sure, but once its found out, it is their business since it becomes public knowledge. No doubt many teachers get up to the usual range of activities of various kinds that are seen as illicit or taboo in secret, but they're public role models for children in their profession, so.
Those other commenters have accepted a premise baked into your comment that I do not. Why can't a public role model also be a model on OnlyFans? The only reason you would think that those two things are incompatible is if you think that there is something morally wrong with one of them, which I don't believe holds water. There is no form of sex work that I believe disqualifies someone from being a role model, and therefore a teacher, a parent, a counselor, or anything else.
I think the other person is not wording their point correctly. Let me try to word it for them, at the risk of putting words in their mouth.
It is revealed to a group of 17-18 year old high school boys that their teacher does porn. These boys have access to the internet. What do you think is going to happen next? Obviously what will happen is that someone will look it up, share it, and then it causes a problem. Not because it's immoral but because you have immature horny creatures bringing something into the school that isn't appropriate. It's inappropriate because school is for learning not ridiculing or being sexist towards your teacher for doing porn.
In a purely practical sense, of teaching students with as little interruptions and interpersonal conflict as possible, it's easier to not employ the teacher doing porn. It removes a factor of friction in an already tedious and complex job.
If we lived under communism where a community of parents could take time off of their jobs and go to school with their kids, and the teacher could pause teaching, then we could ensure those kids were taught a valuable life lesson about what is and isn't appropriate, how to react to porn, and all that. But we don't live in that society, we live in the one where schools are essentially prisons that double as job training centers. Nobody has the time and we don't have the material underpinnings of an accepting culture. Thus, teachers who do porn will be fired.
Well, I can't TLDR because everyone in this chain is hypersensitive right now and looking for any room to accuse everyone being secret reactionary sex puritan chuds. Sometimes you have to explain stuff.
But if anyone here thinks they can convince a local school board to reinstate OnlyFans teacher and give a moving West Wing speech to convince all the kids that porn is actually rizzed up with the sauce, then do it. I mean it's not like this site has any major differences in opinion on porn anyways. I'm sure we all have the correct true leftist take and can publicly broadcast that message to liberals and reactionaries in a way that actually solves the problem of sexism in Western Culture.
Its not so much whether sex work is or isn't immoral, or unethical, I'd consider that a separate discussion, but rather how that practice relates to children and their education and development. Something can be ok for adults to learn about or engage in but not for children.
As an example, its usually seen as not a good thing for children to learn about being a soldier (even if it happens in practice), despite it being a very good way of making soldiers, to teach them young. But the resulting harm to those children and society makes it generally outlawed, and certainly against public opinion. This is seperate and distinct from an argument about whether its good or bad, right or wrong for an adult to learn about being a soldier. The same applies to drug use - you need to be wiser and better educated than a child to engage with it, because of the risks and harms involved.
edit; to further clarify, with the soldier analogy, you might be ok with it being taught in a structured and carefully thought out way, but not for children to be watching war footage, if you see what I mean.
The soldier analogy maybe would make sense if kids' books weren't chock full of stories of soldiers in wars. If kids' movies weren't mostly based on plots of violence involving people fighting in wars. If kids didn't "play army" consistently. If kids were never exposed to veterans through school assemblies. If military recruiters weren't given full access to schools. But unfortunately, all of these things happen, I experienced them when I was in school.
It's foolish to think war and soldiers aren't heavily, heavily romanticized in our society, and much of that romanticization is directly aimed at children. I do think this is getting less bad over time, luckily. I know the military is having a difficult time recruiting enough people, so that's good.
But fundamentally, I think sex is cool and good while war is lame and bad, so I would have zero issue with an onlyfans model teaching children and I would not want a veteran or national guard reservist teaching children.
I used the analogy because of how people (parents especially) feel about war, and because its a thing that carries great risks of harm and exploitation, being a soldier. Of course there are circumstances where a parent, out of desperation usually (sometimes out of greed) - as a matter of survival - would be ok with it. But generally speaking, people who aren't desperate don't want their children to be soldiers, they want them to be happy, prosperous, not maimed, not violent and so on, so there has to be a lot of incentive and propaganda around it to convince people - and even then it finds a lot of resistance from people.
I know that soldiers are romanticized, and so is violence, but I don't think that because that occurs, education of children should be a free for all - gambling is another example, because its something that children (and adults of course, but that's a different though related issue) are vulnerable to taking a bad lesson from exposure to, that can lead to harmful consequences for them and others.
Sex is cool, but it can also be harmful, in and of itself or as an aspect of a relationship with others. War is similar - if a soldier is defending out of necessity their people from violence or theft, that's cool, but there is a lot of scope for it not being cool. Things like this, that have a great potential for harm and risk of harm, for individuals and communities, need to be treated very carefully and cautiously when it comes to children (and really, adults of course, but especially children). Despite sex being (usually) cool, its not I don't think an issue to request that teachers of children, as role models and authority figures, should not be pornographers - just as they should not be soldiers.
