Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Kal'Stang said:

I've heard far worse things said about teachers.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

Of course this is about the children and the BEST learning environment for them. Sorry, but this woman's past is a huge obstacle to that, especially for the male students. Perhaps what the parents think about it IS also included in this decision. So what?

I couldn't care less about a "traditional" America, whatever that means. FYI, my own upbringing was FAR from traditional. I am simply looking at this as what is the best learning environment for the children and would this woman's past be a distraction from that goal, and the answer is yes, it would be a distraction.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

Again, this is idiotic because it is their TEACHER that they all saw effing multiple guys, etc. Good Lord, is it going to take someone to hammer that bit of info into your brain?

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

Or she can teach about how to spread your legs for the BEST camera angle. :lamo

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

Heck, we should let murders, pimps and drug dealers teach our kids too, maybe even some "reformed" pedobears. :shrug:

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

Hey, why don't you tell me what kind of redeeming qualities a life in the pornography business brings women. I'd really be interested in the answer to that question. Also, how is it NOT demeaning to women?

Certainly, there are kinds of pornography out there that are "less" demeaning to women. However, all in all, pornography serves one purpose. We ALL know what that purpose is. It isn't to make women look "equal" to their male counterparts in porn, that's for sure. It treats women as sex toys, and one doesn't have to be a radical feminist to realize that it objectifies women.

Now, I don't have a problem with men watching porn. I've watched it with boyfriends in the past, and it was quite fun I must say. However, this is a different situation when it is a teacher and impressionable (YES, IMPRESSIONABLE) children.

Click to expand...

Most male performers in heterosexual porn are paid less than their female counterparts. Ron Jeremy has commented on the pay scale of women and men in the sex film industry: in 2003 "Girls can easily make 100K-250K per year, plus stuff on the side like strip shows and appearances. The average male makes $40,000 a year."[21] and in 2008, "The average guy gets $300 to $400 a scene, or $100 to $200 if he's new. A woman makes $100,000 to $250,000 at the end of the year."[22] In 2011, the manager of Capri Anderson said, "A contract girl will only shoot for one company, she won’t shoot for anyone else. Most actresses in the adult industry are free agents – they’ll shoot for anyone. Most contract girls make $60,000 a year. In one year, a contract girl will shoot, on average, four movies and each movie takes about two or three weeks to shoot."[23]


The Los Angeles Times reported that the pay rates for a female actress performing male and female scenes were $700 to $1,000.[24]

Some state that gay male porn generally pays men much more than heterosexual porn.[citation needed] Men who identify themselves as heterosexual but perform in gay pornography are said to do gay-for-pay (notably Wolf Hudson). This means they perform in gay movies only for the paycheck, not because of any personal attraction to men.

According to producer Seymore Butts, who runs his own sex-film recruitment agency, as well as producing sex films; "depending on draw, female performers who perform in both straight and lesbian porn earn more than those who do [just heterosexual scenes] usually make about US$200–800 while those who only do oral sex (blow job) usually only make about US$100–300 for the scene".[25] It was also noted in an interview conducted by Local10 news of Florida that individuals were offered $700 for sexual intercourse while shooting a scene of the popular series Bang Bus in 2004.[26] According to Videobox, a porn website, actresses make these rates: Blowjobs: $200–$400; Straight sex: $400–$1,200; Anal sex: $900–$1,500; Double Penetration: $1,200–$1,600; Double anal: $2,000. For more unusual fetishes, women generally get 15% extra.[27]

In 2001, actress Chloe said of pay-rates; "In Gonzo, you're paid not by the picture, but by the scene. So it's girl-girl: $700, plus $100 for an anal toy. Boy-girl: $900. Anal: $1,100. Solo: $500. DP: $1,500."[15]

Additionally, besides appearing in films, porn stars often make money from endorsements and appearance fees. For instance, in 2010, some night clubs were paying female porn stars and Playboy Playmates to appear there to act as draws for the general public; Jesse Jane was reported to have been paid between $5,000 to $10,000 for one appearance by a Chicago club.[28]

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

Here's one...



Link

Notice the payrate of the women vs the guys. Bet you that women won't use that as an example of unequality of pay in the workforce huh? Just outta curiosity, and you don't have to answer but...do you make as much as those women? You'll also note that it says that most of the actresses in the porn industry are free agents, which means they get to chose what type of porn they make. Not exactly demeaning if they choose what they are in is it? Now if you think its demeaning then thats on you. Not them.

Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:

What if it were her twin that had done the porn? The kids would then be able to see a woman who looked completely identical to their teacher do porn. Wouldn't that be equally as distracting? She should then be fired right?




Ohhhh!! She was their TEACHER!?? Well I guess that makes this horse of a different color!

No **** it was their teacher, that was the entire basis of this thread. I've still yet to hear any actual ways that it would disturb class other than "it would" and "it'd probably be distracting".



She never said a word about it.

I think you're going off the deep end now. Let's keep this realistic, kay?



Every single one of those things is a crime. She isn't a criminal.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

What??? That's just nuts. The MONEY has nothing to do with the degradation of women. That would be things like letting a group of guys circle jerk on you and performing sex acts on them all. THAT is the degrading part. WTF?

Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:

What if it were her twin that had done the porn? The kids would then be able to see a woman who looked completely identical to their teacher do porn. Wouldn't that be equally as distracting? She should then be fired right?




Ohhhh!! She was their TEACHER!?? Well I guess that makes this horse of a different color!

