If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Teacher fired for getting off on her days off   (sfgate.com) divider line 228
    More: Followup, teacher fired  
•       •       •

40494 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Nov 2012 at 11:12 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



228 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-04 02:38:40 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: Lsherm: fatassbastard: Lsherm: She's really, uh, not attractive.

studman69.jpg

Oh for Fark's sake. I'm not getting on a high horse here - she's not attractive. I'm not attractive, and even I wouldn't fark her. If you're below MY standards, you better farking believe you're farking ugly.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Surely you're not too stupid to recognize the truth of that statement.

To some eyes she is beautiful, to others, not.


I realize that, but he went studman69 on me, and that was unfair. It's not like we're looking at a supermodel and I'm saying she isn't attractive. We're looking at a a middling woman who did porn and I said she wasn't attractive. Sure, she sucked dick on camera, but even given that advantage, she's not very pretty.

If I was railing against someone who is agreed to be conventionally pretty, like Jennifer Connelly, then I would deserve the studman69 reference. As it stands, that woman isn't that attractive. She's not ugly, but she isn't very pretty, either. 

And all of this has dick to do with her teaching abilities (dick - get it?) as long as she can keep her classroom under control.
 
2012-11-04 02:41:08 PM  

Begoggle: If she was a male pedophile football coach, it would be cool.


fromtheleft.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-04 02:44:13 PM  

mongbiohazard: Thanks again religion, for convincing almost everyone on the planet that they have any reason to be ashamed of the very same act that perpetuates our race. For some unfathomable reason.

Do you think maybe the first people who started inserting those clauses into ancient religions when they were inventing them just had tiny dicks or something? Maybe they figured they'd even the playing field for themselves a bit if they made it harder for everyone to enjoy their genitals.


You bring up an excellent talking point.

Let's quote their very own bible:

Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.

Their very own god, in one of his earliest proclamations said fark...a lot.

And yet somehow sex has become something they try to suppress and hide. A pathetic inconsistency with the clearly stated will of their god. I wonder how they reconcile such blatant disobedience.

But I'll answer the question (and yours) with an obvious conclusion.

Those who established the persecution of sex within religion were acting out of self interest. As Frank Herbert was paraphrased, "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." By destroying sex (or attempting to) outside of very particularly constructed rules, "holy men" sought to control sex. And why does anyone ever seek to control something? Power. Power and self gratification.

If I get to say who you can fark, I get to say who I'm going to fark. And that's whoever I want if I'm the one making up the rules.
 
2012-11-04 02:46:09 PM  

Lsherm: Agent Smiths Laugh: Lsherm: fatassbastard: Lsherm: She's really, uh, not attractive.

studman69.jpg

Oh for Fark's sake. I'm not getting on a high horse here - she's not attractive. I'm not attractive, and even I wouldn't fark her. If you're below MY standards, you better farking believe you're farking ugly.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Surely you're not too stupid to recognize the truth of that statement.

To some eyes she is beautiful, to others, not.

I realize that, but he went studman69 on me, and that was unfair. It's not like we're looking at a supermodel and I'm saying she isn't attractive. We're looking at a a middling woman who did porn and I said she wasn't attractive. Sure, she sucked dick on camera, but even given that advantage, she's not very pretty.

If I was railing against someone who is agreed to be conventionally pretty, like Jennifer Connelly, then I would deserve the studman69 reference. As it stands, that woman isn't that attractive. She's not ugly, but she isn't very pretty, either. 

And all of this has dick to do with her teaching abilities (dick - get it?) as long as she can keep her classroom under control.


And so long as she can convey the learning of the subject she teaches, yes.

Well stated, and your position is reasonable.
 
2012-11-04 02:46:26 PM  
I'm conflicted on this one. On the one hand, I think her past is her business and she should have the opportunity to redirect her course in life. On the other hand, it's not just that she did porn, but that it's so easily available onlIne to any student or sandy-vag parent: it's a distraction that would interfere with her ability to do her job.

She probably won't win this one. But perhaps by being open about her past experience it can become, as they say, a teachable moment. And in that she may find peace with it.
 
