<p>dntw8up, even Tyra Banks, lingerie model extraordinaire, is capable of making a distinction between poses that are high fashion and poses that are, to use her term, “hootchie.” She does it all the time. Watch “America’s Next Top Model” and you’ll see. :)</p>
<p>Professional sports team cheerleaders are not viewed as “athletes” by anyone I’ve ever known, anymore than the girls who parade around the ring with cards at professional wrestling matches are “athletes.”</p>
<p>“Where did I say"once a bimbo, always a bimbo”? Presumably she is fully capable of changing her mind about the tastefulness of her activities at some point in the future, if she has not done so already."</p>
<p>“I don’t think the girl is “immoral” for posing for such pictures. I think she’s presenting herself as a bimbo. So now you can stone me.”</p>
<p>I would say it was post #50 </p>
<p>You’ve called her a bimbo, I simply ask you, can she change? </p>
<p>“if she has not done so already.”</p>
<p>Maybe that signing up for the event was part of her decision to “change” or “done so already”. Maybe she has done so on her own accord, at her own pace and in her own terms. But does she have to anything for anybody? </p>
<p>“I don’t claim to have seen the photos. Nor have YOU.”</p>
<p>but I haven’t impiled they are for someone to get their ya ya’s off of either. I haven’t jumped to guilt first, you’ve just stated my ideas in your quote. </p>
<p>And while I am sure NSM is a nice, kind person. I still would have to see for myself before I would decide. Maybe NSM upbringing or experiences are different than mine and we might have entirely different views of the same thing. I just question the assumptions without knowledge towards this person. I don’t think that’s fair and wouldn’t want my daughter “judged” in such a way. </p>
<p>“have not decided that this girl is despicable.”</p>
<p>have you read your own posts? ;)</p>
<p>The most important concerns were:</p>
<ol>
<li>Does this student have the judgment and lifestyle that would make it prudent for her to be on a potentially highly trip in which she’d be representing the school while volunteering serving as a role model/instructor to teens in a religiouslyaffiliated program?</li>
</ol>
<p>2 That her sexually suggestive pictures on the Net would led to embarassment for the institutions involved.</p>
<p>The situation now seems resolved. The prof talked to the student, who seemed sincerely embarrassed and contrite, indicated the pictures were a couple of years old, and occurred when she was victimized by a scam. She indicated she never worked as a model, hostess, etc. If any of you have seen the movie “Fame” in which a guy passed himself off as an agent to get a naive high schooler to pose for risque pictures, that appears to be similar to what happened.</p>
<p>The student has now managed to get most of the pictures – including the most highly suggestive ones – off the Net, including out of Google’s cache where one often can find content that has been otherwise taken off the Net.</p>
<p>The prof is laying down very strict rules (such as no drinking even if one is of legal age) for all members of the volunteer team, including faculty.</p>
<p>So it looks like things have worked out to everyone’s favor, including the girl’s because if the prof hadn’t found the pictures, they probably would have stayed on the Net, and could have hindered her career prospects.</p>
<p>Incidentally, as to the questions of the appropriateness of the pictures, the site had claimed that Maxim used its models, which gives you more of an idea about what the pictures looked like.</p>
<p>I haven’t seen the photos–and have no desire to. However, in dealing with fact patterns posted here, I accept what the people soliciting advice say are the facts. If someone says “my S or D is schizophrenic,” I don’t start to argue and say “HOW DO YOU KNOW HE’S SCHIZOPHRENIC?” </p>
<p>In post #51, the poster says that the idea that the prictures are soft-core porn is only the prof’s opinion. Therefore,the poster argues, I was unfair to disagree with post #38. In post #32 NSM --the OP in this thread–says SHE has seen the pictures herself and they are soft-core porn of the sort that would be seen in a men’s magazine. Post #38 clearly says that we should be more worried about those [presumably like NSM and the prof] who think pictures of women wearing lingerie in suggestive poses are porn. </p>
<p>Post #38 follows post #32 (DUH). Therefore, I read it as saying that posing for soft core porn of the type seen in a men’s magazine --the facts as posted by the OP–is NOT immoral. BTW, NOTHING in post #38 says we shouldn’t assume that it’s soft core porn just because both the prof and NSM say so. Post #51 makes a TOTALLY different argument–the classic straw man. </p>
<p>While I think it is immoral to pose for such pictures, I am not saying that the young woman is “despicable” or certainly not that she is incapable of changing. Where the heck did that come from?!!!</p>
