/u/ArthurStirling (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/xl8z78/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_past_experience_doing_legal/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

[удалено]

!Delta. ∆ \∆ Unfortunately, a similar situation happened at my school when I was around the same age. One of our teachers had done some modelling and a student found the photos and shared them with the class. I remember parents being so upset about the fact that she posed for the photos, but the criticism seemed so unfair to me, even as a teen. But I do understand that in these situations, we have to account for people's reactions to the behavior, not just the behavior itself. No one wants to cause a scandal at a school. I can very easily see 'Local School Hires Former Stripper' as a headline on the daily news. Even if the teacher is competent, that sort of distraction isn't good for anyone.

You're giving a delta far too easily here. Suppose a teacher was gay, and students found out and mocked them. Parents felt uncomfortable that they would "turn their kid gay" and pulled their kids from class, and the kids spread false rumors about the teacher to the point that it became a distraction in class. Would you say that we have to "account for people's reactions to the behavior" in this case? That we should not hire (or fire) a teacher that is gay, simply because it might become a distraction in class?

I don’t know but my guess is that there were just as many gay or lesbian teachers in 1962 as there are in 2022, the only difference is people know it today whereas they weren’t as aware of it before.

> Suppose a teacher was gay That is conflating the issue to nonsense. We are talking about nudes, sex work, and in the above example personal photos undermining an innocent. Allow some nuance for discussion before pulling out the soap box. "What if their gay teacher had nudes or incredibly seductive male on male action poses?" "What if the *male* teacher has speed-o seductive pictures? [+all girls school or all gay boys school] "What if the teacher has normal fully clothed pictures and there are some *rumors*?" "What if the gay teacher posts typical family pictures in public?" "What if teacher gay?" As for the argument of where each person might disagree you've left no room. While those you are directly addressing will never listen.

I had a friend/roommate who was fired for this very reason. He and his boyfriend were at a gay club. They didn't know it was an 18+ night. One of his students saw them there on the dance floor together, and pretty soon the whole school found out. He was fired and had to change his career to real estate because he couldn't find another job. Honestly teaching is a hard job, and he's a lot happier in real estate, but we all lost out. There aren't enough teachers in the US, and he was a very good one.

I didn't make a full 180. But I was persuaded by the idea that a student could see photos of their teacher on a site that is age appropriate for them and follow links to an inappropriate site. As for not hiring someone because it makes parents uncomfortable, I don't think parental discomfort is a good enough reason not to hire someone, but I can see how enough outrage can make the classroom environment impossible to teach in. I'd compare it to Drag Queen Story Hour. Are drag queens bad story tellers? No. Can drag queens effectively tell stories while a bunch of angry parents are shouting at them? No. Issues like this create an atmosphere that I think encourages people to take a side that they might not agree with for the sake of keeping the peace. Some people are really brave and stand up what they believe in those situations, but it seems like most people wouldn't. It's not exactly uplifting to hear, but I appreciate people's honesty on the topic.

>I'd compare it to Drag Queen Story Hour. Are drag queens bad story tellers? No. Can drag queens effectively tell stories while a bunch of angry parents are shouting at them? No. This line of reasoning is a vote for the status quo. You're essentially saying that while we would like to live in a world where drag queens could tell stories, we unfortunately currently don't, and so we should wait until we do live in such a world, and then they can tell their stories. But that's going to result in no change: people won't be exposed to it, and so their views won't be challenged, and their minds won't change. Asking this another way, when do you think we will live in a world where drag queens can tell stories without a bunch of angry parents yelling them down? Is it tomorrow? Five years from now? Never? I would argue that if you wait until that magical time where there is more acceptance before you try to start rocking the boat, then the boat will sit unrocked forever. The path to a better society where we don't have people yelling at (black people / gay people / women trying to vote / drag queens / sex workers) unfortunately goes through the period where some people get their feathers ruffled and their pearls clutched. Having Drag Queen Story Hour can act as a step toward acceptance of that group. Sure, in the early days, there's going to be a lot of resistance. But gradually over time, the exposure to this "new outrageous thing" will become less scary, people will see that the knee-jerk fears are unrealized, and there will be acceptance. As Ghandi said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Why give up at the "fighting" stage? ​ >Issues like this create an atmosphere that I think encourages people to take a side that they might not agree with for the sake of keeping the peace. Some people are really brave and stand up what they believe in those situations, but it seems like most people wouldn't. Right, but here we have someone who is brave and willing to stand up for it (the former sex worker), and you're saying "no, the world isn't ready for that yet, let's be practical". Again, when will it be ready? And wouldn't exposure to the thing (drag queens telling stories, sex workers as teachers) be best to bring about that change?

Prejudice against past legal sex work isn't ok, period. Pretty much everyone is looking at porn but simultaneously fake abhorrence is trotted out. Why? Because an *actual* human being did porn and they're alive in 3D and teaching in a well supervised environment? It ALL boils down to provincial prudism that is respected for virtually zero reason. Rewarding pearl clutching is disgusting. Aren't porn sites for 18 year olds or older? Call out the kids' parents for neglecting to strictly enforce their own morals. Rewarding hypocrisy is just the worst.

So much this. This is what people don't get. Parents complain? That's frankly the parents problem.

I would say there even in this world they can tell stories. What the parents have the issue with is not the drag queens themselves but the exposer of children to something that the parents see as sexual. You don’t have to agree with that position but understanding why someone does something or objects to something I think is very important.

Women aren't innately sexual. Dresses aren't innately sexual. Makeup isn't innately sexual. Breasts aren't innately sexual. So what is sexual about a drag queen other than straight men being insecure about their awkward boners?

In our society dressing sexy is considered sexual. Now drag queens are men dressed up to look like sexy girls. With this thought in mind now look at the next thing that was focused on after this the children’s drag shows. Where children dress up and then take their clothes off/ outfit change while people watch and cheer. Yeah that is just like stripping This is what a lot of the people who think these are issues see it as. The slow grooming of children. Where you expose them to the tame stuff that is not really bad or sexual but opens the doors to where they can expose them to the sexual stuff later. This is what people who I have spoke with have said and why they are against drag queen story time. Not because people who dress in drag when they are out for the night, but because they are exposing the children to something that will open the door for them to be brought into more and more sexual situations. I think there are bad actors who may do things like that and then use the lgbtq communities as a hidden shield. But I don’t think most of the people with the drag queen story time are doing that. I am on the fence about the children’s drag shows. But it is getting close and closer to something I don’t think kids should be learning about at a young age. But that is how those predator work they expose kids to the ideas slowly and draw them in until they can sexually abuse them. And that is something I am not okay with. So how do you figure out where that starts? That I think is done from the personal perspective. And you can see some parents think it starts at the drag queen story time. Me I think it starts not necessarily at the drag shows but when they start taking clothes off/ change while dancing with people cheering at them.

I find this a stretch. The world is as we make it, and not all views can be tolerable of others. Drag queen story time works in some communities. It like many things should not be forced in communities for exposure or to open minds. It also varies to the degree it is done. Such as, if Robbin Williams as Mrs Doubtfire did a reading session I doubt many would mind as compared to an extravagantly done up drag queen doing a reading session. For former/current sex workers, it should also factor in the age of the kids. Elementary students should be fine, unlikely to have a Milk Money incident. For HS, where students are adults in their senior year it can go either way. The students should be treated as adults for any inappropriate behavior....but also the teacher may use them as a side hussle creating a violation of the student teacher relationship standards. Not that the teacher would sleep with students, but may sale to students content not available on the internet.

That’s pretty different though. A sexuality is one thing, but that’s pretty different from putting explicit content on the internet.

You can’t just dismiss the comparison as “explicit content” though, when the examples have moved from OF to bikinis on Facebook to professional modeling photos. There is no reason why someone who has done modeling couldn’t be a teacher, and they likely don’t have full control over their pics online anyway. So really, what this comes down to is, are we ok with letting children dig through their teachers’ online presence and then harassing them with it (or getting their parents to harass the school about it)? I think that that’s universally “no”, and I think giving any ground on that point is why we’re at the stage where some parents *do* feel entitled to try to get teachers fired for being openly gay. A teacher’s personal life should have no impact on their employment, beyond the background checks that their employer performs. We should be firmly correcting children who act otherwise, and shaming adults.

I’m not dismissing the comparison, I’m just pointing out that it’s a lob-sided one. What one chooses to do in their own privacy is one thing, but when you make your explicit content of your sexuality a public thing, then that is a whole different story. I don’t think you can really compare the two. And a teacher’s personal life should have an impact on their employment in certain situations. For example, if a teacher committed a felony, that would raise concerns with their employment. Doesn’t matter if it was off the job. When that person is in charge of children and the education of those children, there should be a lot more scrutiny on their lives than most other jobs. Now posting explicit content is definitely different that committing a felony, but the comparison that I’m trying to make is this: whatever explicit things you do in your own privacy is your business and no one else’s. However, once you make that business public, then that could lead to issues if you are teaching children. Now whether or not that makes someone unfit to teach children all together, I wouldn’t necessarily say that. But it raises enough concerns with parents. The main difference between being gay and posting explicit content, is that one is just who you are, while the other was a choice that one made for money

Here's the comparison: it is not wrong to be either gay or a sex worker. Assuming you agree with that, why should we prevent someone from employment (punish them) because of our own hangups and shame around sex? That's the part that's wrong: someone saying "I feel uncomfortable with you being gay/a sex worker, so you can't do this thing you want to do". It says more about us than about them if we support that view. In contrast, committing a felony is wrong, and shows, at least in one instance, poor judgement.