2012-11-04 02:50:34 PM  

Aikidogamer: Personally I think moral turpitude needs to be struck out of contract language.


Not necessarily, but I think any sexual activity that involves consenting adults is prima facie not to be considered evidence of moral turpitude.

It used to be that being gay was evidence of moral turpitude and meant you were considered unfit to teach children. Hopefully we're mostly past that now, although there certainly seem to be more than a few atavistic morons who want to drag us back there.

The way we're going, pretty soon, it'll be the 10% of dead-boring people who never made a bad decision or did anything questionable in their entire lives who'll be able to get a job. Come to think of it, that's probably the idea.
 
2012-11-04 02:52:33 PM  

Atomic Spunk: drewogatory: AnyName: How the heck is someone who may have screwed up early in life supposed to "do the right thing". I'm an engineer and work in mass storage which is pretty damn hot right now. I wasn't looking but was actively being recruited from my old job. Every company now does a complete background/credit check. About half wanted a drug screening. These are people that contacted me that are making these demands. A credit check FFS?

Personally I'm OK, but how does someone who has anything in their background get hired under these conditions?

The credit check baffles me. Just require me to be bondable, but ffs, show me anyone out of work for a prolonged period who hasn't had to break a TV contract or make a late payment or two. Or in my case, I never use credit. No credit cards, no car loans, no house loans. My only bills are pay as you go cell phone,rent & utilities and car insurance. So my credit history is basically non existent, yet I'm screwed for being responsible.

A few late payments probably won't keep you from a job you're qualified to do. But if you have an extensive history of bad credit or a bankruptcy, unless you have a reasonable explanation for the late payments, it is a strong indicator that you're not a very responsible person. Also, credit reports often show judgements, which may reveal a lot about a person's history that may be relevant to their job. I wouldn't hold it against an applicant if he had limited or no credit history.

When I used to assist in my company's hiring decisions, I didn't care much if the credit report showed non-habitual, infrequent late payments. One woman had a pretty bad history of late payments, but she explained that her husband had a serious illness that required her to take off work to care for him and it also drained her savings. We hired her despite her bad credit. Her husband had passed away before she applied for the job. If he were still alive, we would have probably had an employee who was ...


Bankruptcy isn't always a good predictor of bad behavior. We just hired a guy who is in his third year of Chapter 13 bankruptcy because his wife, who was a lawyer, lost her job and couldn't get hired anywhere paying attorney wages. For three years. She worked part time at Home Depot but their annual income went from $300K to about $85K They lost their house to foreclosure because the bank wouldn't let them short sell it, and it was worth less than half what they paid for it in 2006. The bank got a judgement against them, which they couldn't possibly pay, and they declared bankruptcy.

Here's the kicker, though: they didn't have high credit card debt, and they paid off the rest of their debts in short order. The bankruptcy was solely due to the $180,000 the bank wanted from the house. And the bankruptcy court trimmed that judgement down to $15,000, which he was about halfway through paying off when he applied for the job.

Most importantly, he came to his first interview with paperwork outlining all of his financial trouble, and he told us upfront that we didn't need to go further if it was going to be a problem. That took balls, and it probably landed him the job. He had documentation for everything.
 
2012-11-04 02:57:02 PM  

doglover: I know more than one porn actress personally. One or two actors, too.

It's not as rare as you think. Shouldn't be admissable like this. It's just a job. Many people leave jobs off their resume. It's not like she was making porn with her students. I leave McDonald's off my resume. She ought to have a right to leave porn off hers.

Also pay teachers (read: me) a living wage and we wouldn't have to take second, third, and often fourth or fifth side jobs to pay for health insurance to treat illness brought on by the stress of five jobs.


What the hell else are you going to do with your time when you leave work every day at three, never have to work weekends, and get summers and endless holidays off as well?

/I keed, I keed
 
2012-11-04 02:58:08 PM  

Somacandra: Lsherm: Somewhere on the internet there must be a video of Weaver95 ass-farking a goat...

Actually, I understand that was the King of Bahrain.


Aaaaand I just choked.
 