I still think you're putting sex and war at the same general level of harm and I simply disagree with that moral ranking. Sex is almost always positive, war is almost always negative. These are not the same.
I'm sorry, but this is an absurd statement. Sex between consenting adults without coercion, in which neither party is violating an existing relationships boundaries is generally neutral to positive but that is a ton of qualifiers.
Yeah, sure, you're right of course. Sex can be super damaging in certain contexts. I do still think that fundamentally sex is a beautiful, wonderful part of the human experience while war is an occasional unpleasant necessity that it would really be better to do without if at all possible. They seem fundamentally different to me, and I'd like a world with more (and better) sex and less war. But you're right, sex with no qualifiers isn't "almost always" good. That's a very good point.
Right, and sex work often ends up being one of the situations where people get abused right? Like if someone is making money on onlyfans, more power to them, but much of the sex work being performed in the world is being done by desperate people who'd rather not do it?
I don't feel good about it at all, and I think it should be banned! The presence of one bad thing doesn't make other bad things ok, though.
We are our experiences, our environments, and with children they're in a stage where learning lots is more important than learning or experiencing critically, and they don't have much wisdom or experience to be properly judgemental or to contextualise or understand what they see or hear, so we have to treat them differently. Development is also a process over time, so we need to make sure the learning content is appropriate for the age or developmental stage (including social development), and also not all taught at once but rather gradually, depending on their current capacity.
I'm unsure why you'd think its a necessary question to ask, given the comment you've responded to, but I hope you're satisfied with the answer.
could you explain why, I feel that I've explained my position in various comments (but I can reiterate if you'd like) and I'd like to know why you think it means my brain is wormy?
Well I disagree with what they've said, and I don't think they've explained it at all, rather just accused me of being a puritan or similar. Could you try, in your own words?
I think the claims that have been made by others against me or my position that weren't simply lazy smears, I've already refuted (that what a teacher does publically is no business of the public, and that because military teachers/recruiters are allowed in schools so too should this, that there is any relation to trans people or drag queens to this issue, that teachers being fired for being pornographers means sex work is consequentially immoral). I certainly don't feel that anyone's said anything in contradiction that's caused me to even consider that my stance might be incorrect, but I'm willing to consider a reasonable and good response - I don't want to have brain worms after all.
Why can't a public role model also be a model on OnlyFans? The only reason you would think that those two things are incompatible is if you think that there is something morally wrong with one of them
Being an OnlyFans model is not a moral wrong, but the industry of modern pornography is absolutely incompatible with a moral society.
You are an adult, at the very least you have your defined sexuality. Imagine a child's first experience with sexuality being porn of their teacher. We all know that porn dehumanizes women, but imagine how it will affect children when that person is someone they know in real life?
No one did anything morally wrong here. But you have to prioritize the protection of the children or the teacher. I choose the children, you choose the teacher. What conclusion you get from this is up to you.
the industry of modern pornography is absolutely incompatible with a moral society
I agree, but it isn't the sex workers who are the problem with the industry of modern pornography. It's the human traffickers, the sleazy producers, the pimps and all the other rent seeking capitalists who make the industry bad.
imagine how it will affect children when that person is someone they know in real life?
I imagine that it will humanize sex workers in the eyes of the children, whereas squirreling all of them away into the dark corners of society where they can't be seen serves to further dehumanize them.
Imagine a child's first experience with sexuality being porn of their teacher. We all know that porn dehumanizes women, but imagine how it will affect children when that person is someone they know in real life?
Okay, but the first response to that should be "sit down with your child and discuss appropriate boundaries," not "fire the teacher." Holy fuck stop being afraid to be a parent and just talk to your damn children, people.
Something that a teacher advertises publicly is the public's business.
I think if they're writing books with that kind of material, then yes - I'd fire nabakov immediately for example (at the least). With the 90s gangster rap, it depends on the content. With the guns, it depends on what kind of related material they were publically releasing.
Some of your other examples are too petulant and silly to respond to.
What people do in their free time is their own choice.
Let me put this in the simplest way possible. The second you focus your energies on defending teachers' rights to do online porn, you have ceded the entirety of discourse surrounding the Education System to the conservative right at best, and the fascist right at worst. You will be exiled to the fringes of society by the parents themselves.
Well we should think of the children, its important socially.
You've said elsewhere that you'd be concerned if a teacher were a facist - would you not mind if they were teaching to the cirriculum at school, but in their time off work publically promoting fascist material? I don't mean to conflate the two subjects (fascism and pornography), but just point out that we don't (and shouldn't) judge teachers just on what they do at school. Of course, then it becomes a question of what is and isn't acceptable for a teacher to be doing in public outside of work, and I don't think its moral panic to say that pornography is not acceptable - sex education and teaching about relationships is very sensitive as a subject for people because as I've said there's a great potential for harm and exploitation.
