But parents know better!
Yea, we don’t want to start a new tradition of a teacher assuming the title of school slut.
That distinction goes to the girl with the widest low self-esteem to high cup size ratio, even if that means she has to hate herself for the next four years.
Dammit, there’s a reason things are as they should be!
That wasn’t meant to attack anyone in this debate, nor assume that they subscribe to this viewpoint. Just noting generations of pre-internet school culture where any working class girl with breast could be called a slut and any boy with glasses could be called a faggot, and lives were crippled. Where was the moral panic then?
FWIW bullying is if anything worse now, amplified by the power of social media.
But not sure of the relevance? Other than when teachers enabled the bullying? Or even were the bullies? Each of which I am sure happened and do happen still. And should cause something akin to a moral panic.
Surely you don’t think that the implication that a teacher actually has sex (gasp!) is what this is about?
To state it plainly, it’s about a teacher making a conscious decision to do something that is morally well outside the bounds of socially normative behaviour. Whether this behaviour in a teacher should be condoned or not may be controversial, but that’s the crux of the argument.
There’s obviously a lot that teachers can tell us about the teaching experience, but it should be equally obvious that they’re not impartial arbiters of controversial issues about their profession. It would be much more persuasive to hear the consensus of school administrators and board trustees on the standards we should expect of teachers.
There’s a very long and awful history of what is deemed morally well outside the bounds of socially normative behavior being both wrong and intentionally used to harm people.
IMHO, unless one can articulate an actual harm there is none.
For sure (on the long and awful history). That doesn’t give us license to dismiss any and all normative transgressions as “just exactly like racism and homophobia”. Many of our social values have survived the passage of time and social upheavals, others have not. And the question of “actual harm” is itself nebulous and subjective. What about a teacher with an alcohol dependence or drug addiction problem (the classic “functional alcoholic”, for instance) who does a fine job of teaching their classes? A teacher who appears at a Halloween party in blackface or is overtly racist in their private time, but cannot be faulted for their behaviour in the classroom?
That last bit, incidentally, is not hypothetical. I was watching a video recently (sourced from police body cams) showing a school interview with a pleasant middle-aged teacher who was brought before school administrators because someone detected alcohol on her breath. The police were called, as well, and in the end she was led out of the school in police custody and subsequently fired. She was in tears and absolutely devastated and my heart broke for her, but it was still the right thing to do in terms of larger priorities.* But there was no demonstrated harm to the students. No doubt the code of conduct had rules about alcohol and drugs, but the deeper question is why those rules are there. Ultimately it’s all about what could happen when you go outside the norms of expected behaviours.
* Though personally I would have preferred not to fire her, but to remove her from teaching duties until she attended therapy for alcohol dependence and showed evidence of rehabilitation.
Not just teachers, but anyone who deals with the general public as part of their job.
So, for example:
Teachers, retail salespeople, doctors, insurance agents: yes
Engineers, accountants: no
I think the central issue isn’t about dealing with the general public so much as it’s about the standards that should be required of persons placed in a position of trust, especially when it involves authority over the vulnerable and impressionable.
Meh. “Morally” is a red herring. Even “social norms” if it is kept to themselves.
OnlyFans has 210 million users and 2.1 million content creators. Perhaps it’s time to adjust what you consider socially normative behavior.
The world population is quite a bit larger.
Incidentally, a similar number of people – in the US alone – are incarcerated in federal and state prisons, so I wouldn’t consider that number to be representative of mainstream values, especially if you have to draw those figures from the entire world population.
Isn’t only fans pretty much a US thing?
Anyway, my brother’s art teacher in high school was a non-functional alcoholic. As in, the students all knew about it because he often failed to show up to class.
He wasn’t fired. Maybe because he was old and it was easier to wait a couple of years and let him retire. I dunno.
Hell, one of my best teachers married one of his students. It was old stale gossip by the time he taught me, as he and his wife were both in their 50s. But it was a huge scandal when he, as a young teacher, started dating a woman a year after she graduated (which was also the year after she took his class.) Enough of a scandal that i heard about it decades later. I assume no one ever proved that they did anything before she graduated.
So cry me a river about the teacher on only fans. I don’t think she should have been fired.
I’m fine with her being fired. It’s behavior related and I think that local jurisdictions should have control over that. I think localities should be able to control who teaches their kids when it is related to relevant behaviors. Yes, I consider this a relevant behavior. Sex changes everything, I don’t think it can be swept under the rug.
The teacher mentioned in the OP should be fired:
- Strongly agree
- Somewhat agree
- I can’t decide
- Somewhat disagree
- strongly disagree
- other
0
voters
The discussion in this thread has made me question my initial opinion:
- Yes
- Maybe a little
- Not at all
0
voters
I see you conveniently ignored the 210 million users.
What other consensual sexual behaviors change everything? Are you cool with gay teachers being fired for having gay sex, or for unmarried teachers being fired for having unmarried sex, or for teachers being fired for interracial sexual relationships?
I just don’t see the relevant difference: prudish anti-sex social norms are wielded by prudes to ruin the careers of people who’ve done nothing wrong.
I said I was out. I did good for awhile reading along.
But I have to say something.
It’s not that the teacher has sex, in any form she likes. I could care less what she does in the privacy of her life.
It’s that she had sex on tape(probably faked a sex act) posted it on line. She made herself public. Involved herself in an industry that demeans women.
Got paid, apparently, lots of money.
Had subscribers watching this and doing whatever people do when they watch porn videos.
Hid her face, for whatever reason, since she was oh so proud of this new career.
Got caught by the community. Got reported to the school district she was contracted with.
Was put on administrative leave. Not fired.
She resigned. From what I read.
And now is granting interviews and getting more subscribers.
Just what any school system needs.
Or children. Or families.
It’s ridiculous to back this woman’s actions up.
She’s shown poor judgement throughout the whole mess.
ETA, her goony husband probably needs to shut up too. Oh, no. He can’t. He’s celebrating for being married to a porn star. What Yanker don’t want that to tell around the locker room at the golf club? Disgusting.
You just don’t know what you’re talking about.
This article is a pretty good introduction to Only Fans–it’s a fascinating read. Certainly it doesn’t cover the entire industry, but at least it’ll give you some of the background knowledge you lack.
As for your ethics, your requirement that her sex life happen “in the privacy of her life” is absurd. The only people she’s involving in her sex life are people who want to be involved. The person who involved non-consenting parties is the person who posted her profile on Facebook. That’s the person to be angry at.
The worst of all, though, is this argument:
- Porn hurts women.
- This woman participated in porn.
- Therefore we should ostracize her, call her disgusting, and destroy her career.
Do you see the problem here?
Why don’t we just hire all sex workers to teach children. Since they all have hearts of gold, they say.
Oh, hell just let school, for the most important/impressionable commodity we have, run rampant. A big ol’ free for all. Dope, porn and phones. Oh boy.
That oughta be fun.
Boys will watch all that porn and know exactly how to treat the girls. Um hmm. That oughta work just fine.
Since porn sex is so wholesome and real.
Nope.
ETA. I called her husband disgusting. I have my beliefs why she did this. But I’ll keep them to myself.