Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[ProBonoShill]

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?"

You tried to compare professional sports to an industry the objectifies woman and demeans them, it's an absurd idea no matter how many times you try to explain it.

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.

I somewhat agree, I think there are varying degrees of porn, from erotica to extreme hardcore and as I said in another post this is something that should added to the discussion.

I think this author makes a good distinction:

Proponents of the anti-pornography-equals-censorship school deliberately obfuscate any distinction between erotica and pornography, using the term erotica for all sexually explicit materials. In contrast, anti-pornography feminists consider it vitally important to distinguish between pornography and erotica, and support or even advocate erotica.

Although women's bodies are the staple of adult pornography, it is important to have a gender neutral definition that encompasses gay pornography, as well as child pornography. Animals are also targets of pornographic depictions. Hence, I define pornography as material that combines sex and/or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone, or encourage such behavior.

http://www.dianarussell.com/Pages/pornasacauseofrape.html

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.

That's because you are, keep reading:

For example:



was your response to this exchange:

I said about the subject of porn demeaning women:



To which you replied:



See? Another fallacy. Slippery slope. Sheesh.
from wiki:

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



Sounds like I got it right.

No, you got it completely wrong, nowhere do I even attempt to make the correlation that a school having a porn star secretary leads to people hosting orgies on their lawn. If you stopped trying to read my mind and stick to what I actually write you'd be able to better formulate your arguments.

Well. We know where we stand.



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?




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

Here is the exchange I'm reacting to:





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.



Again, I apologize for that.

At this point we're mostly talking past each other, though I do think we've found some common ground . This issue revolves around morals and values, which is why we're discussing it in the Social Issues sub-forum and not Science and Mathematics. As I said earlier each case should be judged on it's merits.

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?

If you're weren't actively trying to dissuade your underage daughter from filming a porn movie you should be charged with child neglect.

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



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.

Oh boy, that went completely over your head. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO CAUGHT THEM, what they were doing was wrong.

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.

I think you should go back and reread our entire exchange, especially your thoughts on people's opinions, then apply it to what you've written above.

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.

They are supposed to set an example. Would you object to a someone teaching their class wearing only underwear? How about one who uses profanity throughout their lessons. People working in education go through a more rigorous hiring process than others for a reason, Any idea why?

We're communicating on a forum that doesn't allow nudity or profanity, why is that? Is the JREF prudish?

James Randi has certain values that he expects this forum to follow, so does that school board in Quebec.

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

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.

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.



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 boy shouldn't have been watching the movie, but I'm not quite ready to castrate him, his attempts at blackmail were repugnant though.
Happy now?
Saying that, the boy is irrelevant to the discussion at hand which is whether this secretary deserves to keep her job.

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.

Well I'm grateful you don't sit on my local school board, if someone is able to hold those views I would question his judgement and his ability to educate our youth.

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?

I made an error in my question and left out the word "still", which would've made it a loaded question fallacy, just like yours.

 

[ProBonoShill]

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.



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).



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.

I disagree, if the person in question was an auto mechanic or an accountant I could care less, but educators of our youth hold special positions in our society and should be held to different standards.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[sgtbaker]

I disagree, if the person in question was an auto mechanic or an accountant I could care less, but educators of our youth hold special positions in our society and should be held to different standards.

Why are they in a special position, though? They follow a curriculum and a good teacher will find a hook to keep the kids interested in the subject they are hired to teach. What does any of this have to do with after hours?

 

[Roadtoad]

Finally saw the video.

Yup. She needs all the publicity she can get. Damn, that flick sucked.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Why are they in a special position, though? They follow a curriculum and a good teacher will find a hook to keep the kids interested in the subject they are hired to teach. What does any of this have to do with after hours?

I think there's more to it than that though.

We build special relationships with our teachers. It's more than just following the curriculum. Some coach school teams, some organize clubs, they chaperoned the dances and proms, some even help in our personal lives.
My children have had some amazing teachers and though the older two have graduated they still communicate with them quite often.

