Washington Post - Maybe we should just let teachers rape students

[Anonymous]

49 year old school teacher, Stacey Rambold, received a thirty day jail sentence for raping a 14 year old student

Come on, some of you posters are being to hard on this guy and on the Washington Post.

I mean it was just a rape not a "rape, rape" and Stacey Rambold is spending 30 days in jail which is 30 days more than Roman Polanski ever spent in jail. Also, Mr. Rambold, did not drug his victim (oops, student girl friend).

Heck, as some PP pointed out, sometimes students and teachers even get married and there was only 35 years difference in their respective ages. Although, 20 years from now if the student had not killed herself and they had in fact stayed together and got married, I'd think that Mr. Rambold would probably be having some erectile and sex drive issues.

[Anonymous]

This is why I think the editorial was completely off, painting with far too broad a brush.

I haven't followed any of the details of the Rambold case, but a 14-year-old is clearly not capable of consent. Sex with a 14-year-old by anyone over the age of 18 is rape, pure and simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read more apologists for why, apparently, in our corrupt society today (birth control! abortion!) it's understandable that teachers sometimes have sex with 14 year olds.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/327348.page

You obviously can't read well and completely missed the point of many of those posts.

Just because people, more than one, believe that all legal sexual activity, including birth control, the morning after pill, abortion and treatment of STDs should be linked to the age of consent in order to protect children from predators and early sexualization, and to help parents to parent their children with out a road block in place by the government, does not mean that anyone was excusing that man's vile behavior.

You are picking and choosing and misrepresenting what several posters said in that thread.

[Anonymous]

LOL, yes, let's pick and choose some lovely highlights from that thread. I'm sure you're right and it's all just my interpretation that is off:


If a child of any age who is sexually active is legally allowed to get birth control for example, without parent knowledge or permission, then we as a society are saying that same child is old enough to give consent. The two go hand in hand.

How about we raise our daughters to take more pride in them selves instead of sexualizing everything and becoming little sluts?

The reason it's being called rape is due to her age. Had she been older it would have been classified as sex between two willing parties. I do not believe that he raped her.

If we are saying that legally, a child of any age is completely independent and responsible for their her sexuality, regardless of the age and independent of any parent involvement, creeps like this judge can apply it to all issues of the child's sexuality.

It speaks to development and maturity. You want to move the goalposts and declare some innocent and naive, while saying that others know what they are doing and should be punished.

A way to say hey ' 12 yr old is old enough to take birth control w/out permission, so she is old enough to give consent.

I don't want anyone (especially some nutball job) to be able to say that a 14 year old is old enough to obtain birth control without permission so they must be old enough to seduce, lure, and otherwise tempt and have sex with a grown-ass man.

[Anonymous]

This article does a great job demolishing the "older than her age" argument. http://www.salon.com/2013/09/04/the_six_ways_we_talk_about_a_teenage_girls_age/