2012-11-04 03:00:17 PM  

what the cat dragged in: I'm conflicted on this one. On the one hand, I think her past is her business and she should have the opportunity to redirect her course in life. On the other hand, it's not just that she did porn, but that it's so easily available onlIne to any student or sandy-vag parent: it's a distraction that would interfere with her ability to do her job.

She probably won't win this one. But perhaps by being open about her past experience it can become, as they say, a teachable moment. And in that she may find peace with it.


This, and similar statements by others in the thread, seem to imply her choice to do porn was something deserving of redirecting. Was it? Is it? Are you not judging it as an inferior activity with that assumption? Are you not obliquely calling it "dirty"? Do you not see how by doing so, you are making the same mistake as the moral turpitude clause?

It's not dirty. It's just sex.

Also, is she singly to blame for the march of technology? Is she sorely to blame for the curiosity and/or self-control of others?

No.

If parents want their children to be shielded from her porn, it is their responsibility to direct the behavior of their children, not hers. If it is so easy for their children to be distracted in the classroom, it is their responsibility to teach their children discipline.
 
2012-11-04 03:02:07 PM  

Prey4reign: Who amongst us hasn't had a teacher we wouldn't have loved to see appear in a porn flick?


I never had an attractive teacher in school. Not a single one.
 
2012-11-04 03:02:31 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: what the cat dragged in: I'm conflicted on this one. On the one hand, I think her past is her business and she should have the opportunity to redirect her course in life. On the other hand, it's not just that she did porn, but that it's so easily available onlIne to any student or sandy-vag parent: it's a distraction that would interfere with her ability to do her job.

She probably won't win this one. But perhaps by being open about her past experience it can become, as they say, a teachable moment. And in that she may find peace with it.

This, and similar statements by others in the thread, seem to imply her choice to do porn was something deserving of redirecting. Was it? Is it? Are you not judging it as an inferior activity with that assumption? Are you not obliquely calling it "dirty"? Do you not see how by doing so, you are making the same mistake as the moral turpitude clause?

It's not dirty. It's just sex.

Also, is she singly to blame for the march of technology? Is she solely to blame for the curiosity and/or self-control of others?

No.

If parents want their children to be shielded from her porn, it is their responsibility to direct the behavior of their children, not hers. If it is so easy for their children to be distracted in the classroom, it is their responsibility to teach their children discipline.


Fixed that...sorely..heh...Freudian slip?
 
2012-11-04 03:22:25 PM  
Your 13-year old students having clips of you getting your salad tossed on their iPhones might tend to undermine your authority as a teacher.
 
2012-11-04 03:22:51 PM  

wedun: steamingpile: Weaver95: Fear_and_Loathing: Most state lic. and local contracts, when you deal with children, have a "Moral Turpitude" clause. She will lose.

so one mistake early on can destroy your career years later...? seems a bit harsh.

Well that and the fact she lied when asked about it, that is an offense you can get fired for without any action.

This is the same reason that Clinton was impeached. There wasn't a partisan agenda or anything, it's just that the law is the law and if you lie then we will destroy you and make sure that you never work a day in this office again.


Yep, cause Nixon and Clinton are the only presidents who have ever broken a law.
 
2012-11-04 03:25:35 PM  

StrikitRich: [cdn.newsoxy.com image 266x200]

Somebody brought more than just an apple for the teacher?


img526.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-04 03:28:30 PM  
The only reason she's even getting a hearing is because she works in CA, a state with a teacher's union. Lacking that, a teacher could get fired if, for example, photos of him or her drinking alcohol turn up online. There really are people who would complain to school administration if they saw a teacher having a good time out at a bar or club.

You pretty much have to have your fun in the next county, or better, in the next state and be really conscious of who's around you at all times. Yet another reason why so many teachers say "Screw this!" and leave the profession within five years.
 
2012-11-04 03:29:44 PM  

red5ish: Your 13-year old students having clips of you getting your salad tossed on their iPhones might tend to undermine your authority as a teacher.


If they were properly raised by their parents, they wouldn't see it as a big deal. Humanity growing up in regards to everything sexual would help, too.
 