My fifth grade teacher went out and bought each of us different books, based on what she thought we'd like on her own dime.
My math, gym and geography teachers were my football coaches. My high school counsellor helped me maintain my sanity when things weren't going do well at home. My 11th grade homeroom teacher would throw pizza parties on special occasions, there's many more but I'll stop here.

I'm sure most students experienced situations similar to mine.

I'm not saying they need to emulate mother Theresa, but certain occupations have certain standards, just ask Bill Clinton.
I hope that didn't come off as snarky, it wasn't meant too, just thought it'd be something to think about.

I'm not sure where to draw the line or where erotica ends and porn begins, but in this case I support the school board.

 

[Taarkin]

You know who has a demeaning, exploitative job? Janitors. Better fire them, lest they set a bad example for the students.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

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.

There you go. So we agree then

 

[JFrankA]

You tried to compare professional sports to an industry the objectifies woman and demeans them, it's an absurd idea no matter how many times you try to explain it.

I told you before, and I admit I made a mistake in understanding what you were trying to say.

I somewhat agree, I think there are varying degrees of porn, from erotica to extreme hardcore and as I said in another post this is something that should added to the discussion.

I think this author makes a good distinction:

Proponents of the anti-pornography-equals-censorship school deliberately obfuscate any distinction between erotica and pornography, using the term erotica for all sexually explicit materials. In contrast, anti-pornography feminists consider it vitally important to distinguish between pornography and erotica, and support or even advocate erotica.

Although women's bodies are the staple of adult pornography, it is important to have a gender neutral definition that encompasses gay pornography, as well as child pornography. Animals are also targets of pornographic depictions. Hence, I define pornography as material that combines sex and/or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone, or encourage such behavior.

http://www.dianarussell.com/Pages/pornasacauseofrape.html

I don't have time to read this entire thing for now, I will later, but I will make it clear that I am not talking about child pornography nor am I talking about bestiality. In fact, this secretary did neither one. However, I will completely disagree with a statement saying that having a woman as part of a 15 man gang bang is demeaning, provided the criteria I listed in my previous post is met.

And you are being completely and utterly unfair in your constant ignoring of that criteria.

That's because you are, keep reading:

No, you got it completely wrong, nowhere do I even attempt to make the correlation that a school having a porn star secretary leads to people hosting orgies on their lawn. If you stopped trying to read my mind and stick to what I actually write you'd be able to better formulate your arguments.

No no no no no! Now it's time for you to learn reading comprehension. That is NOT the correlation I was making. I wasn't making taking about the secretary there, I was talking about your logic when it comes to opinions.

At this point we're mostly talking past each other, though I do think we've found some common ground . This issue revolves around morals and values, which is why we're discussing it in the Social Issues sub-forum and not Science and Mathematics. As I said earlier each case should be judged on it's merits.

It's more than just morals and values. You're missing something.

If you're weren't actively trying to dissuade your underage daughter from filming a porn movie you should be charged with child neglect.

Once again, you read what you wanted to read and did not read what I wrote. You are just as guilty of lack of reading comprehension as I am. At least I will admit I was wrong and apologize for it. Time for you to re-read what exactly I said instead of throwing ad homs at me and judging me.

Oh boy, that went completely over your head. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO CAUGHT THEM, what they were doing was wrong.

YES IT DOES MATTER WHO CAUGHT THEM. First off, the secretary DID NOTHING WRONG! Get that through your skull. She didn't cheat, she didn't do anything illegal. There is nothing against the law in being in an adult, legal porno. Which she was in an adult, legal porno.

Yet, you STILL defend the 14 year old boy for blackmail. You still have not once said that that the boy was wrong in trying to blackmail her.

I'm sorry, you are coming across that in your morals, it's all the secretary's fault for demeaning herself. So she deserves any kind of crime being done on her from a man.

I think you should go back and reread our entire exchange, especially your thoughts on people's opinions, then apply it to what you've written above.

I've re-read that portion on opinion many times over. Perhaps YOU should do the same thing. Once again, you haven't once blamed the boy for his crime. Not once. That's very hypocritical to me.

They are supposed to set an example. Would you object to a someone teaching their class wearing only underwear? How about one who uses profanity throughout their lessons.

