Serious Teacher loses appeal to return to teaching because of history in pornography

[elcheeso]

Probably. Like I can understand that sort of instinctive negative reaction to shit like this, especially as a parent... but that doesn't make the firing right. People need to get over shit like that, it's really no different to people having that negative gut reaction to gay people teaching their kids (WHAT IF THEY TEACH THEM IT'S OK TO BE GAY???)... but outside of a couple of people in this thread, I'd wager most people would be against a gay person being fired for, IDK, pictures of them holding hands and/or kissing the same sex being on facebook or something.

 

[Fishy]

uh popemobile i'm not sure how radically your personality changes as the years go on, but having my own child is not going to change mine so much that my views on the current topic are going to be skewed indefinitely so just to accommodate my own child.

i'm not sure what your plans are for growing older, but mine have never been to become a crotchety fuck any less open-minded than i am right now.

 

[popemobile]

your brain changes during parenthood, especially for the mother who experiences more with pregnancy, child birth and nurturing, on top of a theoretical 18 year relationship you would have raising your child. To say you're not going to change your views regarding a child you don't even have is ignorant at best.

 

[Fishy]

sure, but that idea alone is still wholly influenced by the idea that regardless of how i feel about the sex industry now, my mentality will most likely take a huge 180 when my own child may choose to be involved with it. the bottom line is, regardless of what my child wants to do, it will be their decision at the end of the day, and how i feel about it should not influence their decision.

 

[Ninahaza]

whatever my reaction is going to be to my future 18 year old daughter breaking the news to me, whether good or bad, is probably going to start with the same face based solely on the sheer shock of the initial reveal

this face

Followed of course by my next reaction represented by this picture

Hide

And that reaction will be accompanied with the words "No, but seriously, what did you really want to tell me?".

 

[humbug]

you keep asking if we'd support our children venturing into porn, which is a question you know the answer to. i would certainly be shocked and apprehensive, i'd wonder why they'd be at that point in life? i'd enquire as to the reasoning behind it; is it for the money? is it just a career she'd enjoy and wants to do? obviously i'd try and help them avoid it, if it were just for financial reasons, but if i was sure they were doing it for the right reasons and also understood the risks, then it's not my decision to make and they will have my support regardless. i think it's a pretty silly question really, the answer is obvious for any parent. regardless of if i agree with it as a career choice or not, if they want to do it, there's nothing i can do to stop them. the best any parent could do in that situation is exactly what fishy described.

i think a better question is, if one of your kids went into porn and there was nothing you could do to prevent that from happening, does that make them terrible people with no self respect? are you instantly going to brand them as bad role models who should be judged solely on that one decision? remember, you have raised them for however many years, you know that they're a good person, but does this one decision erase all of that from your mind?

ms. halas is a person too, not just a body who fucks for money. i doubt her parents abandoned her when she decided to go into porn (for whatever reasons she did), but if they had have done, maybe she wouldn't have had the motivation to embark on her career in teaching? i don't know, it's all hypothetical, of course, but i don't think you'd just abandon your children because of one decision.

to address your exact reply to me:

I have no problem with the fact that she was in porn. I have a problem with that person trying to pass themselves off as a role model for children when the entire student body knows what she'll do for a couple hundo. If your idea of change is that we should start listening to a porn actress for guidance in life, I am happy to hear that I'm not conducive to change.

it's obviously apparent that you do have a problem with her being in porn. your comments throughout this thread are discriminating against her because of that decision alone. she's not trying to pass herself off as a role model for children, that's something some people in this thread have took from the situation and think it's admirable. obviously she kept her history in porn a secret, she wasn't going in every day telling the kids how she went from sucking dicks to teaching them science and how they should all look up to her because of it. she was just there as a teacher, she wanted to teach children and there's no evidence to show she was doing that inefficiently in any way.

i don't think we should listen to her for guidance in life because she was in porn. although some in this thread think that would make her a good role model for children, that's not where i'm coming from. my idea of change is not discriminating against someone with a history in any kind of pornography.

and this is the difference between how people's attitudes on this can make a difference. you said that you were "happy to hear that I'm not conducive to change" and that pretty much sums up where you're coming from. i can't see why and i have tried to understand, but i just can't see why you have such a negative stance towards ms. halas or anyone who has been in porn.

