you are treating women. You have let the boy in this scenario go scott-free, yet you punish the woman and all women who choose to be in porn. You've judged them to be unable to use their brains, or lazy and not even try, you've judged women in porn as people who love to be demeaned, and yet, not once, NOT ONCE, have you said anything bad about the men (who act in) porn. You have not once said that the boy did anything wrong, in fact, you let him do something illegal and looked the other way so you can scream and point fingers at the secretary who did NOTHING illegal.

Who is being more demeaning to women? Me or you?

The same reason I wouldn't want a member of the KKK working at my children's school. But hey what he does with his free time isn't any of our business, RIGHT?

RIGHT!

You know something, if there were a member of the KKK teaching at the school, that person has every right to be a member if a) s/he kept his KKK business out of the school (e.g. if s/he started a Klan club, or tried to have a Klan rally in the school - no way), b) s/he treated each student equally (especially in grading) and c) s/he didn't tell anyone at the school what s/he does.

Sorry, it's a free country. I don't agree with the KKK but if someone wants to join and can stick to the criteria above and does a good job, then that person has the right to work there whether I like it or not.

Do you beat your kids?

Why are you dodging the question, derailing the thread and making an accusation? Okay, I'll play with you to be fair, I'll answer yours if you answer mine.

No.

Now, your turn:

In your opinion, if you had your way, should a couple, or even if it was just the mom who performed in porn, raise a child?

 

[stevea]

OBVIOUSLY disruptive to the education goal.

Were they?

Let's see - student gossip, student blackmail, dismissals, meetings of the board, lawsuits, TV news, international news. Yes - it's obvious.

And if she wore a short skirt in a dark alley, making herself 'easily subject to rape'...

You need to read more carefully. If you wear a short skirt in a dark alley then the rapist is guilty of rape, BUT you still demonstrating bad judgment. If you have a job where you deal with minors (and even if it's not your job) you have some responsibility to accommodate their limited capacity of minors.

What if she kept alcohol in her own home?

Then it might be a question for a jury. IF she made the alcohol known to minors and/or unreasonably accessible to minors - then she might be found guilty. This isn't my opinion - it's the law in many jurisdictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine

Since the blackmail could only be effective if the school administration is prejudiced against porn actresses, it would probably be a bad idea to tell them that.

Clearly you don't understand. How could anyone blackmail her if it wasn't a secret ? The entire threat to her comes from the fact that the school admins and her own children didn't know.

And if try to hide the keys, you're just encouraging them to look for the keys, or just break in. Terrible judgment, you're fired.

It doesn't matte that it's a crime for minors to rape you. The secretary effectively told some horny 14yos that she can easily be raped - she definitely has some responsibility for the consequences.

You're really showing ignorance here. People have been prosecuted for manslaughter for merely having an unlocked fence around a private pool where kids snuck in and drowned. As much as you wish to play the reductio absurdam card - that is how the law works. Adults have responsibility to prevent minors from harm. Minors don't have the same rights or responsibilities as adults.

Let's say she did tell the administrators(but not the students) about her past, and they were ok with it. If some 14 year old found the video, he STILL would have tried to blackmail her!

Then it would be the school's problem and they should plan for it. Worst case the kid would quickly transit to the principals office, the school psychologist, a suspension and maybe the law. She would be immune to any threat of blackmail.

Literally any possibly embarrassing thing can be blackmail fodder. Is there ANYTHING employees should be able to not reveal to their employers to avoid blackmail? What if she were gay, or Libertarian, or a Trekkie?

Could the fact that you are a trekkie or a libertarian reasonably be used to blackmail you into paying money or performing sex acts ? Obviously not. If you appeared in gay porn, and are keeping it a secret and might potentially submit to blackmail to remain in the closet - then yes - you represent a potential problem for the school.

One time I left my car windows down just enough for someone to reach in and unlock the doors. I exhibited bad judgment and forced someone to commit a crime against me. Should I have been fired?