Slippery slope again. Just letting you know. And I've been in high school where the teacher used profanity. So? Now if someone uses profanity

People working in education go through a more rigorous hiring process than others for a reason, Any idea why?

To show they have the skills to teach. But then again, I don't think they care what a person does in their off time outside of school. As long as they don't break the law.

Again, this secretary did nothing illegal.

We're communicating on a forum that doesn't allow nudity or profanity, why is that? Is the JREF prudish?

James Randi has certain values that he expects this forum to follow, so does that school board in Quebec.

Oh come on! Really??? Really?

So the JREF will boot me out of the forum if they found out I was in a porno?

Talk about bad analogies. ..... sheesh!

The boy shouldn't have been watching the movie, but I'm not quite ready to castrate him, his attempts at blackmail were repugnant though.
Happy now?
Saying that, the boy is irrelevant to the discussion at hand which is whether this secretary deserves to keep her job.

Not happy. You have given him a wrist slap for attempting to ruin another person's life and committing a crime where you punish a woman (a gender you're claiming that you are defending) for doing nothing illegal but did something against your morals.

That's still hypocritical.

Well I'm grateful you don't sit on my local school board, if someone is able to hold those views I would question his judgement and his ability to educate our youth.

I am not a hypocrite. Further, you once again ignored my criteria. You claim that everything should be on "case-by-case" basis, but when I presented the factors that will alter my judgement one way or another depending on the case, you ignore that and blanket judge.

Once again, you are being hypocritical.

I made an error in my question and left out the word "still", which would've made it a loaded question fallacy, just like yours.

:ld:

Really? Really? Instead of "Do you beat your kids?" you wanted to say "Do you still beat your kids?" and now it's not a "loaded question"?

No, it's not a loaded question: it's an out and out ad hom. You are making a judgement on me, assuming something about me and trying to insult me while ignoring all the facts I gave you about how I would react to situations. And because I don't react the way YOUR standard of "morals", you judge me as a child beater and ask me if I "still" beat my children.

You are being hypocritical.

My question is not loaded. It's a challenge to your beliefs and a fair one. Once again, you avoided the question. I've answered all of yours, you refuse to answer mine. I admitted when I was wrong in when I miss read your statements and apologized for them. You have misread my statements, even ignored when I explained why I feel the way I feel, and judged me on your "morals". You claim that you judge on a case by case basis, and when I give a criteria for a basis for a case-by-case, you ignore that criteria and condemn me.

Now let's see if you have an ounce of courage. Answer my question:

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?

 

[BenBurch]

Finally saw the video.

Yup. She needs all the publicity she can get. Damn, that flick sucked.

Agreed. Lisa Ann has no competition here.

 

[sgtbaker]

I think there's more to it than that though.

We build special relationships with our teachers. It's more than just following the curriculum. Some coach school teams, some organize clubs, they chaperoned the dances and proms, some even help in our personal lives.
My children have had some amazing teachers and though the older two have graduated they still communicate with them quite often.

I am snipping for the sake of brevity, I hope you don't mind. This is base of the problem; I think we put too much expectation on teachers/school employees to set examples. I think it's fine for students and teachers to develope relationships but I do not believe in role models; sooner or later, everyone becomes human. You also have to remember that children develope relationships with adults, outside of school. Can you fairly expect everyone who comes in contact and possibly make a positive impression on a child, to not have sexual fantasies?
Here we sit at the top of the food chain, one of the more intelligent creatures in the kingdom and because of that, we've learned to take pleasure in what most other animals do out of necessity and instinct. I can't think of one valid reason why sex has to be treated as a special case, where there has to be guilt and shame involved. With or without incentive from sexual information, teens hit a certain age and experience strong desires. Publicly castigating people because they make a living in the sex industry does nothing but instills this belief that sex = shame.

I'm not saying they need to emulate mother Theresa, but certain occupations have certain standards, just ask Bill Clinton.
I hope that didn't come off as snarky, it wasn't meant too, just thought it'd be something to think about.

I am glad you brought up that example. It goes right to the very heart of the issue. Bill Clinton, whether you liked him or not, was capable of having fun with cigars and run the nation. No snark taken

I'm not sure where to draw the line or where erotica ends and porn begins, but in this case I support the school board.

