[oogieboogie]

Quote:
zeo said:
on the 'lie' it could all come down to interpretation. They are calling her a 'porn star' and if she hasn't done a porn movie in 5 years which is what is typically associated with the term, then that could be all there is to it. The media often gets the details very screwed up.

The Media screw up the details? Never, no way

[ILikeBoobies]

The forum software's tendency to censor references to "those persons in the youngest demographics" make this thread much more difficult to read.  I understand the reasoning but ugh it is annoying.

[gmantwo]

CNN won't be on her side? You don't think Glenn and Nancy will get on their high horse while demanding justice for our youth?!?!

I'm so old, I remember when CNN featured actual news.

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
zeo: I've been reading this site for years and if I saw her on the street I wouldn't know who she was. Someone in that town studies porn so they can be 'outraged'.

Except for the "wouldn't know her if she passed me on the street" bit, this is exactly what I mean. It's hypocrisy for someone to say "This porn star is a teacher's aide, run her out of town" since the next question should be "Oh yeah? And how come you know she was in porn, hmmmm?"

Quote:
Now as far as a threat to children, I really couldn't care less about some lunch lady that has a second job showing off her breasts. The far more important issue is the various conditioning and dumbing down that is done in the schools, not some lunch lady's other job.

Again, exactly the point. Unless she is giving the young'uns blowjobs during recess, what's the beef?

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
Harvey_Birdman: If I can offer an educator's perspective though... students hate some teachers but IDOLIZE others.  That is possibly the parents' fear...that impressionable female students would LIKE Crystal and somehow see her as setting an example to follow.

Oh, please. I was an educator as well. I've taught at all levels, from elementary right on up to graduate school, and of course I was a student as well. No matter how much I "idolized" my teachers, my parents raised me to know the difference between right and wrong, so I would never blindly "emulate" any of them. Besides, how old are these pupils in the first place? This is an elementary school, no? Any third-graders trying to be topless dancers in that school? I don't think that's gonna happen. This fear is simply not grounded in reality.

Quote:
The flaw here is that Crystal never attempted to let them know of her past.  But, now that it's known, well...you can't put that genie back in the bottle.

Maybe she didn't tell them about her past because it is not germane to her ability to do the present job. Also, it is none of their goddamn business. Unless she signed some "full disclosure" document, in which case all bets are off.

Quote:
Should people be more enlightened and not so puritanical?  Probably.  But do parents have the right to be very protective of their k_ds?  Yep.   As an attorney, I am proud we have laws that technically protect Crystal in this situation (if her lying doesn't cost her).  But I can also say that when a school wants to get rid of someone, they will find a way.  So I suspect she will move on to something or somewhere else eventually.

Sad but true. She would have to move now that the electronic lynch mob has gathered 'round outside her door. As a parent, I'd be much more worried that some crazy would show up in my k_d's school with a shottie than that some teacher's aide who used to take topless pictures for a living was in my k_d's school, if I have done my job as a parent right, at least. And maybe that's the REAL reason why they're trying to hound her out of town, they brought up offspring that they used the TV as a babysitter for instead of actively parenting them. By raising a ruckus over Crystal, they can fool themselves into thinking that they are acting parental. Please.

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
me: I agree that she should probably have pled the Fifth, but the whole morality thing is moot since she was not pushing her private life on her charges.

Angelus: If she's still got the tits, I would say the evidence is right in front of their faces.

I see. So I guess any big-titted teacher is also shoving evidence of a exotic dancer past in people's faces. Please.

[derf79]

Quote:
zeo said:
on the 'lie' it could all come down to interpretation. They are calling her a 'porn star' and if she hasn't done a porn movie in 5 years which is what is typically associated with the term, then that could be all there is to it. The media often gets the details very screwed up.

Technically, showing ones nipples on camera constitutes pornography. We refer to it as "soft-core" porn but it can be named pornography...

And I believe that she is a star with her numerous magazine covers, Expo showings, tv appearances...

So in all actuality she is a soft-core pornography starlet, or "porn star" for short.

The news media is still evil and destroying this country...so Im not taking sides. Just explaining the semantics involved.

[zeo]

Quote:
derf79 said:

Technically, showing ones nipples on camera constitutes pornography. We refer to it as "soft-core" porn but it can be named pornography...

Only in nations like the US and those following Islamic rule I think. Few others have problems with nipples.

Seemingly in the rest of the world exposing a nipple on camera means absolutely nothing.

that whole 'we' thing I can't do... the whole group think of it is just creepy to me.

[zappfra]

Quote:
TheZookie007 said:

Quote:
me: I agree that she should probably have pled the Fifth, but the whole morality thing is moot since she was not pushing her private life on her charges.

Angelus: If she's still got the tits, I would say the evidence is right in front of their faces.

I see. So I guess any big-titted teacher is also shoving evidence of a exotic dancer past in people's faces. Please.

Kudos to you "Zookie" coming back with some good arguments against some who are coming across as so Self Righteous.

