The Harsh Realities Of The Naked Teacher Principle

The Naked Teacher's Curse: What she wants the students to see (L); What they think they see (R)

The Naked Teacher’s Curse: What she wants the students to see (L); What they THINK they see (R)

So-called revenge websites are run by the scum of the earth. These cyber-offal of the internet, among their other cruel activities, post unauthorized photos of women and men in embarrassing, often naked or otherwise provocative poses, submitted by jilted lovers, assorted enemies, and vicious rivals. Then the site extorts money from the victims shown in the photos, or the photos remain up for all to see.

The existence of such sites ought to convince any rational person that allowing anyone to take digital photographs involving his or her naked body or sexual proclivities is a about as prudent as hiding active land mines in the back yard. If said rational person is a teacher, then allowing this crosses the line from unwise to certifiably insane, with gradients pointing toward a straitjacket and a padded cells according to the ages of the students. This is because, you see, the Naked Teacher Principle does not take into consideration why the teacher’s nude and luscious bod is suddenly a feast for prying young eyes and stimulus for newly minted libidos. It doesn’t matter, to the school, the students or their parents. What matters is that the photos exist, they got out, and he or she will never be looked at or thought about the same way again.

The cruelty of this heartless principle could hardly be more clearly illustrated than in the current case of an unnamed female teacher at Cincinnati Hills Christian Academy in Cincinnati, Ohio, a K through 12 private school. Her iPhone was stolen, and the next day the photos appeared. The teacher was placed on leave last week, and today it was learned that she resigned.

The creation of such photos creates what amount to strict liability for a teacher or aspiring teacher, and God knows, an aspiring teacher at a Christian academy. For it is not the conduct at issue, but the images themselves, even if they are intended for personal use and storage only. Tempt not the Naked Teacher Principle,  ye aspiring molders of young minds and hearts. The only way to make certain that it doesn’t blight your career is to take care never to be a Naked Teacher, at least for posterity.

__________________________________

Facts: Salon, Az Central, Raw Story

15 thoughts on “The Harsh Realities Of The Naked Teacher Principle

  1. Is the harm that the teacher in question can possibly be seen naked by her students, or that the teacher allowed the pictures to be taken in the first place? Because I can definitely see situations where there are peeping Toms with recording devices lurking about, and through no fault of your own, you are naked on the internet. Is the damage to one person’s life outweighed by the possible harm of a student seeing another person naked in some pictures? Even an authority figure? What exactly is the harm of seeing an authority figure naked in pictures? Are we presupposing a loss of respect? Or a fear of emulation?

  2. This opens up some very strange possibilities. None of them are good for the teacher. Maybe the solution is to avoid being nude at all times. I have some cut-offs. I’m thinking of showering in them.

    • Or deery and wyogranny, you could avoid cheating on your spouse, sending nude pictures of yourself to hook ups, storing copious nude and provocative photos of yourself on your phone or maybe even consider that if you have kids or work at a Christian academy that you may not want to act like a ho. But then again maybe you’re correct that anyone may be susceptible to having their nude “selfies” misused.

      At what point should personal responsibility come into play? If I was cheating and sent some pictures to the one I was cheating with and things turned sour I might try the “my iPhone was stolen” routine to try to save my bacon.

      • I should have also added taking full frontal nudes with your kid next to you giving the peace sign, could have happened to anyone……..

  3. For those bemoaning the limitations placed on the teachers as being “unfair”, remember, at some point the individual voluntarily produced and distributed those images. Regardless of whether or not they were distributed with the trust that the recipients would never betray that trust, they still *voluntarily* sent out those images. In terms of history, I’d imagine this private and personal behavior is a very recent phenomenon…one which previous generations would never even dream of doing, even with their most trusted confidants.

    The only legitimate protest I hear above is the peeping-tom exception. Images of a personal and embarrassing nature produced against one’s wishes and distributed likewise *shouldn’t* be held against the teacher. But, what then would be done to discourage such actions by the peeping toms? Barring an epidemic outbreak of this, it would seem the system has an appropriate punishment in place. So the peeping-tom exception doesn’t seem like that major of an issue, but more like using an exception to the rule to undermine the rule.

    Every profession in some way may be impacted by particular behaviors which render the respective professionals incapable of adequately or trustworthily fulfilling their objectives. The Naked-Teacher Principle is merely a subset of the formula: Professional X can be fired if the outside of work behavior of Professional X undermines his/her ability to fulfill the profession. Such as Railroad Engineer Y is caught texting and driving, would seem to me fair grounds to fire him as a Railroad Engineer. Airline Pilot Z is caught drinking and driving, would seem to me fair grounds to fire him as a pilot.

    What makes the Naked Teacher Principle unique in that their ‘misbehavior’ is not illegal yet is fair grounds to fire them because of the other unique nature of their profession, their Objective is educating young minds.

    • Regardless of whether or not they were distributed with the trust that the recipients would never betray that trust, they still *voluntarily* sent out those images. In terms of history, I’d imagine this private and personal behavior is a very recent phenomenon…one which previous generations would never even dream of doing, even with their most trusted confidants.
      *****************
      We found naked pics of the previous owners of our house when we moved in.
      They were stuffed inside a box of old wrapping paper at the back of the garage.
      They must have forgotten about them.
      I’m guessing the pics were 15-20 years old.
      The pics were not, by any stretch of the imagination, what you would call tasteful.
      There was also a love note, that included their very embarrassing pet sex names for each other.

      We had a legal problem with these people right before settlement (they lied) and I was still angry about it.
      I wanted to call them and tell them to come retrieve their pics, so at least they would suffer the embarrassment of knowing we looked at them.
      But my husband has better ethics than I do.
      He put them in the fireplace. heheh

      • Well, they still took the pictures. Negligence on their part to forget them. However, were you all to publish them, I’d consider it y’all ethically equivalent to the peeping-tom exception.

    • There is one exception to your rule.

      Apparently in at least one revenge photo website some of the posted pictures had been professionally photoshopped – a clothed woman’s head shopped onto a naked body.

      How do you prove it’s not you?

      • “The only legitimate protest I hear above is the peeping-tom exception. Images of a personal and embarrassing nature produced against one’s wishes and distributed likewise *shouldn’t* be held against the teacher.”

  4. Apparently the pictures were not “distributed”, the phone they were on was stolen.

    Mere factual innocence is also no defence, as these sites often contain photoshopped images. You may never have allowed a photo of anything but your face, but with manipulation, your recognisable image can star in an orgiastic scene.

    Protesting that the image is fake will not stop an employer from giving you the boot lest the images sully their public image. It’s all about appearances, not actual wrongdoing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.