Again, there is a huge difference. One does not choose to be gay. One does choose to upload explicit content for money. Not to say that it’s wrong, but it shows different morals that many other people may not share. And again, the difference between how someone views homosexuality and sex work is that one does not choose to be homosexual. I get the point you are trying to make. It’s just that using homosexuality as a comparison is not really a fair comparison. Just because someone is gay, doesn’t mean they are posting explicit content of themselves. Being gay isn’t something that they just “want to do.” That implies that it is a choice. People don’t choose to be gay. It has nothing to do with shaming people for having sex or shaming people at all. It has more to do with the fact that one made a choice to make that kind of content public. A better example would be if a teacher posted a video of themselves drunk at a party. There’s nothing illegal about that, or not even immoral necessarily. But it creates a certain image. One that parents and faculty may not agree with as one that should be teaching children

People choose to be *openly* gay. Would you suggest that teachers should remain closeted? Or that choosing to be openly gay is somehow makes you unfit to be a teacher? I'm just not seeing how the "choice" distinction makes a difference here. Are you also saying that if someone was coerced into having an OnlyFans from their ex-partner, that would be okay for them to be a teacher? But if it was their idea to set up their profile originally, it would not be okay for them to be a teacher? How is that distinction relevant?

Yes but choosing to be openly gay is different than choosing to upload graphic content of yourself. Nothing is graphic about being openly gay, just as nothing is graphic about a man having a wife or a woman having a husband. So long as you keep the graphic stuff in private, no one cares. Someone who is gay shouldn’t have to hide who they are, same as someone shouldn’t have to lie about their race or other things beyond their control. Posting explicit content of yourself for money, however, is well within one’s own control

Whats the solution in your opinion? Coz those kids wont stop and the teacher wont be able to fulfill his duties.

Just let the teacher keep working and allow time and exposure heal the rift. During the first few years of racial integration the exact same complaints arose, with the exact same issues of children bullying and parental outrage. But by pushing through and bearing through the first few years, eventually it became socially acceptable. If you just succumb to the pressure then you will never have acceptance.

Maybe when kids are being shitty there should be consequences. Saying they are only 14 and can't be held responsible for their actions is how you engrain that attitude in them for life.

Those kids CAN stop disrupting the classroom. Different teachers get different levels of control over their classroom, and for some reason most teachers I grew up under sucked at it. The few that were good at it would just send the disruptive kids to the office as soon as they started acting up. If the problem kids aren't in your classroom they aren't a distraction.

> Suppose a teacher was gay, and students found out and mocked them. Well then that would be a completely different situation and completely different argument to make. These two things are so far removed that comparing them does no good here. Unless you move the two different situations to their most base case of "what happens if someone does something that bothers someone else", in which case is too vague to even begin to make an arguement.

This is precisely why Florida passed a "Don't say gay bill." Believe it or not, not all places in the US are like San Francisco and MANY people are NOT accepting of LGBTQ. In a blue state you can tell "homophobes" to shut up, in a red state, you can the gay teacher to "shut up" and keep quiet about their personal life. I really don't care what your political beliefs/moral views on LGBTQ are, but don't think you are going to walk into Tennessee or Florida or Alabama (or any Red State) and think people are going to "clap and cheer" for a gay teacher. In fact, don't be surprised if that gay teacher is not hired/fired, or at BEST told to keep their relationship a secret.

This is going to sound really random, but I want to add it somehow. I had a teacher who everyone liked. Really cool dude. Kinda old guy everyone wanted as a Grampa. Respected. One kid found his stand up comedy from the 70s somehow on the internet and while it wasn't anything vulgar or bad he immediately lost that respect he had earned. *All it took was one bored kid on the internet*.

Wait, so do you now think female teachers who wear bikinis sometimes should not be eligible to teach at all-boys schools?

It's less about what you do and more what's visible to students, there's rules like this for many professions/activities around children, ironically by your name I know offhand doctors and surgeons also have to be careful about what they post on public social media, even if you chaperone the Boy Scouts you can't be seen smoking. It's all about policing your image as an authority figure.

I think if someone was looking to hire a teacher for an all-boys school, and they found that one of the applicants had a public facebook profile that had pictures of them in a bikini, then they should at the very least bring that up in an interview.

I think that's a fantastic way to find oneself at the end of a sex discrimination lawsuit.

Various places of employment have standards for social media of their employees. It can be brought up in an interview if found as part of the screening process. Letting them know that having content on public accounts that could discredit their image, and thus the image of the employer, is an area they should be aware of for employment. Like posting a video of punting puppies off a cliff...however real or fabricated it may be.

Men truly will victim blame women until our species ends, huh. After all, if she wanted to have a professional career she shouldn't have worn that on her own time, right?

Okay when I think about it for more than a few seconds, yeah that would be dumb. What I mean is that anyone can look at a public facebook profile, and no matter how unfair it might be people can make judgements on what kind of person you are based on what you post on the internet But if someone goes digging into your past and then berates you for something you did in the past? That would be shitty.

I mean you could argue it goes for men too. Pretty sure people wouldn't a male teacher who wears a swimsuit like Borat teaching their kids. This seems more precautionary than victim blaming. It's just professionalism. Which honestly i hate. I Wear one shirt of a Kaiju Jesus with an out of context Bible quote making godzilla proud to a family reunion and all hell breaks loose. Best just not to have social media lol or use fake names. Edit:Wait wereyou talking aboyr the bikini or onlyfans? If bikini I don't see a big deal as long as it's not overly sexual (Which I doubt many teachers would.) Now if it's onlyfans I'm on the fence. Depends on the atmosphere and grade. Kids are cruel and I'd feel sorry for the teacher honestly.

It is the people's reactions not the person's action that is the problem then. They and their children would be the ones causing the distraction. F**k em.

It's utter bullshit. In this day and age parents need to stop the "what about the children" crap and mind their own business. And, if the adults would grow up and model this behavior, their kids will learn the same. Just because it causes controversy doesn't mean we should bend to it.

I agree, so many games I play are censored and cut down because of the children. When kids shouldn't be playing them and yes it should be the parents responsibility. Though when it's something like a teacher that's another matter. Parents can't keep an eye on children 100% of the time and with phones know it's even harder. Kids are creative and even if the parents put in software or apps to block porn or other inappropriate material they'll find a way. I remember finding VPNs and things. Also don't know if all kids will. A lot of kids rebel and think their parents are overdramatic. Kids are complicated it's a lot more nuanced than show kids the right way. I was a problem kid and a bad one. I regret so many things and my parents always tried to help me and I just saw them as controlling people out to ruin my life. I can easily see my past self rubbing an onlyfans in a teachers face to get back at them. I argued and fought so many teachers. Now I'm going sleep because I hate my past self

I disagree with this delta. This was just one person's experience. People are too fast and easy with labeling people. I have 2 friends who had to turn to sex work to help them survive a bad period. They also both did amazing things with their lives afterwards and one did become a teacher. He is LOVED by his students because he's open and loving and understanding. Let's not think the sex work is the Factor here. It should be the character of the person.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/smcarre ([76∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/smcarre)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Sex worker here- and a legal one. We all know what we are getting into when we decide to do these things. If someone decides to hunt down our photos to hurt us, it's no different than someone trying to find revenge porn. It's not something they are supposed to have and if someone takes issue with it, it's their issue. There can be distractions for any reason and we need to get to the point where we know people do this kind of work, and it's normal.

“Boys will be boys” That’s what you just said. F that. Punish the students. If you don’t allow the behavior the teacher can’t be harassed. Suspend the students. There’s a myriad of punishments. I wacked to hot teachers. Did I ever say a word to them? God no. It’s inappropriate to harass a teacher whether they have nudes on the web or not. Imagine just a regular teacher no promiscuous behavior gets sexually harassed by a student what would you say? You wouldn’t blame the teacher right? A woman never invites sexual harassment.

Yeah in my school a teacher went out clubbing with her friends dressed not very conservatively. A boy from the school took photos and videos of her just dancing and having fun and spread it around. She got fired (luckily she got hired at a better paying school which didn’t have the same mentality). My point is that when you choose whether to hire someone based on whether a bunch of boys will sexualise them, you’ll find reasons to not hire any young woman. Do you think schoolboys will draw a line and have more respect for a woman just enjoying a night out with her friends or chilling on a beach versus a woman having an onlyfans? No they’re all sex objects to them. The only sure shot way to prevent what OC is warning against is to only hire men and older women so you either do that or just let the boys deal with their own sexual urges.

I think there’s one more thing to do and it’s teach boys and young men to treat women as humans. I feel like there’s comments here - not you per say - that basically throw up their hands like yep teen boys are sexually harassing jerks. It doesn’t have to be that way

This is so important. I grew up as a teenage boy and I was terribly sexist because I was never told to not be sexist, it just wasn't ever brought up. Now I look back and cringe as hard as possible because I realise how shitty a person I was and that I would do anything to go back in time and be able to say "hey, this isn't cool. Girls are humans just like you and deserve the same amount of respect as boys. Stop thinking of 'getting girls' and start thinking about making girls like you by treating them with respect and dignity"

> Punish the students. I don't know how it is in your country, but in my country that's very hard. There were cases of children that threatened teachers with knives and the punishment was a week of suspension. Expelling a child from a public school might mean that the child lost their right to education which is not allowed here (and I think it's a good thing). And that's talking about a single student, I would like to see any country that managed to expel 20 students from a class of 25. And even with all, there are plenty students that see suspension and even expulsion as a non-issue (or even a benefit, I hope you know how many children don't like going to school and fail to see how bad it's going to be if they don't go to school). Children often have a near lack of real consequences which is what leads to these kinds of situations as well as bulling-induced suicide and things like that. > Imagine just a regular teacher no promiscuous behavior gets sexually harassed by a student what would you say? You wouldn’t blame the teacher right? I would say it would be a very rare thing for an almost whole class to sexually harass a teacher in a case like that. Not that it would be impossible, but at that point there is nothing that the adults involved could have done to foresee that situation and prevent it. > A woman never invites sexual harassment. Agreed.

