SCHOOL TEACHER POSES NUDE.

A Northern Beaches school teacher has recently been dismissed for posing nude with her husband in an issue of Cleo magazine.
Lynne Tziolas, 24, and her husband, Antonios, appeared in the magazine in an article entitled "Buck naked couples talk about their sexlives".
In the article, the pair were asked about how many times a week they had sex and the most risque thing they had done.
"Leaving the blinds up and the lights on all of the time", Mr Tziolas, 45, answered.
In the image the couple are seen standing side on to the camera, as the article heading suggests, "Buck naked". No private parts can be seen but nevertheless, they are indeed clearly naked. (Need I remind you - they are teachers of young children).

A statement released by the Department of Education said Mrs Tziolas had been suspended after the school had received complaints from "several" parents, and who could blame them (the parents complaint OR the school's response).
Mrs Tziolas says she believed one parent had complained and is fighting the suspension.


Now, for a 24 year old female to marry a 45 year old man is worth remarking upon for a start. And the fact that they both appear to have more than their fair share of tats is also a point of consternation in my opinion.

These two are teaching children and we all know how impressionable they can be. To expose themselves in such a way was bound to bring ramifications - they surely must have known this.
They were paid $200 bucks for the shoot (no way would I get my kit off for 200 bucks - add an extra zero and I'd maybe consider it but it would still not be a certainty), so money couldn't have been the motivation. Why then? Why would a teacher, a professional who spends all day with children consider doing such a thing?
Only they would know but it seems to lean towards a certain kind of voyeurism and frankly I stand behind the Education Department response. I most definitely wouldn't want such an individual teaching my child.
Mind you, I'm not to keen on teachers plastering themselves in tats either just quietly. Remember, these people teach our kids! What image is that presenting. What next; nose rings, Mohican haircuts? Why not go the whole nine yards and tattoo your face like those scary as fuck Maoris (Btw, I know lots of Maoris and have a good opinion of them but would we want Jake the Muzz* teaching kids).

And before you complain about me being a prude, don't be ridiculous, anyone who knows me knows full well I'm as "un-prudish" as a man could be but I say again, children are impressionable and what message is that sending? That it's okay to strip for the cameras and discuss your supposedly private sex life in public? That's it's "cool" to paint yourself?
Frankly, and I know of at least one person whose nose I'll put firmly out of joint with the following remark, (like I give a fuck!) people (though predominately men I'd have to say) who feel the need to paint themselves are lacking in...something. Self esteem, confidence? I'm not a professional psychologist but there is clearly more to it than "it looks good". In fact, in the case of the aforementioned Maoris, such paint is solely and purely based in aggression to "scare off" their enemies (a tactic borrowed from many creatures in the animal kingdom) and that intent remains in the modern day. Men, more so than the less aggressive women typically wear tats because it makes them look aggressive or "hard". I know as a young man I tended to keep my distance from such men - and such action was proven to be the correct choice many times.

Anyway, all that aside, I say again, these characters are SCHOOL TEACHERS employed in guiding our young - and that's a tough enough job already in this day and age of "hand-tied" parenting and the associated disrespect it fosters so to the Department I say, Bravo!

The Tziolas's are appealing the decision. I'll be interested in the result.

*Jake the Muzz is that scary fucker from the film "We were warriors" who when full of piss would fight with a phone box.