I am sure most people are not comfortable with setting specific parameters which is why your best bet is to just live and let live. As long as no harm is coming to anyone, it's none of your or my business how another individual enjoys their private time. If you can clearly show a specific harm that a teenager can experience from knowing, personally, a porn star, then I will gladly discuss limitations.

 

[BenBurch]

...

If you can clearly show a specific harm that a teenager can experience from knowing, personally, a porn star, then I will gladly discuss limitations.

I actually know one porn star who went on to a successful music career, and who raised several really fine children, and put them through school. I don't think they were harmed one iota. In fact, without the money their Mom was making doing porn, I think they would have been harmed quite a lot.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I told you before, and I admit I made a mistake in understanding what you were trying to say.

Okay

I don't have time to read this entire thing for now, I will later, but I will make it clear that I am not talking about child pornography nor am I talking about bestiality. In fact, this secretary did neither one. However, I will completely disagree with a statement saying that having a woman as part of a 15 man gang bang is demeaning, provided the criteria I listed in my previous post is met.

And you are being completely and utterly unfair in your constant ignoring of that criteria.

Oh so now it's okay for you to have qualifiers.
I thought what she does on her free time is her business?
As for your criteria, apparently the secretary disagrees, she claims to have quit the business. Why do you think that is?

No no no no no! Now it's time for you to learn reading comprehension. That is NOT the correlation I was making. I wasn't making taking about the secretary there, I was talking about your logic when it comes to opinions.

So I agreed with your assertion about our opinions, yet stated they matter and that is some kind of slippery slope fallacy? As i said earlier you don't understand the fallacy you've accused me of committing.

It's more than just morals and values. You're missing something.

And?

Once again, you read what you wanted to read and did not read what I wrote. You are just as guilty of lack of reading comprehension as I am. At least I will admit I was wrong and apologize for it. Time for you to re-read what exactly I said instead of throwing ad homs at me and judging me.

Okay, my turn to apologize, though your posts make it seem that having an underage daughter interested in porn wouldn't bother you in the least.

YES IT DOES MATTER WHO CAUGHT THEM. First off, the secretary DID NOTHING WRONG! Get that through your skull. She didn't cheat, she didn't do anything illegal. There is nothing against the law in being in an adult, legal porno. Which she was in an adult, legal porno.

That's one enormous strawman and where did I ever say she was breaking a Law?

Well she certainly thought she was doing something wrong, otherwise she would've have quit the profession.

Yet, you STILL defend the 14 year old boy for blackmail. You still have not once said that that the boy was wrong in trying to blackmail her.

Now you're just making things up, I've never "defended" the boy, not once.

I'm sorry, you are coming across that in your morals, it's all the secretary's fault for demeaning herself. So she deserves any kind of crime being done on her from a man.

I think you need to revisit the OP, the boy was wrong, but that's not what we're discussing here.

I've re-read that portion on opinion many times over. Perhaps YOU should do the same thing. Once again, you haven't once blamed the boy for his crime. Not once. That's very hypocritical to me.

I think you need to revisit the OP, the boy was wrong, but that's not what we're discussing here.

Slippery slope again. Just letting you know. And I've been in high school where the teacher used profanity. So? Now if someone uses profanity

Ummm .........no it's not a slippery slope, you should really learn what that fallacy means. I'm showing certain standards have to be followed, I'm not saying profanity leads to porn.

I've also been in classrooms where profanity was used and the teacher was disciplined for it. Do you think that was wrong?

To show they have the skills to teach. But then again, I don't think they care what a person does in their off time outside of school. As long as they don't break the law.

Again, this secretary did nothing illegal.

Apparently that isn't the case otherwise the author of the OP wouldn't have had a topic with which to start this thread.

Oh come on! Really??? Really?

So the JREF will boot me out of the forum if they found out I was in a porno?

Talk about bad analogies. ..... sheesh!

Giant dodge, answer the question.

Not happy. You have given him a wrist slap for attempting to ruin another person's life and committing a crime where you punish a woman (a gender you're claiming that you are defending) for doing nothing illegal but did something against your morals.