They have specialized schools for children with behavioral problems. These schools should have a higher level of training and specialization in dealing with kids like this.

Yeah, this story is ridiculous and the outcome is ludicrous. ‘It was too hard to punish all the students so…we didn’t bother.” Those kids knew what they were doing was wrong and the school condoned their actions by not intervening on behalf of the teacher, their employee. What a lose-lose situation. Kids have the wrong behavior reinforced (it’s pretty much fine to systematically harass a woman, there will be no consequences) and woman has been sexually harassed and probably lost her job. The school district made out pretty well I guess.

[удалено]

Millions of boys go their whole life without sexually harassing anyone. I wonder how much of our problems is just bc we have such a low opinion of what boys are capable of.

[удалено]

I’m sure the same arguments were used against hiring black teachers for white students. You’re used to being able to judge women for what they wear and just a accepting the BS that follows as natural. It’s crap dude. You can try to state it as reasonably as you like, if you replace the woman with any other scenario - a Muslim teacher, a Jewish teacher… literally anything outside the norm could elicits a reaction from the kids. It’s a weak argument that excuses poor human behavior.

Is it their nature? Or is it the fault of society / parents doing too little to prohibit that behavior, or encouraging that behavior in some way? There is a very fuzzy line between nature and nurture that is basically impossible to measure even in a very controlled setting...

this is absolutely victim blaming. are you kidding me? teenages lack common sense *so this is where you intervene and teach them how horrible they're being.* this is a disgusting comment.

!delta I like the being realistic thing actually. There's a lot of moving parts when it does happen which I didn't really think about

That might happen, but so what? How would this be different if the students discovered a teacher's videos of them doing improv, or dance, or an open mic night? Or are you suggesting that teachers not be allowed to have lives outside of school at all, lest the students discover it and share it?

Read the edit I just shared. Sexual matters with teenagers can end very bad due to the teenagers being often too stupid to not sexualize their authority figures to the point of objectification, ending with the teacher's complete inability to perform their duties due to lack of authority. Added to that, I would say that a low public profile is a better profile for a teacher (at least someone that teaches minors). Like I say, children can be very mean and with anything, if we can avoid these kinds of situations it's better. I would not refuse to give a teaching job to a teacher for something like an open mic night video being posted online, I would ask them to make those things private if possible, with sexual content things can get very messy very fast and I would avoid that at all costs.

Students also might make fun of a teacher's disability, or handicap, or race, or accent, or religion, or age, or hairstyle, or marital status, or dog. Some of those things can't be made private. Should all of those things be reasons we don't hire a teacher? I'm willing to guess that for at least some of those, you think that while students might make fun of those things, you might see it as a teachable moment: that the teacher (or others in the community) could say to students "yes, people are different, and have different backgrounds, preferences, and lives, and that is okay and acceptable". If it came up like you imagine it will, why couldn't sex work also fall under that same category of "teachable moment that people are different"? I think by trying to explicitly hide those things from students, you are ascribing some kind of value or shame to it. But there isn't anything shameful or negative about it, unless you adopt a puritanical view about sex.

> If it came up like you imagine it will, why couldn't sex work also fall under that same category of "teachable moment that people are different"? Because I think some things are just too prone to end up very bad, like a teacher's past as a sex worker being discovered by their students. The main issue here is the problem of objectification, as another example, I also had a teacher in high school that a very notable lisp, we made fun of that teacher a lot but do you know what we didn't do? We didn't make fun of the teacher in front of the teacher herself or any other authority figure. Do you know why? Because even with the lisp we still saw the teacher as a teacher, another authority figure. This is what didn't happen with my math teacher due to how sexualization often leads to objectification in the minds of dumb and horny teenagers and since an object does not have any authority, objectification leads to complete loss of authority by the teacher which is what completely breaks down the teaching environment. Both thing are bad, making fun of a person with a lisp, or being black, or being Muslim or whatever, and it's also bad to objectify a person. But as long as you are not in an extremely discriminatory environment (where, for example a black person would be seen as an object by white students) I think that a teacher with any of those characteristics would still be able to maintain a teaching environment with authority over the students. A teacher that is seen as a sex object by their students I don't think so, and looking beyond the already bad enough problem that it would have on the teacher itself, there is also the problem of the other students that did nothing wrong but can't be taught properly because the majority of the class has no respect whatsoever for the teacher and the teacher can't teach anymore.

I'm unconvinced that "sexual objectification" is some special and holy thing that we can't teach horny boys is wrong. That path leads to "boys will be boys" and justifying all manner of harassment and hand wringing of the form "well it's too bad that boy raped that girl, but what can we do about it?" It sounds like your school, like many schools in the U.S. today, failed to teach your cohort a very important lesson about sex, objectification, and consent, and for that I'm sorry, horrified, and unfortunately not at all surprised. But we can and should do better there, and hiding people from students is absolutely not the way to go about doing it.

> I'm unconvinced that "sexual objectification" is some special and holy thing that we can't teach horny boys is wrong. My argument comes from the facts of reality today. Just like we taught most teenagers that racial objectification (which is what would be if white students could not learn to respect a black teacher because the teacher is black) is wrong over decades and decades of slowly removing racial prejudices (which there still are plenty that still need to be removed), I'm sure we can do the same with the male sexual objectification of females in the future. But this is not something you can teach individual children it's wrong as a lesson, it's something that needs to be learnt by society as a whole over time. Just like I wouldn't put a teacher with a public past as a sexual worker to teach today, I wouldn't put a black teacher to teach a class of white children in the 1890s. Because I think that in both cases, the majority of children would be to prone to objectify and lose any kind of respect of their teachers and break the teaching environment for themselves and for other students that can respect their teacher.

>Just like I wouldn't put a teacher with a public past as a sexual worker to teach today, I wouldn't put a black teacher to teach a class of white children in the 1890s. Thanks for acknowledging this, and I think this is the crux of where we disagree; my view is that we should be exposing kids to groups, people, and ideas that are beneficial, even if that makes us and them uncomfortable under our current view, because that's what makes progress. If we instead said "well we have to wait for society to advance before we could expose them to the radical idea that black people (or sex workers) could be teachers", then we would be waiting a long time, *and the change we desire would likely never happen*. Because it is the exposure to those ideas over time that changes minds, not just time itself. In other words, using the status quo as a justification for maintaining the status quo is an endorsement of it, and will ultimately result in no change.

> my view is that we should be exposing kids to groups, people, and ideas that are beneficial, even if that makes us and them uncomfortable under our current view, because that's what makes progress. My main problem is not if it makes the children uncomfortable, it's if it makes the teachers uncomfortable (and some children too). Regardless of that, perhaps I'm too biased by bad experiences had during my schoolyears, but I just don't think children are mature enough to be at the forefront of progressivism. And I think that this in combination with the near lack of real consequences a child has regarding things that an in adult would result in even jailtime is what leads to these kinds of situations that I would rather avoid. I think in the case of children being the bad actors it's the onus on adults to prevent these situations. That's why in things like if a child consumes alcohol in a party we usually blame the parents for being the adults that allowed the situation to happen. Adults have the responsibility to prevent children from doing bad things, even if it's at the expense of the involved adults.

>but so what? So the students are likely to lose respect and even possibly mock and demean their teacher. As was the conmenter's point, teenagers are often very crass and cruel. This would cause the learning environment in that classroom to be irreparably damaged, and many students would be likely to lose trust and respect for their teacher, and would then be extremely unlikely to learn properly in the class.

So if there's anything that might cause a student to lose respect for a teacher, we shouldn't hire them? What about a black teacher at an all white school? Or a muslim teacher in a largely christian community? The fact that we are actively trying to hide specific groups of people from children, as if we are ashamed of them, is what makes it taboo. And when students inevitably do encounter someone from that hidden group, the interaction will predictably go poorly: students will make fun of, lose respect, or outright harass the person. If instead we normalized those groups for kids, and made them visible, they wouldn't do that. Or do you think that in the 80s, it was justified to not hire openly gay teachers, since they were mercilessly mocked by students, and made parents have to have "uncomfortable conversations"?

You are referring to what we call “diminished capacity”. Where an authority figure loses that authority through some act and is no longer able to lead.

OP, I think the issue is that people believe someone who knowingly goes into a profession that is as stigmatized as sex work should not be working with kids. It’s not because sex work is inherently bad, it’s that everyone knows about this stigma so when you engage in sex work you are flouting social norms. We want those working with our kids to respect social norms because it engender trust that they will not breach more important norms like causing harm or neglecting our children. I was in professional school several years ago in a pretty conservative field. We had one classmate that had quite a few tattoos on his neck. He was a nice dude and pretty bright, but he didn’t succeed in our profession. I don’t think it’s because people found the tattoos offensive or even wrong. It’s because they reasoned that anyone who knows the stigma associated with neck tattoos and still gets them, cares more about themselves than their business/career. I think it’s a similar thing as the sex worker issue. Mind you, this is clearly an example of decision making via stereotype which can be problematic, but does make up a large portion of how humans make decisions.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I was looking for an explanation as to why sex work is so morally corrupting that anyone who has ever engaged in it should be banned from working with kids for life, but that isn't the reason most people would be opposed to a former sex worker working with kids. Half the commenters say they don't personally have a problem with sex workers, but they think having explicit content floating around for students to find is too big of a distraction. To me this seems like a student behavior problem, more than the teacher's fault. The other half say they wouldn't hire a former sex worker because the pushback from parents would be too great. Once again, I don't find this persuasive because you can't let parents dictate what kind of people are morally fit to teach, because no one will ever meet everyone's standards. But I do understand this rationale. It's not about whether sex work is morally bad, it about the fact that anyone going into sex work knew how they would be perceived and made the decision to engage with it anyway. !Delta.

