Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[BenBurch]

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.

Without a doubt ANY film she had made would have had the same effect, pro or amateur.

 

[tesscaline]

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.

That didn't really answer my question at all.

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."

Indeed. I'm well aware.

 

[ProBonoShill]

ETA- for some reason the quote function is working properly, I wanted to quote your entire post.

Thank you.



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



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.



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,


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.



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.



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



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.



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.



I explained that above. Stop assuming.



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.



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.



I was reacting to this statement:

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.



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.



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.



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.



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!



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:



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.





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?



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:



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:



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?

This dialogue has reached an impasse.

I think we're both making assumptions, guilty of hyperbole and just restating our positions.

I reread my initial post and it comes off as argumentative, it probably set a bad tone and for that I apologize.

To be clear, I don't think this woman is sort of witch who should be locked away. I don't think she deserved to be punished in any way except to lose her duties educating children. I don't think the porn should was participating in was that hardcore (but was obviously bad enough that she should be transferred or dismissed in my opinion).

The boy trying to use blackmail was suspended and the term could've been longer, but his situation isn't really germane to this topic.

I don't think you beat your kids and that statement was in no way meant to judge your character. It's a common example of a certain type of fallacy, Google it and you'll see I wasn't trying to be mean.

I believe each case should be judged on it's merits, porn encompasses a large spectrum of acts and as I said to sgt baker, I'm not sure what I'd think is acceptable, but I side with the school board in this case.

Obviously you disagree and that's fine, but I doubt we'll be able to come to a meeting of the minds, so I think we're finished here, unless there's something new you'd like to add.

Oh and for the record, as long as your "friend" with that "criteria" isn't involved in bestiality or any films where woman are subjected to violence, I would have no problem with her raising her own children, not sure if I want her teaching mine however.

 

[ProBonoShill]

That didn't really answer my question at all.


Indeed. I'm well aware.

As I've stated many times in this thread and I think it's understood by most people that there are varying degrees of porn. That definition I posted narrows the scope. If you think it's strange maybe you could post your definition and we'll see where we disagree.

Ben Burch, unfortunately a response I posted to you earlier in this thread was deleted by the fine JREF team, but I'll include the most relevant part here:

Don't bother responding to my posts, I've put you back on ignore.

 

[Taarkin]

As I've stated many times in this thread and I think it's understood by most people that there are varying degrees of porn. That definition I posted narrows the scope. If you think it's strange maybe you could post your definition and we'll see where we disagree.

Do the scenes she appeared in fit that criteria?

 

[BenBurch]

Do the scenes she appeared in fit that criteria?

No. Another attempt to lie by means of false equivalence.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Do the scenes she appeared in fit that criteria?

Well that's what I believe, it'd be pretty obvious if you'd read my reply in post #519.

 

[BenBurch]

Well that's what I believe, it'd be pretty obvious if you'd read my reply in post #519.

You never watched the video.

 

[Taarkin]

Well that's what I believe, it'd be pretty obvious if you'd read my reply in post #519.

I know that's the definition you're using, but do her scenes fit that definition?


Also this is a good time to remind the thread that the secretary was a secretary, not a teacher or educator.

 

[JFrankA]

ETA- for some reason the quote function is working properly, I wanted to quote your entire post.

It's been messed up. I got a message from a moderator about that.

This dialogue has reached an impasse.

I think we're both making assumptions, guilty of hyperbole and just restating our positions.

Fair enough. I'm willing to "reset"

I reread my initial post and it comes off as argumentative, it probably set a bad tone and for that I apologize.

And to be honest, I got argumentative back, so it's not all your fault. Usually, I'm pretty good at keeping my temper. So I apologize back.

To be clear, I don't think this woman is sort of witch who should be locked away. I don't think she deserved to be punished in any way except to lose her duties educating children. I don't think the porn should was participating in was that hardcore (but was obviously bad enough that she should be transferred or dismissed in my opinion).

Here I disagree slightly. First off, she wasn't a teacher. And where we disagree is that it wouldn't matter to me if a teacher was in porn or not. What matters to me is how she carries herself/himself during working hours and around children.

My feeling is simply that a person can be adult at the time they aren't around children, and still be a good influence.

The boy trying to use blackmail was suspended and the term could've been longer, but his situation isn't really germane to this topic.

Agreed and disagree (a little). The boy chose to blackmail the secretary. That, to me, shows what kind of individual he is. The secretary went to her supervisor as soon as this happened, and before it happened, she tried to keep her private life and work life separate.

I don't think you beat your kids and that statement was in no way meant to judge your character. It's a common example of a certain type of fallacy, Google it and you'll see I wasn't trying to be mean.

Okay. My apologies. I completely misunderstood your purpose, then.

I believe each case should be judged on it's merits, porn encompasses a large spectrum of acts and as I said to sgt baker, I'm not sure what I'd think is acceptable, but I side with the school board in this case.