<p>I did say that some people–including me–think it is immoral to pose for such photos and that I thought that it was very likely that people involved with the conservative, religously-affiliated organization would think so. I don’t think the prof has the right to just keep his mouth shut about the photos, now that he knows about them, IF part of the “deal” was that the young people selected for this project would be of “good moral character” as the religiously affiliated organization would define that term. </p>
<p>And I COMPLETELY agree with Consolation. Opie, the idea that saying that young women who pose for such pictures or who pole dance in strip clubs are “presenting” themselves as bimbos is that saying they can never change is PREPOSTEROUS! </p>
<p>CGM, you have really distorted what Consolation said. She didn’t say it was okay for her D to “frolic” on the beach “in front of dozens of leering men”. Indeed, that’s EXACTLY the type of behavior she’s condemned. What she said was more like it would be okay for my D to wear a swimsuit to compete in a swim meet. I suspect she would even think it would be okay for her D to pose for a photo with the gold medal around her neck. That’s not the same as pole dancing at a strip club, for heaven’s sake!</p>
<p>PS: I was typing post #64 when NSM posted #63, and thus had not read #63 when I posted.</p>
<p>Actually, Opie, I said that she was “presenting herself as a bimbo,” not that she WAS one. This may seem like a meaningless distinction to you, but it is not to me. I think that there are a lot of girls who could use a little old-fashioned feminist consciousness-raising around this issue.</p>
<p>It is quite possible that this girl doesn’t fully realize how these photos may make her seem in the future to potential employers, school officials, the electorate (should she ever decide to run for office), the Miss America pageant officials, or whomever. Some of those people may share the opinion of NSM and her friend the professor. She would not be the first to be embarrassed when such things surfaced. Everyone knows how to google nowadays. </p>
<p>Again I reiterate, I think that the professor should have a talk with her about the photos: what she thinks they are, why she did them, what the consequences could be in the future, etc. She can completely ignore what the prof says if she wishes. It’s her life.</p>
<p>Yes, I have read my own posts, and I try to say what I mean, and I have not said that she is “despicable.” “Presenting herself as a bimbo,” yes. “Immoral,” no. YOU introduced the idea that she is somehow “despicable.”</p>
<p>[cross-posted with jonri and nsm, obviously! Thanks, jonri, I was beginning to have a “lost in the funhouse” feeling. 
NSM, I’m happy to hear that the prof had a talk with the girl and found out what the real deal was. Sounds like a good resolution.}</p>
<p>“In post #51, the poster says that the idea that the prictures are soft-core porn is only the prof’s opinion. Therefore,the poster argues, I was unfair to disagree with post #38.”</p>
<p>No, I said the idea that the pictures are soft-core porn is the OP’S opinion. I don’t know the professor, so s/he hasn’t shared his/her opinion with me. And I never suggested I consider it “unfair” for anyone to disagree with me. </p>
<p>“In post #32 NSM --the OP in this thread–says SHE has seen the pictures herself and they are soft-core porn of the sort that would be seen in a men’s magazine. Post #38 clearly says that we should be more worried about those [presumably like NSM and the prof] who think pictures of women wearing lingerie in suggestive poses are porn.”</p>
<p>No, the only poster on this thread who has seen the pictures is the OP, so the OP is the only one who can comment on the suggestiveness of the poses. Since I don’t know the OP, or know her values, or know that I or anyone else on this thread share her values, it seems unreasonable to assume that the OP’s perspective speaks for all, or even most, posters. Therefore, describing the pictures as “soft-porn” is of limited value in the discussion.</p>
<p>“Post #38 follows post #32 (DUH). Therefore, I read it as saying that posing for soft core porn of the type seen in a men’s magazine --the facts as posted by the OP–is NOT immoral. BTW, NOTHING in post #38 says we shouldn’t assume that it’s soft core porn just because both the prof and NSM say so. Post #51 makes a TOTALLY different argument–the classic straw man.”</p>
<p>No, the OP has expressed the opinion that the pictures resemble soft-porn; it is not a “fact.” And I apologize for making multiple comments on this thread. I didn’t know that I was only permitted to post one thought about the matter.</p>
<p>“Opie, the idea that saying that young women who pose for such pictures or who pole dance in strip clubs are “presenting” themselves as bimbos is that saying they can never change is PREPOSTEROUS”</p>
<p>I’m scratching my head a bit here, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Are you saying a person who dances the pole can never be anything else? Maybe you need to reread my posts a bit closer…</p>
