Thursday, March 20, 2008

Student/Teacher Sex: Mary Jo Spack

She: 45. Them: 17 & 18. Click pic.

Posted by at
Labels: , ,

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

At least they were not 13 and 14 year old kids. I would have issues with that. But 17 and 18 is a lot different. It still isn't right since it is against the law. Plus being a teacher she should know better.

We don't know all of the facts yet. Hey with kids today one of them could have put something into her beverage while they were eating at McDonalds. Ruffies. X., and had her do things she would not usually do. Look at the elaborate plans those third graders had to take their teacher prisoner. Third grade kids. And they may have killed the teacher.

This teacher is getting the most grief recently because of how she looks. I don't see where that is relevant. Actually out of all of the recent teachers, she is the only one I would consider having sex with. Of course I'm 46 and I don't like the little skinny women.

She may be married, and that's between her and her husband. It doesn't make the crime any better or wrose. Had a man done this to a 17 or 18 year old female, he would already be nailed to the cross. These guys were probably more than willing and able. Their problem is they just oculdn't keep their mouths shut.

I would like to hear what she has to say and see how this all plays out in court. I'm sure she will lose her job over it. And that is probably fitting. But I can't see taking space in our already overcrowded jails for this. Who knows perhaps she will get into porn if she is smart. It would help her with her self confidence issues and make her some money as well.

April 10, 2008 at 7:38 AM
Anonymous said...

I work at a well known coffee house & Mary Jo came in and ordered a drink. She was wearing a white dress that shapped her curves perfectly! I couldn't help but to flirt with her; and she flirted back. I wish I could've had the chance with her; she's very, very sexy!!!! And YES I still would even now!!!

March 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM
jesus said...

Yeah, Mrs. Spack was my 9th grade english teacher, and i'm pretty sure she wasnt "roofied". She undoubtedly knew what she was doing.

FOR EXAMPLE, one day my friend and I were skipping class, and were walking down the street that our school is on, and we walked right by Mrs. Spack who was sitting in her car, stopped in traffic. She saw us and said "School is that way, you know." and laughed. And obviously didnt report us to the office.
So yeah, I would say she has shit judgement when regarding minors.


OH, and the two freaks who posted the previous comments...
Gross. You guys are freaks.
And i'd like to know which coffee shop you supposedly work at, because Mrs. Spack also lives in the same area of Tampa that I live in, which means you might work at the nearby starbucks. and i'd like to avoid having my coffee made by any dirty fucking perverts.

April 7, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Anonymous said...

Eh....HELLOOOOO?????/

Is it just me, or did I *NOT* see any mention of some "VICTIM" being below the age of 16, which I would have thought, is the minimum legal age for having sex, in like, EVERY modern western society??
These were all 17 and 18 year olds!!!
AND they were obviously CONSENSUAL!!!

What the F*** are they doing with American tax payers dollars WASTING TIME, and criminalising people who just are fulfilling a need as old and important as having a dump?!?!

I feel *really* sorry for Mary Jo Spack. She looks mortified. She only wanted a shag, and so did the guys who graciously obliged her. Good for them, and good for her. Good for them all, and what's the problem??
She will now no doubt receive the hypocritical judgement and condemnation of her whole community now, half of them who are probably shagging the other half, whilst being married.
"Let (s)he who has not sinned cast the first stone and all that."
"Christian" societies my arse.
May God forgive ye all.

August 17, 2010 at 9:10 AM
Anonymous said...

Oh Yes, and as for the first two commentators - GOOD FOR YE GUYS.

She *is* a sexy woman. And who cares if someone doesn't agree with that. We're all entitled to our opinion, as long as we're not nasty or dictatorial like commentator no. 3.

Anyway, people like Spack are not criminals, unless they've really forced themselves on a physically weaker guy, who doesn't want it.
That said, they're not criminals.
Too much time, and resources being wasted on a completely redundant precedent which only should apply to female rape, of any age, and un-consensual rape of any male. And I do mean *rape* in the truest meaning of the word: " 1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. 2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. 3. statutory rape. 4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside. 5. Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force." Now, unless she broke into that "VICTIM'S" house, and did, indeed *force* him, she was in no way a rapist. I don't remember one of my secondary school (high school) classmates EVER objecting to wanting to be forced into having sex with an older woman, IF they considered the woman attractive enough. Actually, could we PLEASE just get off the subject. CHANGE THE LAW. - 13 year old male or older, having mutually consensual sex with an older woman - OK.

August 17, 2010 at 9:16 AM
Huge Cheerleaders said...

You people complaining the teacher got slammed by 16/17 year olds, and there is nothing wrong with that. Well get a brain, think about it from the parents point of view.
Do you think that when parents send their minor children to school, that they should expect that their children are safe? That they are in a learning environment, and the teachers in the school are watching over them?
Or should parents expect that their children are fair game, that teachers can flirt with them, and try to fock them, as long as they are 16.
I am SURE that 90% of parents do not want male teachers flucking their 16 year daughters, and female teachers cracking horizontal smiles for 16 year old boys.
So that is the reason for the law. It's a good law.
I do agree that the sentence shouldn't be too harsh, like compared to a 13 year old or something.

August 25, 2011 at 9:09 AM
Anonymous said...

To the first poster, thank you.

Please know that nothing is ever as it seems, as I have learned the hard way.

It is very easy to sit back and condemn others. I know, I used to do that very thing. As humans, it gives us a feeling of superiority to think, "I may have done THIS, but at least I would never do THAT."

I have to believe that the press doesn't intentionally lie, but overall it's just easier to print the salacious. It is what sells papers these days afterall. Even the Freedom school newpaper (which was run by one of my supposed "besties" by the way) ran the story innaccurately. Nobody cared. The good news is four years later nobody cares at all anymore. Life goes on - presidents are elected with or without my vote, students are educated with or without my help.

And now I know who my friends are.

God bless all of you.

July 17, 2012 at 7:26 AM
Anonymous said...

Obviously those boys are old enough and they new what.they were doing from.the get go so what they did by saying it was rape was wrong she probably did not.want them like that she probably wanted to hang out and they probably wanted more but.she wouldn't give it up so they probably lied

January 19, 2013 at 8:00 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)