And so what, Peter? If women are to be considered equals to men and afforded the same opportunities as men, then they'll need to shoulder the same burdens and risks as men, to include doing actual time if convicted of statutory rape. Now I'd prefer to see sentencing equalized for violent crimes first -- not sure about the Commonwealth, but there's ample evidence that women here get lighter sentences than men even for assaults and homicides -- but this looks to me like a step in the right direction.

FWIW, this area had, some years before the Mary Kay Le Tourneau (sp?) scandal, a similar one, with the sexes reversed. He was a junior high teacher in his 30s; she a student about 14, as I recall, when the affair started.

He was caught, sent to jail, contacted her while on probation (or in jail?), got more time, finished his sentence, and got out. She became of legal age, and almost immediately after they got married and have -- to the best of my knowledge -- lived quietly together since then.

In contrast, Mary Kay abandoned her family with, as I recall, four children, and, with Vili (again , sp?) created two more who are beginning life with serious handicaps. They have neither a proper father nor a proper mother and will inevitably be the target of cruel attacks when they reach school age.

Whatever the general rule may be in these case, the first outcome seems far better than the second.

Joe:

You talk as if men were traditionally jailed for statutory rape because they were more responsible and grown-up than child-like, naive women and that if women now want this new-fangled equality, they've got to do the time. I'm unaware of any historical difference in the treatment of women for murder, robbery and most other crimes. The reason men are treated differently in this case has nothing to do with chivalry or paternalism. It is a function of the fact that we recognize that men are more sexually predatory and physically stronger, and that there is a difference in the physical and emotional risks here. Have you heard of a lot of widespread scandals in the Church caused by sexually predatory nuns? (Cue Harry.) How about nurses losing their licenses for talking lavicious advantage of vulnerable upper school guys?

I have no problem with the conviction and she should never teach again. I don't know why these teachers develop these manias, which seem to be more like fixations or demonic possessions than amorous conquests or Don Juan-like seductions. But to call it child abuse and statutory rape is silly, as is pretending this guy will be scarred the way a 14 year old girl might. Sentencing is where we are supposed to apply discretion, look at the individual circumstances and social threat and make the punishment fit the true sense of community standards of offence and outrage. It's not supposed to be a general political statement.

"Her victim, Benjamin Dunbar, was a 15-year-old in Year 10 with whom Ellis had repeated unprotected sex at her North Eltham home during a 6 1/2-week affair while her husband was interstate in October and November 2003."

Victim?! If only my tenth grade English teacher had been a sexual predator!

How refreshing to read real, genuine thoughts about this topic. Thanks, Peter. It's become such a taboo topic, most people are afraid to speak the truth, which is that men and women have differing sexual motivations and power, and that adolescent boys and girls are different from each other in the same regard.

Now if we would just start confronting the issue of WHY so many adults are apparently attracted to teens. You've gotta figure that if so many are willing to act on it -- as the drumbeat of news stories like this seems to indicate -- then there's a whole lot more with the same desires who simply haven't acted, or who haven't been "caught."

In 2005, it seems impossible to talk publicly about this without being scarlet-lettered, though some -- like Glenn Reynolds -- have taken the plunge and emerged unscathed. But it's a compelling topic, because it's rich with sociological and historical implications. What has changed in 2,000 years, for instance, that makes the idea of a sexually active 13-year-old girl so repulsive, when the mother of Jesus was precisely that age, without a second thought from her contemporaries? How do we reconcile the fact that when we're 14 ourselves, we're attracted to others that age, yet four years later we're supposed to magically pretend they'd never been attractive?

Lots of questions, so little discussion. Talk about third rails.

(Yes, I know Mary did not get pregnant because she was "sexually active." But she was married, and neither that nor her pregnancy raised eyebrows. That's my point.)

Happy now, Peter? The reason for treating adults of both sexes alike on this one just gave you a nice sweaty handshake. Hope you feel like washing.

Washing? I feel like delousing and self-flagellating too.

Joe, I said I was for her conviction. In the end, if we persist in treating girls and guys interchangeably on these matters, guess who will ultimately suffer the most?

Joe, despite the incomprehensible syntax of your sentence ("The reason for treating adults of both sexes... just gave you a handshake" -- huh?), I'm presuming what you're trying to say is: "See, Peter, by publicly stating your position, you've just opened the door for the perverts and NAMBLA supporters to come in here and dirty the place up."