If your job was to protect the contents of the car, then you clearly screwed up and should be fired from that job. School employees have substantial responsibilities to the minors in their care, to keep order, to get the education task done. She screwed up.

Wow. Just wow. Have you really thought the above statement through?

You've made some stunningly bad analogies in your last few posts but this one takes the biscuit.

Wow just wow - for sure, for sure - I really have. And wow just wow - where do you get off claiming to be a critical thinker and yet providing ZERO counter argument - just name-calling ? No one can possibly understand your objection. What is YOUR better analogy ?

Taarkin said it wasn't bigotry that made her keep it secret from her kids, but instead " a) they don't need to know and b) they are too young to understand."
To create a serious carreer-ending secret b/c kids "don't need to know" is nonsense..
I think they could be told in an age-appropriate way what would end any threat of blackmail IF she was willing. She wasn't and it's most certainly b/c she fears bigotry.OR doesn't view her porn acting as a valid part of her life (is bigoted herself).

In any case it's a little late to worry about secrecy - that's silly.
==

My opinion is that the attitudes I am seeing on this thread that make out the woman as being some sort of evil influence on children, and deserving of punishment, are exactly the same attitudes that encourage rapists and serial killers to prey on sexworkers and women who do not have monogamist sex lives.

You're not getting that from me unless you are mis-reading. There is nothing wrong with being a porn actress. I suggested she be open about it. There is something very wrong with thinking you can hide a porn movie career from prurient teens you work with or that it won't cause some reaction. No one needs to be punished (except the minor/blackmailer). She did make a modest mess for the school, and was offered transfer. That's about fair.

I don't know what you THINK you read, but being responsible is a requirement to work with kids. Someone who leaves an unlocked car with beer on a school grounds is irresponsible and someone who thinks their "secret" porno movie, available on every torrent, won't surface and cause a reaction is irresponsible.

To impute expecting a greater degree of responsibility from school workers toward minors in their charge is "exactly the same attitudes that encourage rapists and serial killers" shows that you have a severely distorted viewpoint.

Where did you read "deserving of punishment" ? Be specific or else admit you are a liar.and distorting the facts while falsely accusing people of encouraging rape and murder !

Slanderer !

 

[sgtbaker]

I agree it's not the greatest analogy, but let's think about it for a minute.

It's not against the law to hold racist views and as long as his views don't interfere with his work and he keeps them to himself, why should he be fired?

Shouldn't educators be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it's kept from the students?

While it might change my opinion of the teacher but as long as I found out in a way that had nothing to do with class instruction, not really my business.

How about a school principle starting a Charles Manson fan-club and spending his free time advocating for his release.

There are a myriad of scenarios one could come up with, the point I'm trying to make is that educators have a different standard they're expected to uphold, they have a special job in society, compared to other occupations..

Those standards have to be enforced on a case by case basis.

Again, not my business. Educators do have a very difficult job and I would never claim otherwise but not one aspect of their job involves the responsibility of teaching them "values". Anywhere our children go, they run the risk of having their views of the world, shifted by an individual they may have respect for. I would rather them be introduced, now, to the myriad of views out there than send them off into a world, when they grow up, with a belief that it's all rainbows and unicorns (I am talking specifically about worshipping Manson or secret KKK life).

If a teacher attends a nudist camp every weekend I don't think she should be canned, but if she's shoving her tongue into a certain part of the male anatomy on film, she needs to go or at least be reassigned.

Of course that's only my opinion and school boards are elected to deal with these situations. But I side with this school board in this particular case.

Just shoving her tongue into a certain part of the male anatomy or is it specifically doing it on film? To be perfectly honest, it doesn't make a difference to me. Stilll...not my business.

 

[BenBurch]

Congratulations, I don't think I've ever seen anyone fit this much hyperbole into such a short post. You should be proud.