A large spectrum of acts, yes, but a large number of that large spectrum of acts is not bestiality nor child porn. And both of those are illegal. (To be honest, I'm not 100% about bestiality being illegal. I think it is, though).

Obviously you disagree and that's fine, but I doubt we'll be able to come to a meeting of the minds, so I think we're finished here, unless there's something new you'd like to add.

Oh and for the record, as long as your "friend" with that "criteria" isn't involved in bestiality or any films where woman are subjected to violence, I would have no problem with her raising her own children, not sure if I want her teaching mine however.

(I wish she was my friend ) I know she hasn't made any bestiality videos, but what constitutes as "women subjected to violence"? I think that the porn actress I'm talking about does some mild BDSM when she is the Domme over men and other women.

This may re-open the whole can of worms, but personally, I do BDSM and I am a Dom. I do things like tie up and spank women, or fantasy rape sequences, and the like. Of course, I would never do any fantasy without consent, but if that kind of fantasy, let's say a fantasy rape, is in a porno, would that be considered "women subjected to violence"? If so, what would be the difference between a fantasy rape sequence in a porno, and a rape sequence in a non-porn movie (other than the lack of nudity)?

Please understand, I am not trying for a "gotcha" moment (I never was) but the definition of pornography that is degrading to women from Dr. Diane Russell is "...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", then that would encompass a lot of different fantasies, especially BDSM, where there are women who enjoy being sexually humiliated or degraded (provided that it's done in a BDSM setting - I hope that makes sense).

And let me apologize one more time to you for being argumentative. I would love to discuss the other side, because everyone agreeing with everyone wouldn't allow me to question myself.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Do the scenes she appeared in fit that criteria?

I know that's the definition you're using, but do her scenes fit that definition?


Also this is a good time to remind the thread that the secretary was a secretary, not a teacher or educator.

Are you going to post your definition?

 

[ProBonoShill]

It's been messed up. I got a message from a moderator about that.



Fair enough. I'm willing to "reset"



And to be honest, I got argumentative back, so it's not all your fault. Usually, I'm pretty good at keeping my temper. So I apologize back.



Here I disagree slightly. First off, she wasn't a teacher. And where we disagree is that it wouldn't matter to me if a teacher was in porn or not. What matters to me is how she carries herself/himself during working hours and around children.

My feeling is simply that a person can be adult at the time they aren't around children, and still be a good influence.



Agreed and disagree (a little). The boy chose to blackmail the secretary. That, to me, shows what kind of individual he is. The secretary went to her supervisor as soon as this happened, and before it happened, she tried to keep her private life and work life separate.



Okay. My apologies. I completely misunderstood your purpose, then.



A large spectrum of acts, yes, but a large number of that large spectrum of acts is not bestiality nor child porn. And both of those are illegal. (To be honest, I'm not 100% about bestiality being illegal. I think it is, though).



(I wish she was my friend ) I know she hasn't made any bestiality videos, but what constitutes as "women subjected to violence"? I think that the porn actress I'm talking about does some mild BDSM when she is the Domme over men and other women.

This may re-open the whole can of worms, but personally, I do BDSM and I am a Dom. I do things like tie up and spank women, or fantasy rape sequences, and the like. Of course, I would never do any fantasy without consent, but if that kind of fantasy, let's say a fantasy rape, is in a porno, would that be considered "women subjected to violence"? If so, what would be the difference between a fantasy rape sequence in a porno, and a rape sequence in a non-porn movie (other than the lack of nudity)?

Please understand, I am not trying for a "gotcha" moment (I never was) but the definition of pornography that is degrading to women from Dr. Diane Russell is "...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", then that would encompass a lot of different fantasies, especially BDSM, where there are women who enjoy being sexually humiliated or degraded (provided that it's done in a BDSM setting - I hope that makes sense).

And let me apologize one more time to you for being argumentative. I would love to discuss the other side, because everyone agreeing with everyone wouldn't allow me to question myself.

Excellent, I originally arrived at JREF due to the 9/11 Truth movement and that sub forum is a little different than this one.
I've decided to spread my wings a little and I'd like to thank you for teaching me that it's better to be insightful than argumentative.

I don't see anything wrong with what you do. I won't go into details but the sex life I enjoy with my wife is very good and involves other things other than the missionary position once a week, we also watch pornography from time to time.

I think I'm getting hung up on what I perceive as a school secretary. I still remember mine, her name was Mrs. Ford and we knew her well, she was involved when were sick or got hurt, helped on field trips, etc...

I'm also the father of three girls, so I think that might skew my judgement too.

Without going into graphic detail I think one part of the movie in question bothers me (it's not the same sex activity) and if that hadn't been done I think I'd be okay with it.

I'm not sure how this whole situation was handled though. I wonder if they (the board) viewed the movie first and then made a decision or if they just heard "porno movie" and ruled. If it was the latter I'd be at odds with that.

 

[Taarkin]

Are you going to post your definition?

