...but seeing as a lot of people only read LJ...
This story (which has not only been covered by the Daily Mail), has got my blood boiling:Teacher faces disciplinary action after parent uncovers provocative lingerie photos online
Here's my objections to this horrific state of affairs, in no particular order:
1. There is no reason or logic that suggests that because a person works as a model as a second job that they are somehow a danger to either the company that they work for or the people (in this case children) in their care. Is the complaining parent seriously of the opinion that there is some kind of likelihood that this teacher will be unable to resist the advances of her pupils or worse still that she is clearly a deviant and is seducing her pupils left right and centre? If neither of those things are true (and I doubt very much that they are), then what on Earth is the problem?
2. Disciplining a member of staff for completely legal activities outside of work is an unacceptable imposition into people's freedoms and privacy, and there should be no situation under which anyone is subject to disciplinary action in this way. I mean to say, would the school be similarly moved to discipline a member of staff that performed in an amateur staging of "Hair" (for example)? Sure discipline away if arrested for drug abuse or sexual assault or even I might venture Driving Under the Influence, but for being a photographic model? This is the line that should not be crossed.
3. The Head Teacher in this particular case has been portrayed by The Daily Mail and The Telegraph as a narrow-minded idiot who is prepared to categorically state that the teacher in question will be brought to task. She is apparently away from work pending a fuller investigation of the situation, why is he even commenting on the matter? Does he not realise that he is unavoidably prejudicing the due process that she deserves and that we should all demand? I mean seriously, how hard is it to say "No Comment"?
4. I really hate the double standard that British 'prudism' seems to be blind to with regard to our society. What do I mean by that? Well, I doubt very much that the parent in question has any problem with the lingerie section of Kays Catalogue, or of the Point Of Sale materials in the M&S underwear section, so does he or she think that these images are created? Someone has to put the underwear on and let someone else take the picture(s) and they are often provocative, particularly if they are 'selling' the idea that this pair of panties or this bra will make you sexy. So why is it suddenly an unforgivable thing if a teacher is the person in that image? Is it really as simple and unimaginative / brain-dead as "Think of the children!", because I don't think that kids are traumatised by seeing an image of a sexy woman or man in their gender appropriate under garments, if they were, then there would not be such images up in M&S and the like; they would be banned. If it is that she will not be able to command respect from the children she is teaching because they have seen her in her undies, then again I feel this is over-simplified. Surely the only 'spin' required is that as a healthy, fit woman she has been able to augment her salary with a second job as a model, and seeing as her job is to encourage health and fitness then here is a real-world benefit to her job that is far more likely to appeal to young people than the rather untenable 'you will live longer'. But what if her being a lingerie model makes some of her pupils (of either gender) more self-conscious and self-critical of their bodies, leading to annorexia, bulemia and depression, even suicidal tendencies? Give me a break! Teenagers for the last fifty years have had much more important role models perpetuating the beauty myth and making them either feel validated or diminished than their teachers. I would argue that having one such role model that they can talk to, who can reassure them that looks really are not everything in this life has got to be more beneficial than leaving all of that image forming to celebrities and worlds of fantasy.
Bottom line; this woman should not have to have her career ruined for pursuing a side-career as a model, and I have the sneaking suspicion that if she were a life-model for a painter (or similar) and her identity could not be proved so completely as it can by a photograph then this would simply not have happened, despite the fact that she is not modeling in the nude at all.