if someone got fired from working in mcdonalds because they were discovered to have a history in pornography, would you agree the firing is justified? perhaps if it affected their ability to do their job to the same standard as other employees with no such history. does her past in porn affect her ability to teach right now? yes, i think it does. but my idea of change is to eventually treat everyone equally in that regard. you're right, it is different because she's a teacher, it does have a more severe impact than if she was flipping burgers. there's no way i expect everyone to change right now because of one woman, i outlined my opinion's on that in my earlier posts. but change is gradual, i think better educating of children about tolerance in general (over a GRADUAL period of time) could lead to a reality where ms. halas wouldn't have to be dismissed because of this.

i do agree with you, i can understand why she had to be fired at this particular point in time. there was no way she'd be able to retain any control over her classroom after they had the videos. also the parents probably wouldn't be too happy, so the school cut her off rather than face the backlash. i explained my stance pretty substantially in my earlier posts. and that's the reason i disagreed with many people in this thread earlier on, but am completely with them right now. i can see why they fired her, but i still think it's unfair and ms. halas should have been treated better. will situations like this be dealt with in exactly the same way forever? maybe you think so, (as you said, you don't want to be conducive to my idea of change) but i would hate that to be the case. again, i agree with fishy, society can and will change; as you can tell by the general attitude in this thread, there are people moving in that direction right now, so that reality is not too far off.


EDIT:
i actually asked my mom about this on the way to the bank today, to see what an actual parent would say, rather than me just speculating. understanding the hypothetical scenario, she started by asking why i'd choose to do it, for what reasons, all the risks involved. i answered that i understand the risks, but just need the money. she said whatever i needed the money for, she'd help me out, rather than see me doing pornography. i then said, how about if i just enjoyed it? it was the career i wanted to go down. she said that if i was asking her at all, then i must care about and value her opinion, to which she said: "i would strongly advise you against it, even if it's only temporary, it could have a massive impact on future career choices" (lol). she said that "a lot of people have a negative opinion on it and will judge me just for doing it, even if it's for good reasons" (j7r). she then went on to ask what makes me think i'm qualified to be in porn anyway, "what makes you think if you went for an interview you be able to get it?" - she was alluding to me not being the typical looking porn guy, haha. i said how about if i was female, would she still have the same stance? she said that it would be a bit different if i was a woman, but i'm not so there's no point speculating on hypothetical-hypothetical scenarios. i concluded by asking her, if i'd took everything she had to say on board, but decided i was going to do it anyway, would she have a lesser opinion of me as a person? i won't lie, she was a lot more hesitant in answering this one. she said that "i don't have a problem with people being in porn, i can see why they do it, but it'd be different if it was someone you were closely related to". i dropped in a few classic j7r quotes and asked if she'd think i had no self respect, if i'd be an immoral person and if she'd forget everything else i'd done in life, (or had the potential to do in the future) and just choose to judge me based on this one decision. she replied: "i wouldn't be happy about it, but i'd get over it." my mom is a pretty old fashioned person too, if she can look past it, then i'm sure a younger guy who has already overcome difficulties in his own life could too. i am 100% confident that the younger people of today, when grown up, will have a much better attitude towards it too. and they will be the people running the school, the people on the board and the parents of the children attending.

 

[Eggbert]

doesn't matter, had sex. and by that I mean that it doesn't matter if she is justified or not, she will not be able to teach young immature kids who are still shaky with the whole idea well. How are they supposed to take her seriously when they saw her video the night before? It will be a few hundred times more awkward having the kids asking her questions for help, participating, and so on because of what she did. It's a private act, that's just how it is and honestly how it should be, and having it in a video for millions to see will not make for a comfortable learning environment or respect or a proper role model for kids to learn from. Whether you think it was ok for her to be in those videos or not, she will not be taken seriously but middle schoolers. It will affect her teaching ability. These aren't mature students, they are kids and will act as such. If you disagree, that's fine but there were quite a lot of strawmans thrown around in this thread. respond to what is being said and not what what you think is being said or what you turn arguments into.