If so -- if that is indeed what your clumsy sentence is trying to convey -- then what a joke. I didn't write anything that condones breaking the law. I didn't write anything about my own proclivities. I simply noted what I find to be an intriguing hot-potato of an anthropological topic. It's the knee-jerk stance of people like you who make the topic so untouchable in the first place, leaving a glaring elephant in the living room of contemporary society.

You bet, commentor. Why don't you run along now.

"(I) bet" what? That it's an intriguing anthropological topic? That it's a hot potato? That it's an elephant in the living room? That your stance is knee-jerk? That your syntax was clumsy?

Good Lord. You're acting as if I just sat here and advocated sex with minors. Personally, I find it abhorrent. I don't understand what drives the Mary Kay Whatevers of the world. My point is that it seems quite prevalent. My point is that it's worth examining what is going on, to understand why it's so prevalent. My point is that I find it worth inquiry, on an academic level, to understand what has caused societal mores to change so significantly over time. My point is that the subject has been bizarrely tagged as dangerous rhetorical territory -- that merely raising it casts suspicion on anyone within earshot.

You've chosen, instead, to self-righteously distort my post simply so you can display how Joe Shropshire Sure Ain't One of Them Dirty People.

Geez, I hope my wisecrack was not partially to blame for all of this self-flagellation and hand-washing!

Nonetheless, I think Mr. Burnet is right that this is yet another case in which the ideal of gender equity has trumped common-sense.

Mrs. Ellis's actions are of comparable seriousness to that of a male in similar circumstances? How does selling this politically correct fiction advance the cause of teenage girls abused by adult males? If anything, it diminishes the perceived seriousness of the crime committed against them.

Back to first principles. Let the punishment fit the crime.

I do that myself all the time -- raise subjects that are abhorrent to me, that is. Purely out of academic interest, of course. Cops have a name for that, it's called talking yourself into jail. Pray continue.

Peter, you're a decent man, arguing forthrightly for the continued application of a double standard that you've no hope in Hades of preserving. In the long run we will treat adult men and adult women the same, and we will treat 15 year old boys and 15 year old girls the same. The only choice that remains to you is whether you want adult men treated according to our traditional standard for women, or whether you want adult women treated according to our traditional standard for men. The judge in this case chose the latter, and thereby did his job.

djs, this isn't your bad, don't worry about it.

"... it's called talking yourself into jail."

Yeah, good point. I forgot that it's against the law to discuss the law and the social/cultural factors that guide it.

You have buttressed one of my points, at least: that it's near-impossible to discuss this topic without being branded a deviant by sanctimonious non-thinkers.

It's OK to talk about age issues when it comes to stuff like driving, voting, drinking, etc. But God forbid that anyone talk about age issues when it comes to sex, since the matter has clearly been settled for millennia. Don't want to make Joe Shropshire feel "dirty."

Joe:

I guess you're not big on man-dates.

So you would be in favour of the same sentence for the wife who throws dishes as the guy who slugs his wife? How about infanticide of a newborn by a father compared to a mother? Should we start laying sexual assault charges against women who have a few to many and start groping in public, not understanding that no means no?

This isn't about double standards, it's about biology. You may be right that rigorous equality is inevitable and that this teacher had to go down to make sure we stay tough on male abusers/"child" seducers. If so, it's probably better than the converse. But that's because we are all going insane on this subject and the judge could have said that is what he was doing rather than treat us to his politically correct pomposity.

Mr. Shropshire,

You state:

"The only choice that remains to you is whether you want adult men treated according to our traditional standard for women, or whether you want adult women treated according to our traditional standard for men."

and then that:

"The judge in this case chose the latter, and thereby did his job."

How did you get from point A to point B? Are you seriously arguing that we need to dole out unreasonably harsh punishments to adult women in order to treat them like adult men in order to prevent the truly destructive behavior, that is, the abuse of female teens by adult men? And if you're giving out unreasonably harsh punishments to women, aren't you treating them unequally? Shouldn't equal treatment of men and women consist of punishing them both in a manner that's consistent with the seriousness of their offense?

"Madness" is right.

Peter:

I guess you're not big on man-dates.

If you've got a thing for Bart, by all means ask him out, he seems harmless enough. If you mean to kiss him on the first date you'll probably want to shave him first.

So you would be in favour of the same sentence for the wife who throws dishes as the guy who slugs his wife?