No **** it was their teacher, that was the entire basis of this thread. I've still yet to hear any actual ways that it would disturb class other than "it would" and "it'd probably be distracting".

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

Perhaps you missed it but those women CHOSE to do the scenes that they are in. If they do not consider it demeaning then who are you to say otherwise? And the payrate shows that those women are well compensated for the acts they do and it shows that those women no doubt negotiated for that money, which when all combined shows independence, and security in themselves and their bodies. I know some women who are not nearly that secure about themselves (not even counting their bodies), including my wife. I would bet you know of some also.

If you want to know what the real demeaning of women actually is then talk to Tigger or go visit Stormfront or some radical religious forum...or go to a country like Iran where if a woman even talks to another man without a male family member around or authorizing it they get stoned. You'll see plenty of men demeaning women and know the difference between what happens in a porn and the reality of real demeaning of women is.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

Good Lord! If you're denying that this would be a distraction to the students, then you are just blind, completely blind to the realities of life and how society views certain things and how, yes, doing certain things in your life can completely eff up your future in other areas. That is just a fact of life. This woman isn't special. I'm sure she isn't the first, and she most likely won't be the last to get fired from a job because of something in her past.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

And does anybody actually think that young kids who watched her performance in these films are just going to forget about that? Also, does anyone think that pornography (especially this particular brand) is not harmful in some way on a young boy's views of women?

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

Good Lord! If you're denying that this would be a distraction to the students, then you are just blind, completely blind to the realities of life and how society views certain things and how, yes, doing certain things in your life can completely eff up your future in other areas. That is just a fact of life. This woman isn't special. I'm sure she isn't the first, and she most likely won't be the last to get fired from a job because of something in her past.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

And does anybody actually think that young kids who watched her performance in these films are just going to forget about that? Also, does anyone think that pornography (especially this particular brand) is not harmful in some way on a young boy's views of women?

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

What??? That's just nuts. The MONEY has nothing to do with the degradation of women. That would be things like letting a group of guys circle jerk on you and performing sex acts on them all. THAT is the degrading part. WTF?

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

No they probably won't. Other children also probably won't forget the hot teacher they fantasized about either. Whats your point?

Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:

So you don't want to answer the twin question? It would be identically disruptive of the class, according to you, so what's the difference?

Click to expand...

LOL, it's because that is a situation beyond HER control. She didn't do the pornography in that situation. Perhaps it would still be a distraction? Who's to say it wouldn't be?

If it were in her employment contract that she could've never been a pornstar before, or if she were asked "Were you a porn star?" prior to employment, then yes, they should've been able to turn her down for that.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that. If they don't want "that type" they should specify such. :shrug:

If that's their career choice, it's none of your business to come along and say "You're degrading yourself". Her decision, and her fat paycheck.

Click to expand...

You're wrong. If I lived in that community, and my child was one of her students, I would most certainly have a say (one way or another) and it would most certainly be my business.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

No, it would be a distraction. But that distraction is no worse or less than that of them having a teacher that they think is hot and fantasize over.

Click to expand...

Holy smokes! It most certainly WOULD be more of a distraction.

No they probably won't. Other children also probably won't forget the hot teacher they fantasized about either. Whats your point?

Click to expand...

WOW! :lol:

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

It's demeaning in general. Especially when it is young boys who are the viewers. They are developing their perceptions, and pornography gives them certain perceptions about women in general.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

Holy smokes! It most certainly WOULD be more of a distraction.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

WOW! :lol:

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

LOL, it's because that is a situation beyond HER control. She didn't do the pornography in that situation. Perhaps it would still be a distraction? Who's to say it wouldn't be?

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

I can agree with that. If they don't want "that type" they should specify such. :shrug:



You're wrong. If I lived in that community, and my child was one of her students, I would most certainly have a say (one way or another) and it would most certainly be my business.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

"Its demeaning in general". IE YOU think its demeaning and therefore it must be demeaning for them and everyone else. :roll:

As for the young boys who are the viewers...how is it demeaning them again? As for their perceptions of women, sorry but reality shows that there are plenty of men who have watched porn when they were kids and yet they still have respect, and show respect towards women. Indeed I would bet that 99% of the men here who have watched porn in their younger years have a healthy respect for women. (would love to say 100% but Tigger sorta blows that away...of course with his perception of the way life should be I've got a feeling he's never watched a porno in his life so maybe I can?)

Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:

Well if it's such an uncontrollable distraction, and that's the reason she should be fired, then she should be fired if her twin did porn.





Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I call to the stand my star witnesses, Van Halen.

They will testify that having the hots for your teacher is not a new concept that was invented with the internet, and that everybody still managed to make it through school back in the 80's.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

Again, it's a different thing to fantasize about someone than to actually observe them in the act. If you can't understand that and why that is, then I don't know what else to say.

Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:

Well if it's such an uncontrollable distraction, and that's the reason she should be fired, then she should be fired if her twin did porn.





Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I call to the stand my star witnesses, Van Halen.

They will testify that having the hots for your teacher is not a new concept that was invented with the internet, and that everybody still managed to make it through school back in the 80's.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

I'm going to look into that a little bit and see what I can find out about studies done on how pornography effects how young boys view women in general. So I'll get back to you later.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

Don't bother, I already know most of what will be said. And it will all say that it "harms children". And yet reality always says different. That by the time those children grow up and become adults most of them are well adjusted young men and women.

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

Sorry, but I'm still looking at several studies. I will listen to the results of the scientific analysis of the data collected rather than some dude on the net, thanks. :roll:

Click to expand...