 

[elcheeso]

Ignoring the one person in this thread who was actually in her 9th grade science classes isn't strawmaning either, obviously. Children clearly can't handle porn actresses, no matter what people with actual experience say! Makes you wonder if everyone in this thread has TheValkyries blocked or something, so few people have addressed the shit he's said thus far...

 

[Eggbert]

Judging by the reactions in the news it's pretty clear this wasn't going to slide by without any distractions or uproar. It's also funny how you think one person's experience somehow covers how every class of students would act, so please don't get snippy with your exclamations and sarcasms! Even in one school these are classes that are good and many that are bad. The next group of kids she had could have been monsters. It's anecdotal. Who's to say what the majority of students are like? I once had a teacher who clearly had some type of mental disability or difficulty, and nearly every class from year to year would throw things at her and scream, and this was high school.

 

[capefeather]

I love how people continue to ignore TheValkyries. Anecdotal evidence is still better than no evidence at all. In fact, just about all of us are probably going by anecdotal evidence. At least TheValkyries doesn't have to extrapolate.

Also since this was brought up:

15:58 Texas if it were worded say
15:58 Texas how can you judge the entirety of a person's actions based on one relatively small facet of their life
15:58 Texas it would be more relevant

I'm just going to point out that I edited the post that jrrrrrrr quoted, before he made his post, just to make it clearer as to the objection I have with his train of thought:

This may be a novel concept to you, but a person is not equal to his/her actions. I suppose one could argue that a person is equal to the sum of his/her actions, but we literally know nothing else about her life, so that's out the window. You can judge - even condemn - a person's actions without judging the person. You've done the opposite. Not only are you condemning this person, but you've also gone so far as to make shit up about her and the story overall to justify it.

Going from "she did porn at one time" to "she has a history of making bad decisions" is a much bigger stretch than just saying she is the sum of her actions. Others (especially Fishy) have said everything before I could about jrrrrrrr's posts. So it's just not worth dignifying with a further response. It's just not worth the effort of going through everything I find wrong with jrrrrrrr's arguments, because he's clearly not in it for the discussions.

Before I'm done with jrrrrrrr, one more thing: people aren't answering your question (actually they are, you're just ignoring them) because we know you expect the answer to be something like, "Imma be shocked and punish my child for considering such a bad decision, or just adamantly tell him/her not to do it." You're trying to project your own worldview and attitude on us, and it's not working.

I'll continue not being done with this thread, though, if there's anything else to talk about:

yes I'm sure you know how you'll react to your theoretical 18 year old daughter when you're currently 22 years old and don't have any kids

Well clearly that wasn't the point of what she said. The point is in what honestly should be happening between parents and their children: honest dialogue. From what I've seen, every child psychologist would tell you this. Still, nobody's perfect, and we don't even follow our own convictions all the time. A violent alcoholic still "knows" it's wrong to hit his wife, even if he does it. A parent finding out that his/her kid started smoking pot can still "know" such-and-such precise statements about pot, all the while raging on the kid for doing it. Logic and morality are independent of circumstances.

Conversations like what humbug had with his mom is the kind of thing that should be happening, regardless of whether parents actually end up doing it.

although some in this thread think that would make her a good role model for children, that's not where i'm coming from. my idea of change is not discriminating against someone with a history in any kind of pornography.

Well, no, I don't think anyone is saying that porn makes her a good role model for children. The point being made is that one can be a good role model despite not being a goddamn Mary Sue. People can be good role models despite having vices (here meant solely to mean activities that have some blatant danger to the person) like smoking, heavy drinking, and yes, promiscuity. As people have repeated over and over again, these things are just one aspect of a person. The rest is an unknown, so why are people so eager to fill in that unknown arbitrarily?

Moreover, vices could still be used in a positive way, especially if they're past vices. A teacher who's been in porn (or just plain promiscuity in general) is in a pretty good position of warning of the dangers of porn/promiscuity, IF it just HAS to come up (and I can't stress that enough). Maybe not every cloud has a silver lining, but this one certainly does. We shouldn't get so hung up on a negative, especially if we can make it into a positive. Getting hung up on negatives actually has the opposite effect of turning positives into negatives.

 

[Eggbert]

His class was ok with the teacher so most classes will be" nope, that's simply not going to be true.