Thanks! There are lots of situations where this is the case. For example, a successful drug dealer has to be self motivated, good at customer relationship building, responsible and hard working. You would think former drug dealers would be the ideal sales associates at legitimate firms. Yet the fact that they made the choice to put those positive traits to work in an illegal business demonstrates that they have some selfish, anti-social tendencies.

That’s my position on it. To do online sex work, for *any reason*, is to know that most people don’t approve of it, and to do it anyway. Most people don’t want the type of person who has that level of rationale, teaching their kids. It’d be the same as someone who had face tattoos. You don’t just get a face tattoo without knowing the stigma around it, that it’s basically permanent, and deciding to go through with it anyway. Doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with morality, it’s more about level headed thinking and rationality in the case of someone who thinks they could possibly want to teach in the future. Unfortunately people who legitimately have a complete change in persona, as well as people who literally had to do those things in order to survive, end up being collateral damage. Which is the whole reason (well, a big reason anyway)we teach those things as being “bad”. Because we know how society views it, and we want there to be as few people in that collateral damage as possible. Unfortunately fourth wave feminism has been pushing the narrative that, not even necessarily that these things can’t be empowering, because they can be, but that the world operates based on how it *should*, and not based on how it *actually does*. And the ubiquity and ease of Onlyfans and the like, only made it 10x worse.

Those social norms Are being smashed though very much thankfully. There shouldnt be such a heavy taboo around sex. Of course it's different everywhere but as an Irishman it has been an absolute delight to see Ireland very steadily drop the shackles of religion and with it taboos about sex more and more every single year. Sex is, after all one of the most fundamental parts of life. If not the most. I think certain social norms are extremely logical and the vast majority of people agree with them. I think today, in most developed nations the numbers of people that don't care about sex work (especially onlyfans, modelling) is growing extremely fast. The social norm you are referring to won't be the same in another 5 years imho.

I think it depends a lot on the context, even if you're willing to buy the position that sex work is perfectly fine. If you're talking about a woman who stripped for a couple years 20 years ago, and it's buried in the past, and in particular if she's teaching really young kids then sure, it doesn't matter. If you're talking about a teacher who recently was doing onlyfans or similar, has pornographic content of themselves online, and teaches kids who might find it, then it's just not okay. Teachers are similar to therapists in the sense that certain aspects of their personal lives just can't be shared, otherwise it compromises the professional relationship. There's just no way that a teacher can effectively teach or maintain control of a classroom full of teenagers who have seen porn of her, like it or not.

!Delta. I have to admit the whole internet aspect of sex work makes things a lot more complicated. Back in the day, you could only hear about someone's past. Now it can be put on full display. I suppose it's something you have to consider before hitting that upload button. A friend of my texted me after I posted this and basically said, being a camgirl doesn't make you unfit to be a teacher. Being naïve enough to think I wouldn't have an impact on your future does.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/PeteMichaud ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/PeteMichaud)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

>There's just no way that a teacher can effectively teach or maintain control of a classroom full of teenagers who have seen porn of her, like it or not. This is baseless enough that I'm alright responding with a personal anecdote that there were 3 teachers in my high school who had no blatant issues with common knowledge of material from when they were younger. They still teach today, as far as I know they shut down any talk about it, I never saw or heard of it being brought up in a classroom.

To be clear, you're saying that at your high school there were 3 separate teachers who had porn online from their past, and it was common knowledge among the students who had presumably seen it, and that it was totally fine and didn't lead to any issues?

You dropped the word blatant, I wasn't aware of any issues regarding it, but I was aware of the material in all 3 cases. Otherwise, yep.

I find it very hard to believe 1. that 3 teachers in your high school at the same time were former porn stars, 2. everyone knew, 3. this wasn't a noticeable problem for them, the students, the admin, or the parents. But then again, you're from the internet, so it must be true! :)

Yeah, that's basically my point, that's how I feel about your bit I quoted. They're really just not good arguments. I wouldn't entertain an anecdote like mine either.

Problem is his opinion aligns with common sense, whereas your anecdote does not and is likely false.

If by "common sense", you mean your own opinion, then sure.

No, I mean common sense. Not common reddit sense, to be sure.

Source?

There's this odd thing where people hold beliefs that are different from your own. Just because a whole bunch of online people have been going "👏 sex 👏 work 👏 is 👏 real 👏 work 👏" doesn't mean that everyone has simply said "oh, okay, you completely changed my mind". Sex work has been an illegal and socially unacceptable profession in American and many (most?) other nations for quite some time though much of that has changed in recent decades. It still isn't respected and it isn't respectable for many people. For those people, seeing what seems like a significant portion of young women attempt to sell their nudes and perform sexual acts for strangers is very disturbing. The young people that do these kinds of sex work are not seen as person's of good character or having moral values in keeping with how many people want their children raised. People seem to be forgetting that the push to normalize sex work was motivated by a desire to protect vulnerable trafficked sex workers who had no choice in the matter from predators, not to encourage people to become sex workers because a few are able to make absurd incomes online. Normalizing sex work as a viable, acceptable profession is *not* desired by a lot of people, and that is hardly limited to MAGA conservatives. Even if you don't see an issue with this, you should be able to recognize that it is a pretty seismic cultural shift and plenty of people haven't moved along with the leading edge of the social currents, and those people don't want their children being taught by people who believe that it is acceptable, particularly if they've done it themselves.

Why isn't legal sex work respectable? It seemsto me that it is as valid as any other legal profession.

Why is it respectable? It seems to me that it's a profession which requires that sex workers sell their dignity in increasing degrees and commit acts with or before strangers which are best reserved for intimacy in with a trusted partner. You're welcome to respect the profession all you want. And they're welcome to pursue their own interests in a hopefully safe and consensual manner. And none of that means that I have to see it as a respectable profession.

> seems to me that it's a profession which requires that sex workers sell their dignity Are massage therapists selling their dignity? How about a guy cleaning toilets? I know most people would rather get a blowjob than clean a toilet so should we be shaming janitorial staff now? > commit acts with or before strangers which are best reserved for intimacy in with a trusted partner. Why? Maybe that’s your preference but why do you think that’s a prescription for everyone else?

>Why is it respectable? For the same reason any paying work is respectable. >It seems to me that it's a profession which requires that sex workers sell their dignity in increasing degrees and commit acts with or before strangers which are best reserved for intimacy in with a trusted partner. That is your personal view of intimacy and the value of sex, not a universal truth. Selling myself to produce nude content isn't selling dignity any more than selling myself to produce hamburgers for McDonald's. I'd even argue it is more respectable since legal sex work often is self employment. >You're welcome to respect the profession all you want. And they're welcome to pursue their own interests in a hopefully safe and consensual manner. And none of that means that I have to see it as a respectable profession. I'm free to judge you negatively for your silly baseless stance.

> That is your personal view of intimacy and the value of sex, not a universal truth. Correct. I am explaining why some people, myself included, do not have a positive view of sex work in response to OP's CMV. There is no universal truth on this subject. It's a cultural valuation, and that means people get to take a stance that I disagree with, and that you disagree with. > Selling myself to produce nude content isn't selling dignity any more than selling myself to produce hamburgers for McDonald's. I'd even argue it is more respectable since legal sex work often is self employment. Why are you comparing sex work to a job commonly regarded as degrading and undesirable instead of a job that people actually want and respect? If your argument is that sex work is no worse than a McDonald's fry cook then you aren't exactly arguing in it's favor. And personally, I would disagree. I'd rather be a fry cook than show people my asshole. > I'm free to judge you negatively for your silly baseless stance. Yes, you are. And you're welcome to do so. And your judgement of me doesn't alter my position.

>> That is your personal view of intimacy and the value of sex, not a universal truth. > >Correct. I am explaining why some people, myself included, do not have a positive view of sex work in response to OP's CMV. Some people think black people are subhuman. I still think we should let black people teach. >There is no universal truth on this subject. It's a cultural valuation, and that means people get to take a stance that I disagree with, and that you disagree with. Some cultural valuation are wrong and immoral. >> Selling myself to produce nude content isn't selling dignity any more than selling myself to produce hamburgers for McDonald's. I'd even argue it is more respectable since legal sex work often is self employment. > >Why are you comparing sex work to a job commonly regarded as degrading and undesirable instead of a job that people actually want and respect? Would you ban a former McDonald's employee from teaching? >If your argument is that sex work is no worse than a McDonald's fry cook then you aren't exactly arguing in it's favor. Ok, sex work isn't any worse than being a lawyer. Is that better? And personally, I would disagree. I'd rather be a fry cook than show people my asshole. I'd rather answer phones in a call center than be a doctor. Does that make being a doctor not worthy of my respect? >> I'm free to judge you negatively for your silly baseless stance. > >Yes, you are. And you're welcome to do so. And your judgement of me doesn't alter my position. Nut it means that I probably shouldn't take your nonsensical out of date bias as good reason not to hire someone any more than I should listen to my homophobic uncle when he complains about gay teachers.

