Inappropriate Field Trips

Sometimes I think it'd be kind of nice if those who were morons had to wear a sign letting others know that they're morons. It saves others the trouble of having to find it out through some sort of unfortunate event orchestrated by said moron. Even if that were the case, I don't think that there would be enough of the signs to go around to everyone in this story who deserves them. And there are several. Where to begin, where to begin?

I guess we could start in Dayton, Ohio where, according to WCPO-9 reports that a first year high school marketing teacher has resigned after taking four female students on a rather inappropriate field trip. To a gay male strip bar called Club Masque. Oh, yeah, and they managed to get served alcohol while they were there. (Happy Hour is from 5-7.) Um, what was that?

Holy crap! When I was in high school, I kind of remember that we went to a museum once. I definitely remember we did not go to a gay male strip club. That did not happen during my high school years. (Now that I think about things, it might be one of the very few things that didn't happen during high school. What can I say? I spent a lot of time venturing outside the confines of the institutional learning environment. Future, shmuture, it was totally worth it.)

Who does this? Well, let's start with the students. Can you blame them for getting to go to a bar? WITH their teacher? I don't think you can. There were four of them and 3 were 18 and the other one was 17. Nope. Can't blame them at all for wanting to go to a bar. Wanting to go to a gay men's strip club? That might be one worth looking into. But I suppose if they just wanted to check out some slippery young guys who weren't going to be hitting on them, a gay men's strip club is just the place for that.

Now, the teacher is a 47-year old (and definitely old enough to know better) one Lori Epperson. (I have looked all through the tubes that make up the Internets and I could not find a picture of this chick. Thanks, mainstream media. Thanks for that.) She resigned on Thursday after being placed on paid leave. (Paid leave. One of the strangest punishments of all time. "We're not making you come to work, rather, we're making you not come to work AND we're still going to pay you! I hope you've learned a lesson!" I'd say! I've learned to do things that get me paid leave more often! How cool is that?!) She fully admits that she took the students to the club and she also fully admits that, in hindsight, it was not the most brilliant move of her brand new academic career.

In a letter that she wrote to her supervisors, she explained that it was the students who had wanted to go to the bar. She wrote "...that she didn't agree with the girls wanting to go to the gay establishment, but if they were to go, she thought she should go with them." I see. That seems like an odd choice to make, being as how Epperson was supposed to be the adult in this scenario.

Oh, but I shouldn't get all judgmental on her and just assume that she's irresponsible or mentally challenged or anything like that. She took precautions before chaperoning this escapade. She wrote in her letter, "I talked with their parents to get permission which they did give. I assured them there would not be any drinking. I also made it very clear to the girls there would not be any drinking. They agreed." Oh, for cryin' out loud? Really?

Really. Good thing that you made it clear with the girls that they weren't to drink. Sure. That's going to happen. Yeah, it didn't. But there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for how the girls, one of whom was Epperson's daughter ( ::::sigh:::: ), managed to consume shots and cosmopolitans. (Were they playing 'Sex in the City'? Cosmos?) She wrote that "...the girls asked to go to a different part of the bar and when she went to look for them they had run into someone they knew...that person gave the girls shots and cosmopolitans. When she learned what happened she immediately took the teenagers home."

So, you take four students to a gay male strip club that serves alcohol because you feel if they're going to go there anyway, that you should go with them to...what? Keep them in line? Look out for them? Whichever or whatever it was, letting them roam freely about the bar was not going to accomplish your goal or whatever you call it. Because as we all know, any teenager who says that they're not going to drink alcohol when they've just been taken to a bar isn't going to drink alcohol.

As long as you're looking.

But enough about the Teacher of the Year for a moment. Can we just go back to the part about how she talked to their parents and got permission? I'm having a hard time believing that really occurred unless she was speaking strictly about herself. After all, one of the girls was her daughter! She could have had a full blown conversation with herself and gave herself permission to take her own daughter to a gay male strip club. Yeah, that's it. That counts (in her world) as "talking with their parents". Sure it does.

But at least she gets it right in her letter where she says, "I accept the consequences and believe I should not be in the environment where I make a negative impression on kids." And you are correct. You should definitely not be in that environment. And I'd like to commend her for figuring this out before she had even completed her first full year of teaching. No sense in wasting everyone's time. Get it over with and get out at the beginning. Perfect.

I've never really understood it when teacher (or just adults) want to be "friends" with their students, or with kids in general. Friendly, I get. Friends? Not so much. (Those of you who know me personally can just pipe down. I can hear you laughing from here, so knock it off!) Students, kids, they both have plenty of friends. They don't need any more friends. What they need are people who can set a decent example for them and who can be someone that they can trust if they need someone to talk to or if they need someone to not take them to a gay male strip club.

