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.
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.
Should things that are “social goods” pay living wage? Or should we expect people to forgo survivable wages in order to do good deeds? Most of the schools I’ve worked at have been hiring randoms with no qualifications because there’s not a lot of folks willing to work 80 hours a week for “maybe enough for one person to survive on if you’re never hoping to ever have a kid or home of your own.”
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.
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.
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 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.
No, you will get in the orphan crushing machine and you will fucking like it.
Source?
Source is their ass.
I thought the same.
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.
I don’t recall saying it doesn’t pay well.
I also don’t recall anyone worth knowing saying that anything that pays well must be a social good.
The objections to this comment are quite telling in their shallow understanding of… Everything, really.
Should things that are “social goods” pay living wage? Or should we expect people to forgo survivable wages in order to do good deeds? Most of the schools I’ve worked at have been hiring randoms with no qualifications because there’s not a lot of folks willing to work 80 hours a week for “maybe enough for one person to survive on if you’re never hoping to ever have a kid or home of your own.”
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.
Of course not. Why would you assume a salesperson be good at teaching manufacturing of what they sell?
Also, equating sex to drugs is pretty telling about how this person thinks.
You make it sound like she’s doing it for fun
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.
Pretty telling to see which response(s) you’ve ignored.
deleted by creator