I think a standard dictionary definition is fine: "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement".
But my questions applied to your definition, so go ahead.

I think I'm getting hung up on what I perceive as a school secretary. I still remember mine, her name was Mrs. Ford and we knew her well, she was involved when were sick or got hurt, helped on field trips, etc...

If you found out she was in a porn, would you demand that she be fired?

I'm not sure how this whole situation was handled though. I wonder if they (the board) viewed the movie first and then made a decision or if they just heard "porno movie" and ruled. If it was the latter I'd be at odds with that.

There is no indication whatsoever that they watched it.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I think a standard dictionary definition is fine: "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement".
But my questions applied to your definition, so go ahead.

So child porn is okay? Snuff films? Defecation? Those all fit into your definition. I think that's why these incidents need to be addressed in isolation. I think it's fair to say some porn is harmless and some of it is sickening.

If you found out she was in a porn, would you demand that she be fired?

If she made a movie like this one, yes my opinion is she should be reassigned or fired.

It doesn't help any that the film is titled Serial Abusers 2.

There is no indication whatsoever that they watched it.

She's on paid leave right now until a decision is made I hope they are going to investigate properly before they arrive at an outcome.

I don't believe it's right to just say OMG she's in a porn film, she needs to go, just as I don't believe she can put her tongue in certain places and not expect that parents of the children she teaches might get upset.



I've thought about this some more and admitted to myself if she had done a similar movie with her husband/partner and a neighbour/couple, it was filmed for their personal enjoyment and some kid stole a copy from her house, I don't think I would want her fired.

I'm not sure if it's the fact she was willingly doing this for money or that she had to know there was the potential she would be discovered and didn't care/ think about the consequences. Maybe some of both.

This is certainly an interesting topic, it makes you examine your values.

I find it similar to the banning of "Money For Nothing" from Canadian radio, which I was totally against.

 

[Taarkin]

So child porn is okay? Snuff films? Defecation? Those all fit into your definition.

Yes, child porn is a type of porn. That's why it's called child "porn" (because it is porn).

I think that's why these incidents need to be addressed in isolation. I think it's fair to say some porn is harmless and some of it is sickening.

Are you backing off from your earlier definition? Or do you still think that people who were ever involved in even "harmless" porn shouldn't raise children? What aspects of porn make child rearing unacceptable that don't apply to other occupations that you dislike?

She's on paid leave right now until a decision is made I hope they are going to investigate properly before they arrive at an outcome.

I don't believe it's right to just say OMG she's in a porn film, she needs to go, just as I don't believe she can put her tongue in certain places and not expect that parents of the children she teaches might get upset.

Yeah there is pretty much zero chance that the admins will (officially) watch the movie and base their final decision on the content.

I'm not sure if it's the fact she was willingly doing this for money or that she had to know there was the potential she would be discovered and didn't care/ think about the consequences. Maybe some of both.

1) The fact that she willingly did it for money makes it worse?
2) She apparently DID care about the consequences. That's why she didn't tell them.

 

[JFrankA]

Excellent, I originally arrived at JREF due to the 9/11 Truth movement and that sub forum is a little different than this one.
I've decided to spread my wings a little and I'd like to thank you for teaching me that it's better to be insightful than argumentative.

Thank you.

ETA: Oh, and, welcome to "this side of the tracks".

I don't see anything wrong with what you do. I won't go into details but the sex life I enjoy with my wife is very good and involves other things other than the missionary position once a week, we also watch pornography from time to time.

I think I'm getting hung up on what I perceive as a school secretary. I still remember mine, her name was Mrs. Ford and we knew her well, she was involved when were sick or got hurt, helped on field trips, etc...

I'm also the father of three girls, so I think that might skew my judgement too.

All that is completely understandable.

Without going into graphic detail I think one part of the movie in question bothers me (it's not the same sex activity) and if that hadn't been done I think I'd be okay with it.

To be honest, I don't know what acts she performed in the movie. I was assuming it was all legal stuff. Maybe some acts that some people would find rough, because of the title, but not anything illegal.
....and considering it was porn, I'm surprised I never even thought to look up the movie and watch it...

I'm not sure how this whole situation was handled though. I wonder if they (the board) viewed the movie first and then made a decision or if they just heard "porno movie" and ruled. If it was the latter I'd be at odds with that.

My impression was that they were willing to work something out with her, and she was willing to compromise, but then the board got more and more demanding, (she claims that one of the demands was that she never be photographed, period).

I suppose if/when this goes to court, we'll find out more details. As it stands, I think the board kept buckling under pressure from parents who didn't like the fact she was in a porno rather than them seeing or not seeing the porno and making a decision.

 

[JFrankA]

Yeah there is pretty much zero chance that the admins will (officially) watch the movie and base their final decision on the content.

I can tell you by experience, that in most cases, a decision is made by most admins only by box cover, or a website splash page, or the press release of a porno instead of actually viewing the content.