That's still hypocritical.

More cognitive dissonance.How would he be ruining her life? According to you, what she did was perfectly fine and LEGAL, she has nothing to fear or be ashamed of. Right?

Why should you care he let the cat out of the bag? She did nothing wrong remember?

I am not a hypocrite. Further, you once again ignored my criteria. You claim that everything should be on "case-by-case" basis, but when I presented the factors that will alter my judgement one way or another depending on the case, you ignore that and blanket judge.

Once again, you are being hypocritical.

You're criteria doesn't change anything, the guy's a racist who shouldn't be involved in the education of children.

:ld:

Really? Really? Instead of "Do you beat your kids?" you wanted to say "Do you still beat your kids?" and now it's not a "loaded question"?

No, it's not a loaded question: it's an out and out ad hom. You are making a judgement on me, assuming something about me and trying to insult me while ignoring all the facts I gave you about how I would react to situations. And because I don't react the way YOUR standard of "morals", you judge me as a child beater and ask me if I "still" beat my children.

You are being hypocritical.

My question is not loaded. It's a challenge to your beliefs and a fair one. Once again, you avoided the question. I've answered all of yours, you refuse to answer mine. I admitted when I was wrong in when I miss read your statements and apologized for them. You have misread my statements, even ignored when I explained why I feel the way I feel, and judged me on your "morals". You claim that you judge on a case by case basis, and when I give a criteria for a basis for a case-by-case, you ignore that criteria and condemn me.

Now let's see if you have an ounce of courage. Answer my question:

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?

Oh boy

Do you still beat your wife/kids is a common loaded question fallacy, I figured you'd know as much , guess I was wrong. I made an error and left out a critical word, you're being childish.

As for your question, it seems you want to play some type of gotcha game to feed your ego, but I'll answer it anyway.

I would say it depends on the circumstances (I know how much you like criteria ) and I'll go back to Dr. Diane Russell, if it's a severe form of this:

Hence, I define pornography as material that combines sex and/or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone, or encourage such behavior.

than no I don't think you should be raising children.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I am snipping for the sake of brevity, I hope you don't mind. This is base of the problem; I think we put too much expectation on teachers/school employees to set examples. I think it's fine for students and teachers to develope relationships but I do not believe in role models; sooner or later, everyone becomes human. You also have to remember that children develope relationships with adults, outside of school. Can you fairly expect everyone who comes in contact and possibly make a positive impression on a child, to not have sexual fantasies?
Here we sit at the top of the food chain, one of the more intelligent creatures in the kingdom and because of that, we've learned to take pleasure in what most other animals do out of necessity and instinct. I can't think of one valid reason why sex has to be treated as a special case, where there has to be guilt and shame involved. With or without incentive from sexual information, teens hit a certain age and experience strong desires. Publicly castigating people because they make a living in the sex industry does nothing but instills this belief that sex = shame.



I am glad you brought up that example. It goes right to the very heart of the issue. Bill Clinton, whether you liked him or not, was capable of having fun with cigars and run the nation. No snark taken



I am sure most people are not comfortable with setting specific parameters which is why your best bet is to just live and let live. As long as no harm is coming to anyone, it's none of your or my business how another individual enjoys their private time. If you can clearly show a specific harm that a teenager can experience from knowing, personally, a porn star, then I will gladly discuss limitations.

I agree with the live and let live part, like I said for most occupations what one does on their free time is entirely their own business as long as no laws are broken.

I just think educators have a special job and while children can develop relationships with adults in different areas, those people aren't entrusted with the education of our youth.

I'm just not sure yet where the bar should be set though.

 

[Taarkin]

I would say it depends on the circumstances (I know how much you like criteria ) and I'll go back to Dr. Diane Russell, if it's a severe form of this:

Hence, I define pornography as material that combines sex and/or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone, or encourage such behavior.

That's an unconventional definition of pornography. Why do you use it?

 

[tesscaline]

I would say it depends on the circumstances (I know how much you like criteria ) and I'll go back to Dr. Diane Russell, if it's a severe form of this:

Hence, I define pornography as material that combines sex and/or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone, or encourage such behavior.

