What’s the big deal? What she did was legal, not on school property, and it was before she was employed by the school system. As a local DJ said, I say put her serving vegetables so the kids that come over to talk to her (which will now happen since it’s national news) can get a serving of veggies while they’re there.
Can they get a handful of melons as well?
I think it’s an excellent object lesson for all those students. It tells them, “Do porn and when you lose your good looks, you’ll finish up working in a school cafeteria instead of living off the millions that they promise you.”
I heard she does wonderful things with cucumbers.
You’d think an adolescent male would love that, but no, the school and parents are kinda strict about stuff like that.
Porn stars have to be hot now?
Now that the secret’s out, I can’t see her wanting to work there at all, between the parents’ disapproval and cruel kids. And rather than a lesson about doing porn, it’ll likely be a free-for-all of nasty remarks about her body and female sexuality.
What happened to “let he who is without sin cast the first stone?”
It is an elementary school. The kids don’t know.
Who gives a shit. I can not real imagine what the worried parents think might happen. Do they think an aging adult film star equals a pedophile? Do they think the elementary school kids will want to grow up and be just like her, school lunch lady?
I do not get it.
This is stupid.
Why did abc pick up the story? A report not on the porn star but a report on insecure easily frightened parents.
I’m kinda curious why one of the “Related Stories” linked on page 2 is “Medical Pork: What Studies You Pay For”.
Otherwise, like fifty-six says, it’s wrong to equate “porn star” with “pedophile”. Are they afraid she’ll start passing out porn to the kids? I’m pretty sure non-porn-stars have shared their stash with kids a time or two as well. Anyway, as others have said, now that it’s public, she’s in for a rough time.
People started thinking that they were without sin. Contradict them? You’re a sinner, and they don’t need to listen to you.
How did they know? Most people wouldn’t recognize a pornstar in their street clothes. You’d think that anyone who could wouldn’t have a problem with her.
Let’s try not to confuse those suffering from religious outrage by quoting bible passages, ok?
First, I agree with this guy. If there isn’t a problem with her conduct at the school, there’s no issue.
Second, note which opinions make the headline and which get buried at the bottom of the story.
Who knows, hopefully she didn’t actually talk about it. People talk when they’re bored.
Well, there’s this…
Personally, I don’t have any problem with her day job, even if she was still making porn evenings and weekends. That she stopped making the movies five years ago doesn’t have much to do with it. The only way it could possibly have any effect on her work ethic would be if she displayed poor choices on what costume to wear on Halloween. I’m a bit disappointed with the general mindset of “well, it was a horrible, degrading awful job, but it’s a good thing it’s behind her now.”
Everyone in this thread seems to think that the parents of the students have a problem with Gunn working there. From my reading of the article, it seems as though the parents are fine with it, its the teachers and school administrators who object to her.
Bah. Just another case of the fracked up American Puritan ethic at work here. Once you’re “morally tainted” in any way, you can’t be allowed near the children in case the immorality spreads. (Not that they’ll be able to tell you how it could possibly do so…)
I’m sure she’s a fine lunch lady and all that. But, the thing is, a lot of people feel that anyone who works at a school is a role model for their kids. I can’t blame them for not wanting their kids to be around someone of potentially questionable character, who the kid might come to know and trust.
Sorry, but a lot of people do consider a choice to do porn for a living to indicate the person has poor character. Even though plenty of people watch porn, clearly most people would not want, say, their mom or daughter to be a porn actress.
Some people are just protective of their kids, and that extends to who their kid is around. One thing that I considered when I was thinking about becoming a pediatrician is that it might mean that I’d have to be careful about what I did in my free time if I wound up working in the sort of community where people might recognize me in public and scrutinize my behavior.
Even though I know that being a school lunch lady is a glamorous and high-powered career, I suspect she can find work at some hospital cafeteria or something instead and nobody would care as much because it wasn’t about being with kids.
This is about the only thing I can think of for people to object to about her past. If she had a history that related directly to being around kids, I could see an objection (past conviction for child molestation, kidnapping, something that could concretely affect children). People are objecting to her past morality, though? So not their business. How many teachers (male and female) do they have there that have serial one-night stands, or are swingers, or have cheated on their spouse? This woman could be a fantastic resource for the kids to learn real-life morality from - is she actually sexually empowered, or was she victimized? Either way, she could teach the kids a lot about the real world.
I think she should work in the audio-visual department.
Or teach biology. Based on the picture in the OP’s link, she is a natural for abstinence-only education. I used to think the expression “been ridden hard and put away wet” applied only to horses.