But you know, with all of the other stories that you tend to hear in the news these days, I guess I should just be thankful that she didn't have sex with any of them.

Sphere: Related Content

Little, Oily, Topless, Female Midget Wrestlers

I suppose that with the economy being all in the crapper and everything, if you're a business owner, you have to put more of an effort into attracting customers to your fine (or seedy) establishment. But whatever it is, just make sure that you follow the rules of the city. It doesn't matter what you do to bring in business, you're going to have to play by the book or risk losing your business license. So, whether it be having happy hour or 2-for1 specials or Ladies Night or topless female midget wrestling, make sure you're within the stated guidelines and regulations of the city ordinances. . Wait. What was the one right after Ladies Night? Topless female midget wrestling? Oh, good Lord, WTF?


Actually, that would be MWF, the Micro Wrestling Federation. Over there at the PJ Star, they're reporting that the liquor license for the Outskirts Bar and Grill in Canton is being suspended for 60 days because during a recent "midget wrestling event" there were two women (presumably of the midget genre) who were topless when all of the wrestling between midgets was going on. Now, mind you, it's not the midget wrestling that the city of Canton has a problem with. No, that seems to be OK with them (for reasons that are just unfathomable). It's the nudity of the midgets whilst wrestling where the problem inherently lies. Apparently. Whatever.

Here's how this fiasco (the losing of the license, not the midget wrestling in and of itself. Odd, I know.) transpired: Naturally, it all began when The Outskirts hosted a Micro Wrestling Federation event on Aug. 16. (In other news, there is a Micro Wrestling Federation.) Kim Scott, the owner of The Outskirts had apparently made a contract with the group for male wrestlers to perform. Well, that didn't seem to be the case. It seemed that there were female wrestlers who, for more unfathomable reasons, had neglected to get themselves completely dressed for this elitist form of entertainment, and were wrestling about without shirts but with oil or some other viscous liquid covering them. Yep, that's right. Two topless female, greasy, oily, slippery midgets trying to do...something with each other under some sort of rules (maybe?) for some sort of sport (I'm guessing) for the enjoyment of bar patrons who may or may not (but hopefully are) be intoxicated? I guess? The funny thing is the only part that was the "problem" was the fact that they didn't have any shirts on. Because that, for some reason, makes it unacceptable. Go figure.

Now Scott claims that she wouldn't have allowed the incident to take place if she knew that they were going to be topless (again, because these people have some morals and character. Sheesh.), but she didn't know because she was outside smoking when the participants were, presumably, lifted up and placed into the ring or on top of the card table or whatever it is. (Because really, how much room is actually required for something like this? They probably could have asked the guitar player for the band to open up his guitar case and they could have done it in there. The point is that not a lot of room would seem to be necessary. ) So when Scott discovered the partially clad and very oily midgets going at each other, she said "she stopped the match as soon as she found out the women were topless." Again, because it's the topless part that makes this wrong.

Scott says that "The match didn't last very long . . . maybe four or five minutes. It was not intentional. Would I let it happen? No." Four or five minutes before she stepped in and put an end to it? Holy cow, how long do these things usually last? Well, maybe longer if they're all greased up like that. They'd go to grab the other one and just shoot right out and across the table or whatever it is. And something like that sounds like it would qualify for being a whole different sort of attraction in and of itself. It would be like the "Oily Midget Toss" or "Shoot Slippery Shorty and and Slippery Shrimpy across the room and win a prize!" Just make sure they're all fully clad.

I just don't get this sort of thing. Is it because they're really short that it's supposed to be appealing to folks? Or is it just that if you're at a certain type of bar (dive bar, white trash patrons, watered down kegs, homeless sleeping on barstools, that sort) anything goes? It's probably the latter, but your clientele has to be a combination of a) not very bright and b) not very sober. Those two things together will allow you to parade in a Barnum and Bailey-esque line of attractions that will keep your customers entertained and buying themselves drinks for hours on end. And if you run out of weird events to host, you can always put some of the drunks on the stage or in the ring and have a couple of them go at each other. That will be entertaining for the drunks and for those who aren't quite drunk enough yet. See? Entrepreneurship. Always thinking.

Anyway, the city council took a vote and voted to suspend Scott's license for 60 days. According to the mayor, a one Kevin Meade, "It's meant to send a message to other businesses in town that this won't be tolerated." Message sent and received, Mr. Mayor. Attention all other businesses! Attention all other businesses! Clothe your midgets! Clothe them now! The oil is fine! But keep 'em clothed! That is all.

That is all indeed.

Sphere: Related Content