 

[capefeather]

The opposite isn't true, either. Nobody here has given any evidence other than anecdotal and implied anecdotal.

 

[Eggbert]

The ball is on your court if you want to prove that most younger classes would be ok with a porn star. That would be a bold claim in the eyes of most. It would be pretty easy for the class douche to make innuendos like "I'm going to go stick my pencil in the sharpener LOL" and have the kiddies giggle.

 

[Deck Knight]

brb tagging in for j7r.

I tried to make this point delicately earlier, jrrr got to the bare bones of the issue though.

Having sex to be distributed for money is a base activity that plays on very base desires. Can anyone do porn? Yes. There's enough amateur content out there that anyone savvy enough can access it. People who are better at selling it manage to make actual money by making their viewers contribute to their personal accounts, or if they have real ambition at selling sex to their customers, they get a dedicated website and set up as a (morally questionable) legit business. There are also niches that exist that some find disgusting while others find invigorating. I imagine Chou's love for big boobs, like most people's, has an attached waist or ass size limit before it goes in the wrong direction.

For people who sincerely believe that porn is a morally neutral activity, explain why porn addiction hotlines exist in not insubstantial numbers. It is very easy to get hooked, and children who are just learning about sex and going through hormonal weirdness can be hooked far more easily on it. There are reasons why most communities have determined porn should not be legally accessible to legal minors. If you wanted to ignore it before because I'm the official acolyte of " really antiquated and dangerously limited idea of how human sexuality ought to work ," take it from the other guy - the one who won't follow that accusation up with "human sexuality only works one way - the way that makes babies. Everything else is a fetish of some kind because it's comparatively nonfunctional to the human race. Enjoy it as you like on your own time, just don't make me pay for its promotion."

There are, as I said a long time ago in this thread, also legal concerns with this. Viewing Tiffany Six's videos as a minor on the school's or your parents computers does create a potential legal liability. If it's a public school, that means the taxpayers foot the bill for the violation. The school does not have to put up with that potential complication by continuing to employ an attractive nuisance. The parents do not have to subject themselves to that attractive nuisance either, and public schools are employing this person on the public dime, meaning even parents that don't have their children in the school are at some level paying for it.

"Honest Dialogue" about pornography should include the reality it is morally objectionable work, and is associated with desperation for good reason. Prostitution is the world's oldest possession because the penis / testicles is the only organ that can compete with the brain for control of what the male body is doing any particular moment, and has been since creation. Women picked up on this quickly and used it to their advantage. Pornography is not noble (elevated), it is base. It is as base and primal as you can get. There is nothing to understand about it. We need less feel-goody dialogue BS in society, we should just call a spade a spade.

There is a right and there is a wrong, and they can be arrived at through reason. And even the people who harp about "discrimination" have never had any problem proclaiming that their morality is absolute - it's just the people who disagree that are in the wrong, evil, bigoted, misogynistic, etc.

Or to formulate it: "Porn itself is neither morally right nor morally wrong, but opposition to porn on the basis of its morality is absolutely a character flaw in the person that holds the view - and that view should subsequently be precluded from discussion because only flawed people hold it."

j7r is completely right to have his viewpoint - it has the weight of logic, reason, history, and evidence behind it. If he doesn't phrase it nicely enough, too bad. It doesn't make him misogynistic, it makes him honest.

 

[Pidge]

Hasn't anyone ever had a rather fat or obese teacher? A really ugly teacher? Or maybe a particularly sexy one? Did that trait cause them to be ineffective? How did they handle situations where a student would deride them? I don't know how many of you remember middle school, but in my experience, teachers had no problem writing students up for bad behavior and having the proper disciplinary action taken. After the first instance, the others would see 'okay let's not fuck with this person', or the first instance would not happen at all because of the fear of discipline. Also, after a while, the novelty factor should wear off. Five weeks into class, is every student going to think every minute how much of a fat fuck their teacher is or whether they would stick their dick in her while she's talking about photosynthesis? And if they do, maybe it's a problem with the kid.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Ok I'll try to summarize your points:

1) None of you would ever encourage your children to do porn
2) You think a pornstar turned teacher should be propped up in front of your kids as a success story
3) But you don't want them to follow their success story
4) She also lied to her employers (the public schools, paid for by us) and caused a shitstorm when her porn got out (also paid for by us)
5) I hate all women because I think it's no longer appropriate for her to teach at that school

Am I missing anything?

