or the races of the defendants and their alleged victims were different. The disparities, I imagine, would be greater. Genarlow Wilson, anyone?

If we are going to maintain these statutory rape laws, then we definitely need to rewrite the laws about children. Part of the problem is the reluctance to use any sensible mathematics in determining crime or punishment.

I propose the following system:

Let r be the ratio of the younger partner's age to the older partner's age. Define a function p(r) which would specify punishment as a function of the age ratio. Presumably p(r) would have little punishment for r > 0.8 with the punishment increasing rapidly for 0.8 > r > 0.6.

This system would make a lot of sense if you think about it. If only society didn't suffer from such pervasive ignorance and anti-math bigotry, we could have some fair laws on the books. If the laws were fairer, I would expect them to be enforced more consistently and I would expect far fewer sex-based discrepancies in prosecution.

The term "statutory rape" is silly. A 14 year-old girl is capable of consenting or objecting. She is not necessarily capable of making good choices. To use "rape" to refer to the act of a 17 year- old having consensual sex with his 14 year-old girlfriend - is an insult to the women who have actually experienced this heinous violent crime.

I thought the subject of the article was: are statutory rape cases treated DIFFERENTLY if the male is the younger party? We already know it is treated differently, and more unfairly, if the parties are homosexual.

In general, I think it is just as wrong for a 17 yr old girl to be having sex with a 14 yr old boy, as the opposite. But I suspect the difference in charges has more to do with the parents of the 14 year olds, and how hard they pressed the prosecutor to make a case. If I understand this, neither case has actually gone to trial; a further difference will be how the jury sees it.

I notice virtually all the "pro sex with underage girls" posters are themselves men. That does a lot to dilute their enthusiasm, and more to the make the point of the prosecutors: many men, especially through pornography, think sex with very young girls is "hot".

I wonder if any of you actually has (or had) a 14 year old child, boy or girl. Kids are very vulnerable at that age and very suggestible, which is why laws exist to protect them from their own bad judgment. (It's also why we don't let them DRIVE, even though physically they could.)

In the case of most 14 year old boys (with some exceptions), they still look awkward and geeky. But many 14 year old GIRLS looks like adult women...only with the brains of, well, fourteen year olds. It can be very difficult, apparently, for an older teen or adult man to look past an adult-appearing body and a lovely face, and accept that the human being inside is still basically a child.

All children have some kind of innate human sexuality. It's the responsibility of adults to protect that and not exploit it. There eventually has to be SOME LINE IN THE SAND that says "you are old enough at X age, but not before that".

Funny, we don't have a problem restricting the right of teens to drive before 16 (18 in several states) or the right to sign contracts, drink alcohol, etc. Just try selling some hard liquor to a 14 year old and see how well that goes for you in court!

The problem with sex is that adult desires for sex with underage partners clashes with adult responsibilities to protect children. If you are the adult, you need to realize that just because a 14 year old WANTS to have sex, and has a body that COULD have sex, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The onus always has to be on the adult in this situation, because you can't have a system policed by children!

We clearly see in society the problems that occur when we shrug and just accept very young teen sex as "well it happens and what can I do about anyhow?" You get 1 in every 4 teenage girls who ALREADY have herpes and have been exposed to HPV. You get girls as young as ELEVEN who are pregnant. (My friend who is a guidance counselor at a Midwestern Middle Schools tells me that "nobody even blinks at a pregnant 12 year old, they are so common -- even eleven isn't so rare. They only get upset anymore when the pregnant girl is TEN....)

I'd like to hope and pray that you don't actually think it is OK for a ten year old to be having sexual relations OR that you seriously believe ten year olds are having sex with other ten year olds...they are not. They are being preyed on by older boys, sometimes much older.

Most states have "Romeo&Juliet" laws that protect older teens who are a couple years apart in age. But there is a heck of a difference between a 16 year old and a 17 year old hooking up -- and a 13 year old girl and a 21 year old man. (Or for that matter, a 13 year old boy and a 21 year old woman.)

I supposed as a culture we can say "14 is OK, but not 13", the way in the past we decided 16 was OK or 17 or whatever. But to have no guidelines is to invite increased exploitation, which is what I believe is going on now.

Another possibility Ms. Harding and posters are ignoring is that girls face a risk of pregnancy, which can be quite dangerous at a very young age, and is undoubtedly why laws have been traditionally harsher on men who have sex with underage girls. A seduced young boy may have deep emotional scars from being exploited, but (obviously) he's not going to have to go through a pregnancy, or an abortion, or probably never have to deal with either giving a baby up for adoption or raising a child when you are yourself a child.

Generally I think the best way to prevent this kind of relationship is to have clear guidelines (most states actually do) and then stick with them -- make sure every teenager and adult knows exactly what "jailbait" means and what will happen to them if they exploit underage partners.