That's not a commonly accepted definition of pornography. It also includes words that are very very subjective (abuse, degradation). If you want to use that "definition" of pornography, you're going to have to define those other subjective terms first. And if the above is typical of your feelings on the matter, I'm not entirely confident that your "definitions" will match up with the commonly accepted definitions either...

 

[JFrankA]

Okay

Thank you.

Oh so now it's okay for you to have qualifiers.

Yes, I always had qualifiers and criteria. You chose to ignore it and just attack me on what you want to believe I said.

I thought what she does on her free time is her business?

When she's 18 or over, yes. When she's 17 or under, no. I made that clear.

You have to stop assuming other people's opinions, especially when one tells you straight out that you got one's opinions wrong.

As for your criteria, apparently the secretary disagrees, she claims to have quit the business. Why do you think that is?

That's interesting. You know what she did was wrong because she quit porn?

Again, you have to stop assuming things based on your "morals" and judgements. Not everyone thinks like you.

Here's another reason I bet you didn't think of: She quit porn because she can't deal with the prejudice of people like you. People who want to ruin her life because they are so caught up in their own self-righteousness and prejudices, that, instead of looking at what happened in a case-by-case basis, like they claim they do, they will instantly condemn someone without even looking at the facts. She couldn't deal with that.

Besides, ask her. In the article she says,

"I was ready to accept a lot of things because my professional life matters more than my life as a porn star," she said in an interview.

So it wasn't a question of what she thinks she did was wrong, it was a question of her professional life being more important than her porn life.

So I agreed with your assertion about our opinions, yet stated they matter and that is some kind of slippery slope fallacy? As i said earlier you don't understand the fallacy you've accused me of committing.

I'm going to explain this one more time. The Slippery slope comment is attributed to your statement "I agree, but opinions matter, otherwise people would be free to host orgies in their front yards". That statement is a slippery slope. Utterly and completely.

And?

It doesn't surprise me you don't know.

Okay, my turn to apologize, though your posts make it seem that having an underage daughter interested in porn wouldn't bother you in the least.

Thank you. And if you read what my reply to my daughter was, you would see that it would bother me even after she's an adult. Again, my recommendation to her is to have her know her sexuality before she goes into porn.

That's one enormous strawman and where did I ever say she was breaking a Law?

You didn't. But the boy did.

I'm afraid I didn't reiterate myself in the previous post well. Let me try again.

As I tried to say when you gave that example in the first place, a couple having an affair is "morally wrong" to many people because of marriage. The secretary broke no "moral code". She isn't married.

Also, she isn't making porn in the same place where she works and children can walk in a watch, which is what your analogy implies.

Well she certainly thought she was doing something wrong, otherwise she would've have quit the profession.

I explained that above. Stop assuming.

Now you're just making things up, I've never "defended" the boy, not once.

But your anger is towards the secretary. Do you think it's fair that the secretary's life is ruined? She lost her job of nine years, forced to move and is now judged by people like you as being "bad" all because she had sex on camera legally.

The boy, on the other hand, tried to manipulate the secretary into performing oral sex to him by blackmail, not only by telling everyone but also by threatening her children, made a false Facebook page about her and got away with it. He made good on his threats. He got the secretary fired and her life ruined, all he got was a week or so off from school. Thus, the school board (and people like you) taught the 14 year old that blackmail works.

IMHO, anyone that raises a big stink about the secretary's actions, and mildly upset about the boy's actions will be teaching that boy that it's worse to be in a porn and better to take advantage of people for their own profit. A boy like that is going to be aggressive whether he watches porn or not. He needs more disciplinary supervision and action, not a slap on the wrist.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe he should be castrated either. (Why do you have to go to extremes?) But he needs to learn his lesson. I don't think he did. The school board not only dropped the ball on this kid, they carried him off the field.

And they way you condemn the secretary, but not the kid, IMHO, you are part of that problem.

I think you need to revisit the OP, the boy was wrong, but that's not what we're discussing here.

I think you need to revisit the OP, the boy was wrong, but that's not what we're discussing here.

Part of what we are discussing is how this incident influences the students.

