If I had to pick a title that would fail to convey that I thought an adult woman raping a 13-year-old boy was a criminal, immoral act, this would be the title:
This was the title of a Thought Catalog article written by Gray Collins. I will set aside the notion that a 13-year-old can seduce an adult. More curious is how one would do this on Instagram. What person is unable to avoid the advances of someone online? You could either mute them, block them, or stop using the service. Yet we are meant to believe a 13-year-old boy was such a cunning linguist that he could seduce a woman twice his age, and one who claims she initially had no interest in the boy.
More troubling, however, is the second part of the title. Claiming the boy seduced his teacher already places blame on him. The second part of the title makes the teacher out to be the victim. The “but” implies that the teacher was wronged by being charged and pleading guilty to statutory rape. This would be the same woman who, according to the link, aborted the child that resulted from her sexual abuse of the victim once CPS contacted her.
She does not sound much like a victim. She sounds like an adult who took advantage of a boy’s interest in her. She also sounds like a person who benefitted from the boy’s parents complete acceptance of the “relationship”.
The odd part about the article is that it reads as if the woman is to blame. It is the title that makes it appear to side with the woman. Several people complained about the title, which led to the following update:
Update: This piece is based on the language and storyline directly from police investigations. Nowhere does the writer show support for someone who committed statutory rape. Language has been added to the piece to make it abundantly clear that Vera was in the wrong, and that it is the overwhelming opinion of reasonable people that those defending her are incorrect.
Based on the archive version I read, the article appears to be the same, so either someone archived it after the changes were made or the only changes were the update itself.
The most sensible thing to do would be to change the title. Remove the portion about seduction and the nonsense about “but now she’s in jail” and the article would be fine.
It seems silly that neither the author of the article or editors of the site would realize this. It makes it seem like they intentionally created an inflammatory title for the clicks and now, rather ironically, do not want the attention.
Very well. If you do not want the attention rewrite the title and the majority of people will ignore the article as they do with most other female sex offender reports.