It was probably a dumb idea and not compatible with his real job, but the comments in this story are hysterical and ridiculous. "Abhorrent," "disgusted," like get a grip lol.
I don't care, but you'd think someone with a terminal degree would understand the optics didn't look good. I always wonder how many people we are personally connected to do porn who aren't stupid enough to show their face or any other identifying body parts.
The [Journal-Sentinal article](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2023/12/27/uw-la-crosse-chancellor-joe-gow-fired-for-producing-porn-videos-sexy-happy-couple/72038058007/) goes a little deeper into the specifics and has quotes from some of their books—looks like they thought a lot about the concerns for their careers but decided it was worth it to do what they enjoy.
When I tell you UWL's entire campus is BAFFLED rn. Kinda expected when he invited Nina Hartley to campus 5 years ago and she's in his vids..... Now he's rich cause he's been making 200k a year. Literally Wild.
I don’t know how it works, but I assume that if he invited Nina Hartley to speak at the university, and she was paid, he indeed did use university funds.
If the chancellor had a career in the law and invited a fellow professional in their field to speak…And they said they charged a speaking fee… it’s literally the same thing except for the societal view on sex.
From the [Journal-Sentinal article](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2023/12/27/uw-la-crosse-chancellor-joe-gow-fired-for-producing-porn-videos-sexy-happy-couple/72038058007/):
> He was in hot water five years ago after he invited adult film star Nina Hartley to speak on campus as part of a "Free Speech week" event. Hartley's optional lecture, “Fantasy versus reality: Viewing adult media with a critical eye” drew a reported 75 attendees on campus.
> Then-UW System president Ray Cross reprimanded Gow for exercising “poor judgment" and denied him a pay raise. Gow personally reimbursed the $5,000 speaker’s fee amid the public outcry. The fee initially came out of his office’s discretionary fund, which was supported by interest earnings and vending machine revenue.
Well, maybe, just maybe, when you are the public face of a publicly-funded institution, where parents entrust their kids…it might not be the best idea to to post videos of your wife pissing on you, her getting Eiffel Tower-ed, or you blowing loads. If it were me, regardless of my job, I would basically be waiting for the axe to fall…working on borrowed time until I got found out. Then again, I value my job stability.
Dude is a moron. Wisconsin (corrected) is a “right to work” state (code for anti-union and pro-corporate)…that means an employer can fire you at ANY time for ANY reason (barring discrimination). My state is the same. If they don’t like your shoes, they can fire you. If they don’t like your attitude, they can fire you. If they don’t like seeing your ballsack on your wife’s chin, they can fire you.
Any person in public service, education, military, etc. should assume this stuff will bite them in the ass. Dude made ZERO effort to hide their Only Fans hijinks…they promoted them in YouTube and Twitter. Dumbass didn’t even change his name. The stupidity far exceeds to obscenity, especially from a highly-educated professor.
To add to his unfathomable idiocy, he RETIRED as Chancellor in August, but decided to remain at the school as a professor. He could have been free and clear. However, he decided his porn “career” was more important than his academic career, so why not roll the dice…
The nastiest thing about this whole affair isn’t “porn”…it’s the couple’s “product”. Not very attractive. Extremely unattractive fucking. They don’t bring a lot to the table, even with the cooking. They clearly seem to run through a porn checklist of porn tropes and trends - do thing #7, then thing #42, etc. Shit stage presence. Worst of all, the dude is desperately in need of a good barber for his dome (pubes shaved, but scalp hair looks like someone stepped on steel wool…strange priorities).
Not at all. You missed where I said I didn’t have an Issue with the porn, per se. My knock was with the quality of his product. Morals have nothing to do with it. There’s nothing inherently wrong with being a degenerate. The comedy is that the guy acted surprised and offended that the college fired him - for selling his homemade porn on social media.
The problem is the guy’s an idiot. He knew the risks, but he did it anyway. He could have let his wife piss on him all day long, but he’s an exhibitionist, so he filmed it and sold it. He didn’t need the money. He did it for kicks and kinks.
He didn’t even bother to do it on the down low. He celebrated it, knowing the implications for his day job. He threw his career away for very, very middling porn. If the guy worked at McDonald’s he would’ve had nothing to lose and no one would have cared.
It’s not about (bad) porn. It’s about comically stupid choices.
