Former Playboy Playmate Bares All, Now Teaches Spanish (Dallas, Texas)

[Fitz1980]

Well the key issue here is that she was posing for Playboy and the photographs are accessible the whole world over by anyone.

You can say there is artistic merit in some of the (airbrushed) photography in Playboy, but fundamentally it's still pornography, designed to illicit a certain response. You would really be scrapping the barrel to say that Playboy was body positive and a good role model for the average woman in the street. Do they ever feature nude photos of normal women? or are they pro/semi-pro models with a ton of makeup and a lot of software manipulation to create a perfect and naturally un-achievable look?

If she had been featured in a naturist magazine at a nude event, then you could argue differently, or photographed at a beach without her knowledge for instance,teaching see what complaint the parents could have.

It's OK for actors/musicians and other celebs to pose for Playboy. Even though they may be hugely influential to young people, they haven't signed up to a general code of conduct that is regulated by a professional organisation, like teachers, that would have certain ambiguous clauses designed to cover things like this. i.e. "is there anything in your history or character that might make you unsuitable to be a teacher"

My problem with that standard is it's totally arbitrary.  To some people being openly gay or bisexual would qualify as a bad character trait that should disqualify one from teaching children. I had a music teacher in elementary school who was transfered to another school because some of the parents didn't like a gay man teaching their kids. I didn't even know he was gay until several years later. He never talked to us about homosexuality or mentioned having a boyfriend; far as I knew he was just a man who loved music and enjoyed teaching kids about it.

To others being Muslim, Jewish, Athest, Mormon, Christian or any other religious belief would disqualify them.

Heck to a lot of people being a nudist makes them assume that you must be a dirty minded sexual predator. How about swingers or polyamorous people?

[Dan]

Playboy is not pornography - check the definition of porn and this is obvious.

Many people never checked a Playboy magazine so they imagine what might be in there.

[Archaewok1]

Playboy is not pornography - check the definition of porn and this is obvious.

Many people never checked a Playboy magazine so they imagine what might be in there.

Pornography: "1.  writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement  " World English Dictionary.

Sounds like pornography to me.

Though I still think she has a right to be a teacher. There are plenty of teachers that do trashier things on the weekend, and they still have a job. The only difference is that not everyone finds out about the other people.

[Dan]

Playboy is not pornography - check the definition of porn and this is obvious.

Many people never checked a Playboy magazine so they imagine what might be in there.

Pornography: "1.  writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement  " World English Dictionary.

Sounds like pornography to me.

Though I still think she has a right to be a teacher. There are plenty of teachers that do trashier things on the weekend, and they still have a job. The only difference is that not everyone finds out about the other people.

You're pretty much demonstrating my point. You imagine what might be in there.

Try reading one.

[Archaewok1]

Playboy is not pornography - check the definition of porn and this is obvious.

Many people never checked a Playboy magazine so they imagine what might be in there.

Pornography: "1.  writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement  " World English Dictionary.

Sounds like pornography to me.

Though I still think she has a right to be a teacher. There are plenty of teachers that do trashier things on the weekend, and they still have a job. The only difference is that not everyone finds out about the other people.

You're pretty much demonstrating my point. You imagine what might be in there.

Try reading one.

Type in "Playboy" to a search engine. What pops up? "Hot Pics of Sexy Girls, Naked Women & Celebs on Playboy". Playboy's website link slogal. Pretty straight forward to me. I didn't realize people bought Playboys to read them. >.>

[Dan]

Try pirating one. It's better than having an opinion not grounded in facts.

[Fitz1980]

Type in "Playboy" to a search engine. What pops up? "Hot Pics of Sexy Girls, Naked Women & Celebs on Playboy". Playboy's website link slogal. Pretty straight forward to me. I didn't realize people bought Playboys to read them. >.>

I've bought Playboy issues for pictorials of the naked women and for the articles. Ray Bearberry's classic sci-fi novel Fahrenheit 451 was originally published in Playboy as a serial that spanned several issues.

Technically porn exists in the mind of the viewer and everybody has a different line. That's one of the reasons the US Supreme Court overturns most attempts to ban stuff based on anti-porn laws. To some a nude figure photo in an art museum qualifies as porn. To others it's art. I posed nude for Spencer Tunick and I'm sure some consider his work porn. I've known burlesque and fetesh models who considered their work artistic while others considered it porn.

Heck those old 1950s nudist films were were mostly just made to get around anti-porn laws of the day. That way producers could argue, "these are documentary films about an eccentric subculture here in the US and totally not just an excuse to show lots of footage of young, sexy, naked women playing volleyball."

[Delta]

Technically porn exists in the mind of the viewer and everybody has a different line. That's one of the reasons the US Supreme Court overturns most attempts to ban stuff based on anti-porn laws. To some a nude figure photo in an art museum qualifies as porn. To others it's art. I posed nude for Spencer Tunick and I'm sure some consider his work porn. I've known burlesque and fetesh models who considered their work artistic while others considered it porn.

That is not exactly a new thing, either. Tom Lehrer's song "Smut" ("I do have a cause though. It is 'obscenity'. I'm for it.") famously summarizes:
"All books can be indecent books, though recent books are bolder,
for filth - I'm glad to say - is in the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
everything is lewd."

[mike345]

Playboy is not pornography - check the definition of porn and this is obvious.

Many people never checked a Playboy magazine so they imagine what might be in there.

Pornography: "1.  writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement  " World English Dictionary.

Sounds like pornography to me.

Though I still think she has a right to be a teacher. There are plenty of teachers that do trashier things on the weekend, and they still have a job. The only difference is that not everyone finds out about the other people.

You're pretty much demonstrating my point. You imagine what might be in there.

Try reading one.

Type in "Playboy" to a search engine. What pops up? "Hot Pics of Sexy Girls, Naked Women & Celebs on Playboy". Playboy's website link slogal. Pretty straight forward to me. I didn't realize people bought Playboys to read them. >.>

There are a lot of people who visit sites with galleries of people on the nude beach or at resorts for purposes other than discussing the benefits of nude recreation. That does not make the content porn.

I suppose there is an individual approach to the medium but I don't see this teacher having nude pictures available as something pornographic such as a video having sex or something more hard core. Is it any different than my employer being able to find a naked picture on the internet?

There's some kind of dirt that you can find on anybody. Much of it a lot worse than an image of them without clothes. If that's the worst someone has on me I feel good.