2012-11-04 03:30:03 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: what the cat dragged in: I'm conflicted on this one. On the one hand, I think her past is her business and she should have the opportunity to redirect her course in life. On the other hand, it's not just that she did porn, but that it's so easily available onlIne to any student or sandy-vag parent: it's a distraction that would interfere with her ability to do her job.

She probably won't win this one. But perhaps by being open about her past experience it can become, as they say, a teachable moment. And in that she may find peace with it.

This, and similar statements by others in the thread, seem to imply her choice to do porn was something deserving of redirecting. Was it? Is it? Are you not judging it as an inferior activity with that assumption? Are you not obliquely calling it "dirty"? Do you not see how by doing so, you are making the same mistake as the moral turpitude clause?

It's not dirty. It's just sex.

Also, is she singly to blame for the march of technology? Is she sorely to blame for the curiosity and/or self-control of others?

No.

If parents want their children to be shielded from her porn, it is their responsibility to direct the behavior of their children, not hers. If it is so easy for their children to be distracted in the classroom, it is their responsibility to teach their children discipline.

Gotta wonder what you would say if a teacher's past was something like being a skinhead, perhaps an activist for a racist or bigoted organization?


After all - If parents want their children to be shielded from it, it is their responsibility to direct the behavior of their children, not the teacher. If it is so easy for their children to be distracted in the classroom, it is their responsibility to teach their children discipline.
 
2012-11-04 03:33:07 PM  

Lsherm: Most importantly, he came to his first interview with paperwork outlining all of his financial trouble, and he told us upfront that we didn't need to go further if it was going to be a problem. That took balls, and it probably landed him the job. He had documentation for everything.


Good point. I would have been pretty impressed with a job candidate like that as well. Sometimes despite a person's responsibility, life takes an unexpected turn and their financial situation just falls apart.
 
2012-11-04 03:35:12 PM  

Lsherm: fatassbastard: Lsherm: She's really, uh, not attractive.

studman69.jpg

Oh for Fark's sake. I'm not getting on a high horse here - she's not attractive. I'm not attractive, and even I wouldn't fark her. If you're below MY standards, you better farking believe you're farking ugly.


So you're into dudes then? NTTAWWT
 
2012-11-04 03:37:15 PM  

mmagdalene: The only reason she's even getting a hearing is because she works in CA, a state with a teacher's union. Lacking that, a teacher could get fired if, for example, photos of him or her drinking alcohol turn up online. There really are people who would complain to school administration if they saw a teacher having a good time out at a bar or club.

You pretty much have to have your fun in the next county, or better, in the next state and be really conscious of who's around you at all times. Yet another reason why so many teachers say "Screw this!" and leave the profession within five years.


Actually, this is true. In NM, alcohol is sold in grocery stores, in a special, blocked off section. I went into such a grocery with the intention of getting a new bottle of booze, saw one of my students and decided that overpriced coffee was a better bet.
 
2012-11-04 03:40:55 PM  
It's sad because even though she did lie about her past, I bet she was correct in assuming she would never be hired as a teacher who used to work in porn. She left her porn career behind to become a capable teacher, assuming that because they're not saying anything negative about her school performance. That she would choose a different career from porn says positive things about her judgement (despite the poor judgement not to reveal her past). I hope that she can find another job (outside of porn) where her past is not an issue.

Besides, being a porn actress is legal. What's the big deal?
 
2012-11-04 03:42:16 PM  

mmagdalene: There really are people who would complain to school administration if they saw a teacher having a good time out at a bar or club.

You pretty much have to have your fun in the next county


I have a friend who is a retired teacher that worked on the Minneapolis side of town and lived on the St Paul side of town (for most Minneapolitans, that may as well be a thousand miles away) and he said pretty much the same thing when I asked him why he didnt look for a gig closer to home. 

/he really likes drinking...
 