We should assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise of course. You don't think your pepsi coke thing was silly?
How do you expect to get anything done if you call other people on your small leftist forum chuds because you disagree on one thing despite agreeing on 99 others? You know there will be plenty of other leftists who disagree with you on this or that, right?
I think if they're writing books with that kind of material, then yes - I'd fire nabakov immediately for example
If you think Lolita was condoning its subject matter then you completely misunderstood the entire message of the book. This is why we need media literacy.
Fans of that book, or the literati, always say that, and yet its very popular with child abusers. No doubt there are those who read it and were disgusted. Most people however don't need an elaborate fantasy novel to tell them that kind of thing is very very bad.
If I've misunderstood the message, and others have too (it isn't generally well liked, except in certain circles, usually called at least 'controversial'), then we can be sure that anyone writing such material shouldn't be a teacher, and certainly children shouldn't be exposed to it - and the way communities work, children at such a teacher's school would be well aware of any controversial publications they might have made. Personally, I think it is a literary trick (like the 'poverty porn' genre) to justify the promotion of dodgy material to a certain class for titilation, so I'd do a lot more than sack such an author.
If I've misunderstood the message, and others have too (it isn't generally well liked, except in certain circles, usually called at least 'controversial'), then we can be sure that anyone writing such material shouldn't be a teacher, and certainly children shouldn't be exposed to it
Um, what? This logic could be applied to critical race theory about as easily as you've applied it here to Lolita. Way to prove that you really are a puritan.
So, writing anything that multiple people misunderstand and find offensive, especially if it can be called 'controversial,' is an automatic disqualification from teaching, got it. Makes perfect sense, and I'm not at all deeply disappointed to see multiple hexbears upvote this horrifically bad take.
Not anything, but certainly something about child abuse, when, and I can't emphasise this enough, you're responsible for teaching children is certainly an auto disqualification.
They shouldn't have to be public role models though. A teacher shouldn't be held to a different moral standard from any other adult. What the teacher does in their time off is their own business.
They shouldn't have to be public role models though.
As a teacher I disagree. I'm a public servant specialized in dealing with kids. I'm supposed to be held to very high standards. What those standards are is up to the community itself. Refusal to engage with the expectations of said community is just ceding ground to my political enemies, who most likely just want to destroy education as a public service in the first place.
Teachers will always be expected to be role models for children. There will of course be conflict on what those standards should be - which is why we need to be politically competent.
There are ghouls out there. They'll say teachers shouldn't be LGBT. They'll push for all sorts of things. But if your opening salvo is that teachers don't have to be role models for children, and in fact can do whatever they want in their free time then you'll be ceding the ground to the ghouls. There's no two ways about it.
As such, if your priority is to defend my right to have an Only Fans, all I can say is 'no thank you'. I'm not american but I suspect that the issue we have in the public school I teach - kids don't have food at home and sometimes there's no food in school either - is a marginally Bigger Deal than whatever liberation you seem to think I need.
Well they should choose a different job or if they can't, accept the consequences, because that is what that job is by its nature. Just like a parent is a role model for their children - children are very impressionable, not very wise, and one fundamental, 'innate' type of learning is observational/copying. They aren't 'any other adult' they work with children and teach them.
What they do in their time off is their own business, but what they do in public is the public's business.
Of course parents will always be concerned with what kind of person a teacher is, and what they do, just as people are concerned about the same with politicians (also role models). It'd be negligent of them not to be. I'm not deciding that, its just is how things are, how society functions. If a person doesn't want to or isn't able to uphold the public good, they can't be a public authority figure or role model - or they can if they can get away with it, but it will always attract criticism.
Well its not me deciding, it was the employer - the school. I'm not reframing it, as I said at the beginning, I don't believe the majority of parents would be happy with a pornographer teacher.
We aren't just our jobs - we're also how we interact and what we do outside of our jobs, and you can't really separate the two. In fact, when it comes to children, its dangerous to do so. Some jobs this is especially true for - which is why there are so many (often insufficient) regulations and checks for teachers, compared to other jobs. If a person can't accept that extra responsibility, they shouldn't be a teacher.
I don't believe the majority of parents would be happy with a pornographer teacher.
I'm not sure that just accepting "majority parents" opinion and instantly firing them is the way forward here. I also feel like I know many women who have done sex work who are now in teaching or care positions who I don't think deserve to be fired for it.