Yes, 6) Selling and starring in porn is just like being black or gay. Exactly like it.

don't get cute, you know as well as i do how loaded that phrase is. 'white people can be thugs too, its not a loaded term!!!'

Of course defiled is a loaded word, but it's appropriate for the description of a pornstar. You have to remember that I'm gay, when someone is defiled in a porn it's because of the acts, not because of their gender. You stretched and ran with one word out of a really long string of posts to intentionally misrepresent my opinion. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest to take one word out of at least one thousand to dismiss my entire post. The word defiled was probably the least important word out of that paragraph but you took the most out of it. You remind me of a Reddit poster, find the first "-ism" you can attach, throw an insult or two, done! collect upvotes. It contributes nothing to the discussion.

Going from "she did porn at one time" to "she has a history of making bad decisions" is a much bigger stretch than just saying she is the sum of her actions. Others (especially Fishy) have said everything before I could about jrrrrrrr's posts. So it's just not worth dignifying with a further response. It's just not worth the effort of going through everything I find wrong with jrrrrrrr's arguments, because he's clearly not in it for the discussions.

You must have missed the part where she intentionally deceived her employers (aka us, the american taxpayer) about her past work history, so much that the judge even called her out on it. There is nothing prejudicial or discriminatory about this. Her actions and resume indicate, to me, that she is not a good candidate to teach middle school children. It's fine for you to disagree, but please give me something more than your embarrassing straw men.

But your sentiment is right, we should be encouraging each other to ignore anything we disagree with instead of trying to find a factual justification for our beliefs. Oh, wait a second. You still haven't said anything other than "if you don't think it's cool to have kids seeing porn of their teacher then youre obviously a bigot who hates women". Get off your high horse

 

[verbatim]

1) None of you would ever encourage your children to do porn

I wouldn't encourage my child to become a janitor, that does not mean I have a moral opposition to janitors.

2) You think a pornstar turned teacher should be propped up in front of your kids as a success story

I wouldn't tell my young children about that, (what with it not being the biggest part of her life and all) but yes, I would consider it a success story.

3) But you don't want them to follow their success story

If by some means I am unable to give my children a good life and they manage to build one themselves anyways, then yes, I would be very proud.

4) She also lied to her employers (the public schools, paid for by us) and caused a shitstorm when her porn got out (also paid for by us)

Not answering an unasked question is in no way analogous to lying. Would you look down on someone for not divulging his/her Religion/race/sexual orientation/etc upon application for a job?

 

[Fishy]

so who's the worse role model, women that figured out that can exploit (clearly basic and stupid men with functioning genitals) into paying to view their naked bodies engaging in sexual activities, or the men that don't realize they shouldn't have to pay to see this type of content and maybe should find it in their own personal, private lives?

"women figuring out this weakness and taking advantage of it" is laughable. so basically, it's excusable for all the poor, base men out there succumbing to porn addiction and morally reprehensible activities, because of their JUNK. it's not their fault! the wicked women of the west have tapped into their inner succubus, and are lording over everyone with the power of their vaginas. dastardly - i smell a lifetime movie.

and, i wonder who is filming/directing porn half the time? my guess is that it's a man! a man who imagines what he believes other men want to see (for his personal genre of porn) and so he hires both men and women alike to make his vision a reality. yes, i bet this man was somehow brain washed by a woman long before he decided to become a director and filmmaker for porn.

not to mention that women enjoy pornography too - and not because their clits tell them that they should. eat, sleep, fuck, die. that's what pretty much every person in the entire universe has in common, and their choice to indulge in any one of those "base desires" does not make them any less respectable, intelligent, applicable to be a role model, etc. if you are uncomfortable embracing every aspect of your humanity, to whatever degree you desire, that is, and will only ever be your problem. anyone who is NOT YOU that makes it their problem, is the one with issues.