2012-11-04 03:48:59 PM  

Fissile: I'm sure there are women who did photo-shoots for various T&A magazines back in the 60s and 70s who are now horrified that those photos can be downloaded by anyone, anywhere in the world,


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-11-04 03:52:19 PM  

fozziewazzi: Ouze: Disgraceful. She shouldn't have to apologize for her legal activities previous to her current job. Why this is even an issue in 2012 is completely beyond me. Same thing goes for Harmony Rose, who got fired from her post-porn paramedic job because of her past.

This is supposed to be America, we don't have scarlet letters. At least, we shouldn't.

The complication is that taught 7th/8th grade, basically junior high. It was her students that discovered her videos, naturally. Ironically had she been teaching pre-pubescent students this probably would never had turned into an issue. But now I don't see how she can still be a junior high school teacher and not have half of her class paying absolutely no mind to what she's saying.


This is actually a good point. Problem is, I don't think that's why people care. They care because sex is icky.

/Move her to another grade and say 'we don't know what you're talking about' whenever it gets brought up, and problem solved, though.
//Kids really don't care that much. Tell them no a few times and they'll forget.
 
2012-11-04 03:52:32 PM  

geekbikerskum: Aikidogamer: Personally I think moral turpitude needs to be struck out of contract language.

Not necessarily, but I think any sexual activity that involves consenting adults is prima facie not to be considered evidence of moral turpitude.

It used to be that being gay was evidence of moral turpitude and meant you were considered unfit to teach children. Hopefully we're mostly past that now, although there certainly seem to be more than a few atavistic morons who want to drag us back there.

The way we're going, pretty soon, it'll be the 10% of dead-boring people who never made a bad decision or did anything questionable in their entire lives who'll be able to get a job. Come to think of it, that's probably the idea.


And that is when the other 90% grab the pitchforks and torches...I am not sure I like where this is going...
 
2012-11-04 03:58:16 PM  

Atomic Spunk: Sometimes despite a person's responsibility, life takes an unexpected turn and their financial situation just falls apart.


Well, farking DUH! Your own posted story backs up that theory.

/not sure if I beat the filter.
 
2012-11-04 04:02:20 PM  
Why, exactly, do we give a crap about this? Do we think that because she boned some guy on camera she's more likely to diddle some kid? It's probably the opposite.
 
2012-11-04 04:11:26 PM  

Weaver95: so one mistake early on can destroy your career years later...? seems a bit harsh.


No, I'm sure she can still do porn films, despite the awkward decision to try teaching on the side.
 
2012-11-04 04:11:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: red5ish: Your 13-year old students having clips of you getting your salad tossed on their iPhones might tend to undermine your authority as a teacher.

If they were properly raised by their parents, they wouldn't see it as a big deal. Humanity growing up in regards to everything sexual would help, too.


It also only undermines because kids are taught sex is icky, bad, etc. so of course they latch on to it and go after it. the very culture that is saying her students will flip are the ones who trained the kids to flip
 
2012-11-04 04:16:36 PM  
eh, who cares? She's a teacher, so she probably wasn't going too far in life anyway.

//more importantly, was she hot?
 
2012-11-04 04:23:00 PM  

BrassArt: Agent Smiths Laugh: what the cat dragged in: I'm conflicted on this one. On the one hand, I think her past is her business and she should have the opportunity to redirect her course in life. On the other hand, it's not just that she did porn, but that it's so easily available onlIne to any student or sandy-vag parent: it's a distraction that would interfere with her ability to do her job.

She probably won't win this one. But perhaps by being open about her past experience it can become, as they say, a teachable moment. And in that she may find peace with it.

This, and similar statements by others in the thread, seem to imply her choice to do porn was something deserving of redirecting. Was it? Is it? Are you not judging it as an inferior activity with that assumption? Are you not obliquely calling it "dirty"? Do you not see how by doing so, you are making the same mistake as the moral turpitude clause?

It's not dirty. It's just sex.

Also, is she singly to blame for the march of technology? Is she sorely to blame for the curiosity and/or self-control of others?

No.

If parents want their children to be shielded from her porn, it is their responsibility to direct the behavior of their children, not hers. If it is so easy for their children to be distracted in the classroom, it is their responsibility to teach their children discipline.
Gotta wonder what you would say if a teacher's past was something like being a skinhead, perhaps an activist for a racist or bigoted organization?



