this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
68 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7133 readers
463 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lildictator@feddit.nl 64 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

We don't have enough information. As long as she kept her work in school separated from her OnlyFans, I see nothing wrong with her having a second job.

This sentence is ambiguous:

Among them is allegedly posting material on public social media accounts that "involves the sexualization of the school environment."

Is this implying that she took any of her OnlyFans pictures while inside the school? That wouldn't be okay. But if what it is referring to, as she alleges, is that she took pictures elsewhere while wearing a school uniform, then the only thing that matters in my mind is whether it was a generic school uniform or the specific uniform used at the school she worked at.

We are generally very hypocritical in matters surrounding porn and sex work.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago

Good analysis and I tend to agree. There are certainly lines she could cross, but based on the information given it doesn't seem like she did. To those fearing children can be exposed to this, I say, we all know what OnlyFans is by now. There's a lot of talk going on about letting parents parent, well, here's your chance.

[–] Established_Trial@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

I agree, and your comment is spot on to what i was thinking as i read the article