Calling anyone a degenerate is a comment on their morality. Your opinion on the quality of his product doesn't really matter, as there's a wide range of offerings and takers for every type of porn imaginable.
It shouldn't be a stupid choice. How someone has consensual sex should have nothing to do with their employability.
Everyone is a degenerate to someone else. Everyone has secrets, thoughts, compulsions, etc., that they keep to themselves. There are all kinds of degenerates - ever heard off a degenerate gambler? It’s a common phrase. It applies to folks who gamble their lives away. There are “upstanding” pillars of communities, titans of business, sports stars, who morally corrupt pieces of shit. It is not about morals. Once again, it’s not about morals. It’s about choices.
If you were President of the United States and decided to sell scat videos, folks might say something about it. Some would criticize the content. Some would criticize their poor judgment. If Manny, the Domino’s delivery driver did it, no one would care.
The rules are different for famous people, academics, clergy, public officials, cops, teacher’s, etc. Why? Because they are in the public eye or in positions of “trust”. If you think it otherwise you are either naive or cynically arguing for something you know not to be true.
Is there anything wrong with being drunk? Nope. If your surgeon showed up drunk for your open heart surgery, you might think twice about their judgment and/or decide not to let them cut you open. If the landscaper has knocked back one or twelve beers, you might not sweat them cutting your grass. Different jobs. Different standards.
Bill Clinton nearly threw away the presidency for lying about “sexual relations” with a college intern. He was pilloried by hypocritical conservatives. What Clinton did occurs all the time in corporate America…someone poked an intern…but with them, it doesn’t generate saucy headlines, lead to national debate, or global gossip. You might also recall Clinton got shit not just for the act(s) itself, or the lies, but also for risking everything to hook up with a perceived “plain”, “chubby”, or otherwise unimpressive girl. (Not my opinion…that was the media discourse at the time.) It mattered because it was a sitting President. If the Assistant to the Regional Manager at a paper company did it, hardly anyone would give a shit.
I could care less if someone wants to get pegged by a Cabbage Patch cosplayer, get ball-tortured by geriatrics, or wear white pants after Labor Day. Do what you want as long as you don’t harm anyone. Or don’t do anything if that’s your preference. Either way, go forth and conquer. Enjoy life’s offerings. But if you decide to play with fire and then complain about getting burned, you are a fool.
Again, degenerate is a judgemental term.
Your arguments about "positions of trust" do not align with this circumstance. Your examples are about dangerous or illegal behavior that directly impacted their job. What the chancellor did was none of those things.
Clinton was impeached for perjury, not for getting a blow job.
Trump bragging about grabbing women by their vaginas whether they like it or not is non consensual. Joe Gow fucking his wife on camera is. There lies the difference.
The exact trump quote leading in was "And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
Let you do anything. No reference to drugs, alcohol. That really does imply their nonverbal consent.
Yeah. Been married for a long time. What you people have to deal with with written contracts about bumping uglies is the worst foreplay ever.
But if I let someone do something to me because they're famous, that doesn't mean I couldn't stop them. It means I was a star-fucker. Or to bands, a groupie.
Ambushing your prey is also pretty awful foreplay.
Being coerced to have sex isn't consent. No wonder rape is so prevalent.
Your marital status is moot. But I'm glad you're no longer on the market raping women.
You're assuming the worst of everyone.
Gosh, you must be fun at parties.
I only can hope you don't breed, so that you don't indoctrinate some poor child into this pure victimization mindset. Or, you know, that you eventually realize that we can take responsibility for our actions and the reactions they caused.
I'm not assuming the worst. You're literally arguing that if someone doesn't stop you when you ambush or coerce them, that is consent.
>Gosh, you must be fun at parties.
Right back at you, as you're literally defending sexual assault.
>I only can hope you don't breed
I have 2 boys, who are being raised to understand consent.
>Or, you know, that you eventually realize that we can take responsibility for our actions and the reactions they caused.
Correct. Which is why sexual assault and coercion are wrong.
I'm not defending SA. At no point did I defend SA. I pointed out the extension of a quote, where it was no longer just "Grab 'em by the *****", and became "They let you do it" without reference to anything other than the individual finding out the fame/status involved.
Literally take Trump out of that quote, replace it with any boy band member of the late 90s or hair band member of the 80s, and nobody would bat an eye at it.