[TheZookie007]

Quote:

Angelus: If she's still got the tits, I would say the evidence is right in front of their faces.

me: I see. So I guess any big-titted teacher is also shoving evidence of a exotic dancer past in people's faces. Please.

zappfra: Kudos to you "Zookie" coming back with some good arguments against some who are coming across as so Self Righteous.

Well, that's mainly because saying that if she still has the big boobs (or, indeed, has big boobs at all), then that is grounds enough for raising a ruckus, since she is shoving the "evidence" of her hell-raisin' past (emphasis on past) in people's faces. Nope. That is called "blaming the victim", and in this case, it is neither fair nor right to do so. If she had had a past that included being a molester, that would be one thing (since of course you don't want that sort of person anywhere near a youngster for eight hours a day, 5 days a week) but...

Leave her alone, I say, unless and until you can provide evidence that she is corrupting (or in any way harming) her charges...and by some of her colleagues' testimony, she is doing nothing of the sort.

[oat]

Looking at her photos from glamourcon 41, it seems that her breasts are smaller. I could be judging the size wrong due to several factors. Just wanted to let everyone know.

[Real]

i have to disagree.  perhaps the top that just had slits over her cleavage made her look smaller but I have yet to see any photo evidence of a reduction.

frankly there is a difference in the face between crystal 5 years ago and crystal now.  the most recent stuff on her still up and running website is certainly much more recent with her boobs still very much intact...

[Karma666]

I posted a similar reply about this topic on TaylorMadeClips.com's forum, and I felt compelled to express my personal feelings on the issue here.

It never ceases to amaze me, the hypocrisy displayed by our society as a whole. Nice how both the Board of Education President and Superintendent have been advised  not  to take action, yet they both feel Ms. T should be fired. FIRED FOR WHAT?!? For having participated in a  legitimate  business relationship with an industry whose sole commodity is entertainment geared towards  adults? Makes me wonder how this information got to the school, and who it was that may have recognized her after the initial double-take. By the way, the welcome part to her site has been taken down. All that remains are the Members Access link and an email address. I respect Ms. T for what I think she was doing was serving her community the best way she knew how. I'll also go on record by saying I wouldn't think twice about watching her perform an exotic dance routine on video or live in a club. Does that make me a bad person?  

[brakblake]

Quote:
Karma666 said:
I posted a similar reply about this topic on TaylorMadeClips.com's forum, and I felt compelled to express my personal feelings on the issue here.

It never ceases to amaze me, the hypocrisy displayed by our society as a whole. Nice how both the Board of Education President and Superintendent have been advised  not  to take action, yet they both feel Ms. T should be fired. FIRED FOR WHAT?!? For having participated in a  legitimate  business relationship with an industry whose sole commodity is entertainment geared towards  adults? Makes me wonder how this information got to the school, and who it was that may have recognized her after the initial double-take. By the way, the welcome part to her site has been taken down. All that remains are the Members Access link and an email address. I respect Ms. T for what I think she was doing was serving her community the best way she know how. I'll also go on record by saying I wouldn't think twice about watching her perform an exotic dance routine on video or live in a club. Does that make me a bad person?  

No, no its doent.....but it does show the violence inheriting the system!


Brak "Really loves Monty Python" Blake  

[zeo]

Quote:
Karma666 said:
It never ceases to amaze me, the hypocrisy displayed by our society as a whole. Nice how both the Board of Education President and Superintendent have been advised  not  to take action, yet they both feel Ms. T should be fired. FIRED FOR WHAT?!? For having participated in a  legitimate  business relationship with an industry whose sole commodity is entertainment geared towards  adults? Makes me wonder how this information got to the school, and who it was that may have recognized her after the initial double-take. By the way, the welcome part to her site has been taken down. All that remains are the Members Access link and an email address. I respect Ms. T for what I think she was doing was serving her community the best way she know how. I'll also go on record by saying I wouldn't think twice about watching her perform an exotic dance routine on video or live in a club. Does that make me a bad person?  

This is a country that fills prisons and ruins people's lives because of their vices, that is their ingestion or otherwise partaking in certain substances. The same nation where the government has to approve drugs and many other medical devices and treatments. Now they openly talk of conscription. The government doesn't even consider us the owners of our bodies IMO.

The biggest hypocrisy is saying this is a free country. There is little free about it when we essentially have lost ownership of our own bodies to such a degree. It's a nation where petty control freaks enjoy wielding power to force people to live like they want. What do the elections boil down to? A debate about how people should be controlled. Never is it freedom vs. control, but what sort of controls and to what degree.  

It's still a nation looking for witches and is into god-king worship (as per obama).

It is under this bigger picture that I find no surprise that they want to punish her for her other job. Ultimately it comes down to petty control and telling people what they can and cannot do. I really don't think people understand that freedom requires leaving other people alone and not caring about what they do so long as it doesn't harm others or at least harm them against their will. (people should be free to hurt themselves, that is if they own themselves)