No details, please, but if someone wants to risk Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, Campylobacter, E Coli, etc and they are adults, I’m not going to argue against their behavior.
A friend had to go to the ER to have a small wound along her eyebrow sutured. She has to listen to a social worker who assumes she’s being abused even though she insists she is not. Meanwhile, her long term boyfriend just says he was playing rugby and they stitch him up and send him home.
To be sure, attack the post(s) not the poster(s), but can we have an argument against the teacher’s actions that comes free of sex-negativity? Frankly, and I admit it could just be me, I’ve yet to see one here that isn’t.
That is a non sequitur. Minors cannot sign contracts. Are you arguing that teachers should not be allowed to sign contracts either?
So anyone who appears in Onlyfans porn with their face obscured should be fired? Or only teachers need to live up to your morality standards?
I’m not their employer. It’s at the discretion of the employer. Sex work is not a protected class. It does have relevance to the image of the employee.
As far as how this all relates to “sex positivity.” Students have been attracted to teachers since the beginning of time. They may pleasure themselves thinking about the teacher, happened since the beginning of time. Should they tell the teacher this? No, they should not, it’s a private matter.
Teachers should also not entice or seduce students. That’s wrong, way wrong.
A teacher selling sexual access not available to the public, that’s enticement to me. It’s wrong, way wrong. It’s adult behavior, children don’t have the capacity to handle it. Whoop de do, the site asks if you’re 18 or older. It’s 99% of the way to enticement.
Homemade porn is sex work. Other side hustles don’t require blurred faces. I don’t think the teacher in this case actually wants to know personally any of her customers. Or even wants to teach any more. It is sex work, the fact that the Internet now exists and people think anonymity can be forever preserved doesn’t change that.
At least that’s a better answer than some have given because at least it’s consistent. Some believe if you’re a teacher that they should be able to control what you do in your private time while also saying their off-work time is their own and none of their company’s business.
Suppose a teacher is a nudist and a student goes all peeping tom on her. Should the teacher be fired because her actions unintentionally exposed the student to her nudity?
Second time you made a huge leap in logic.
Another teacher has been fired for having an OnlyFans account.
Can’t a Black woman catch a break?
She ain’t black. She’s a faker.
I can’t believe she was teaching. I guess the changed name and she slipped through the cracks.
Any way color doesn’t matter. In this situation.
The linked article said she “had started with the school district in August last year as a part-time afterschool instructor working with elementary school students. She was also a substitute teacher”
Those are both probably true. What’s the relevance to this case?
If you have to blur your face you know in your heart it’s wrong and don’t want people you know or the kids you teach or your day employer to find out. It’s that simple.
If you have to hide it to preserve your day to day life. Obviously you’re doing something you shouldn’t be doing. And, you know it. That’s is precisely why you’re hiding it.
This teacher may want to have a different life. So be it. Good luck to her.
She was hiding her face for some reason. And everyone that has posted in this thread knows why.
You can discuss all the philosophical reasons why it shouldn’t be this way. You can go on about the economics of it all. Her rights and various beliefs you have. But she did wrong. She knew it. Or she would have stood her ground. She didn’t. She resigned.
I would have respected her more if she had stood up and said “Yeah, I did it and here’s why”
Let her employer try to fire her and then went to court to state her case.
She wasn’t making sex tapes for any esoteric human rights reasons. She was doing it for the moola. That is a fact that’s not hard to see.
So if you blur your face while doing karaoke and post on TikTok you should be fired? Or is only teachers that don’t meet YOUR standards of behavior?
Im hiding my “face” here. So are you. I certainly would never tell my students “Hey, Im Manda Jo over on SDMB, and FoolishConsistency on Reddit. Go wild learning aboutvmy positions on art, literature, politics, and social norms”.
Am I doing something I “know in my heart is wrong”?
Also, fighting it in court would be expensive unless someone picks up the tab, and defending the “Sex Tape Teacher” might not make your legal career blossom.
The slut-shaming continues. It’s that simple.
Some lady is complaining her kids were expelled from their Christian school because of her OF decal on the back window of the family car. The decal advertises a link to her OF page. The administrators of the school objected to the decal and booted the kids. Why advertise your spicy bedroom life on the family car?
Technically, if you have to blur your face, you know it might cost you your job, or make people feel differently about you. Right or wrong doesn’t necessarily enter into it.
So, when news reports artificially modify the voice of a person they are interviewing, it’s because that person is doing something wrong by testifying about the abuses of their government (or whatever)? News to me. I thought it was because they were doing something potentially dangerous, as in, “someone else might attack you if they knew it was you.”
And, in the case of this teacher, someone DID attack her when they learned it was her.
So there are two different questions here:
Those are two different questions. I’d say yes to question 1, and i think you can cite that she blurred her face as support.
But i thought this thread was about question 2.
Advertising; it works!
This ^^^.
I started it, and it is.
These teachers probably should have known they were putting their jobs at risk. (The one who blurred her face almost certainly did.) But I’m more interested in the reasons and ethics behind their dismissals.