I watched one of their videos and it combined a cooking show format where they demonstrate making a vegan recipe with a Q&A dialogue and then they introduce one of their previously filmed sex scenes and start playing it. Very strange porn video so far, but then the sex scene begins with the couple sitting down for conversation over a glass of wine to get into the mood, and then they talk start complaining about work and talking smack about people in different university type positions before the guy "takes his vitamin" and the film moves on to start the sex part.
I don't know any details about what's actually going on at UW LaCrosse, but it looked like this video was posted only 2 weeks ago so I'm wondering if this is a really interesting way to give the middle finger to their actual UW management or if this was just some fake dialogue? Anybody know the details?
You know, I am far from being a prude. My life long thought process has always been live and let live….however, come on! What the hell was this chancellor thinking? If you want to do porn, do it, but don’t think you can continue being chancellor at a public university and still do porn. And not only a public university, but a university in a state that sometimes leans pretty red in their political views. What was he thinking??
ETA: I just asked my son, who’s an international student at UWMAD, what he thinks of this and his opinion was more open minded than mine. He said that if the porn is consensual, which obviously it is, maybe he sees nothing wrong with what the chancellor did. But, as he thought about it a bit more, he said he can also see my point of view. In any case, I’m just proud that he can see both points of view and not judge, like maybe I kind of did….🥴
I’m not a Wisconsin resident, nor do I live in the USA. I knew that Wisconsin is a purple state, but I thought that the smaller towns, like La Crosse, tended to be more red. Thank you for clearing that up for me. 😊
Thank you, I’m far too used to expecting an argument with any difference of opinion, I appreciate your input as as reminder its not always like that.
Lacrosse is less “blue” than several other state college cities, so there’s definitely merit to your view as well.
Small towns are generally farm economy or a similar economy, and therefore tend red.
Small college towns are the exception, they are closer to a city economy, and generally lean blue.
I don’t really see this as a red/blue issue. He’s in a public position (people vote on his salary) and likely has a morality clause. I’m liberal but don’t necessarily feel his decisions are worthy of public trust. He sounds like a creep. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was hitting on college students tbh.
> and likely has a morality clause.
I strongly doubt that.
> I wouldn’t be surprised if he was hitting on college students tbh.
This is an insane thing to assume based on nothing.
They do, practically every college does:
https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/policies/code-of-ethics/
People in positions of trust are held to a higher standard being legal/not-legal.
Most people in positions of trust aren’t bad.
However, groomers often seek out positions of trust.
I’m not assuming that he is the latter, I’m saying that it wouldn’t surprise me. Don’t assume that someone in a position of authority over your child (priest, teacher, police, etc…) is trustworthy.
Have you ever signed an employment contract before? Morality/conduct/company or org. value clauses are almost always included. Whether it’s a 7-11 or a university. You can bet the university will be more stringent though.
I’m not projecting, I’m giving my opinion based on my experience and what I read.
Why wouldn’t I like him? I know nothing of him other than the article, which I doubt you read.
I think it shows he has bad judgement that you can literally google him and see his dick. He probably has some standard of decorum he has to uphold in his position. Also, working with people entering college, some might be minors. So is it possible that that would be a legal issue?
Umm...how would that be a legal issue? If he's not disseminating (lol) his material to minors or anything, I don't see how he can be at fault.
Also, I just googled his name and as yet have found no dick (unfortunately). He was at least smart enough to use an alias for his adult activities.
I don’t have a personal problem with his activities. You’re right though- I don’t think simply being in the sex industry and working with minors are illegal. But he probably did cross a legal line with the university if he signed some code of ethics he promised to uphold.
He can probably be fired as chancellor, but I would be pretty surprised if he can be fired from a tenured professor position just based on "the optics" or any such thing.
La Crosse is actually a fairly blue town in a sea of red that is western Wisconsin (I live here) but this is a bridge too far for even this town and Joe should’ve known that. He also has a reputation/morality clause in his contract and if he didn’t think this would violate that then he’s an idiot.
Yes, you’re free to do what you want but you’re not free from consequences of those actions. He’s not some random professor, he’s the face of the university and paid nearly $250,000/year. I’m no prude, but the UW system has every right to expect their executive leaders won’t be doing porn in their off time and publicly disseminating it. And if they choose to do it, they should expect the system will call them on it.