Now, you yourself say that the secretary could be a bad influence on the children because of her doing porn. However, IMHO, if you want to see what a bad influence is, you turn to the 14 year old boy. He's the one who broke the law, ruined someone's life, performed an illegal act, and got away with it with a slap on the wrist. It makes me wonder if he's some kind of hero within his little core group. Maybe some will see him as a jerk, but some will not. Either way, the school has to deal with a kid like that, rather than having a worker they have depended upon for nine years.

Ummm .........no it's not a slippery slope, you should really learn what that fallacy means. I'm showing certain standards have to be followed, I'm not saying profanity leads to porn.

I was reacting to this statement:

Would you object to a someone teaching their class wearing only underwear?

I apologize for that. You are right, that's not a slippery slope, but it's a ridiculous question. I would actually like to know why the teacher came wore underwear, what was the reason? (Case-by-case basis. Something you said you supported.) But my initial reaction would be "why?"

And seriously, the students wouldn't be harmed by seeing a teacher in their underwear. I'm sure they'd find it funny and it would be a joke for a while.

How about one who uses profanity throughout their lessons.

I've also been in classrooms where profanity was used and the teacher was disciplined for it. Do you think that was wrong?

Don't know. Case-by-case basis. In what context? What happened? Why did the teacher do it?

In my case, the teacher used profanity to make point and to teach a lesson, and was never disciplined for it.

Again, you yourself said you believed in a case-by-case basis. So do I.

Apparently that isn't the case otherwise the author of the OP wouldn't have had a topic with which to start this thread.

She/He started a discussion to see how others reacted. I've done that too, in fact, many many many people do that for different reasons. His reason? I don't know. All he said was "Good boy!" That could be taken literally or sarcastically or something in between.

Giant dodge, answer the question.

We're communicating on a forum that doesn't allow nudity or profanity, why is that? Is the JREF prudish?

James Randi has certain values that he expects this forum to follow, so does that school board in Quebec.

I did answer the question. You missed it. But I'll break it down for you:

I don't publish nudity and I don't use profanity while on this board. I adhear to their policies while on this board. However, if I made a porno while I wasn't on the JREF, and didn't tell anyone on here, and if the moderates found out I did, even if Randi found out I did, they and he are not going to kick me out of the forum because of that.

Perhaps the Quebec school board should follow that philosophy because that's EXACTLY what the secretary did.

More cognitive dissonance.How would he be ruining her life? According to you, what she did was perfectly fine and LEGAL, she has nothing to fear or be ashamed of. Right?

And there it is! Defending the boy from the big bad porno actress. I've explained it above.

As to "how would he be ruining her life?" She LOST HER JOB. She was publicly humiliated, more so than any porno could ever do and is forced to move away from her friends and the place she lived because that boy tried (and succeed) to blackmail her.

And yes, she shouldn't have to fear for her life. But she did, not because of the porn, but because of this teenager and the prejudices and judgments of people like you!

Why should you care he let the cat out of the bag? She did nothing wrong remember?

Again, she did nothing wrong. I will defend that to the end. But there are people who are prejudice and judgmental and willing to ruin lives of people who do legal acts that they see as "immoral".

As it said in the article:

Although the board acknowledged she didn't do anything illegal, it noted Ardente's extra-curricular activities bothered a lot of parents.

She was protecting herself from people like you and that 14 year old blackmailer. In the secretary's own words, the media circus that followed hurt her 11 year old daughter. Not the fact that she was in porn.

"The media attention really impacted my life and my oldest daughter, who is 11, is struggling and I had to seek help for her," she said.

You're criteria doesn't change anything, the guy's a racist who shouldn't be involved in the education of children.

Oh. So a person's fanatical prejudice of people, not just race, but maybe, prejudice of occupation or prejudice what they legally do on their own time, shouldn't be involved in the education of children?

I thought you said that you believed in a case-by-case basis. Yet you promote the belief of instant judge and execution without getting all the facts.

Do you really believe in making a judgement on a case-by-case basis? Or are you just pontificating?

Oh boy

Do you still beat your wife/kids is a common loaded question fallacy, I figured you'd know as much , guess I was wrong. I made an error and left out a critical word, you're being childish.