i won't pretend that i understand the relationship between a man's brain and his body, and just how true the lack of ample blood existing to operate the two simultaneously is, but i think even hinting at the idea that a man can ever be victimized by his biology is utter bull shit. when you are aroused, you do not fall into a semi-catatonic state. you do not lose your ability to decipher between right and wrong. you may feel it would be so much more fun to ignore your ability to function as a decent human being, but you are in no way, shape or form unable to be a critically thinking adult when you're aroused. if you have a porn addiction, then perhaps you are weak minded, but i don't want to delve too far into that and discuss how different people are more susceptible to addiction, blah blah blah. pornography may be an exploitation of base desires, but so is the dollar menu at mcdonald's. just because you don't like sex doesn't mean it is any worse than overindulging in any other basic desire. why can't anyone be objective!!!!!!

the only part of deck knight's post that i somewhat agree with is the idea that anyone who disagrees about flaunting their sexuality or engaging in pornography is a bigot or misogynist of sorts. it is perfectly fine for you to personally not like how other people express and explore their singular sexuality, and you don't have to like the idea of pornography yourself, but as soon as you start claiming that it is a basic, desperate profession or desire that only lesser people than you yourself enjoy, then you're a dick. the simple fact is that one detail about a person does not define their entire character. it can allude to their personality traits and what else they might enjoy, but no two cases are the same.

 

[Ulttimaa]

this thread sucks

 

[ryan]

I wouldn't encourage my child to become a janitor, that does not mean I have a moral opposition to janitors.

That is like saying, "It is illegal to cut people. Surgeons cut people, so they should be arrested."

Or I could say, "I wouldn't encourage my child to become a serial killer, and while that does not mean that I have a moral opposition to serial killers, I do."

The problem is that the two statements can not be compared because they are not relevant to one another. I'm not saying that I have an issue with pornography or porn stars because frankly, I could give two shits less what somebody decides to do with his or her life. But this argument is not a valid one.

Not answering an unasked question is in no way analogous to lying. Would you look down on someone for not divulging his/her Religion/race/sexual orientation/etc upon application for a job?

This is a flawed argument as well. It is illegal for a potential employer to ask those types of questions on an application whether you are trying to become a teacher or a frycook at a fucking McDonald's. It doesn't matter what you are going into. These questions are not ones that can be asked. Job history, however, is one that almost any job will ask to see. On most applications (I am assuming ones for teaching positions are probably the same), it explicitly states that anything left out of the application that would have led to the candidate not being hired is grounds for termination, in the same way that if the employer finds out that you lied on your application, you can be terminated for it.

While misleading is not explicitly lying, they're not inherently different either. If my mom were to ask me if I got a new phone (but I actually purchased a refurbished phone), and I said no, I would be leading her to believe that I still had my same phone and had not replaced it, knowing that she just wanted to know if I replaced my phone. In this way, I am not explicitly lying to her, but I am leading her to believe something that is not true which is basically the same thing. You could say that the teacher was not lying or misleading because she was never asked directly if she had a past in pornography, but that is not the case either because when she applied for the job, I am positive that her job history was requested.

In the end, I don't really know exactly how I feel about the whole thing. I do not know how I would feel about my child being taught by a former porn star because I neither have nor want children. My view on that will probably never be 100% clear. But I can understand why parents may have an issue with this. And while many people here on the former would not have an issue with that or an issue with their child becoming a porn star, the vast majority of people in general would have an issue with it. What's more important though is how the parents of the students being taught by the teacher felt.

Whether or not I agree with a former porn star becoming a teacher is frankly irrelevant. The thing I do have an issue with is that she omitted the information from her resume/application to become a teacher. She was, in fact, being dishonest by not including this information whether we all think so or not. Obviously she realized that this would keep her from being hired or else she would have included it when she applied for the position. That said, now that she has been terminated from her position, she cannot blame the school board, the faculty, the students, or anybody else for her termination but herself.

 

[Trax]

Since when do kids look up to teachers, people using the 'role model' argument.

The thing I do have an issue with is that she omitted the information from her resume/application to become a teacher. She was, in fact, being dishonest by not including this information whether we all think so or not.

I don't include shit on my resume all the time, that job I had in the high school book store for instance is irrelevant to my current professional status so it's not on there as it serves only to take up space. It's not dishonesty to remove irrelevant work activities from your resume.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Since when do kids look up to teachers, people using the 'role model' argument.

