News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Whatever she does or any teacher do after work is non of any body's problems. If any teacher wants to show their bodies on the web... Let it be. I don't see any issues with it. We have many problems around the world and out of nowhere this is an issue???
I dunno man, I think that the fact she teaches high school kids specifically, who by now all know about it, means that she has no hope of being an effective teacher at this point. It's a massive distraction, as unfair as that is.
She had to have known this was a possibility when she decided to start an onlyfans - there's almost nowhere in the country where you won't get fired as a teacher for that, progressive or conservative states alike. Society just isn't there yet.
Besides the potential bullying they can do to her is frankly insane
I can see your perspective but I think you have to also see that there are people out there who wouldn't agree.
I understand what you're saying but these are high school kids. Don't you think it would be at least weird if people were passing around explicit photos of a teacher? Or printing them out and taping them to walls? I honestly don't know how I'd feel about that if it were my kids' teacher. Regardless teachers should be paid enough that they shouldn't be forced to work any kind of second job.
For someone in that position, it is a problem, though. If students get around to seeing their teacher naked or engaged in sexual acts, that becomes an issue. If it were 100% guaranteeable that that couldn't happen, then you'd be right, but with it on the internet, that's just not ever going to be a foolproof thing.
Why is that an issue?
Apart from the general disruption in the teacher-student relationship, it opens up a whole quagmire of how aware the teacher is of a student's engagement with their content. Especially once the work is known of, it's essentially a guarantee that at some point the teacher will be receiving money from a student for their content, which is clearly unacceptable.
So what if she closes down the discovered onlyfans account and opens a new one?
I can't see a way she could have both gigs without the extreme likelihood, near certainty, of being found by a student. If she completely stopped the OF work, I could see a potential argument for her to keep her teaching position, but I also don't expect the school would be interested in dealing with the inevitable disruptions from students behaving inappropriately around her, parents being hysterical about it, or whatever other problems could pop up.
feel like this is victim blaming.
But if things worked like they should any sort of harassment of this teacher should be dealt with just like it would be without knowing she has an OF account. Having an account like OF doesn't somehow put the responsibility of not being a victim of harassment on her.
This seems like a teaching moment (pun intended).
Having the OF account isn't just any old characteristic here. It's the crux of it all. The likelihood of a student buying content from the teacher is not particularly low, and that's just not an acceptable situation from someone in that position.
I'm not saying it's her responsibility or anyone else's to avoid being harassed, but it's an inevitable issue among many that would be piling up atop the already unacceptable scenario given above, all adding pressure in favor of the school understandably deciding to just cut ties.
You're just coming across as a prude morality police.
To play devils advocate, I'm guessing only like the top 5% or more can actually make a living off of OF work, so chances are that a good share of the content people are consuming is going to be someones co-worker/boss/HR rep/etc. Who decides who is and who isn't allowed to have an OF account? It seems perfectly fine for all these kids/parents/co-workers to have an account to view creators, but it's the problem of the content creators if these same people can't treat them like humans after viewing content they sought out.
If she was giving out discount codes, or free memberships to co-workers or students that would be one thing, but to regulate something that harms no one that a teacher does in their off hours to get by because we can't pay teachers seems like a violation of their rights.
What's the difference between it being their teacher and the millions of other naked women they can see on the internet?
Because the millions of other people (this isn't a gender thing) aren't responsible for those minors. It's also not just finding "naked people on the internet". Onlyfans' whole objective is to profit off of parasocial relationships. Models are directly engaging with their customers, and in a situation where a teacher ends up willingly or otherwise selling sex media to their student, obvious problems arise.
The problems are so obvious you still haven't listed sny of them.
I suppose I'm not sure what part of "teacher sells nudes and/or sex videos to student(s)", purposefully or not, isn't obviously problematic, but in general, the potential variations of issues are inexhaustible: determining whether the teacher is knowingly engaging their students, managing student behavior around the teacher, upholding the teacher's authority with their students once the story is known, etc etc etc. There is no putting a lid on that sort of situation.
Ooo shit. She was offering free weekends for hee students? She was distributing promotional material to her students? She was telling them to sub to her OF?? Or are you reaching?... its equally laughable that you believe students even knowing about this would degrade them into wild animals that no human could constrain.
It's a problem whether the teacher is actively engaging students in that way or not. And you're the one that demanded hypothetical specifics. Did you do that just to shit on them for being hypothetical? Or are you gonna discuss this in good faith?
Damn, if the kids are signing up for OnlyFans, maybe their parents are the responsible ones for not monitoring their Internet usage?
In high school, many of these kids are 18. Plus, you often don't need to actually sign up in order to see plenty of explicit stuff
And OF shouldn't be allowing minors to access content in their site, but things aren't perfect, and horny teens are going to be horny teens. This isn't about who's "responsible", it's about having realistic expectations.