That's up to the PA's discretion, and the judge's; but that's also not the analogy that flows from the case in question. I am all in favor of the same sentence for a woman who throws dishes at her son, or her stepson, as for a man who slugs his daughter or his girlfriend's daughter. You're following tradition in drawing your first distinction between male and female, and then between major and minor. The law does it the other way 'round, and that's what the Ellis case is about.

How about infanticide of a newborn by a father compared to a mother?

Yes. Dumb question. Next question.

Should we start laying sexual assault charges against women who have a few to many and start groping in public, not understanding that no means no?

That's at your discretion. I'm all in favor of your teaching that drunken frat boy to keep his hands to himself, whether he's 19 years old or 45. I'm also all in favor of your teaching his date the same lesson, once you've dragged her head out of the toilet. Flip a coin.

This isn't about double standards. It's about biology.

It's actually about the way the law draws a line through biology. Historically that line ran between the sexes. Lately it cuts across age groups. You're welcome to try to remedy that in the legislature -- perhaps you might try lowering the age of consent for boys to 11 or 12. Let me know how that works out for you.

Anonymous :

Shouldn't equal treatment of men and women consist of punishing them both in a manner that's consistent with the seriousness of their offense?

And how shall you differentiate seriousness? Here we have offender A, aged 39, who had relations with victim B, aged 13; and here we have offender C, aged 39, who had relations with victim D, aged 13. Stipulate that both A and C pled guilty to the same charge. What's that you say -- offender A is a man, and will do five years; offender C is a woman, and gets probation? How long do you think it's going to take offender A's lawyer (or more accurately, how many A's will it take) before A's sentence gets thrown out on appeal? In other words it isn't a question of what should happen. It's a question of what will happen.

By the way, what happens when victim B and victim D are in fact the same person? Or does the answer depend on whether BD is a boy or a girl?

OK, we disagree. But you should read up on infanticide before calling the example stupid. Where do you think the word comes from? For many years infanticide of a newborn was a separate crime, less serious than murder, and it only applied to mothers. As I noted above, there was never any distinction in most other crimes, so why do you think that was?

Joe: Do you agree that a sexual relationship between a 15 year old boy and a 30 year old woman is less damaging to the boy than a sexual relationship between a 15 year old girl and a 30 year old man is to the girl?

Peter: as always, thanks for your civility and my apologies for not returning it fully. You're right, I had not considered the history of infanticide as a separate crime. I do understand that it was a common practice, and that at least among Romans it was usually ordered by the father and carried out by the mother.

David: all participants being average I agree with that. My point is that you've little chance of upholding such distinctions as far as sentencing is concerned. Time and the hydraulic pressure of defense attorneys and appeals courts will see to it that the 30 year old man and the 30 year old woman will face about the same level of deterrent from the law, and that the 15 year old boy and the 15 year old girl will enjoy about the same level of protection under the law. Also I'd say fill in your grid to include the cases where the 30 year old man also has a relationship with the 15 year old boy, or the woman also has a relationship with the girl. Either way it's the man's lawyer who will rightly take the keenest interest in the woman's sentence, and who will, if she's doing her job, argue that her client's should be no harsher.

Joe: The most harm is man/boy, the least harm is woman/boy. Man/girl and Woman/girl are a real toss up, but if pressed I would probably put them at 2 and 3, respectively.

As for the realities of modern justice, I agree with you. But that doesn't mean that, in a more perfect union, punishment wouldn't vary to match the seriousness of the harm, even if it meant suggesting that women, men, boys and girls are not exactly identical in all ways.

Noted and agreed, and I think I'll leave it there. Thanks to both you and Peter as always, I very much appreciate your civility even when the topic is as charged as this one.

I am so sick of guys assuming that every 15 year old boy enjoys being seduced by an older woman and on that basis argue that the said woman should get a lighter sentence. David and Peter, you know nothing about what this boy is feeling and shouldn't assume he'd feel the same way you would were you in the same situation.

Slider: That's true, but you shouldn't assume that you know better than the judge who actually tried the case and thought that a more lenient sentence was proper. The problem here is the insistence on the fiction that the two sexes are necessarily identical, when in fact they are not. That doesn't mean that no punishment is warranted, or that it isn't sick for an adult to be sexually fixated on an adolescent.

Orrin:

Aside from the choice of gender, I am guessing that gay boys share straight boys inate attitudes about sex. So should adult men who have sexual relations with postpubescent boys be punished less severely than men who fool around with teenage girls?