The boy was convicted of statutory rape, but that isn't mentioned in the article. This reflects the idea that males are always the perpetrators of sex crimes and females always the victims. The boy deserves punishment for doing no more than the girl?

it imposes huge costs and hazards of it's own and before resorting to it or promoting it we should have good reason to believe that it matters. The Republican near successful attempt to destroy 200 years of constitutional government over a blow job should make clear to everyone that gving into prudery is a big deal; it is not just a question of the chivalrous indulgence of more "refined" sensibilities.

Egypt? Iran? India? China?

because the only way for males to not be interested in sex is if they are totally repressed/suppressed/denied any information. For males it's the equivalent of learning language, the only way to prevent it is total isolation. It may be different for females. Maybe I tend to over react because of the constant attempt to promote the idea that what applies to females is the titak truth for everyone.

I said - IT DOES NOT HELP. There is a big difference between that and implying that it causes that. Nor does it mean that if it was there or not that it would have produced more virgin-conscious kids. But you're spewing a LOAD OF CRAP if you don't acknowledge that at 12 years old pre-teens have impressionable minds and are vulnerable to peer pressure. That's all. Does that mean it will fuck with their minds to the point that they think they have to have sex for whatever reasons? NO. Does "oversexed pop culture" make it any better? NO.

pop culture may "oversex" girls-maybe, but I can assure you it isn't pop culture that causes boys, including those 12 years old, to be interested in sex. The only thing that can prevent teenaged boys from having sex is a lack of willing girls, or paralyzing fear, religious, social, whatever. If someone wants to claim it's different for girls fine, but you arent' going to have boys waiting till they are out of college and medical school to be interested in sex by "rightsexing" our "oversexed" pop culture.

"You don't suppose that watching all that booty shakin' video and listening to all that ho-pimpin' music might not have some effect this, do you?"

I think it's a combination of stuff and personally i think the strongest factor are peers. But i do find that an oversexed pop culture doesn't make the situation any better. With that said, teenage pregnancies were happening long before booty shaking, ho-pimpin music were even dreamed of.

And yah, at 27... I remember the odd few who started having sex as young as 13 in junior high and it freaked me out. But french kissing was still the accepted norm (as opposed to very young sex). However I've noticed with my younger cousins that there are a lot more kids having pre-teen sex.

When I was 15.

I remember kids in high school getting pregnant, but not kids in junior high.

Sorry, but as 13 year-old getting pregnant by a 12 year old -- that's screwed up.

And maybe I can light the flame wars here:

You don't suppose that watching all that booty shakin' video and listening to all that ho-pimpin' music might not have some effect this, do you?

Aren't girls afraid of getting pregnant anymore? *sigh* I feel like an old fuddy duddy at 37.

You can't be serious. "Anymore"?!?! You're the same approximate age as me, and when I was 13 teenage pregnancy was the societal bogeyman of the day. Pregnant teenagers were all over the place--newspapers, tv, after school specials, Donahue... Two girls in my 9th grade class got pregnant, and that was in a largely middle class magnet school!

It may or may not be even worse today, but it's not exactly a new phenomenon. We weren't any smarter than they are as a generational group.

you say you're not in favor of 12 and 13-year-olds being charged under statutory rape laws. But if you have those laws, which you say you support, you can't avoid exactly that result. Wherever you put the age of consent, someone under that age will violate the law and you'll be wondering how such a thing could possibly happen. Of course you could put the age of consent at, say, 6 years, but that would render the laws meaningless, which I assume you don't support.

I think your mistrust of juries is misplaced. I have tried a good many lawsuits and, I know that juries are not always right, but I can tell you that they are often smarter than the lawyers trying cases before them (in my case particularly!). My experience is that they have a very good sense of what's going on, can see through the lawyers' arguments and the strange wording of the judge's instructions and reach pretty accurate verdicts. I've talked to many a juror after trials and I know they almost always have a good handle on the case. You say they might be fooled by stories about 14-year-old temptresses. As an attorney, I'd put on that kind of evidence as an absolute last resort. That type of evidence holds a much greater chance of angering jurors than convincing them.

When you think about jurors, put yourself in their position. Are you gullible, easily fooled by an attorney trying to keep his/her client out of jail? Or do you try your best to see what's going on in the case, assess the believability of witnesses and make the best call you can. Well, that's what pretty much all of them do, and, by being able to examine each case individually, they can make rulings tailored to the facts of the case and the individuals involved. State laws can't do that.

Look, laws have problems. There are always loopholes, strange consequences, and unexpected outcomes. Sometimes the courts interpret those problems away, sometimes the legislature amends the law. In either case, the first line of defense is prosecutorial discretion--the revolutionary idea that sometimes the people's money would be better spent on something other than prosecuting an unfortunate, innocent, or non-threatening individual because of some technical violation of a poorly drafted statute.

So, what the %?@!%# is up with the freaking idiot prosecutor in this case?!?! Is there really so little serious crime in Utah that he gets bored if he's not harassing some poor kids for playing doctor? Isn't there someone selling beer on Sunday, driving without a seatbelt, or running a polygamous cult that involves the coerced sexual abuse of 12 year old "wives" that this guy could go after in his apparently voluminous free time?