Multiple people in this thread have said they'd rather not have a fascist or military teaching their kids, so it's not about whether the outside life doesn't matter. Rather, I feel like it's whether this case of outside life matters and if it's a problem with that pair of vocations or whether it is a wider problem with society. If the parents are wrong, change the parents. If the highschool boys are wrong, change the highschool boys.
But obviously the people in this thread do not have the power to change parents, all highschool boys, or reverse the firing. We're talking about a hypothetical where if we had the power to do any of these things, which should we do?
This also sidesteps some of the functional stuff and some stuff specific to the OP case. The teacher in question is an unbelievably messy person that I could wholly believe administration wanted to fire anyway. How would one go about changing the opinion of all parents about what are appropriate secondary jobs for teachers? If you could change that and the highschool boys, would that be fine or should the teacher still be fired? Does it matter if the sex work is current or not?
I know that a therapeutic relationship between a psychologist and a client could be harmed if they ran into each other at, say, a local kink event. I don't care, but I'm not every patient. But then a psychologist is relatively highly paid and often more secure than teachers are. A single patient leaving a psychologist has wildly different stakes to a teacher getting fired.
Are we assuming a sex workers are more likely to abuse the kids? Or that kids will see sex work as aspirational? Or that the lack of respect for sex workers will damage the ability of the teacher to teach? Or that upon hearing "sex worker" kids will seek out porn out of curiosity?
We joke about it, but this forum is partly about critique of society and how we would change it if we could.
Idk why I'm wading into this, my notifications aren't working
catholic, puritan, I think any denomination or any religious or philosophical or constitutional/legal framework worldwide would have a problem with it, barring niche cults and communities.
I suppose you have to ask, if most people would have an issue with it, is it that its simply that they're all wrong, or is there a reason for that kind of social teaching and practice? I think in this case there is, because of the risks involved, and because of the special status of children.
You know what else your arguments remind me of? (Also, sorry to respond to you twice in two different comment threads, I know that's kind of rude, but I already responded the other place and I have another thought from reading this comment. So, sorry.)
Your arguments remind me of people who think my sister shouldn't be teaching because she's visibly trans. She's very openly, publically trans and let me tell you, quite a few parents have an issue with that. These parents think that since my sister is a "role model" for their "very impressionable, not very wise" children whose learning style is "observational/copying", the kids will be influenced by her visible, open transness and become trans themselves.
This is, of course, nonsense, but if we simply listen to parents and remove people those parents have issues with, then we end up in a place where trans people are barred from being teachers because of their transness, and that's just bigotry, pure and simple.
I want to be very clear here, I don't have any reason to think you'd agree with the transphobic parents wanting my sister barred from teaching. But I do think your arguments for why an onlyfans model shouldn't teach are exactly the same as the arguments transphobic parents make about trans teachers. Identical.
It might well remind you of that, but being visibly trans isn't sexualised content being shown to children. I'm not surprised the arguments seem similar - its why right wingers use those lines, because it resonates with people, and if you conflate sexualised content (that people fundamentally will have an issue with for the reasons I've given elsewhere) with simply being trans, you can persuade people that being trans is an issue.
And a teacher being an onlyfans model also isn't sexualized content being shown to children. It's ok, I think we're just going to have to disagree here on whether teachers should be fired for having an onlyfans. I gotta move on with my day, I hope you have a good one!
No, but it is sexualised, actually sexual, content being advertised by somebody who works with children, and that may be accesible to those children. That isn't the case with somebody who is visibly trans and teaching, unless for some reason they decided to become a pornographer.
being visibly trans (especially transfem) is inherently seen as sexual by wide swaths of the population. there's no conflating to be done at this stage. we've been conflated. we have to live with that, and that means not accepting the premise that teachers deserve to get fired for this shit
you keep dancing around the issue, saying "oh we need to respect parents rights and their worries," and i just fundamentally don't think that's true. it reads as cowardly reactionary garbage. just admit you think sex work is gross
9 times out of 10 "parent's rights" just means the right to abuse and control your child. fuck parents rights
i agree i shouldn't have to live with that conflation! however we play the hands we're dealt, and the hand i happen to have been dealt is that a good chunk of this country thinks i am an inherently sexual being. and being a sex worker isn't really any different. both i and the sex worker are significantly less likely to be a danger to children than the child's parent, and there's no reason to prevent either of us from being teachers. if a parent can't explain to their child what being trans is and why it isn't a big deal that's on them. it's the same with sex work
A teacher shouldn't be held to a different moral standard from any other adult.
Yes they absolutely should. If you're going to be in close contact with children as an authority figure then you need to be held to a higher moral standard.
How about this:
A cop shouldn't be held to a different moral standard from any adult.
sure, but once its found out, it is their business since it becomes public knowledge. No doubt many teachers get up to the usual range of activities of various kinds that are seen as illicit or taboo in secret, but they're public role models for children in their profession, so.