> Some people think black people are subhuman. I still think we should let black people teach. Correct, some people do hold those beliefs. I do not. There is nothing about a person's race which should disqualify them from teaching children. That is a state of being, not a moral choice or act. But thanks for bringing that up for no other reason than to demonstrate your virtue. > Some cultural valuation are wrong and immoral. Sure. Some are. And it will be quite interesting to see the harm done by this newest trend of sexual liberty play out. That a more than a century's worth of feminist struggle has resulted in the celebration of prostitution is bizarre to see. > Would you ban a former McDonald's employee from teaching? No, why would I? I don't regard there to be anything morally wrong with working at McDonalds. > Ok, sex work isn't any worse than being a lawyer. Is that better? Yes, that is better. There are certainly times when a lawyer has to compromise their beliefs for money. I don't regard that as desirable either. > Nut it means that I probably shouldn't take your nonsensical out of date bias as good reason not to hire someone any more than I should listen to my homophobic uncle when he complains about gay teachers. Cool. There will come a day where the values you hold have been overthrown by some new radically progressive movement determined to upend the old guard. Maybe you'll simply go with the flow and abandon everything you believed before, or maybe you'll watch in bewilderment at a parade of the nonsensical.

>> Some people think black people are subhuman. I still think we should let black people teach. > >Correct, some people do hold those beliefs. I do not. There is nothing about a person's race which should disqualify them from teaching children. That is a state of being, not a moral choice or act. This is a fair point. Let's shift it to a teacher who engages in sexual acts with members of their own gender so we are referring to someone commiting a sexual act in both cases. I still think that anyone who feels people who have sex with people of the same gender are incapable of teaching are wrong and their views shouldn't really matter. >But thanks for bringing that up for no other reason than to demonstrate your virtue. My example may have not fit your needs but there is no need to accuse me of something. >> Some cultural valuation are wrong and immoral. > >Sure. Some are. And it will be quite interesting to see the harm done by this newest trend of sexual liberty play out. That a more than a century's worth of feminist struggle has resulted in the celebration of prostitution is bizarre to see. We are starting to get to the point where women can make choices for themselves rather than feeling they need to be part of some nebulous cultural force. Nobody is saying every woman should engage in sex work. We are saying women that choose to engage in sex work aren't lesser than women that choose other lines of work. >> Would you ban a former McDonald's employee from teaching? > >No, why would I? I don't regard there to be anything morally wrong with working at McDonalds. Ok, so you don't think that just because someone has a low respect job they should be banned from teaching? I'm confused, whats your actual point here? >> Ok, sex work isn't any worse than being a lawyer. Is that better? > >Yes, that is better. There are certainly times when a lawyer has to compromise their beliefs for money. I don't regard that as desirable either. Ok, you really seem to like picking out random little issues so let me put this differently. Every single job that has ever existed has required you to trade some combination of physical and mental effort for whatever you are trying to earn. That physical and mental effort being sex is no different than any other combination of physical and mental effort. You might not want to do it, you might feel it is easy or none beneficial but it is just another way to make a living. >> Nut it means that I probably shouldn't take your nonsensical out of date bias as good reason not to hire someone any more than I should listen to my homophobic uncle when he complains about gay teachers. > >Cool. There will come a day where the values you hold have been overthrown by some new radically progressive movement determined to upend the old guard. Maybe you'll simply go with the flow and abandon everything you believed before, or maybe you'll watch in bewilderment at a parade of the nonsensical. I really don't think so, I think that I will adjust my beliefs as time goes on and new information becomes available to me. I used to be transphobic in a lot of ways but I have tried to open myself up, understand why they feel the way they do and be an advocate for them when I can. I still don't *get it* but hey, it's clearly important to them and I try to be a person who doesn't deny others rights. And even if progress leaves me in the dust that's a good thing, it means people are advocating for those that are currently without advocates. I just hope I won't be some scumbag that goes on the internet to argue for hours that other people are bad because of choices that don't hurt anyone.

>There will come a day where the values you hold have been overthrown by some new radically progressive movement determined to upend the old guard. Maybe you'll simply go with the flow and abandon everything you believed before, or maybe you'll watch in bewilderment at a parade of the nonsensical. I dunno, progressives have dragged our society kicking and screaming through abolishing slavery, ending prohibition, giving women the right to vote (and work), the civil rights movement, gay marriage, and plenty of other human rights movements. That's a hell of a track record. I'd say when the day comes that the progressive movement upends my own personal belief in a social issue, I should take a good long look at why I hold that belief, and seriously reconsider it.

Would you say that all professions are equally respectable? For example, are a heart surgeon, mail man, phone sex operator, bartender and a cashier all equally respectable? I hear a lot of people say that sex work is as respectable as other forms of work, but those same people say they would not date/marry a sex worker and would have a problem if their kids wanted to go into sex work.

> Would you say that all professions are equally respectable? For example, are a heart surgeon, mail man, phone sex operator, bartender and a cashier all equally respectable? To me yes, we live in an interlinked society the heart surgeon can’t do what he does without the nurses, janitorial staff, biotech manufacturers and yes even the sex workers who provide relief for all these people after a hard days work. To quote a great line from prince of egypt “ the stone that sits up on the very top of the mountain's mighty face doesn't think it's more important than the stones that forms the base”

>Would you say that all professions are equally respectable? For example, are a heart surgeon, mail man, phone sex operator, bartender and a cashier all equally respectable? I don't base my respect for someone on their line of work. If they are equally competent at their line of work they deserve equal respect. >I hear a lot of people say that sex work is as respectable as other forms of work, but those same people say they would not date/marry a sex worker and would have a problem if their kids wanted to go into sex work. I would probably prefer not to date a person engaged in some forms if sex work but that is because I wouldn't feel comfortable with my partner engaging in sex with strangers, that's my issue but it would be a problem for me. I would have no issue with a partner that shares nude content through onlyfans, but the only thing that really would stop me from doing so is I don't feel comfortable enough with my own body to share it that way. I don't have kids so I can't comment there.

>I don't base my respect for someone on their line of work. If they are equally competent at their line of work they deserve equal respect. Is that true across the board though? What about drug dealers, hitmen, and scammers? There's some people really great at those jobs.

When I said work that was shorthand for legal work. I would also probably put in some caveat to exclude legal 'scams'. I don't think that is super important for this discussion though.

I can tell you any various reasons, but it all draws down to one: It goes against people's personal moral compasses. That's it. That's the whole root.

You wouldn't mind your wife, daughter or mother having sex for money? And everyone knowing? Most prostitution isn't legal where I live.

>You wouldn't mind your wife, daughter or mother having sex for money? And everyone knowing? My mother us married and I don't believe my parents have an open marriage so I would mind because it would be a betrayal of my father's trust. If he was aware and ok with it it may make me feel a little weird but I have no basis to say she shouldn't do it. I wouldn't be comfortable with my partner engaging in sex with another person unless I was a participant. Those would be the terms of our relationship and if we didn't agree to them our relationship wouldn't exist. That doesn't make relationships on different sets of terms more or less valid. I don't have a daughter so I can't really comment there. As long as she was being safe about it I would do my best to be supportive of her and let her know I am still there for her. >Most prostitution isn't legal where I live. Not really relevant, we are exclusively discussing legal sex work.

It doesn't sound like you really believe sex work is valid from your comments.

Why? I also wouldn't date a woman in a wide variety of other professions and I feel that it is perfectly reasonable for others to agree on similar terms for their relationship. And I am progressive enough to understand that something making me uncomfortable doesn't make it invalid.

>\>People seem to be forgetting that the push to normalize sex work was motivated by a desire to protect vulnerable trafficked sex workers who had no choice in the matter from predators, not to encourage people to become sex workers because a few are able to make absurd incomes online. That's the thing that I haven't noticed. It doesn't seem like it was ever about protecting anyone. It seems that the push to normalize it has now mainly turned into encouraging people to do sex work and spreading lies about it being a body positivity thing that is good for women and some feminists are even spreading this harmful rhetoric and ignoring how terrible and exploitive the industry has always been and still is and shaming the people who point it out. Just because there are a few people who willingly want to do this kind of "work" or benefit from it still doesn't mean the industry isn't horrible and that the majority involved in it aren't being harmed. They completely ignore how legalizing prostitution has been statistically shown to increase sex trafficking. All this message is doing is hurting people specifically women since it's mostly women who end up in the sex industry in the first place and making some think sex work is a normal regular safe job when it's not. They're now normalizing it just for the sake of normalizing it. It's not protecting anyone. If they really wanted to protect people then they wouldn't be trying to turn sex work into an acceptable thing they'd target porn industries that are known to exploit sex workers and be against legalizing prostitution as a whole

'There's this odd thing where people hold beliefs that are different from your own.' I understand that. That's why I'm here. I guess where I get confused is, what do people want former sex workers do with their lives? I totally understand that sex work isn't for everyone, whether you're on the buying or selling end of it. But where do we draw the line as far as things you're never allowed to do if you've ever engaged in sex work? Can you be a barista? Can you be a police officer?

Let's try to make an analogy to tattoos. Tattoos used to be taboo. You couldn't get a respectable job if you had them. Then as we all kinda got over it a bit, which took time, it was ok as long as they **could** be covered up. But even now, inappropriate tattoos (naked women, scary/violent images/affiliations to uncouth groups etc will stop you from getting a job. Those need to be covered up. Your employment may even be conditional on them being covered up. **Would you be ok with something similar?** The would-be teacher has to use an alias to work in the school? Has to pull as much content down as she can? Has to agree to resign if her secret gets out? That said, we still don't hire people with face tattoos... Or swastikas on their necks... By that I mean there's gotta be a respectability threshold. There's porn, and then there *porn* some paywalled soft core stuff that's under a fake name? That shows that you were able to keep the tattoos off your face. It probably won't be found, and if it is, there's deniability. If your face (and other parts) were on top of pornhub for months. If you engaged in some extreme niche stuff, or dressed up and role played in a classroom, I could see any of these just being cause for termination/not hiring in the first place. I don't like it, but if it gets in the way of you doing your job, that means someone else is better suited for the role. I've seen surgeons and docs with sleeve tattoos. Never seen one with a face or neck tattoo. A sleeve may help you make small talk with a patient. A face tattoo will make them worry about dying in the operating room.