After all - If parents want their children to be shielded from it, it is their responsibility to direct the behavior of their children, not the teacher. If it is so easy for their children to be distracted in the classroom, it is their responsibility to teach their children discipline.


I would say our civilization protects free speech and association, and that so long as she committed no crime in the interests of said group, it has no bearing on her ability to teach. So long as it could not be demonstrated that her beliefs motivated her to treat any of the children anything less than equally and professionally.

If she preached such beliefs in the classroom, or perhaps persecuted a child on racial grounds, it could be acted on as proselytization and persecution are not consistent with her duties. No more so than if she started having sex in the classroom in front of the kids.

But let me ask you, what about her sexual conduct threatens you?
 
2012-11-04 04:36:08 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: what the cat dragged in: I'm conflicted on this one. On the one hand, I think her past is her business and she should have the opportunity to redirect her course in life. On the other hand, it's not just that she did porn, but that it's so easily available onlIne to any student or sandy-vag parent: it's a distraction that would interfere with her ability to do her job.

She probably won't win this one. But perhaps by being open about her past experience it can become, as they say, a teachable moment. And in that she may find peace with it.

This, and similar statements by others in the thread, seem to imply her choice to do porn was something deserving of redirecting. Was it? Is it? Are you not judging it as an inferior activity with that assumption? Are you not obliquely calling it "dirty"? Do you not see how by doing so, you are making the same mistake as the moral turpitude clause?

It's not dirty. It's just sex.

Also, is she singly to blame for the march of technology? Is she sorely to blame for the curiosity and/or self-control of others?

No.

If parents want their children to be shielded from her porn, it is their responsibility to direct the behavior of their children, not hers. If it is so easy for their children to be distracted in the classroom, it is their responsibility to teach their children discipline.


Has there ever been a parent that was able to talk their newly pubescent boy out of searching for porn?
 
2012-11-04 04:37:04 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: red5ish: Your 13-year old students having clips of you getting your salad tossed on their iPhones might tend to undermine your authority as a teacher.

If they were properly raised by their parents, they wouldn't see it as a big deal. Humanity growing up in regards to everything sexual would help, too.


Properly raised by their parents? WTF? It's okay to have anal sex with strangers for money if you need the cash? I can't see that being part of a parent - daughter discussion in most families, quite the contrary.
 
2012-11-04 04:49:20 PM  

red5ish: Keizer_Ghidorah: red5ish: Your 13-year old students having clips of you getting your salad tossed on their iPhones might tend to undermine your authority as a teacher.

If they were properly raised by their parents, they wouldn't see it as a big deal. Humanity growing up in regards to everything sexual would help, too.

Properly raised by their parents? WTF? It's okay to have anal sex with strangers for money if you need the cash? I can't see that being part of a parent - daughter discussion in most families, quite the contrary.


Right. They should only be doing that pro-boner
 
2012-11-04 04:57:18 PM  

BrassArt: Gotta wonder what you would say if a teacher's past was something like being a skinhead, perhaps an activist for a racist or bigoted organization?


After all - If parents want their children to be shielded from it, it is their responsibility to direct the behavior of their children, not the teacher. If it is so easy for their children to be distracted in the classroom, it is their responsibility to teach their children discipline.


If the person isn't bringing it up or advocating it or whatever, then what's the problem? If the non-classroom stuff stays out of the classroom, don't make a farking big deal out of it.
 
2012-11-04 04:59:37 PM  

fozziewazzi: Has there ever been a parent that was able to talk their newly pubescent boy out of searching for porn?


I doubt it, but there may be rare cases, in Quaker country for instance. According to other articles about this case it was the students who first found the teacher's porn films on the internet.
 
2012-11-04 05:14:29 PM  

mongbiohazard: Do you think maybe the first people who started inserting those clauses into ancient religions when they were inventing them just had tiny dicks or something? Maybe they figured they'd even the playing field for themselves a bit if they made it harder for everyone to enjoy their genitals.