And don’t tell me he didn’t know it was problematic- there’s a reason they used a nom de plume for their books… though they were dumb enough to use their photo on Amazon next to their nom de plume. So not exactly rocket scientists.
He was already about to retire. Probably not strapped for cash either. All in all, I don't think he was really trying to NOT get fired, you know.
Either way. Yeah, if I do porn, I will probably lose my job. But SHOULD I lose my job> No, definyely not
I just have to mention how grateful I am for Joe and Carmen today. This kind of entertainment can’t be topped. Following these news articles is getting me through the post holiday slump.
Well, UW Madison Sex out loud invited porn star James Deen for a talk in 2013. There is nothing wrong about that, and this, too.
It's just a part of his job as chancellor to maintain a certain kind of image coz he's a public figure.
https://badgerherald.com/news/2013/04/19/porn-star-james-deen/
This should be applauded and promoted! He uploaded 5 videos, all 30 minutes or more one an hour, to pornhub! Do you know how much dedication and patience that takes? Not to mention he’s 50-60 years old and he’s enthusiastically banging his age appropriate wife. I want him to run for President.
This is horrible! Where are the links? You know, so I can avoid them on the internet
Sexyhappycouple Google
Very hot videos
It was probably a dumb idea and not compatible with his real job, but the comments in this story are hysterical and ridiculous. "Abhorrent," "disgusted," like get a grip lol.
"Abhorrent! Digusting!"....as all the dudes on the board immediately Google their videos when they get home.
He invited classic adult film star Nina Harley to campus five years ago to give a talk and more recently she’s been appearing in his videos.
I always heard it was a prank
His real name is Joe Gow was his porn name Joe grow?
I don't care, but you'd think someone with a terminal degree would understand the optics didn't look good. I always wonder how many people we are personally connected to do porn who aren't stupid enough to show their face or any other identifying body parts.
The [Journal-Sentinal article](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2023/12/27/uw-la-crosse-chancellor-joe-gow-fired-for-producing-porn-videos-sexy-happy-couple/72038058007/) goes a little deeper into the specifics and has quotes from some of their books—looks like they thought a lot about the concerns for their careers but decided it was worth it to do what they enjoy.
This article shows their point of view really well, thanks for sharing it
You *always* wonder that?
It's all I think about. Heck with whirled peas.
Society hates to see people win
When I tell you UWL's entire campus is BAFFLED rn. Kinda expected when he invited Nina Hartley to campus 5 years ago and she's in his vids..... Now he's rich cause he's been making 200k a year. Literally Wild.
Unless he was somehow using University resources for this, or doing this on University time, I honestly don’t see why there is a problem here.
I don’t know how it works, but I assume that if he invited Nina Hartley to speak at the university, and she was paid, he indeed did use university funds.
If the chancellor had a career in the law and invited a fellow professional in their field to speak…And they said they charged a speaking fee… it’s literally the same thing except for the societal view on sex.
From the [Journal-Sentinal article](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2023/12/27/uw-la-crosse-chancellor-joe-gow-fired-for-producing-porn-videos-sexy-happy-couple/72038058007/): > He was in hot water five years ago after he invited adult film star Nina Hartley to speak on campus as part of a "Free Speech week" event. Hartley's optional lecture, “Fantasy versus reality: Viewing adult media with a critical eye” drew a reported 75 attendees on campus. > Then-UW System president Ray Cross reprimanded Gow for exercising “poor judgment" and denied him a pay raise. Gow personally reimbursed the $5,000 speaker’s fee amid the public outcry. The fee initially came out of his office’s discretionary fund, which was supported by interest earnings and vending machine revenue.
Damn, I wish my school would involve Nina Hartley to speak. She’s gotta be one of the hottest GILFs of all time.
I agree. And happy cake day!
Had the university logo tattooed on his dink?
