Regardless of the fact that there’s no way many of her students will be mature enough to handle this information without being disruptive, there’s a difference between supporting life decisions and accepting them.
Like the difference between fatphobia and supporting healthy lifestyles, right? One is cruelty, the other is not supporting bad habits.
Same with prostitution, it’s one thing to not oppress sex workers, it’s another to tell kids to become sex workers. Hopefully she’s not doing that but is normalizing the profession really what you want around teenagers?
No parent wants to find out their kid started turning tricks because Ms Smith seemed cool.
Especially when her “Ways to Spot A Dangerous John” course wasn’t approved by the principal.
Why would you assume she was “promoting sex work” instead just teaching kids “normal” sex ed? That’s a very strong assumption, and the article says nothing about that. Do you have an alternative information source that says otherwise?
Her existence as a teacher is tacit approval of her side gig by the school. Her existence in the classroom promotes it as a viable career.
There’s always a fine line to tread by institutions in charge of minors between trusting your kids to be mature enough to handle things like this and knowing how vulnerable they are to making poorly thought out decisions.
I wouldn’t want a prostitute teaching classes on sex ed, and I wouldn’t want a drug dealer teaching chemistry, and just to be clear, I use drugs and have used prostitutes.
I just didn’t do it and won’t support it around people whose brains are literally unfinished.
Her existence in the classroom promotes it as a viable career.
Her need for a second source of income suggests teaching is not a viable career.
If you really don’t want teachers doing sex work on the side, you could just pay them enough to not need a second job in the first place.
Her existence as a teacher is tacit approval of her side gig by the school. Her existence in the classroom promotes it as a viable career.
Source?
Seems to be a viable career, if she can charge a $3000 cancellation fee…
I love how you admit to “using” prostitutes, because you don’t seem to view them as human beings. Seems like what’s good for the gander isn’t good for the goose.
and I wouldn’t want a drug dealer teaching chemistry,
Of course not. Why would you assume a salesperson be good at teaching manufacturing of what they sell?
Her existence as a teacher is tacit approval of her side gig by the school. Her existence in the classroom promotes it as a viable career.
The logic of your argument follows that teaching as a career itself shouldn’t be presented as a viable career is it requires a second job to finance the career of teaching.
Her getting fired means she’ll likely have to rely more on her prostitution to survive. This means the school has now increased the amount of prostitution. How are the schools against it if that’s the case? Maybe the schools should increase teachers wages so that they don’t need to be a prostitute.
It is massively naive to think that zero of the people who are students right now will ever do sex work at some point in the future. Some of them definitely will. Even if you don’t agree that sex work is valid and honorable work (which you clearly don’t agree with) there’s no way to stop people from doing it despite how vilified or illegal it is in any society.
Given that reality, a course teaching people how to avoid the dangerous elements of a job that some of those people will eventually do, sounds like a great course. Having a sex worker who knows WTF she’s talking about teach it? That’s fucking amazing.
Active shooter drills? Super chill.
Woman had sex? Mind blown and values changed forever!
I wish you could see how you sound.
Some people view sex as something intrinsically beyond the purely transactional, and for those people it’s immoral to treat sexual intercourse as a commodity. I’m somewhat undecided, but it does seem a bit like the final frontier of neoliberalism.
What a useless word soup. Sex can absolutely be transactional if it suits two consenting parties. Your world view being as narrow as a drinking straw isn’t a basis for how the rest of society chooses to live.
Yeah, before neoliberalism prostitution didn’t exist, so clearly it is good to victimize prostitutes, as that’s just sticking it to neoliberals, the ones who invented prostitution.
Do you think sex ed somehow cheapens sex? People understanding sex only makes it better for everyone in every way.
There is nothing about sex ed that teaches anyone that sex is a commodity. My experience in public school was there was no morality involved whatsoever. It was very sterile and 100% about learning technical shit about how our bodies work. Invaluable information, I might add.
And I grew up in what many would consider a liberal area, especially in terms of our local public education.
Freaks like you who are obsessed with which genitals a child has, are incapable of separating the physiological aspects of sex from the emotional ones. Sex ed is not sexy, dude, it was awkward as fuck. If anything, it turned me off of sex.
It’s like saying that learning about the chemical processes used to make meth in chemistry class is the same thing as smoking it.
Especially when her “Ways to Spot A Dangerous John” course wasn’t approved by the principal.
It’s always a sign that you have a great argument when you straight up make up facts.
Seriously. This is a human being we’re talking about, who’s now lost her livelihood, and will possibly need to resort to prostitution again to make a living because of it.