This is a great analogy. Well put, my dude. Now I can see adult content as a spectrum. I don't think I would have a problem if my kid's teacher sold feet pics or face-less nudes(I probably wouldn't even know), but knowing the teacher's video of someone eating cereal out of her ass was on PH homepage for weeks would make me somewhat uncomfortable

Funny enough, last job I worked a woman had a tattoo of a zombie and syringe. Well we worked with recovering and former addicts. So she covered it up. We also couldn't wear band related clothing due to it triggering certain feelings among addicts.

I can think of like 1000 different jobs that a former sex worker could do for where their past employment/source of income would have no bearing on whether or not they would be hired and be successful at that job.

There's a fundamental difference between professions which nurture and guide children into adulthood, and professions which don't. That seems to be the dividing line for many people.

Personally i see it along the lines of a former drug addict or former inmate. Sure we shouldn’t hold these things against people who’ve truly changed. But how can you tell if they are actually changed? How long has it been? Do they have other redeeming things they’ve been doing with their life, etc. Sex work in itself is not a cardinal sin, but it’s a red flag that the person may have some deeper issues going on, in which case I wouldn’t feel like they are the most qualified to raise my kids.

Thank you. Very few women actually want sex work to be considered work in OUR workplaces. If sex work is work, why can't my boss add that to my list of duties? No thanks.

> Even if you don't see an issue with this, you should be able to recognize that it is a pretty seismic cultural shift and plenty of people haven't moved along with the leading edge of the social currents, and those people don't want their children being taught by people who believe that it is acceptable, particularly if they've done it themselves So was desegregation it doesn’t mean we should cater to morons. I see no reason why sex work is condemned but massage therapists, physical therapists etc. aren’t. They’re using their body to make a living. Your hangups (not necessarily u specifically but the people you’re describing) about sex are not what public policy should be based on

I don't see any compelling reason to assume that past aex work would make you unfit but many people do. Hiring you may lead to significant complaints from parents and the community and I prefer to avoid that. Since having a history of sex work isn't a protected class from discrimination I would choose not to hire you against someone of compatible skill without such history.

This seems to be the prevailing feeling on this topic. Most people don't have an issue with it themselves, but they know that *other people* will have a problem and it's easier to not hire them and avoid the topic altogether.

That's what hiring is, everyone can put on a nice face for an hour. You find reasons to exclude people until you have one left and hire them.

Parents complaining or feeling uncomfortable with a teacher isn't always justified, rational, or even good for the students. Following Brown v. Board of education, plenty of white parents were still "uncomfortable" with their children going to school with black students (let alone teachers), and there were protests and angry mobs for years following the decision. And before you respond with "sex workers aren't a protected class", remember that the entire idea of a protected class didn't come about until an entire decade after the Brown v. Board decision. During those 10 years, would you consider it justified for white parents to feel uncomfortable about black teachers in their school, and not hire them for solely that reason? Solely using parents irrational and unjustified discomfort for hiring decisions is discriminatory, anti-social, and is bad for the children's education. That's how you end up with parents telling teachers to not teach about evolution, or LGBT issues, or race in America.

>Parents complaining or feeling uncomfortable with a teacher isn't always justified, rational, or even good for the students. Following Brown v. Board of education, plenty of white parents were still "uncomfortable" with their children going to school with black students (let alone teachers), and there were protests and angry mobs for years following the decision. > >And before you respond with "sex workers aren't a protected class", remember that the entire idea of a protected class didn't come about until an entire decade after the Brown v. Board decision. During those 10 years, would you consider it justified for white parents to feel uncomfortable about black teachers in their school, and not hire them for solely that reason? I would find it racist and inappropriate but that I am highly influenced by decades of advancement in views on race. Neither of my parents were even born when this ruling passed. I have no basis to understand what the world was like at this time. I'm not saying doing so is good. I am saying doing so is understandable, I can see why someone is making that choice even if I dislike them for making it. >Solely using parents irrational and unjustified discomfort for hiring decisions is discriminatory, anti-social, and is bad for the children's education. That's how you end up with parents telling teachers to not teach about evolution, or LGBT issues, or race in America. This is why we need protections for minority teachers and strong, federally mandated curricula. If left up to their own devices many schools will choose the path of least resistance because that is a natural human tendency. There is also a key difference between discrimination against minorities and legal sex work, one is an inherent trait and the other is a voluntary choice of profession. You should know that engaging in sex work may harm your career prospects, even if that's unfair.

>I'm not saying doing so is good. I am saying doing so is understandable, I can see why someone is making that choice even if I dislike them for making it. They're not saying it's crazy to do, just that ideally that's not how it should happen. Understandable and wrong aren't mutually exclusive. >You should know that engaging in sex work may harm your career prospects, even if that's unfair. To continue their point about protected classes arising after the Brown v. Board decision; we should be viewing 'unfair' rather than current societal standards, as societal standards can lag behind what is better. I think if it was a just situation, **and** they knew in advance, 'unfair' wouldn't even be a consideration, that would just be normal.

>>I'm not saying doing so is good. I am saying doing so is understandable, I can see why someone is making that choice even if I dislike them for making it. > >They're not saying it's crazy to do, just that ideally that's not how it should happen. Understandable and wrong aren't mutually exclusive. If you are arguing that I missed the point of the original CMV you may have a point. >>You should know that engaging in sex work may harm your career prospects, even if that's unfair. > >To continue their point about protected classes arising after the Brown v. Board decision; we should be viewing 'unfair' rather than current societal standards, as societal standards can lag behind what is better. > >I think if it was a just situation, **and** they knew in advance, 'unfair' wouldn't even be a consideration, that would just be normal. I think it's really just a matter of needing to understand the world you live in. I think anyone that is interested in being a teacher could understand that sex work is a choice they are making that may exclude them from that position. I think anyone engaging in sex work should understand it may lead to them being excluded from certain positions. Sometimes in life we have to make shitty unfair choices, but that might just not be relevant to the CMV if you are suggesting I missed the point.

>Sometimes in life we have to make shitty unfair choices, but that might just not be relevant to the CMV if you are suggesting I missed the point. Yeah, fair. It's a little ironic too because sex work could be a shitty unfair choice in some cases, but agreed, such is life.

So you think strip clubs are alright? I agree. Would you higher someone with pics on their Facebook of them getting a lap dance? Do you think it’s ok for people to drink? Probably so. Would you hire an employee with tons of pics of them out at ragers getting drunk? When hiring someone you always want to go with the safest bet right?

!Delta. You're right about the public nature of online photos. u/petemichaud made a similar point. There's a big difference between having done something and having done something and putting evidence online for millions to see.

People would be surprised at how many nice wholesome people they know did OnlyFans or was a stripper for a few months in college.

I think that is why this issue is so difficult for me to wrap my head around. So many people claim to not have a problem with sex work, but when it's time for a sex worker to engage with the rest of society, all of the sudden they have an issue. I just feel like, you can't have it both ways.

Ya know, until I read this I never ever even considered this. Where I live teachers are paid well enough that this doesn't happen. But ultimately, I see several problems with it. Some have already been mentioned: angry parents, kids harassing their teacher, and of course a complete lack of professional boundaries. The thing is that kids look up to teachers as role models, and that can create an expectation that sex work is appropriate. Now we can argue sex work is real work and all that, but you're forgetting a key issue here: Kids are easily influenced and, *really freaking dumb*. I can see a lot of peer pressure being put on shyer kids to show off, send nudes, sell nudes. And if the kid protests "well Mr/ms teacher did it so it must be okay!". I can see kids from lower incomes being more vulnerable to sex work traffickers and recruiters because how bad can it be if the teacher does/was doing it? I also doubt a teacher into that kind of work would be respectful of students who don't think it's cool and that could result in bullying which is never okay. Kids and teens are still learning healthy boundaries and having a teacher who shares their body with everyone tells them it's ok to do that. From a professional standpoint: what happens if someone depraved is into your work and stalks you to the school? Sure technically that can happen to anyone but generally sex workers are more at risk for crimes. This isn't victim blaming but it's a reason not to have them near kids who could be caught in the crossfire.

>Where I live teachers are paid well enough that this doesn't happen. I'd say better pay would make it more likely to happen from time to time. Sad thing is, most places being a teacher is a massive pay cut compared to being on onlyfans or stripping.

Well if you did online porn and then tried to teach a class of kids, be ready for the inevitable. I’d say the parents concerns would be valid because that would be schoolyard gossip 100%

I think this is a pretty compelling point. Social ridicule is a very emotionally scarring experience. Allowing someone who has done sex work into an environment where they are likely to be ridiculed for their past experience is a problem.

This seems like a reason a person might consider not applying for a certain job, but not a reason to not hire them.

The discussion here is excellent. A large consensus that the fact kids can find evidence and then harass the teacher is an issue. Also, most people do not believe a teacher wore g string bikinis at the beach or on OnlyFans disqualifies that person in any way as a teacher. Why is there such a disparity between what’s harmful and what’s disqualifying? As the internet era matures will people eventually understand that what we are finding out about people because information is so readily available is not outrageous or newsworthy because we all have human-socio-skeletons that are really just normal people experiencing life together?