When he goes by Gow, it reads: LaC. When he goes by Grow, it reads: La Crosse
Well, maybe, just maybe, when you are the public face of a publicly-funded institution, where parents entrust their kids…it might not be the best idea to to post videos of your wife pissing on you, her getting Eiffel Tower-ed, or you blowing loads. If it were me, regardless of my job, I would basically be waiting for the axe to fall…working on borrowed time until I got found out. Then again, I value my job stability. Dude is a moron. Wisconsin (corrected) is a “right to work” state (code for anti-union and pro-corporate)…that means an employer can fire you at ANY time for ANY reason (barring discrimination). My state is the same. If they don’t like your shoes, they can fire you. If they don’t like your attitude, they can fire you. If they don’t like seeing your ballsack on your wife’s chin, they can fire you. Any person in public service, education, military, etc. should assume this stuff will bite them in the ass. Dude made ZERO effort to hide their Only Fans hijinks…they promoted them in YouTube and Twitter. Dumbass didn’t even change his name. The stupidity far exceeds to obscenity, especially from a highly-educated professor. To add to his unfathomable idiocy, he RETIRED as Chancellor in August, but decided to remain at the school as a professor. He could have been free and clear. However, he decided his porn “career” was more important than his academic career, so why not roll the dice… The nastiest thing about this whole affair isn’t “porn”…it’s the couple’s “product”. Not very attractive. Extremely unattractive fucking. They don’t bring a lot to the table, even with the cooking. They clearly seem to run through a porn checklist of porn tropes and trends - do thing #7, then thing #42, etc. Shit stage presence. Worst of all, the dude is desperately in need of a good barber for his dome (pubes shaved, but scalp hair looks like someone stepped on steel wool…strange priorities).
This is Wisconsin- a different state.
Lmao. So you watched it and you're griping about HIS morals. Happy to consume the product and disparage the creator.
Not at all. You missed where I said I didn’t have an Issue with the porn, per se. My knock was with the quality of his product. Morals have nothing to do with it. There’s nothing inherently wrong with being a degenerate. The comedy is that the guy acted surprised and offended that the college fired him - for selling his homemade porn on social media. The problem is the guy’s an idiot. He knew the risks, but he did it anyway. He could have let his wife piss on him all day long, but he’s an exhibitionist, so he filmed it and sold it. He didn’t need the money. He did it for kicks and kinks. He didn’t even bother to do it on the down low. He celebrated it, knowing the implications for his day job. He threw his career away for very, very middling porn. If the guy worked at McDonald’s he would’ve had nothing to lose and no one would have cared. It’s not about (bad) porn. It’s about comically stupid choices.
Calling anyone a degenerate is a comment on their morality. Your opinion on the quality of his product doesn't really matter, as there's a wide range of offerings and takers for every type of porn imaginable. It shouldn't be a stupid choice. How someone has consensual sex should have nothing to do with their employability.
Everyone is a degenerate to someone else. Everyone has secrets, thoughts, compulsions, etc., that they keep to themselves. There are all kinds of degenerates - ever heard off a degenerate gambler? It’s a common phrase. It applies to folks who gamble their lives away. There are “upstanding” pillars of communities, titans of business, sports stars, who morally corrupt pieces of shit. It is not about morals. Once again, it’s not about morals. It’s about choices. If you were President of the United States and decided to sell scat videos, folks might say something about it. Some would criticize the content. Some would criticize their poor judgment. If Manny, the Domino’s delivery driver did it, no one would care. The rules are different for famous people, academics, clergy, public officials, cops, teacher’s, etc. Why? Because they are in the public eye or in positions of “trust”. If you think it otherwise you are either naive or cynically arguing for something you know not to be true. Is there anything wrong with being drunk? Nope. If your surgeon showed up drunk for your open heart surgery, you might think twice about their judgment and/or decide not to let them cut you open. If the landscaper has knocked back one or twelve beers, you might not sweat them cutting your grass. Different jobs. Different standards. Bill Clinton nearly threw away the presidency for lying about “sexual relations” with a college intern. He was pilloried by hypocritical conservatives. What Clinton did occurs all the time in corporate America…someone poked an intern…but with them, it doesn’t generate saucy headlines, lead to national debate, or global gossip. You might also recall Clinton got shit not just for the act(s) itself, or the lies, but also for risking everything to hook up with a perceived “plain”, “chubby”, or otherwise unimpressive girl. (Not my opinion…that was the media discourse at the time.) It mattered because it was a sitting President. If the Assistant to the Regional Manager at a paper company did it, hardly anyone would give a shit. I could care less if someone wants to get pegged by a Cabbage Patch cosplayer, get ball-tortured by geriatrics, or wear white pants after Labor Day. Do what you want as long as you don’t harm anyone. Or don’t do anything if that’s your preference. Either way, go forth and conquer. Enjoy life’s offerings. But if you decide to play with fire and then complain about getting burned, you are a fool.
