Exactly. That’s why I’m content to let people Google actual sexual bondage porn and decide for themselves. I think the bulk of people will readily see there’s a difference.
Because our society, and I most explicitly include the Straight Dope management on this, is run by a bunch of fucking prigs.
Except that’s not the question. The question is:
- Do you believe that her posing for these pictures was a “base, vile or depraved act”? If so, which, and why?
- Do you believe that posing for these pictures was “intended to arouse or gratify [her] sexual desire”? If so, what’s your evidence for this belief?
If you do not believe either of these, on what basis do you claim that the scohol board has the authority to fire her?
Daniel
I should add also that if the teacher were a member of the KKK, this clause would not give the school board authority to fire her. THere may be some other clause in the contract that would permit firing in that (or this) case–but not the clause cited by the school board.
Daniel
I’ve looked at bondage threads on a popular amateur porn BBS. Her bondage pics would fit in fine.
I’m not a school district, but
-
Yes it was base. Because I know it when I see it.
-
Yes. I specifically refer to the bondage shots on the blog. Beause if she wasn’t ugly and skinny, the pics would have been mildly arousing to me. How many other nudes were there of her?
From what I have seen, you are completely exaggerating the “intensity” of the pictures. Unless you are seeing something that I am not. (Not to mention that the profanity of the pictures in question is entirely subjective.)
Do you know why the blog had to remove them, for sure? They could have been asked to remove them by the artist for copyright infringement?
Also, I did not say that they were “normal, everyday art.” They were nudes. That can be controversial I am aware.
You are correct, however, that the internet isn’t the privacy of one’s home. I concede to that point; however, you have completely ignored my points about parental responsibility. Why can’t the parents of the minors take responsibility and ensure that their children aren’t viewing nude pictures/art on the internet in the first place? Would that not eliminate the whole issue? Or was the teacher handing out nude photographs to her students and walking into class topless?
If they were linkable from her Myspace page which is easily found, then that is essentially what she did.
See the second quotation of mine in your post. Show 'em where the bounadries are and how bizzarre they are.
“I like the idea, but it’s probably been done.”
So has nude art. Doesn’t mean a new take on it isn’t worth looking at.
“Straight-up nudity is just as good at fighting the hangup, & makes no concession.”
Not necessarily. She is from that bastion of liberalism, Texas, right? Sometimes you push too hard on an issue, and all you get is ignored. I would say that (if this realy was the message of her photos) she would be more successful in showing exactly how obscene the hangups are.
…but I am getting off on a tangential (what I think of her art and her message) and straying from the point (the actions/reactions of the school board).
From what I can see, one of the key issues here is where does art of nudes leave the realm of art and enter the realm of porn. That is something that, I am sure, we all have different deffinitions of. It is clear to me that TPTB in her district have decided on which side of that fuzzy line those pictures fall.
…and I still have a huge problem with her myspace account name and the link to the flickr pics on said account. I have only ever called myself “Mr. XXX” on things related to teaching. I cannot, for the life of me, think of a reason I would not use my first name (or a nick-name) on something outside of school.
“Base” in what sense? Remembering that contracts are construed against the writer, do you think that it’s obviously in this category, or od you think that she can plausibly claim that it’s not base?
The question isn’t whether it turns you on; the question is whether it turns her on. What’s your evidence that she did this to gratify her sexual desire?
Daniel
Well, from what you described, I would say that you saw different pictures than I. However, those here on the Dope who did see the pictures you saw are contesting your assessment of them—which only goes to show how completely subjective the matter is. As such, your opinion on the photographs isn’t an adequate reason on which you can base her dismissal, as much as my approval of the photographs isn’t an adequate reason for me to believe that she should be allowed to stay.
Unless you feel that either of our opinions are relevant to the matter at hand, let’s just drop this portion of the conversation.
The question here is: why? Why are this woman’s activities outside of the workplace in question here? Are they criminal? Do they directly effect her performance on the job? Whose moral standards should we be using to make such judgments?
Do her actions in this case directly reflect an ideology that will negatively effect the children?
Again, why? If the children are the most important factors in the school, and their welfare was only endangered as a direct result of parental negligence or incompetence, then how can we reasonably hold the teacher responsible?
She does have a causal responsibility, in that her actions led tot he photographs being placed on the internet, but, is she morally accountable for the children seeing them, when they clearly weren’t supposed ot be viewing that material?
That’s a questionable analogy, at best. You would have to prove that she specifically intended for the children to find those photographs to be close.
OK, you, who already have a vested interest in thinking her pics are bondage porn, having posted to that effect, thnk they’re bondage porn. I who have a vested interested in thinking her pics are not bondage porn, having posted to that effect, do not think they are bondage porn. I think most people who don’t already have a strong opinion on the subject will decide they’re not like actual bondage porn. That’s really my point.
When I was very young, I found the bra ads in the Sears catalog arousing. Is the Sears catalog porn?
I haven’t seen any of the “tie-up” ones or the “crotch close-up” ones. If I do, then I will try to be as objective as possible about the matter.
What I have seen, so far, has been rather light.
The Straight Dope management aren’t being prigs. They’re merely recognizing the fact that many people here use the Dope while at work and need to exercise caution in what they allow to appear without warning on their screens.
I still haven’t seen the pictures. Like all things with this level of controversy, they have disappeared with the alacrity of a drop of mercury on a mountaintop once the controversy explodes.
:dubious: Why do they need to exercise caution if these pictures are fine and dandy and just absolutely wonderful art?
Could it be that many won’t accept nude pictures as being such? Even employers whose workplaces don’t involve extensive interaction with minors? Even amongst employers that haven’t had their employees sign morals clauses? Could it be that unlike this teacher, the Straight Dope is exhibiting some common sense?
Unregistered Bull you dimwit, there are two questions here: the first is whether nudity often attracts sanction in US society and the second is whether it should do. Let me say this loud and clear so that even you can understand: nobody here denies the first proposition, dumbass. The SD knows that people may suffer sanction if they have nude pictures on their work screen.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the SD thinks they should.
Princhester, dude–check the forum.
Daniel
Actually, it seems that many people here seem to believe that sanction is impossible for nudity, including nude bondage shots and direct shots of genitalia because it’s “art.” And the orignal question here is a singular question of whether or not a public school teacher who teaches minor children and who has signed a contract with a morals clause, can post easily found, non-anonymous, publicly accessible nude pictures, including nude bondage and genitalia shots, on the internet without getting in trouble because its “art.” I think that most intelligent US citizens would opine that she can’t.
Really stretching to call the pictures that were linked earlier in this thread “bondage shots”. Some of them were mildly suggestive of D/s themes, but nothing remotely close to extreme. Calling any of those pictures “genitalia shots” is outright fabrication. I remember one shot, mostly composed of shadows, that featured a nude woman from approximately her navel to mid-thigh. Don’t think it was visually apparrent whether she chooses to shave her pubes or not. Definitely didn’t see any Hustler style spreadeagle shots.