Mates are one of the things primates tend to fight and kill each other over. The original intent of things like the glorification of virginity, demands that one sex or the other be sexually faithful to one partner, etc, was to get them to quit it by establishing official "rules" of sexual intercourse. It didn't really matter what the rules were so much as that there were some, so that society could move on to building sphinxes and irrigation systems and so on. And killing each other over things that benefited the tribe instead of only themselves.

Basically, it was a good idea at the time. It's obsolete now because most societies have progressed to the point where mating/marriage is a partnership of (more or less) equals rather than one party outright claiming/owning the other, not because it wasn't practical when we first came up with the idea.
 
2012-11-04 05:17:42 PM  

red5ish: fozziewazzi: Has there ever been a parent that was able to talk their newly pubescent boy out of searching for porn?

I doubt it, but there may be rare cases, in Quaker country for instance. According to other articles about this case it was the students who first found the teacher's porn films on the internet.


That's what I read and here's the thing - if there's any demographic that was mostly likely to expose her, it would have been 13-14 year old boys. The energy, creativity and enthusiasm they muster in their quest for porn is limitless. Of all the professions she could have chosen to reduce the risk of her past ever being exposed, junior high school teacher had to be among the worst. What happened to her was inevitable.
 
2012-11-04 05:45:24 PM  
We just had our 20 year high school reunion in August and I was talking with a friend that is now the principal at a Lutheran school in the town we grew up in. He said that the worst thing about the job is that he can't have any life outside the school. He's always on the job and always being judged on his behaviour. Even at the reunion where most of us ended up pretty loaded and out until three, he had to stop drinking by 10 and leave by midnight because some of our classmates have kids at his school.
 
2012-11-04 05:48:14 PM  

Somacandra: Lsherm: Somewhere on the internet there must be a video of Weaver95 ass-farking a goat...

Actually, I understand that was the King of Bahrain.


Or Britain?
 
2012-11-04 05:58:34 PM  

RedVentrue: Don't be drunk/horny and 23.


See this?

This is the patriarchy in a nutshell. Don't have sexual feelings women, that offends the menfolk. That is the entire basis of this incident, old conservative "values" shoved onto the rest of us. Accepting "moral clauses" as actual, legally binding documents in two thousand and frigging twelve is a goddam joke.
 
2012-11-04 06:03:41 PM  
After this many tours, I'm ready to go down in a blaze of glory.

Mission:Impossible

Mission:Accomplished.

With all my love...and I'm off to bed,

Moira Darkheart, D.O.T.
 
2012-11-04 06:18:21 PM  
oh yeah she did a scene with a pizza involved. Whatever your thing is that's cool, but sucking off a dude who has his wang poking through the center of a pepperoni pizza is just weird!
 
2012-11-04 06:20:14 PM  

Weaver95: Fear_and_Loathing: Weaver95: Hearing or not, the game is rigged when one mistake from your past can completely destroy your entire future career. you were stupid when you were in your 20s and you clean up your act, get focused and start pulling things together in your 30's and BAM! what you did 10 years ago shows up and wipes it all out forever.

I don't disagree, but she took a job under conditions.  She didn't follow the standards.  Now she is in trouble.  Personally, my kids teacher was a Chippendale, not quite the same, but he was upfont when he got his job.  He is well liked and a great teacher.

so...you are saying that you have to follow the standards of a job before you are even considering taking that job? if i'm say...23-ish. I have no idea what I'm gonna be doing when i'm in my 30's...i'm bouncing around, I go out one night and suddenly...a wild orgy breaks out! naked chicks everywhere, camera phones are hanging out all over the place...and wouldn't ya know it, I get laid several times that night. Fast forward a decade. i'm now 33-ish and i've given up my party lifestyle. I got married, kid on the way and I want to move up in the world and live a quiet suburban lifestyle. But I can't do that now, can I? because something I did when I was drunk/horny and 23 showed up when someone did a background check on me. So no cushy job for me, no promotions...i'm stuck in a lower paying job and forever barred from 'respectable' employment. I violated a morality clause for a job that I had NO IDEA i'd ever apply for when I was 23-ish. No options, no recourse...its just how it goes.

so where do you think all the rage from that is gonna end up?