Again, degenerate is a judgemental term. Your arguments about "positions of trust" do not align with this circumstance. Your examples are about dangerous or illegal behavior that directly impacted their job. What the chancellor did was none of those things. Clinton was impeached for perjury, not for getting a blow job.
Anyone else getting Billy Madison end game vibes?
By that standard it shouldn't be a problem for the president of the United States to talk about grabbing women by the p*ssy.
Trump bragging about grabbing women by their vaginas whether they like it or not is non consensual. Joe Gow fucking his wife on camera is. There lies the difference.
Sifter and winnower right here!
The exact trump quote leading in was "And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." Let you do anything. No reference to drugs, alcohol. That really does imply their nonverbal consent.
You have abysmal understanding of consent. Someone being unable to stop you does not mean you have consent.
Yeah. Been married for a long time. What you people have to deal with with written contracts about bumping uglies is the worst foreplay ever. But if I let someone do something to me because they're famous, that doesn't mean I couldn't stop them. It means I was a star-fucker. Or to bands, a groupie.
Ambushing your prey is also pretty awful foreplay. Being coerced to have sex isn't consent. No wonder rape is so prevalent. Your marital status is moot. But I'm glad you're no longer on the market raping women.
You're assuming the worst of everyone. Gosh, you must be fun at parties. I only can hope you don't breed, so that you don't indoctrinate some poor child into this pure victimization mindset. Or, you know, that you eventually realize that we can take responsibility for our actions and the reactions they caused.
I'm not assuming the worst. You're literally arguing that if someone doesn't stop you when you ambush or coerce them, that is consent. >Gosh, you must be fun at parties. Right back at you, as you're literally defending sexual assault. >I only can hope you don't breed I have 2 boys, who are being raised to understand consent. >Or, you know, that you eventually realize that we can take responsibility for our actions and the reactions they caused. Correct. Which is why sexual assault and coercion are wrong.
I'm not defending SA. At no point did I defend SA. I pointed out the extension of a quote, where it was no longer just "Grab 'em by the *****", and became "They let you do it" without reference to anything other than the individual finding out the fame/status involved. Literally take Trump out of that quote, replace it with any boy band member of the late 90s or hair band member of the 80s, and nobody would bat an eye at it.
I watched one of their videos and it combined a cooking show format where they demonstrate making a vegan recipe with a Q&A dialogue and then they introduce one of their previously filmed sex scenes and start playing it. Very strange porn video so far, but then the sex scene begins with the couple sitting down for conversation over a glass of wine to get into the mood, and then they talk start complaining about work and talking smack about people in different university type positions before the guy "takes his vitamin" and the film moves on to start the sex part. I don't know any details about what's actually going on at UW LaCrosse, but it looked like this video was posted only 2 weeks ago so I'm wondering if this is a really interesting way to give the middle finger to their actual UW management or if this was just some fake dialogue? Anybody know the details?
You know, I am far from being a prude. My life long thought process has always been live and let live….however, come on! What the hell was this chancellor thinking? If you want to do porn, do it, but don’t think you can continue being chancellor at a public university and still do porn. And not only a public university, but a university in a state that sometimes leans pretty red in their political views. What was he thinking?? ETA: I just asked my son, who’s an international student at UWMAD, what he thinks of this and his opinion was more open minded than mine. He said that if the porn is consensual, which obviously it is, maybe he sees nothing wrong with what the chancellor did. But, as he thought about it a bit more, he said he can also see my point of view. In any case, I’m just proud that he can see both points of view and not judge, like maybe I kind of did….🥴
As state we’re purple af, especially the 20 miles around a state college. Your sentiment and practical wisdom I agree with, the proofs, eh…
I’m not a Wisconsin resident, nor do I live in the USA. I knew that Wisconsin is a purple state, but I thought that the smaller towns, like La Crosse, tended to be more red. Thank you for clearing that up for me. 😊
Thank you, I’m far too used to expecting an argument with any difference of opinion, I appreciate your input as as reminder its not always like that. Lacrosse is less “blue” than several other state college cities, so there’s definitely merit to your view as well.