Those other commenters have accepted a premise baked into your comment that I do not. Why can't a public role model also be a model on OnlyFans? The only reason you would think that those two things are incompatible is if you think that there is something morally wrong with one of them, which I don't believe holds water. There is no form of sex work that I believe disqualifies someone from being a role model, and therefore a teacher, a parent, a counselor, or anything else.
I think the other person is not wording their point correctly. Let me try to word it for them, at the risk of putting words in their mouth.
It is revealed to a group of 17-18 year old high school boys that their teacher does porn. These boys have access to the internet. What do you think is going to happen next? Obviously what will happen is that someone will look it up, share it, and then it causes a problem. Not because it's immoral but because you have immature horny creatures bringing something into the school that isn't appropriate. It's inappropriate because school is for learning not ridiculing or being sexist towards your teacher for doing porn.
In a purely practical sense, of teaching students with as little interruptions and interpersonal conflict as possible, it's easier to not employ the teacher doing porn. It removes a factor of friction in an already tedious and complex job.
If we lived under communism where a community of parents could take time off of their jobs and go to school with their kids, and the teacher could pause teaching, then we could ensure those kids were taught a valuable life lesson about what is and isn't appropriate, how to react to porn, and all that. But we don't live in that society, we live in the one where schools are essentially prisons that double as job training centers. Nobody has the time and we don't have the material underpinnings of an accepting culture. Thus, teachers who do porn will be fired.
For the tldr crowd...
"Its easier to fire a teacher than it is to teach teenagers that sexually harassing a teacher is wrong."
Well, I can't TLDR because everyone in this chain is hypersensitive right now and looking for any room to accuse everyone being secret reactionary sex puritan chuds. Sometimes you have to explain stuff.
But if anyone here thinks they can convince a local school board to reinstate OnlyFans teacher and give a moving West Wing speech to convince all the kids that porn is actually rizzed up with the sauce, then do it. I mean it's not like this site has any major differences in opinion on porn anyways. I'm sure we all have the correct true leftist take and can publicly broadcast that message to liberals and reactionaries in a way that actually solves the problem of sexism in Western Culture.
deleted by creator
Its not so much whether sex work is or isn't immoral, or unethical, I'd consider that a separate discussion, but rather how that practice relates to children and their education and development. Something can be ok for adults to learn about or engage in but not for children.
As an example, its usually seen as not a good thing for children to learn about being a soldier (even if it happens in practice), despite it being a very good way of making soldiers, to teach them young. But the resulting harm to those children and society makes it generally outlawed, and certainly against public opinion. This is seperate and distinct from an argument about whether its good or bad, right or wrong for an adult to learn about being a soldier. The same applies to drug use - you need to be wiser and better educated than a child to engage with it, because of the risks and harms involved.
edit; to further clarify, with the soldier analogy, you might be ok with it being taught in a structured and carefully thought out way, but not for children to be watching war footage, if you see what I mean.
The soldier analogy maybe would make sense if kids' books weren't chock full of stories of soldiers in wars. If kids' movies weren't mostly based on plots of violence involving people fighting in wars. If kids didn't "play army" consistently. If kids were never exposed to veterans through school assemblies. If military recruiters weren't given full access to schools. But unfortunately, all of these things happen, I experienced them when I was in school.
It's foolish to think war and soldiers aren't heavily, heavily romanticized in our society, and much of that romanticization is directly aimed at children. I do think this is getting less bad over time, luckily. I know the military is having a difficult time recruiting enough people, so that's good.
But fundamentally, I think sex is cool and good while war is lame and bad, so I would have zero issue with an onlyfans model teaching children and I would not want a veteran or national guard reservist teaching children.
I used the analogy because of how people (parents especially) feel about war, and because its a thing that carries great risks of harm and exploitation, being a soldier. Of course there are circumstances where a parent, out of desperation usually (sometimes out of greed) - as a matter of survival - would be ok with it. But generally speaking, people who aren't desperate don't want their children to be soldiers, they want them to be happy, prosperous, not maimed, not violent and so on, so there has to be a lot of incentive and propaganda around it to convince people - and even then it finds a lot of resistance from people.
I know that soldiers are romanticized, and so is violence, but I don't think that because that occurs, education of children should be a free for all - gambling is another example, because its something that children (and adults of course, but that's a different though related issue) are vulnerable to taking a bad lesson from exposure to, that can lead to harmful consequences for them and others.
Sex is cool, but it can also be harmful, in and of itself or as an aspect of a relationship with others. War is similar - if a soldier is defending out of necessity their people from violence or theft, that's cool, but there is a lot of scope for it not being cool. Things like this, that have a great potential for harm and risk of harm, for individuals and communities, need to be treated very carefully and cautiously when it comes to children (and really, adults of course, but especially children). Despite sex being (usually) cool, its not I don't think an issue to request that teachers of children, as role models and authority figures, should not be pornographers - just as they should not be soldiers.