Anyone that kids spend 30 hours every week with is a role model whether they like them or not

Not answering an unasked question is in no way analogous to lying. Would you look down on someone for not divulging his/her Religion/race/sexual orientation/etc upon application for a job?

The judge said she was deceitful, I am not the one you have to convince regarding that facet of the story. We have the same sources of information here. And once again, religion/race/orientation/etc is a terrible analogy. It would be more analogous to hiding an old drug addiction. Not technically illegal but it's quite a hill to climb.

As a gay person it's getting really offensive to hear how being in porn is just like being gay. People are not born on their knees in front of a film crew. Apparently all of us are sympathetic to discrimination against gays, and I am happy about that, but please take the next step and try to understand the perspective of one.

And regarding your other points: like I said, people can draw the line anywhere they want personally. I just think it's really really strange that you guys think the opposition to kids becoming a janitor is the same as your opposition to them becoming a porn star. Maybe I gained more respect for janitors and burger flippers since I had that quality of job myself for a while.

i won't pretend that i understand the relationship between a man's brain and his body, and just how true the lack of ample blood existing to operate the two simultaneously is, but i think even hinting at the idea that a man can ever be victimized by his biology is utter bull shit. when you are aroused, you do not fall into a semi-catatonic state. you do not lose your ability to decipher between right and wrong. you may feel it would be so much more fun to ignore your ability to function as a decent human being, but you are in no way, shape or form unable to be a critically thinking adult when you're aroused.

Yes we suffer from all of those things when sufficiently aroused. That isn't a stereotype. This isn't "j7r such a pig omg", you can google the science of this.

 

[Glen]

Of course defiled is a loaded word, but it's appropriate for the description of a pornstar. You have to remember that I'm gay, when someone is defiled in a porn it's because of the acts, not because of their gender. You stretched and ran with one word out of a really long string of posts to intentionally misrepresent my opinion. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest to take one word out of at least one thousand to dismiss my entire post. The word defiled was probably the least important word out of that paragraph but you took the most out of it. You remind me of a Reddit poster, find the first "-ism" you can attach, throw an insult or two, done! collect upvotes. It contributes nothing to the discussion.

i'm not being intellectually dishonest at all. you said people were putting words in your mouth and that you would feel the same way if a man was in porn, and i pointed out that defiled is unquestionably not a gender-neutral term (not about to argue about gay sex with you, and honestly it's even stranger to me that you, a gay guy, would consider being fucked up the ass by another dude being 'defiled'), and that using it over just saying 'having sex on camera' betrays a complete lack of gender-neutrality on the issue.

saying that you didn't say something, then having it shown that you did only to quip back with 'youre just being intellectually dishonest by cherry picking' is uh, you know, intellectually dishonest.

Maybe I gained more respect for janitors and burger flippers since I had that quality of job myself for a while.

lol wow, seeing how in your eyes jobs that 'literally anyone can do' are an admission that one is incapable of anything more, it's pretty surprising that you have any respect for these people at all. them working those shitty jobs belies how little respect they have for themselves, doesn't it?

 

[Fishy]

i wasn't even addressing you, j7r, when i said that? as for "suffering," is this why girls who suffer from rape were asking for it, because they dressed in such a way that their attacker was completely helpless to combat their personal arousal? how about you google image "kiss my ass" and pick your favorite to portray what i think about all of that

 

[Mastadi]

As a gay person it's getting really offensive to hear how being in porn is just like being gay.

I think you're misunderstanding the point of that analogy. There's obviously a huge difference between being a porn actor/actress and being of non-heterosexual orientation, but the point of the analogy is that both groups are being treated differently from the norm despite their unusual state not really relating to the situation at hand.

And regarding your other points: like I said, people can draw the line anywhere they want personally. I just think it's really really strange that you guys think the opposition to kids becoming a janitor is the same as your opposition to them becoming a porn star. Maybe I gained more respect for janitors and burger flippers since I had that quality of job myself for a while.

I don't think there's really any direct opposition to those jobs, but it's just that they're relatively low skill and income professions with little possibilities for advancement. Most people would rather have their children become doctors, lawyers, rocket scientist or any number of widely respected and/or profitable vocations.