(no subject)

[highlyeccentric]

Teacher sacked for appearing in Cleo

Ok, how many primary school children read Cleo? Very few, I'd say. So the problem is with the children's parents finding out that *shock* their kid's teacher has a sex life! OMG!

If it were *high* school, it'd be another matter- most of her female students would be reading the magazine, and students seeing their teacher naked would be... not a good plan. But *primary school kids shouldn't be reading Cleo anyway*! Since when is it inappropriate for a teacher of children to be known to have sex?

*Mutters and grumbles*

Ok, that's my rant for today.

Comments

[goblinpaladin.livejournal.com]

But unfortunately, her personal life did impact upon her job, because she took it into the public realm by choosing to participate in the Cleo story. Not expecting that sort of revelation to potentially have an impact on one's job is IMO a bit naïve.

True. But only because we live in a society where a woman enjoying sex is eeevilll. It wasn't even a pornographic magazine, where one could almost make the argument that it would be somehow damaging for the children to see that.

It was naive, but not because she did something wrong- but because the school acted badly and she should have known that it would.

She has a position of responsibility to young kids.

How, exactly, did she violate that responsibility?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is something in her contract of employment about behaving with propriety because of the very nature of her employment...

As a public school teacher, she wouldn't have a contract. And if she did, that would be (dodgy, but realistic) ground for firing, and there would therefore be no media involvement- an open and shut case.

Besides. Not a pornographic photo shoot, at all. The photos are decent shots of a couple embracing.

[niamh-sage.livejournal.com]

My problem isn't with her having a sex-life. My problem is with her putting a very personal part of her life into the public domain where her students could (potentially) see it. Of course there's nothing wrong with the naked human body, or with the sight of a couple embracing. For me, it's the squick-factor involved, of having something so personal on public display. That's my personal reaction, because I would be deeply uncomfortable with doing something like that, but I realise it can't necessarily be generalised to the whole population.

BTW, as I said before, I do think there's a time and place for children to learn about sex, and I don't think it's through seeing their teacher naked in a magazine, no matter how much we might want to rail against society's unfair standards regarding women and sex. That's what I meant by her responsibility to the children.

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

BTW, as I said before, I do think there's a time and place for children to learn about sex, and I don't think it's through seeing their teacher naked in a magazine

of course not! But where in this does anyone think the children would see their teacher in Cleo?

[niamh-sage.livejournal.com]

See my answer to your other comment.

[daiskmeliadorn.livejournal.com]

hmm.

i don't think you can ever control the 'time and place' in which children learn about sex.

i've never tried bringing up kids but i imagine for most people awkward moments like if your kid found this picture are the main times in which conversation about sexuality opens up? i mean it seems to me something that surely parents deal with a fair bit and no-one is hurt? why can't the parent just explain to the kid that, yes, even your teachers have husbands/wives and love each other very much etc. it wouldn't be massively different from kid asking awkward questions about a billboard of a random naked woman/couple?