Hewer on 15/5/2008 at 14:56
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
But we hold up certain people up to stupid standards. There should be no reason that a teacher should not be on tv in a bikini, or in a picture like the one in question. In fact I don't think there is a profession or role that should preclude you from it. I'm very wary of rules/opinions about people in certain jobs because invariably they are taken too far.
I completely agree. The problem is that it invariably goes too far the other way, too.
Queue on 15/5/2008 at 15:15
Is that why people are pointing, and gathering sticks and pitchforks?
Ah crap--someone just lit a torch...
Kolya on 15/5/2008 at 22:52
Quote Posted by Hewer
I completely agree. The problem is that it invariably goes too far the other way, too.
And so began the old "Why-There-Are-Rules"-speech.
mopgoblin on 15/5/2008 at 23:10
Quote Posted by Stitch
Gender-based double standards are bad, of course, but I don't think it's really too much to ask that schoolteachers keep their skivvies on in public.
"in public" is a pretty misleading term to be using here. It suggests something like a busy street, not a page inside a magazine. If you don't want to see the picture or read the article, it's <em>remarkably</em> easy to not buy the magazine. Since everyone has a genuine option to not read the magazine, there's clearly no abuse of power or authority involved, and thus it is indeed too much to ask.
SubJeff on 15/5/2008 at 23:18
I don't think that the optional access aspect is that important. That would also be true of proper porn, but would you accept her doing that? In a school uniform lol?
mopgoblin on 15/5/2008 at 23:37
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I don't think that the optional access aspect is that important. That would also be true of proper porn, but would you accept her doing that? In a school uniform lol?
I reckon the optional access aspect is important because in this situation "optional access" implies "no abuse of power". Abuse of power is the only thing that could justify limiting this freedom. So yeah, I'd say proper porn would also be fine (school uniform or not).
Stitch on 16/5/2008 at 04:09
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
"in public" is a pretty misleading term to be using here.
Pictured in a mass-distributed magazine sounds pretty fucking public to me.
I don't think she should have been canned, but I can at least understand the argument. This at least has a few shades of gray.
SubJeff on 16/5/2008 at 08:41
Dude, this a guy who thinks it's okay if she did porn.
o lol SE the moderate and Stitch the conservative itt!! ha ha
Scots Taffer on 16/5/2008 at 08:49
I think this is all pretty retarded and despite my position as a moderate liberal (everything in moderation) I think it'd be a far more justifiable situation if she'd done porn as opposed to this sort of thing. There are more ridiculous examples though, I recently heard of some woman who got caught having been a pleasure cruise hostess girl in a former life (not literally, but in her youth) and got fired for it.
Kolya on 16/5/2008 at 10:33
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
a pleasure cruise hostess girl
...
:cool:
