Grumpy

When you were little, did you parents teach you to look both ways before crossing the street? Even when you're at a stop sign or at a green light? Probably, since you're still alive. Why did they do that? You'd be in the right. If a car hit you, you'd be the victim, 100%. But you do that anyway because being right or being the victim is completely irrelevant. It's not about who gets the blame. It's about what gives you the best outcome. You looking both ways before crossing the street has the best outcome for you. It doesn't matter if you're right if you're fucking dead.

If she wanted the best outcome of staying as a teacher, she shouldn't have done OF. This should be a very easy deductive logic people should be able to make given what is the current society.

This is not victim blaming. I lean quite far left, and this is one of the most insanely annoying thing I find about the left. Far too many only look about who's the victim and whose to blame. That shit is fucking stupidest outlook on life. It's a good goal to attain, a world without problem causing things. But unless utopia happens, you need to learn to figure out how the world works. Failure to do that simply means you're stupid. You might be a victim, but you're still stupid.

No, that is not the same vain. The logic isn't consistent.

It would be: If she doesn't want to get raped, she should take precautions based on the risks involved.

If this teacher doesn't want to be fired, she should understand that there are risks that follow her actions.

If I follow your logic, the statement of the teacher would become:

She must've wanted to get fired, so she did OF. No, the predicate the consequences are backwards.

Being stupid is not a defense. And your argument is illogical.

Because you couldn't point out what was wrong, you decided to take a strawman? No, that is not the same vain. The logic isn't consistent.

It would be: If she doesn't want to get raped, she should take precautions based on the risks involved.

If this teacher doesn't want to be fired, she should understand that there are risks that follow her actions.

If I follow your logic, the statement of the teacher would become:

She must've wanted to get fired, so she did OF. No, the predicate the consequences are backwards.

Being stupid is not a defense. And your argument is illogical.

As a young teenager I did not care.

Were you a young teenage girl? Because you seem to completely lack understanding of teenage boys' psychology. There's absolutely no reason they would be angry at her for making them horny. That makes no sense at all.

I would agree with your other replier on this. Furthering that, I would say this is the teenage boys' attempt to challenge authority by undermining her authority with her open sexuality as a tool. They found a leverage to have power over her. And they're going to use it to the full extent. They're at a point in time of their growth where they find their social hierarchy. Almost every male mammal engages in this. They pick fights and they learn where they stand by winning and losing. And they want to get as high as possible. This explains the anger that you pointed out, because challenging authority and fighting is inherently similar emotion to anger.