I still think you're putting sex and war at the same general level of harm and I simply disagree with that moral ranking. Sex is almost always positive, war is almost always negative. These are not the same.
I'm sorry, but this is an absurd statement. Sex between consenting adults without coercion, in which neither party is violating an existing relationships boundaries is generally neutral to positive but that is a ton of qualifiers.
It's often positive, not almost always.
Yeah, sure, you're right of course. Sex can be super damaging in certain contexts. I do still think that fundamentally sex is a beautiful, wonderful part of the human experience while war is an occasional unpleasant necessity that it would really be better to do without if at all possible. They seem fundamentally different to me, and I'd like a world with more (and better) sex and less war. But you're right, sex with no qualifiers isn't "almost always" good. That's a very good point.
Right, and sex work often ends up being one of the situations where people get abused right? Like if someone is making money on onlyfans, more power to them, but much of the sex work being performed in the world is being done by desperate people who'd rather not do it?
how do you feel about military recruiters in highschools?
how do you feel about traumatized war criminals becoming teachers?
I don't feel good about it at all, and I think it should be banned! The presence of one bad thing doesn't make other bad things ok, though.
We are our experiences, our environments, and with children they're in a stage where learning lots is more important than learning or experiencing critically, and they don't have much wisdom or experience to be properly judgemental or to contextualise or understand what they see or hear, so we have to treat them differently. Development is also a process over time, so we need to make sure the learning content is appropriate for the age or developmental stage (including social development), and also not all taught at once but rather gradually, depending on their current capacity.
I'm unsure why you'd think its a necessary question to ask, given the comment you've responded to, but I hope you're satisfied with the answer.
just checking how thorough your
are
if
is referring back to teachers with OF accounts then you need some more fumigating
could you explain why, I feel that I've explained my position in various comments (but I can reiterate if you'd like) and I'd like to know why you think it means my brain is wormy?
other people have already explained it to you.
the thing you're worried about is a bullshit moral panic and you fucking need to get over it.
Well I disagree with what they've said, and I don't think they've explained it at all, rather just accused me of being a puritan or similar. Could you try, in your own words?
I think the claims that have been made by others against me or my position that weren't simply lazy smears, I've already refuted (that what a teacher does publically is no business of the public, and that because military teachers/recruiters are allowed in schools so too should this, that there is any relation to trans people or drag queens to this issue, that teachers being fired for being pornographers means sex work is consequentially immoral). I certainly don't feel that anyone's said anything in contradiction that's caused me to even consider that my stance might be incorrect, but I'm willing to consider a reasonable and good response - I don't want to have brain worms after all.
Vietnamese kindergarten children reenacting Vietnamese/American War battle.
Removed by mod
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Being an OnlyFans model is not a moral wrong, but the industry of modern pornography is absolutely incompatible with a moral society.
You are an adult, at the very least you have your defined sexuality. Imagine a child's first experience with sexuality being porn of their teacher. We all know that porn dehumanizes women, but imagine how it will affect children when that person is someone they know in real life?
No one did anything morally wrong here. But you have to prioritize the protection of the children or the teacher. I choose the children, you choose the teacher. What conclusion you get from this is up to you.
I agree, but it isn't the sex workers who are the problem with the industry of modern pornography. It's the human traffickers, the sleazy producers, the pimps and all the other rent seeking capitalists who make the industry bad.
I imagine that it will humanize sex workers in the eyes of the children, whereas squirreling all of them away into the dark corners of society where they can't be seen serves to further dehumanize them.
Okay, but the first response to that should be "sit down with your child and discuss appropriate boundaries," not "fire the teacher." Holy fuck stop being afraid to be a parent and just talk to your damn children, people.
deleted by creator
Something that a teacher advertises publicly is the public's business.
I think if they're writing books with that kind of material, then yes - I'd fire nabakov immediately for example (at the least). With the 90s gangster rap, it depends on the content. With the guns, it depends on what kind of related material they were publically releasing.
Some of your other examples are too petulant and silly to respond to.
deleted by creator
Let me put this in the simplest way possible. The second you focus your energies on defending teachers' rights to do online porn, you have ceded the entirety of discourse surrounding the Education System to the conservative right at best, and the fascist right at worst. You will be exiled to the fringes of society by the parents themselves.
Sometimes it's not about Libertad, Carajo.
deleted by creator
Was that what I wrote?
deleted by creator
Picking your battles is important. A teacher doing OnlyFans is a great example of something that's defensible but very much not a hill to die on.
deleted by creator
Well we should think of the children, its important socially.
