She can cheer anytime...

[Flexin]

Originally Posted by NONE_too_SOFT

People that are getting naked in front of the camera should not be allowed to work near kids. period. Too many bad things could come from it, and what kind of role model is that supposed to represent for the girls she coaches?

I would let her coach my daughter. Everyone said she was a great coach. That is what matters. If she was posing nude with under age kids then I would agree, but because she hasn't I don't agree.

James

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by Flexin

I would let her coach my daughter. Everyone said she was a great coach. That is what matters. If she was posing nude with under age kids then I would agree, but because she hasn't I don't agree.

James

I don't have a kid (that I know of) but I don't believe I'd care if I found out my kid's teacher posed in playboy, was a stripper or even a prostitute. If they do a good job educating my child that is what matters.

Now if she talked openly to the students about her being in Playboy or stuff of that nature it'd be a different story.

Which Playboy has become socially acceptable and just about every 14 year old girl gets a tan line of the playboy bunny. Then again I don't consider Playboy to be nudity considering just about everything is airbrushed or computer edited. I have more respect for a woman in a skanky magazine because they don't edit that much if any. The body you see on the pages is the body you get in real life.

[Flexin]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

I don't have a kid (that I know of) but I don't believe I'd care if I found out my kid's teacher posed in playboy, was a stripper or even a prostitute. If they do a good job educating my child that is what matters.

Now if she talked openly to the students about her being in Playboy or stuff of that nature it'd be a different story.

Which Playboy has become socially acceptable and just about every 14 year old girl gets a tan line of the playboy bunny. Then again I don't consider Playboy to be nudity considering just about everything is airbrushed or computer edited. I have more respect for a woman in a skanky magazine because they don't edit that much if any. The body you see on the pages is the body you get in real life.

When it comes down to her talking about it to students, it would be depend on the age for me. If it was grade 11 or 12 I might not have a problem with it. It would also how she talked about it. If she was just giving info on it and the pros and cons then maybe. Its a tough call. IMO I don't think it would be a good idea to bring it up if no body knew about it. If it came up then explaining it wouldn't be a bad idea.

Its a tough call but I don't think she should have been fired. I think the parent that called it in should get kicked in the teeth.

James

[Flexin]

I would have more of a problem with someone preaching religion in the classroom more then talking about playboy.

James

[Particle Man]

Originally Posted by Flexin

I would have more of a problem with someone preaching religion in the classroom more then talking about playboy.

James

'specially since she's hot

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by NONE_too_SOFT

People that are getting naked in front of the camera should not be allowed to work near kids. period. Too many bad things could come from it, and what kind of role model is that supposed to represent for the girls she coaches?

Pretty sure whoever you're dating probably sent some nude pics of herself to you or one of her previous boyfriends, so what's the difference? The only difference IMO is that some women have the looks and the guts to make money from those pictures. More power to them IMO. And Playboy isn't really what I'd call porn anyway.

[Flexin]

Originally Posted by Particle Man

'specially since she's hot

LOL. That helps. Daddy will sit home just waiting to be called to school to talk.

James

[NONE_too_SOFT]

Originally Posted by zed

she wasn't fucking any of the students, playboy isn't that bad.

Originally Posted by Fleck750

Playboy is not by any means a skank magazine. Women that have their photos printed in there are not two bit hookers, they are chosen for their beauty and self confidence. The girls would be learning to appreciate their bodies for what they are - a work of God's art.

So you're part of the "i only buy it to read the articles" crowd? please, playboys were meant to be fap'd to, cause its porn. Just because porn has gotten more vivid and graphic does not make playboy any less porn.

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Pretty sure whoever you're dating probably sent some nude pics of herself to you or one of her previous boyfriends, so what's the difference? The only difference IMO is that some women have the looks and the guts to make money from those pictures. More power to them IMO. And Playboy isn't really what I'd call porn anyway.

Ur analogy makes absolutely no sense. Posing for a multi million mass publicized magazine and sending a single text message are two different things.

I dont understand how you guys dont see that its wrong that she is posing for porn and teaching children. Thats what it boils down to. I dont have a problem with people flaunting their goods, but the people i would want teaching my children about life would not be those whose priorities lie somewhere between teaching cheerleading and posing for pornography. I would never want my daughter to think that it is okay to pose for playboy.

Shit, i love looking at hot chicks, but i've never seen a stripper or porn star that i've ever considered to be in the right frame of mind to teach children.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by NONE_too_SOFT

I dont understand how you guys dont see that its wrong that she is posing for porn and teaching children. Thats what it boils down to. I dont have a problem with people flaunting their goods, but the people i would want teaching my children about life would not be those whose priorities lie somewhere between teaching cheerleading and posing for pornography. I would never want my daughter to think that it is okay to pose for playboy.

Shit, i love looking at hot chicks, but i've never seen a stripper or porn star that i've ever considered to be in the right frame of mind to teach children.

Dude, she's a CHEERLEADING TEACHER! Cheerleading is nothing more than organized sports porn, so who do you want to teach it, a Mormon granny?

JC

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by NONE_too_SOFT

I dont have a problem with people flaunting their goods, but the people i would want teaching my children about life

From what I understand we don't send our kids to school to learn about life. We send them there to learn writing, math, science, etc. It's like me giving a crap if a politician likes to take a lit blow torch up the ass. Who gives a shit as long as they are doing a good job and what they are paid to do.

Now there is an easy solution for parents who have a problem with the school letting the coach go or for those who have a problem with porn stars teaching children. It starts with "Private" and ends with "School"

Since the majority of the parents didn't seem to care at that school, if it was a private school the parents who fund the school through tuition would have strong pull. Also if she did keep her job and you still had a problem then you can transfer your kid to another school.

And speaking of private schools here is an autobiography of a pornstar named Alexa Rae that attended a CATHOLIC private school. Her teachers obviously aren't strippers and look where she ended up...
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/3772027 (I didn't see any pics so should be SFW)

So I'm guessing what a coach/teacher (who aren't listend to anyways) does has little impact on most kid's futures.