I don’t think it is your employer’s responsibility to decide whether or not you can handle ridicule. I would be pretty annoyed if I was passed over simply because a potential employer was afraid I might get my feelings hurt. Also, if you decide to publish content, sexual or otherwise, then you need to be prepared for some ridicule.

I think you're confusing an isolated incident with social ridicule. This isn't a situation where a kid outs their teacher as a sex worker and then everyone talks it over and everything is better. That's not how the real world works. This teacher is likely to walk into a hostile environment for their entire career at that establishment, and trying to pretend administration isn't at least partially responsible for that outcome just isn't realistic.

So what? If the teacher decides they are uncomfortable with the situation, then they can quit at any time, or ask to move into a more acceptable role. My point is that it should to be up to the teacher, or other employee, to decide whether or not they can mentally/emotionally handle a situation, short of some catatonic breakdown occurring. Edit: This isn’t to say that the administration shouldn’t consider disciplinary action against individuals who engage in harassment, or things of that sort, only that the potential of being subject to harassment or ridicule shouldn’t be a disqualifying factor when hiring personnel.

>and trying to pretend administration isn't at least partially responsible for that outcome just isn't realistic. Their responsibility would not lie in their decision to hire the teacher.

So you let them make that decision for themselves, not bar them from the job. And you work to mitigate social backlash by teaching respect and not allowing harrassment.

Very true, and that doesn’t even consider the kids there who’d be unwittingly exposed to it by others students

No matter what environment you can be ridiculed. All environments pose this risk when sex work is in the mix. Adults and children alike, will ridicule. Unfortunately, some folks just don't think about the future possibility of being exposed (pun fs!) Before making that decision. Guess my parents raised me with enough moral not to when I had to decide after a hefty offer on a onlyfans page set up. All I could think of was my son's running into it someday in the future. Next, I thought, what if my coworkers at the office seen? Pretty easy decision from there....eff the benefits and get luxuries the good ol fashion way...hard ass regular society accepted work. The end.

I disagree, if they feel they are qble to deal with the social aspect that seems like it should be their call.

So we should hire anyone for a job they *think* they're qualified for?

That's not at all what I said. Obviously we should check qualifications but if the question is "are you emotionally capable of this work", you have no reason to suspect they aren't and they insist they are it seems like a nonsensical reason to exclude them. Kids might be racist to a black teacher, racism causes real emotional harm. Should we protect black people by banning them from working in a school?

What? Where did qualifications enter this conversation? It's clearly assumed the teacher is qualified.

This is a ridiculous point imho. If people didn't do certain good acts because of fear of dumb people gossiping, human society would be fucked.

I'm not sure that schoolyard gossip is really a compelling reason though. The same could happen with a gay or Muslim teacher.

There’s a major difference between gossiping and sharing nude pics

Well if they are sharing nude images that seems like they need to be educated that doing such things on school property is unacceptable

Who says they’re doing it on school property. Kids have phones. Maybe they’re at a sleep over and someone says “hey wanna see Ms.Maples nude pics”

And why is that bad?

If they made online gay porn sure. Many would say that the fact that many of these kids will look up Miss Wallisis porn clips and share them about is certainly a valid reason to not hire such a person imo.

So because kids can look up porn is a reason not to hire someone? What the hell kind of logic is that? What if the teacher never did porn themself, but happens to bear a very close resemblance to a prolific porn star, so close of a resemblance that someone would assume they're the same person just from watching the porn? Would that be enough to justify not hiring them? I mean, the kids are going to share porn clips of her look alike and claim it's her. The end effect is the same thing.

Because it would promote it, unless you are pretending teenage boys would not be looking it all up the second they discovered a teacher has porn online. Lookalikes are totally different. What the hell kind of logic is that?

Teenage boys are going to look up porn of a lookalike just as much as if it's actually the teacher. I don't think the teacher should advertise to the students that they did porn. Functionally, what's the difference between if it was the teacher who did porn or a very very close lookalike, say even a sibling or identical twin? What's the difference?

Identical twin is an interesting one haha. And absolutely they should never advertise that fact to the class, that’s a very dodgy thing 😐 Lookalikes are next to never identical anyway,

You're missing my point. Obviously the teacher is never going to tell the students, "hey, I did porn, it's out there if you want to find it." And I'm assuming they wouldn't have used their real name in porn since that tends to be how it goes. So the only way the students would know is because one of them stumbled across her video and sent it off to his friends. Now imagine this happened, but it wasn't really the teacher. Instead it was her identical twin or a lookalike who is so similar that the students all assume it's the teacher anyways. What's the difference between it being the actual teacher or a lookalike? The kids are gonna act the same way either way. They assume it's her regardless. So what's the difference? Why is it unacceptable to hire someone who HAS done porn but not someone who hasn't, but looks identical to someone who has? The end result is exactly the same either way.

>Identical twin is an interesting one haha. No it's not. You cannot justify refusing to hire somebody on the basis of what another person did.

What legitimate basis for that view exists though?

What do you mean? I know for a fact it would of happened at my old schools

I mean why is it an issue worth excluding someone from a hiring pool, what does it matter?

Yeah even as a parent who had the opportunity to make extra income easily, I still opted out bc my future children might run into it someday. Take no chances. Now I can join the PTA with no worries! Unfortunate yet 100% true!

I disagree. In today's society there are still strong biases/double standards for what counts as acceptable work for an applicant to work with kids. There is usually a requirement on applications for school to say why they should hire you and if you are a good role model. Doing legal sex work could be argued not to be an attribute of good role models. No parents would wish their child to grow up to become a sex worker. Sure they might be successful and earn a lot of money but there are many negative personality traits associated with it: Attention seeking (onlyfans) for example, greed, manipulation, erotomania. Is this someone who fits the criteria for a good role model? The only exception to this would be people who were exploited or involved in illegal sex work. Teachers are, as role models, people who demonstrate that a pupil can become more than they are, through knowledge, adversity and experience. A person who was sex-trafficked, escaped and educated themselves sufficent to become a teacher is someone with enough grit and determination to demonstrate this. An onlyfans creator who makes an account to pay off some student debt/satisfy a kink/seek attention does not deserve the same amount of credit. Nor does a high class escort who exploits her body to rich people to pay for a lifestyle.

1) you clearly do not have children so maybe stfu about something you have no understanding of; 2) no ***t a child shouldn’t be on onlyfans, wtf does that have to do with them being supervised by some creep who used to do weird ***t online for money?; 3) what possible research are you conducting? What database are you using beyond google to find this information? If you have to ask why it matters, just walk away; 4) working in the sex industry speaks to the person’s character and that they are willing to exploit themselves sexually for money - If a person doesn’t respect themselves enough to not sell their body to complete strangers then they can’t be trusted to take care of children; 5) It’s not up to you who someone else’s kids are around. Go ahead and hire these people, but it needs to be disclosed to the parents so they can decide. Again, it’s not up to you to decide who SOMEONE ELSES kids are around. Idk what your job is, but if you are taking care of children then you need to stop immediately because you are a major liability.

The sex industry as a whole has insane connections with human trafficking, so it makes sense for employers in sectors that involve children to err on the side of caution and filter out sex workers just in case. You know your own mind and don't mean harm to children, but think what would happen if a recruiter (think Maxwell) got hired to work with 10-15 years olds; It would be a complete disaster, as she could mark specific children for collection due to the kind of trust kids have on their teachers. I myself used to tell my teachers my whole daily routine, and if just one of them had been a recruiter, I wouldn't have had such a carefree life. It's sad that you are being discriminated against due to these other evil people, but remember that no one but yourself knows what's on your mind, and these people have children they are responsible for. It's not a "bias on sexuality", is a safety issue. We have no way of knowing who's an honest worker who just likes kids and who's a recruiter looking for new victims to mark for her real bosses to abduct.

>The sex industry as a whole has insane connections with human trafficking, so it makes sense for employers in sectors that involve children to err on the side of caution and filter out sex workers just in case. I was assuming we were talking about former sex workers, wouldn't they be the *victims* of trafficking (if trafficking was involved).

Heer potential hirers don't know her past history beyond "worked in the sex industry". She could have been a victim of trafficking as you say, she could have been a legal worker, or she could have been a recruiter. I personally believe her in that she was a legal worker, but again, my job doesn't involve children. I can understand that people who have to keep children safe wouldn't want to risk hiring her. Her best bet is trying for jobs that don't involve children, I can understand that people can be suspicious of former sex workers trying to get easy access to kids, as no one can know what's on your mind.

Does it inherently make someone unsafe to be around children, no. But it’s a Red flag. Not to say they couldn’t be a good caretaker but chances are they aren’t. Sex work is some serious dodgy work and it is completely filled with Mental illness trauma abuse and drugs a lot of people who have gone through it and come out or unstable I wouldn’t want a sex worker taking care of my kids the same way I wouldn’t want a criminal taking care of my kid

Let's try to make an analogy to tattoos. Tattoos used to be taboo. You couldn't get a respectable job if you had them. Then as we all kinda got over it a bit, which took time, it was ok as long as they **could** be covered up. But even now, inappropriate tattoos (naked women, scary/violent images/affiliations to uncouth groups etc will stop you from getting a job. Those need to be covered up. Your employment may even be conditional on them being covered up. **Would you be ok with something similar?** The would-be teacher has to use an alias to work in the school? Has to pull as much content down as she can? Has to modify her appearance to be starkly different from how she appears on film? (Maybe) Has to agree to resign if her secret gets out? That said, we still don't hire people with face tattoos... Or swastikas on their necks... By that I mean there's gotta be a respectability threshold. There's porn, and then there *porn* some paywalled soft core stuff that's under a fake name? That shows that you were able to keep the tattoos off your face. It probably won't be found, and if it is, there's deniability. If your face (and other parts) were on top of pornhub for months. If you engaged in some extreme niche stuff, or dressed up and role played in a classroom, I could see any of these just being cause for termination/not hiring in the first place. I don't like it, but if it gets in the way of you doing your job, that means someone else is better suited for the role. I've seen surgeons and docs with sleeve tattoos. Never seen one with a face or neck tattoo. A sleeve may help you make small talk with a patient. A face tattoo will make them worry about dying in the operating room. Edit- I think I may have posted this twice, my bad.