So instead of arguing my points, you are trying to discredit me because I missed a fallacy?

*shakes head* I've never beaten my ex-wife, girlfriend, ex-girlfriend or any child. I've been in fights when I was younger, but I have to be really really pushed to be angry enough to do that. I do not resort to physical violence because I think there are better ways to handle conflict. My anger fuse if very long and rare occasion I do blow it, I just yell at nothing.

Does that answer your "loaded" question? And what does that have to do with anything in this thread?

As for your question, it seems you want to play some type of gotcha game to feed your ego, but I'll answer it anyway.

I would say it depends on the circumstances (I know how much you like criteria ) and I'll go back to Dr. Diane Russell, if it's a severe form of this:

Hence, I define pornography as material that combines sex and/or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone, or encourage such behavior.

That is a poor and a very subjective definition, you know. That could bring the line of what porn is from showing a little cleavage to a film about brutally killing someone while having sex with them for revenge purposes.

And where's your criteria? I don't see it. All I got is "if it's porn according to this (very subjective and poor) definition then ......... ?

You still didn't answer the question, instead, you chose to say this:

than no I don't think you should be raising children.

Woah woah woah. Who said anything about me? And why don't you think I should not be raising children? Give me particulars. I want to know why I am so terrible that I shouldn't raise a child. Please.

Anyway, here's the question again:

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?

I never mentioned me, in fact, I can't be a mom. And it's not a gotcha question. But considering that you think it is says a lot about what you think about your own opinions.

Let me put it another way, less "gotcha"y.

There is a famous porn star, who is single, raising two children in Tennessee. She is very beautiful and very nice. (Yes, I've met her). She runs her own business, that is, promoting herself and her name. She makes a lot of money, she raises her children in nice home, not doing drugs, etc. and yet, she makes a lot of porn, she dances in strip clubs, she has a porno website, etc, etc. All part of her business.

In your humble opinion, should she not be allowed to raise children? And why?

 

[sgtbaker]

I agree with the live and let live part, like I said for most occupations what one does on their free time is entirely their own business as long as no laws are broken.

I just think educators have a special job and while children can develop relationships with adults in different areas, those people aren't entrusted with the education of our youth.

I'm just not sure yet where the bar should be set though.

I guess it just comes down to respectfully disagreeing, then. I don't see teachers as holding a special position, no higher than a parent. I also haven't seen any evidence of any harm, knowing someone does porn, can cause a child.
I think it's harsh and judgemental to think that a specific sex act that one may commit (sorry, couldn't conjure a less loaded word), defines whether or not they should be around children; unless the act involves children. The strongest "what if" anology is; does it make a difference if the teacher enjoys being sexually degraded or abused, without film? Is it the act itself or the fact that there is someone documenting it?

I've walked in on my parents having sex and don't think it would be much different if I saw them on video or in the flesh. I didn't grow up with needles in my arm or become some kind of sexual deviant. My daughter walked in on me and my ex, in a slightly more awkward moment. She seemed to recover just fine.

 

[ProBonoShill]

That's an unconventional definition of pornography. Why do you use it?

That's not a commonly accepted definition of pornography. It also includes words that are very very subjective (abuse, degradation). If you want to use that "definition" of pornography, you're going to have to define those other subjective terms first. And if the above is typical of your feelings on the matter, I'm not entirely confident that your "definitions" will match up with the commonly accepted definitions either...

I'm using it in the context of this thread. Certainly I don't think she should have been fired if she made an amateur film with her partner, but certainly one should be dismissed for bestiality.

As I said in my last post, I'm not sure where to draw the line, but in this case I think the secretary crossed it and should've been removed from her position and placed somewhere else.

 

[BenBurch]

That's not a commonly accepted definition of pornography. It also includes words that are very very subjective (abuse, degradation). If you want to use that "definition" of pornography, you're going to have to define those other subjective terms first. And if the above is typical of your feelings on the matter, I'm not entirely confident that your "definitions" will match up with the commonly accepted definitions either...

I'll go farther than that. It is a made-up definition of pornography (badly) designed to support the exact arguments the arguer is making. It is a form of rank dishonesty called "begging the question."