<p>“The situation now seems resolved. The prof talked to the student, who seemed sincerely embarrassed and contrite, indicated the pictures were a couple of years old, and occurred when she was victimized by a scam. She indicated she never worked as a model, hostess, etc. If any of you have seen the movie “Fame” in which a guy passed himself off as an agent to get a naive high schooler to pose for risque pictures, that appears to be similar to what happened.”</p>
<p>Don’t ya’ll hate it when opie’s right…:)</p>
<p>"And I COMPLETELY agree with Consolation. Opie, the idea that saying that young women who pose for such pictures or who pole dance in strip clubs are “presenting” themselves as bimbos is that saying they can never change is PREPOSTEROUS! "</p>
<p>and I am scratching my head over this one…jonri? are you saying once on the pole always on the pole? Then you do agree with Cons, not me. Maybe you should reread a bit, no?</p>
<p>No. I’m not saying once on the pole always on the pole.Consolation never said any such thing either. I’ll admit my syntax leaves something to be desired, but the fault is with my writing, not my reading skills. Saying that someone “presented” themselves as a bimbo does not mean EITHER that they really ARE a bimbo or that, even if they are, they cannot change. IMO, you are putting words into Consolation’s mouth that were never said.</p>
<p>In other words, you, Consolation, and I all think that people, especially young people, can change.</p>
<p>NSM, I’m glad it seems to be working out very well. Communication is often the key.</p>
<p>For the record, I posted this way back on p. 3 of the thread:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although I was trying to suggest it could be a legitimate modeling agency, evidently it wasn’t; she was scammed. Poor girl. </p>
<p>You ended up doing her a service, NSM, in that she’s removed from the Web some bad photos she feels do not represent her true and current character. And I hope she’s GREAT with those children.</p>
<p>What continues to trouble me about this situation is the idea that it’s OK to set out some rules and criteria, have a person satisfy those rules and criteria, and then try to pull back what they’ve earned by applying other rules that weren’t expressed. To me, when something like this happens, what you do is revise the rules the next time, but you don’t penalize the person who complied with the current rules.</p>
<p>Hunt,
I do a lot of volunteer work including work in which I recruit other volunteers. It’s not unusual at all to have to make changes in volunteer teams and plans due to info – about the volunteers and service recipients – that comes up after people were selected. This can include info that wasn’t considered when the original selections were made because no one then realized that info was relevant.</p>
<p>In these situations, the focus is on providing the best services possible and meeting service recipients’ needs, and one makes programming and volunteer changes to meet those needs even if those changes inconvenience or disappoint the volunteers. Good volunteers understand this.</p>
<p>Well, maybe they do, and maybe they don’t, especially if they are college students. I still think the best approach is to make it clear in the rules and selection criteria if you want to retain the right to rescind the offer based on legal behavior by an adult that you don’t like. And I repeat my earlier statement, that if you’re going to investigate some of the students’ backgrounds, you should investigate all of them. Obviously, the professer “Googled” this girl’s name–did he do that for all the students?</p>
<p>^^ I would venture to guess that the answer would be yes, after that little surprise! :)</p>
<p>I bet the professor did indeed google the names of ALL the programs volunteers after his discovery of the suggestive lingerie photos.</p>
<p>Consolation and poetsheart are right. </p>
<p>I now think that running names through Google is a good idea before employing a person or using them as a volunteer.</p>
<p>Last year, I got a group of friends and acquaintances to speak to high school students about their careers. During the presentation, one man, a writer, mentioned that one of his literature works had been a finalist for an extremely impressive award.</p>
<p>Later that evening, I Googled him in hopes of being able to read his work. I never was able to find his almost award-winning work (though I did find proof that it exists), but I did find that a couple of years before I had met him, he had been convicted of a felony and ordered into substance abuse treatment after assaulting his then girlfriend.</p>
<p>I’ve been around the man a lot, including in peace activities and with his wife and daughter, and I have never seen any evidence that he has an anger problem or even drinks alcohol now. </p>
<p>However, due to info about his felony conviction’s being so easily accessed, I wouldn’t feel comfortable asking him to volunteer with kids again at a career day, though I would feel comfortable asking him to do volunteer work with groups that could benefit by hearing about how substance abuse almost wrecked his life, and how he has since turned his life around.</p>