You've said elsewhere that you'd be concerned if a teacher were a facist - would you not mind if they were teaching to the cirriculum at school, but in their time off work publically promoting fascist material? I don't mean to conflate the two subjects (fascism and pornography), but just point out that we don't (and shouldn't) judge teachers just on what they do at school. Of course, then it becomes a question of what is and isn't acceptable for a teacher to be doing in public outside of work, and I don't think its moral panic to say that pornography is not acceptable - sex education and teaching about relationships is very sensitive as a subject for people because as I've said there's a great potential for harm and exploitation.
We should assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise of course. You don't think your pepsi coke thing was silly?
This is some real
shit
deleted by creator
We shouldn't interact with each other the way we interact with chuds.
deleted by creator
How do you expect to get anything done if you call other people on your small leftist forum chuds because you disagree on one thing despite agreeing on 99 others? You know there will be plenty of other leftists who disagree with you on this or that, right?
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
If you think Lolita was condoning its subject matter then you completely misunderstood the entire message of the book. This is why we need media literacy.
Fans of that book, or the literati, always say that, and yet its very popular with child abusers. No doubt there are those who read it and were disgusted. Most people however don't need an elaborate fantasy novel to tell them that kind of thing is very very bad.
If I've misunderstood the message, and others have too (it isn't generally well liked, except in certain circles, usually called at least 'controversial'), then we can be sure that anyone writing such material shouldn't be a teacher, and certainly children shouldn't be exposed to it - and the way communities work, children at such a teacher's school would be well aware of any controversial publications they might have made. Personally, I think it is a literary trick (like the 'poverty porn' genre) to justify the promotion of dodgy material to a certain class for titilation, so I'd do a lot more than sack such an author.
Um, what? This logic could be applied to critical race theory about as easily as you've applied it here to Lolita. Way to prove that you really are a puritan.
Removed by mod
So, writing anything that multiple people misunderstand and find offensive, especially if it can be called 'controversial,' is an automatic disqualification from teaching, got it. Makes perfect sense, and I'm not at all deeply disappointed to see multiple hexbears upvote this horrifically bad take.
I am absolutely fucking disgusted with this shit
Not anything, but certainly something about child abuse, when, and I can't emphasise this enough, you're responsible for teaching children is certainly an auto disqualification.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
THEY ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE TO BE ACCOMMODATED SHUT THE FUCK UP
You didn't read it, did you?
And I'm not saying it's a good book because it isn't.
So... who was actively searching for this lady on OnlyFans?
They shouldn't have to be public role models though. A teacher shouldn't be held to a different moral standard from any other adult. What the teacher does in their time off is their own business.
As a teacher I disagree. I'm a public servant specialized in dealing with kids. I'm supposed to be held to very high standards. What those standards are is up to the community itself. Refusal to engage with the expectations of said community is just ceding ground to my political enemies, who most likely just want to destroy education as a public service in the first place.
deleted by creator
Teachers will always be expected to be role models for children. There will of course be conflict on what those standards should be - which is why we need to be politically competent.
There are ghouls out there. They'll say teachers shouldn't be LGBT. They'll push for all sorts of things. But if your opening salvo is that teachers don't have to be role models for children, and in fact can do whatever they want in their free time then you'll be ceding the ground to the ghouls. There's no two ways about it.
As such, if your priority is to defend my right to have an Only Fans, all I can say is 'no thank you'. I'm not american but I suspect that the issue we have in the public school I teach - kids don't have food at home and sometimes there's no food in school either - is a marginally Bigger Deal than whatever liberation you seem to think I need.
Well they should choose a different job or if they can't, accept the consequences, because that is what that job is by its nature. Just like a parent is a role model for their children - children are very impressionable, not very wise, and one fundamental, 'innate' type of learning is observational/copying. They aren't 'any other adult' they work with children and teach them.
What they do in their time off is their own business, but what they do in public is the public's business.
deleted by creator
Of course parents will always be concerned with what kind of person a teacher is, and what they do, just as people are concerned about the same with politicians (also role models). It'd be negligent of them not to be. I'm not deciding that, its just is how things are, how society functions. If a person doesn't want to or isn't able to uphold the public good, they can't be a public authority figure or role model - or they can if they can get away with it, but it will always attract criticism.
deleted by creator
Well its not me deciding, it was the employer - the school. I'm not reframing it, as I said at the beginning, I don't believe the majority of parents would be happy with a pornographer teacher.
We aren't just our jobs - we're also how we interact and what we do outside of our jobs, and you can't really separate the two. In fact, when it comes to children, its dangerous to do so. Some jobs this is especially true for - which is why there are so many (often insufficient) regulations and checks for teachers, compared to other jobs. If a person can't accept that extra responsibility, they shouldn't be a teacher.