It's almost like your actions may have consequences in the future. Nah, that couldn't be it. Everyone knows there shouldn't be any consequences for decisions people make. Especially ones they know are bad when they make them. Nah, do whatever you want. Just be prepared to deal with the fallout. And if you're worried about that sort of thing, maybe do a bit of thinking BEFORE you act.
 
2012-11-04 06:31:04 PM  

untaken_name: Weaver95: Fear_and_Loathing: Weaver95: Hearing or not, the game is rigged when one mistake from your past can completely destroy your entire future career. you were stupid when you were in your 20s and you clean up your act, get focused and start pulling things together in your 30's and BAM! what you did 10 years ago shows up and wipes it all out forever.

I don't disagree, but she took a job under conditions.  She didn't follow the standards.  Now she is in trouble.  Personally, my kids teacher was a Chippendale, not quite the same, but he was upfont when he got his job.  He is well liked and a great teacher.

so...you are saying that you have to follow the standards of a job before you are even considering taking that job? if i'm say...23-ish. I have no idea what I'm gonna be doing when i'm in my 30's...i'm bouncing around, I go out one night and suddenly...a wild orgy breaks out! naked chicks everywhere, camera phones are hanging out all over the place...and wouldn't ya know it, I get laid several times that night. Fast forward a decade. i'm now 33-ish and i've given up my party lifestyle. I got married, kid on the way and I want to move up in the world and live a quiet suburban lifestyle. But I can't do that now, can I? because something I did when I was drunk/horny and 23 showed up when someone did a background check on me. So no cushy job for me, no promotions...i'm stuck in a lower paying job and forever barred from 'respectable' employment. I violated a morality clause for a job that I had NO IDEA i'd ever apply for when I was 23-ish. No options, no recourse...its just how it goes.

so where do you think all the rage from that is gonna end up?

It's almost like your actions may have consequences in the future. Nah, that couldn't be it. Everyone knows there shouldn't be any consequences for decisions people make. Especially ones they know are bad when they make them. Nah, do whatever you want. Just be prepared to deal with the fallout. And if you'r ...


Why is being a porn star bad? It's work, just like any other. People who aren't stupid and small-minded have no problem with it. If non-classroom stuff stays out of the classroom, why does it concern you what the teacher did years before if it wasn't illegal?

Grow up, people. Stop being children about everything sexual, and stop teaching your kids to be children about it.
 
2012-11-04 06:37:36 PM  

Weaver95: Hearing or not, the game is rigged when one mistake from your past can completely destroy your entire future career. you were stupid when you were in your 20s and you clean up your act, get focused and start pulling things together in your 30's and BAM! what you did 10 years ago shows up and wipes it all out forever.

slapping a band aide on it and saying 'oh hey well it's all proper and legal' ignores the fact that this woman is being punished for what she did in her past.


You don't spent time being filmed having commercial sex and then expect ever to work as a teacher. Tough.
 
2012-11-04 06:40:15 PM  

Endive Wombat: Here is their mentality - "It is Jesus' job to forgive, not mine/society's! You had sex with multiple partners, you were unwed at the time, you had sex in positions other than the missionary position in the dark, the idea of multiple partners is icky to me, ergo you cannot teach my children. Especially my pubescent boys."


Nobody cares who a teacher had sex with. It's the fact that she took money to be filmed doing it, and that those films can and will show up in any school she ever tries to teach at. There is no possibility of her ever being able to maintain class discipline or respect.
 
2012-11-04 06:46:10 PM  

Weaver95: so...you are saying that you have to follow the standards of a job before you are even considering taking that job?


Yes, for some jobs. In related news, actions have consequences and an inability to think things through in your twenties is not a great recommendation for any career involving responsibility.
 
2012-11-04 06:53:14 PM  

unfarkingbelievable: If she was a good teacher who was effective in teaching her students, that's so much more important.


Since they all have access to film of her having sex for money, she cannot ever be a good or effective teacher of children.
 
Displayed 50 of 228 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report