Had to supplement her $42,000 per year teacher salary with OF and made nearly $1 million in six months (almost 50 times as her salary) before the school caught wind of it and forced her to resign. Got a new job out of education and was fired five days later when they discovered news articles about her.

Edit: To those basically saying she had it coming because she made her OF account public…

  1. Sex work is real, valid work.
  2. There is nothing wrong with sex work. Sex-shaming is Puritanical horseshit.
  3. “But her students could find her OF!” is a problem their parents should have to solve. It is not her responsibility to use an alias, because of points 1 and 2.
  4. Every other argument criticizing her for her sex work during her non-teaching hours is fucking moot.
  • HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    258
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    This all because US society views sex as something shameful, especially when it’s a woman being sexual. I think that all these anti-porn laws we’re seeing in the US is about controlling free speech, and controlling sexuality (women’s moreso than men’s)

    If what she’s doing on her own time isn’t illegal then employers should not be able to fire her for it.

    I guess the silver lining of all this is that she made a million bucks in six months. If she’s smart with her money and invests it she could set herself up for life after doing this for few years.

    • cooopsspace@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      If what she is doing in her own time is against school policies, they better be paying her for that time too.

    • TurtleJoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      US society sees a woman using her own body to make a bunch of money, and wants to cancel her. It’s not necessarily about being sexual, although that’s part of it.

      • eightpix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        US society sees a woman exercising self-empowerment as a reason to cancel her.

        It’s not necessarily about being sexual,l. It’s about subverting misogynistic, capitalistic patriarchy with the only totally exclusive resource she has.

        She’d have been shamed, imprisoned, ostracized, and burned as a witch in 1624.

        She’d have been shamed, imprisoned, and ostracized in 1724, 1824, and 1924.

        So, her being shamed and ostracized and her job loss in 2024 is viewed as “progress” in America.

        e: Yes, I admit, OF is another element of the patriarchy, servicing the male gaze and devaluing women to the level of exploiting women’s bodies. The system is what it is until it isn’t. America should be paying teachers more and celebrities — of all categories — less. Until then, this is the world we live in. The best that some of us can do is subvert the system.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      This all because US society views sex as something shameful, especially when it’s a woman being sexual. I think that all these anti-porn laws we’re seeing in the US is about controlling free speech, and controlling sexuality (women’s moreso than men’s)

      While I agree with this, it’s a subset of the wider issue which is why does your boss get to care what you do when you are not there doing what they have paid you to do.

    • AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Do you honestly think the school would have been cool with a male teacher doing this? I think it might actually have been worse…