I'm not sure that just accepting "majority parents" opinion and instantly firing them is the way forward here. I also feel like I know many women who have done sex work who are now in teaching or care positions who I don't think deserve to be fired for it.
Multiple people in this thread have said they'd rather not have a fascist or military teaching their kids, so it's not about whether the outside life doesn't matter. Rather, I feel like it's whether this case of outside life matters and if it's a problem with that pair of vocations or whether it is a wider problem with society. If the parents are wrong, change the parents. If the highschool boys are wrong, change the highschool boys.
But obviously the people in this thread do not have the power to change parents, all highschool boys, or reverse the firing. We're talking about a hypothetical where if we had the power to do any of these things, which should we do?
This also sidesteps some of the functional stuff and some stuff specific to the OP case. The teacher in question is an unbelievably messy person that I could wholly believe administration wanted to fire anyway. How would one go about changing the opinion of all parents about what are appropriate secondary jobs for teachers? If you could change that and the highschool boys, would that be fine or should the teacher still be fired? Does it matter if the sex work is current or not?
I know that a therapeutic relationship between a psychologist and a client could be harmed if they ran into each other at, say, a local kink event. I don't care, but I'm not every patient. But then a psychologist is relatively highly paid and often more secure than teachers are. A single patient leaving a psychologist has wildly different stakes to a teacher getting fired.
Are we assuming a sex workers are more likely to abuse the kids? Or that kids will see sex work as aspirational? Or that the lack of respect for sex workers will damage the ability of the teacher to teach? Or that upon hearing "sex worker" kids will seek out porn out of curiosity?
We joke about it, but this forum is partly about critique of society and how we would change it if we could.
Idk why I'm wading into this, my notifications aren't working
This is catholic school morality clause shit
catholic, puritan, I think any denomination or any religious or philosophical or constitutional/legal framework worldwide would have a problem with it, barring niche cults and communities.
I suppose you have to ask, if most people would have an issue with it, is it that its simply that they're all wrong, or is there a reason for that kind of social teaching and practice? I think in this case there is, because of the risks involved, and because of the special status of children.
You know what else your arguments remind me of? (Also, sorry to respond to you twice in two different comment threads, I know that's kind of rude, but I already responded the other place and I have another thought from reading this comment. So, sorry.)
Your arguments remind me of people who think my sister shouldn't be teaching because she's visibly trans. She's very openly, publically trans and let me tell you, quite a few parents have an issue with that. These parents think that since my sister is a "role model" for their "very impressionable, not very wise" children whose learning style is "observational/copying", the kids will be influenced by her visible, open transness and become trans themselves.
This is, of course, nonsense, but if we simply listen to parents and remove people those parents have issues with, then we end up in a place where trans people are barred from being teachers because of their transness, and that's just bigotry, pure and simple.
I want to be very clear here, I don't have any reason to think you'd agree with the transphobic parents wanting my sister barred from teaching. But I do think your arguments for why an onlyfans model shouldn't teach are exactly the same as the arguments transphobic parents make about trans teachers. Identical.
No problem
It might well remind you of that, but being visibly trans isn't sexualised content being shown to children. I'm not surprised the arguments seem similar - its why right wingers use those lines, because it resonates with people, and if you conflate sexualised content (that people fundamentally will have an issue with for the reasons I've given elsewhere) with simply being trans, you can persuade people that being trans is an issue.
And a teacher being an onlyfans model also isn't sexualized content being shown to children. It's ok, I think we're just going to have to disagree here on whether teachers should be fired for having an onlyfans. I gotta move on with my day, I hope you have a good one!
No, but it is sexualised, actually sexual, content being advertised by somebody who works with children, and that may be accesible to those children. That isn't the case with somebody who is visibly trans and teaching, unless for some reason they decided to become a pornographer.
thanks, and likewise
being visibly trans (especially transfem) is inherently seen as sexual by wide swaths of the population. there's no conflating to be done at this stage. we've been conflated. we have to live with that, and that means not accepting the premise that teachers deserve to get fired for this shit
you keep dancing around the issue, saying "oh we need to respect parents rights and their worries," and i just fundamentally don't think that's true. it reads as cowardly reactionary garbage. just admit you think sex work is gross
Removed by mod
9 times out of 10 "parent's rights" just means the right to abuse and control your child. fuck parents rights
i agree i shouldn't have to live with that conflation! however we play the hands we're dealt, and the hand i happen to have been dealt is that a good chunk of this country thinks i am an inherently sexual being. and being a sex worker isn't really any different. both i and the sex worker are significantly less likely to be a danger to children than the child's parent, and there's no reason to prevent either of us from being teachers. if a parent can't explain to their child what being trans is and why it isn't a big deal that's on them. it's the same with sex work
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Yes they absolutely should. If you're going to be in close contact with children as an authority figure then you need to be held to a higher moral standard.
How about this: