Re: There the press goes changing things again.

So I should assume there was some sexual aspect to this?

I think it's pretty obvious, yeah.

That he was getting off on feeding them semen? Where do the roaches fit into that?

I don't know. Some people have weird fetishes. I could say something here about spoon-feeding semen to kids, but it would unfortunately put me in violation of GC's rules. Suffice it to say, certain "erotic" stories at a certain website have such activities in them. And cockroaches are associated with dirtiness, and so is sex in many people's minds. That's why fetishes often revolve around things that are associated with dirtiness, baseness and humiliation, I think--these things get conflated in people's minds when their sexuality is developing.

Don't you think if they were actually being fed the semen that the article would mention it? That's a pretty big detail missing from an article profiling 'disgust'. Just because they hope you draw that conclusion doesn't mean that's what happened.

Whether he actually fed it to them or not, you just don't do that. It was actual semen--that much is known. Even in a best case scenario (he was using his teacher's position to make tasteless modern art tinged with sexual vulgarity without the permission of either the children's parents or the school's), he still could've used fake semen. But was he making art? No, not on your life. He had some weird kinks and that's what it amounted to.

It's not naive to be aware of what passes for art.

No, but it is naive to assume that an elementary schoolteacher who was doing creepy things with his students and took creepy pictures of them without telling the children's parents (or anyone else), during school hours no less, was making modern art. I've seen people here come up with some pretty cockeyed defenses, but the notion that this guy was making art probably takes the cake. He was not an artist; he was a sleazeball, pure and simple.