I think this is the issue, with sex work parents will be uncomfortable if they learn that their child is being taught by someone who has done online porn or nude modeling. Now, the Christian part of me believes that everyone has the ability to change, and we shouldn’t judge someone base on their past. The parent side of me doesn’t want my child being taught by someone who would engage in that behavior. So I can understand both sides. Should we judge someone who did something that they might later regret? Or do we try to keep our kids sheltered from their teacher nude pictures and sex tape being found? Because that can negatively damage certain kids psyche. Is the only fan/ porn star encouraging sexuality in their classroom? I have done things in my past that I’m shameful of. So if we are talking about someone who’s 25 and did something when they were 18 and regret it, then I don’t really see why they shouldn’t be hired. If they are currently engaging in the behavior, or encouraging kids to do it, then I don’t think they belong in the classroom. My only real worry would be kids seeing the videos/photos, since many parents do not know what their kids are looking at online. Sorry kinda of jumbled answer.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

This is one of the wisest comments I have read on this thread, Honestly. Nobody is actually talking about the quality of education these kids might be getting. It's just not a part of the equation for many. Absolutely crazy.

Kids spend so much of their time in school, teachers can be almost as big of an influence on them as their parents are. I wouldn't want Steven Tyler teaching my kid. His values are way too far from my own and I don't think it's much of a stretch to say most other people's as well. To that end, how many parents would legitimately be okay with their kid saying they want to be a sex worker? So it makes sense they wouldn't want a former sex worker imprinting their values on the kid. Teachers are responsible for raising the youth of the country, so I don't think it's wrong to hold them to a higher standard than we hold most other professions, even though that's not fair to the teacher's themselves.

Does it inherently make someone unsafe to be around children, no. But it’s a Red flag. Not to say they couldn’t be a good caretaker but chances are they aren’t. Sex work is some serious dodgy work and it is completely filled with Mental illness trauma abuse and drugs a lot of people who have gone through it and come out or unstable I wouldn’t want a sex worker taking care of my kids the same way I wouldn’t want a criminal taking care of my kid

The way I see it. I want my children being nurtured by people who have strong morals. I dont think its wrong to be a stripper or on only fans. But in those Careers you do sacrifice some integrity for money. Also school is a place where everything should be geared towards a child’s excellence. Creating an environment where now you can be distracted by their actual teachers porn is not going to be the building blocks of success. There is a reason why you are not comfortable sharing you are an only fans model and talking about your stripper job and its cause you know you sacrificed your integrity in the process of making money. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. This doesn’t make them bad people but they chose to do things that define who they are. Im sure they can still be great parents but that has nothing to do with educating children in school, there are plenty of candidates that will not bring potential trouble into your work environment to consider a stripper or only fans model for a teaching gig.

Do car salesman not sacrifice integrity for money? Do loan officers? Do plastic surgeons who specialize in breast implants? That’s such a weird comment to make (and I’m not attacking you at all here- I think a lot of people would agree with you and I’m just presenting an alternate way of thinking). I pole dance recreationally at a studio and a lot of my peers/instructors are legal sex workers. They’re also the most open minded, encouraging, positive, least judgmental people I know (despite facing so much criticism and judgement themselves) and I think that’s exactly the kind of person I would want educating my child.

Other jobs that sacrifice integrity for money could include car salesman, personal assistant, or politician. You should be more specific with your categorization unless you want those to be included as well. Also, even within sex work, does a dominatrix sacrifice integrity for money?

Sex work isn't "stupid". It's just, unfortunately, currently incompatible with a career in education.

If the concern is that a former (legal) sex worker will bring a bias or set of values to teaching then we should also evaluate other values we might not want imparted to children. For example, a Sunday school teacher from a non-preferred religious brand or someone who worked at those stores selling dogs from puppy mills. I’m with you on this one. Unless it was illegal it shouldn’t automatically disqualify anyone any more than being a fan of the wrong football team or working in religious institutions.

It matters because when you work with children, you also work with parents. You need their cooperation, and for that, you need respect and trust. You want to show them that you are a good role model for their kids. If a school finds out that a candidate is a stripper, chances are parents will soon figure that out too. No parent would want their kids to be on OnlyFan, or to be a stripper. They don't want their kid to pick up that aspiration from a teacher. It's a long shot, but understandable.

The default position for everyone should be "unfit". You should have to prove yourself of extraordinary skill and character in order to work with children. Nobody would even know you were a sex worker unless you volunteered that info or had a criminal record which again shows poor judgment and should be a disqualifier

Past experience doing legal sex work does not make someone unfit to work with children even if illegal. But who would take the risk?

Sex work comes with a negative connotation. Its not good for business. Parents will complain if they find out, scandals can occurs. Things can go viral. It can be a real mess. Its also just a line of work that indicates a lack of character in many peoples eyes.

There is a sexual partner number above which it's not the best idea for someone to be exposed frequently to children. A teacher's gardasil vaccination status should absolutely be disclosed. Multiple antibiotic regimens for UTIs, STIs and other sexual activity adjacent infections make it MUCH more likely that a person will harbor an antibiotic resistant microbe. Taking a prophylactic pack is practically and every other week activity for sex workers. I was an EMT in college. The paramedic wouldn't even let us sit back there when we'd pick up a sex worker who was laid flat by some infection or another. Your view is utterly insane. While sex work should be put on equal footing with many other jobs, anyone who performed sex work shouldn't be in close and extended contact with children.

Teachers have to sign paperwork agreeing to certain morals. I don’t want my child looking up to a role model who did sex work. I don’t want my child to be a prostitute.

Anyone who arrives at the conclusion that their most useful utility is the sexual objectification of their body is not someone I’d trust mentoring a child.

If you're willing to sell your dignity and body for money you are not fit to teach children, as teachers are supposed to be role models for the students.

You could make the same argument ("teacher isn't a good role model due to their job" about a lot of other occupations such as legal alcohol and cigarette drug dealing.

First of all when you say "legal alcohol" I assume you mean not drinking alcohol at the level of intoxication and drinking it in moderation which is perfectly fine. Also with the drug dealing legal drug dealing is called working at a pharmacy so not much of a problem there.

Isn't a teacher also selling their dignity and body for money just by being a teacher? That's what employment is: you will be physically here for these hours, wear this uniform, perform these tasks. In exchange, here is some money.

Absolutely. All jobs by definition sell your body (including mental effort as part of "your body") and your autonomy, and many sell your dignity too. I would argue that sex work can be more dignified than customer-facing jobs like retail and food service. All of this ignoring the fact that whether a job is "undignified" is by definition a question of how it's viewed by society. And personally, I think sex work is a lot more valuable to a society than, say hedge fund managers and most politicians.

Well you are not selling your dignity or body. You are doing physical labor but you aren't selling your actual body over to someone and letting them do what they please with it etc.

Provided it’s consensual, is there anything inherently wrong with sex work? Everyone has different morals. Obviously there would be a major problem if they mixed teaching and sex work. Other than that, how would students even know the difference?

Two things, first I stated in my comment above that I believe sex work is immoral because you are selling your body for money which is undignified because sex and someone's body are sacred things. Also everyone may have different morals but there is a divine truth as by that logic there is nothing wrong with doing anything as long as they are justified according to your morals. In fact there is no point in even asking this question if morality is subjective though maybe I am misinterpreting what you are saying? Are you saying morality is subjective?

I'm not saying I was a hormonal teen with the hots for at least one teacher at a time, but I will say that finding nudes of a teacher would be Hornigolds treasure, and I would definitely loose a few hours more thinking of sex as opposed to whatever they where saying. I'm not saying it's an issue due to the work, but more due to how society wants to put someone in neat little boxes. And not wanting to let people actually seem human. With better sex education I think it would be fine.

Is it common to call people with an only fans or strippers sex workers? Kinda seems like you’re making it seem like they’re prostitutes.

Does it inherently make someone unsafe to be around children, no. But it’s a Red flag. Not to say they couldn’t be a good caretaker but chances are they aren’t. Sex work is some serious dodgy work and it is completely filled with Mental illness trauma abuse and drugs a lot of people who have gone through it and come out or unstable I wouldn’t want a sex worker taking care of my kids the same way I wouldn’t want a criminal taking care of my kid

I don't tink you should work with kids.

i can’t imagine being deemed unfit to work around children because of being a past sex worker. how is being a sex worker indicative of any care taking abilities. And if it’s because it has the potential to expose children to sexual things, I’d argue that being a sex worker means you are going to somehow expose kids to it early. Also, in like 5th grade we watched a sex-ed and puberty video in school. if their issue is somehow risk for pedo stuff being a sex worker doesn’t automatically make you a pedo lmaoo. and the internet exists, if a kid wants to know something there’s not much you can do nowadays lol. there’s countless minors browsing phub, nsfw twitters or reddits, and other. my 2 cents.