In any case, I'm not arguing for the guy to be found innocent. He was found guilty. There is an option to give him a lighter sentence. So I agree with the court's decision, as he was only 18 and the sex was so-called "consensual". Legally, he is an adult. But I doubt 18-year-olds are very mature; they may not even know what age of consent is.

If a probationary sentence can't even be used in this instance, what can it be used for? If the guy had sex with the girl just three days before his 18th birthday, should he still be sentenced to jail? The incident reportedly happened on June 5, 2009. If he was born in January, then at best, he's only 18 years and 5 months old.

Or should every single statutory rape case only have jail sentences?

The fact that statutory rape accounts for 54% of all rape cases is alarming. Let's put aside incest cases, where the perpetrator is decades older than the girl, and forcible rape cases. This shows that there are likely a great number of underage girls willingly having sex, whether it's with another 15-year-old boy (still counts as statutory rape) or 18-year-old guy.

There may even be cases of 15-year-old boys having sex with 18-year-old girls (although this doesn't count as statutory rape).

Should we lock all of them up?

Sex education is crucial to this discussion. As long as we are fixated on sentencing a young man to jail for having sex with his underage girlfriend, we will never be able to reduce the number of statutory rape cases, especially those that involve minors in "suka sama suka" cases.

1. I do not believe you agree that statutory rape is okay no matter the ages and as such will not prolong that debate. What I do disagree with is your assertion that 18 is still a teenager. Other than the teen in eighteen, I don't see how he qualifies as one anymore.

While I concede that a "Young Man's Defence" as written by K Shanmuga has been used and accepted in countries such as UK, Singapore, US etc. that is not the case here.

"In the US, Romeo might be able to plead the exception of closeness in age as a valid defence to statutory rape. For example, it is an affirmative defence to sexual assault in the state of Texas “if the actor was fewer than 3 years older than the victim.

Similarly, in Canada the exception close-in-age applies; minors aged 14 or 15 years old may have sex with a partner who is less than 5 years older, while children aged between 12 and 13 years old may have sex with a partner 2-3 years older.

However, the exception does not apply in the UK.  Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (U.K.), 2003, c. 42, s. 13, a person under 18 who commits the offence engaging in sexual activity with a child, defined under s. 9, will be deemed to have committed the same offence as if he did so as an adult above 18. However, the same section provides for lower penalties where the offender is a minor." – http://www.singaporelawreview.org/2010/02/romeo-k…

Even if we were to take the Canadian viewpoint on the age gaps, the Man in this case does not qualify anymore. And the courts have been right to accept that it is statutory rape.

The only question left, is whether a custodial sentence is a better deterrent than a probationary one. In this respect, I agree with Childline Malaysia in the statement issued yesterday. A crucial point highlighted in the statement is how statutory rape now accounts for 54% of all rape cases. https://www.facebook.com/notes/childline-malaysia…

So how does a probationary sentence deter others again?

Btw sex education is of course the better way to teach minors not to have sex at an early age. But this case is already after the fact, and that discussion is unrelated to the sentencing.

Why attack Su-Lyn for her candidness in her taste. You'd prefer the diabolical shit that is dished out by mediocre society and the resultant Sodomy 1, 2 and more?

"What a man does in his bedroom is none of society's business" — Pierre Trudeau

1) I said two teens because an 18-year-old is still a teenager.

2) Yes, it's still statutory rape because girl's below 16. Age of consent is necessary to protect girls and boys from sexual abuse, as I've said. I'm arguing for a lighter punishment for the bowler because I think he deserves it as compared to five years jail. It's his first offense and he was only 18. Even if he's legally an adult, he prolly isn't as mature as a 40-year-old. If he were 40, he should go to jail.

3) Fathers, granddads and uncles should go to jail because they are most likely a lot more mature than an 18-year-old. Also, that's incest.

4) A 40-year-old man having sex with a 13-year-old girl is statutory rape and sex abuse. As I said, not so clear cut in bowler's case re abuse is because they are only 5 years apart and they were in a relationship. If she were 10 and he's 18, then that may be sexual abuse because of the age gap.

5) Law is there to protect. I never advocated abolishing age of consent. But the judges had the discretion to use a lighter punishment on this bowler who was only 18. First time offense. Sending him to jail will not stop future 17 or 18 year olds from doing it with their younger girlfriends. Sex education might.

"I went to a BDSM shop in New Zealand, where the owner was kind enough to let me “try” a leather flogger (costs NZ$100, which is RM255). So I just whipped myself on my palms. It’s not as easy as it sounds using a flogger with very long falls. It stings quite a bit. Suede floggers, on the contrary, feel rather nice and soft.
I hope that my book will help people explore their darkest fantasies."

She advocates and publishes sexual experimentation like it was equal to a LEGO playset. Wow! What a great social contribution! Want to save the world konon! Boo belongs to that species that refuses to acknowledge any moral absolute, but then goes on to pontificate on what others should and shouldn't do. (Notice how many times she uses words like "should", "should not", " must" and "need"?)

Hey Boo, go to your dark corner and have fun with your BDSM gear. What goes around comes around, girl. Won't be much fun when it hits you..

"Will thieves and murderers be deterred from sending offenders to jail? It won't teach them anything other than to steal without being caught!"

A very weak argument, I'm afraid.

1. Your argument on not punishing teens for having sex has some merit but this is not a case of 2 teens getting it on. It is in your own words "An 18-year-old MAN having sex with a 13-year-old girlfriend".

How are they two teens again when one is deemed legal age to drive or purchase alcoholic beverages while the other can't be legally employed without the employer being accused of using child labour?

These are not TWO teens!

2. The point of statutory rape is to prevent exploitation of a younger person (in Malaysia's case 16 and below). Exploitation in this respect includes tricking, luring or drawing a younger person to have "consensual" sex with an older person.

The law deems those below 16 (for sex) as incapable of making sound judgement when it comes to sex and hence is enacted to prevent them from being taken advantage of.

So how is this not rape when one is 18 and the other 13?

3. "Does he deserve to go to jail for having sex with his girlfriend?"

Do fathers, grandfathers, uncles deserve jail for having "consensual" sex with their underage nieces, daughters or granddaughters then?

In statutory rape, consent is not a mitigating factor unless they are both equals (ie below 16).

4. "I am a feminist and believe that all children should be protected, especially from sexual abuse."

I think your interpretation of sexual abuse is very limited to forced sex. Again in this case, if the person is not deemed old enough to make certain decisions how is the sex not abuse in itself whether consensual or not?

What if the girl was 12, 11 or even 10? Would the consensual sex be okay then?

5. "Will consensual sex among teenagers be deterred by sending this bowler, who is barely an adult and can’t even vote yet, to jail?"

Finally, this last sentence show how little you understand the rationale for statutory rape laws. The law is not meant to prevent teens from having sex. It is enacted to protect those below 16 from being exploited or tricked into having sex.

I say this as the father of a 14 year old girl – who is not old enough to make these decisions and needs to be protected by the law from adults who would try to take advantage.