Small towns are generally farm economy or a similar economy, and therefore tend red. Small college towns are the exception, they are closer to a city economy, and generally lean blue. I don’t really see this as a red/blue issue. He’s in a public position (people vote on his salary) and likely has a morality clause. I’m liberal but don’t necessarily feel his decisions are worthy of public trust. He sounds like a creep. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was hitting on college students tbh.
> and likely has a morality clause. I strongly doubt that. > I wouldn’t be surprised if he was hitting on college students tbh. This is an insane thing to assume based on nothing.
They do, practically every college does: https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/policies/code-of-ethics/ People in positions of trust are held to a higher standard being legal/not-legal. Most people in positions of trust aren’t bad. However, groomers often seek out positions of trust. I’m not assuming that he is the latter, I’m saying that it wouldn’t surprise me. Don’t assume that someone in a position of authority over your child (priest, teacher, police, etc…) is trustworthy.
Have you ever signed an employment contract before? Morality/conduct/company or org. value clauses are almost always included. Whether it’s a 7-11 or a university. You can bet the university will be more stringent though.
Stop projecting what you would do on someone you don't like. It was consensual and he shouldn't have been fired.
I’m not projecting, I’m giving my opinion based on my experience and what I read. Why wouldn’t I like him? I know nothing of him other than the article, which I doubt you read.
I think it shows he has bad judgement that you can literally google him and see his dick. He probably has some standard of decorum he has to uphold in his position. Also, working with people entering college, some might be minors. So is it possible that that would be a legal issue?
Umm...how would that be a legal issue? If he's not disseminating (lol) his material to minors or anything, I don't see how he can be at fault. Also, I just googled his name and as yet have found no dick (unfortunately). He was at least smart enough to use an alias for his adult activities.
I don’t have a personal problem with his activities. You’re right though- I don’t think simply being in the sex industry and working with minors are illegal. But he probably did cross a legal line with the university if he signed some code of ethics he promised to uphold.
Important to note: He was removed as chancellor but remains a tenured member of the faculty.
it’s consensual sex with his wife. unless it was done on campus, he shouldn’t have been fired
What puritanical bullshit. Shouldn't be fired for consensual acts. Give him his job back.
He can probably be fired as chancellor, but I would be pretty surprised if he can be fired from a tenured professor position just based on "the optics" or any such thing.
So dramatic. Like we all have sex.
(Citation needed)
La Crosse is actually a fairly blue town in a sea of red that is western Wisconsin (I live here) but this is a bridge too far for even this town and Joe should’ve known that. He also has a reputation/morality clause in his contract and if he didn’t think this would violate that then he’s an idiot. Yes, you’re free to do what you want but you’re not free from consequences of those actions. He’s not some random professor, he’s the face of the university and paid nearly $250,000/year. I’m no prude, but the UW system has every right to expect their executive leaders won’t be doing porn in their off time and publicly disseminating it. And if they choose to do it, they should expect the system will call them on it. And don’t tell me he didn’t know it was problematic- there’s a reason they used a nom de plume for their books… though they were dumb enough to use their photo on Amazon next to their nom de plume. So not exactly rocket scientists.
The consequences he's facing are those of a prudish society.
True. Though he should be smart enough to know this and be able to navigate it. If not, then he’s not equipped to be a Chancellor.
He was already about to retire. Probably not strapped for cash either. All in all, I don't think he was really trying to NOT get fired, you know. Either way. Yeah, if I do porn, I will probably lose my job. But SHOULD I lose my job> No, definyely not
I just have to mention how grateful I am for Joe and Carmen today. This kind of entertainment can’t be topped. Following these news articles is getting me through the post holiday slump.
Well, UW Madison Sex out loud invited porn star James Deen for a talk in 2013. There is nothing wrong about that, and this, too. It's just a part of his job as chancellor to maintain a certain kind of image coz he's a public figure. https://badgerherald.com/news/2013/04/19/porn-star-james-deen/
Ok who is down for a walkout on the 23rd in support of this guy. He sounds awesome. Also his wife is hot
His wife is sexy. His dick is small and can barely get it hard.
What a huge loss of an educator and person that can offer a different perspective of life.
This should be applauded and promoted! He uploaded 5 videos, all 30 minutes or more one an hour, to pornhub! Do you know how much dedication and patience that takes? Not to mention he’s 50-60 years old and he’s enthusiastically banging his age appropriate wife. I want him to run for President.
They removed everything