Too bad all the assertions in it are unfounded.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal remarks

 

[stevea]

That's absolutely absurd. People keep secrets because there are people who are going to have problem with other people's activites whether they are a secret or not! For example, not everyone I work with knows I am an atheist. I don't tell the people who don't need to know (including a couple of my managers) because it would change the dynamic of our working relationship. There is no need to go there and it would impact our work relationship badly because he's a devote Catholic.

This misses the point. You likely aren't subject to blackmail for being an atheist. Unless you are a religious monk then announcing your atheism won't cause problems at work - just a little jostling between adults.

I think you are digging a hole for yourself on a personal level - I use to do that too. Bad plan, but it's your business. What you ignore is that it's other peoples problem how they react to your atheism. We can't say the same for minors.

Further, she kept it a secret because it's none of anyone of her co-worker's and student's business. I work with customers and lot of my business deals with churches and religious groups. Should I make it plan to each and every customer that I am an atheist?

Should I tell each and everyone of my customers that I run an adult website? Hell, I should tell them I'm a Dom and into BDSM too! [/B]

I have a ton of other secrets. I'll tell more if you want and in greater detail since it's so important for my co-workers and customers to know.

So what ? We all have tons of secrets.

Go back and read what I said and stop making things up ridiculous exaggerations based on your biases. Do you know how ridiculous you sound ? When would it ever be appropriate to discuss your religious beliefs or your personal sexual proclivities with customers or your employer ?

If it doesn't impact your work - then it's not your employer's business. If YOUR offsite activities will likely impact work - then you owe your employer some notice.

 

[Taarkin]

Let's see - student gossip, student blackmail,

How would the secretary telling the administration about her past prevent those things?

dismissals, meetings of the board, lawsuits, TV news, international news. Yes - it's obvious.

Those are due to the actions of the administration, not the secretary. It looks like firing her was quite disruptive, better fire those admins!

You need to read more carefully. If you wear a short skirt in a dark alley then the rapist is guilty of rape, BUT you still demonstrating bad judgment. If you have a job where you deal with minors (and even if it's not your job) you have some responsibility to accommodate their limited capacity of minors.

Should such a woman be fired?

Then it might be a question for a jury. IF she made the alcohol known to minors and/or unreasonably accessible to minors - then she might be found guilty. This isn't my opinion - it's the law in many jurisdictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine

And if she didn't?

Clearly you don't understand. How could anyone blackmail her if it wasn't a secret ? The entire threat to her comes from the fact that the school admins and her own children didn't know.

This is still under the delusion that she was fired for 'exposing herself' to blackmail. In reality, she was fired for being in porn. Since the admins were willing to fire her for being in porn, telling them you were in porn sounds like a bad idea! Heck, by being prejudiced against porn actresses, the administration is encouraging the students to blackmail secretaries!

You're really showing ignorance here. People have been prosecuted for manslaughter for merely having an unlocked fence around a private pool where kids snuck in and drowned. As much as you wish to play the reductio absurdam card - that is how the law works. Adults have responsibility to prevent minors from harm. Minors don't have the same rights or responsibilities as adults.

But if he locked the fence, that would just encourage the kids to break in, just like the secretary's secrecy encouraged the kid to blackmail her.

Then it would be the school's problem and they should plan for it. Worst case the kid would quickly transit to the principals office, the school psychologist, a suspension and maybe the law.

But he still would have made an attempt at blackmail, which is the disruptive thing you're saying she encouraged!

She would be immune to any threat of blackmail.

What would stop anyone from attempting to blackmail her?

Could the fact that you are a trekkie or a libertarian reasonably be used to blackmail you into paying money or performing sex acts ? Obviously not.

If the admin was biased against libertarians or trekkies (like they are against porn actresses), then YES. And if they were, then telling them is a bad idea (see above).

If you appeared in gay porn, and are keeping it a secret and might potentially submit to blackmail to remain in the closet - then yes - you represent a potential problem for the school.

What if you just held hands or kissed? Is that secret "presenting a problem for the school"?