The reaction to the entirely sensible decision of the Supreme Court to strike down as unconstitutional our present law on statutory rape has been both hysterical and deeply revealing.

The tearing-of-hair and gnashing-of-teeth brigade simply refused to deal with the unassailable logic behind the decision. But it was precisely this refusal that was so deeply revealing, because it highlighted how deeply conflicted we are about the whole topic of teenage sex. On the one hand our modern sexual mores seem practically to encourage it. On the other, we want to slap in prison anybody who has sex with a girl under the age of 15, even if the offender is merely a boy of 16 or 17.

The Supreme Court decision was wise and just for a very clear reason — no law should be so inflexible as to deny a person the right to a defence. No, the problem is not with the Supreme Court decision, but with the bad legislation it struck down. Of course, we must have a law that forbids statutory rape, but any such law must allow judges and juries to take into account the individual circumstances.

In the particular case before the Supreme Court last week, the girl was 14 and the boy was 16 (or 17, according to some reports). He had a very simple defence: he thought the girl was older because she lied to him about her age. But he was not allowed to make that defence in court, and hence the law was challenged before the Supreme Court, which found against it.

Let’s look at this from two angles — both of which might give you a different perspective on the law, tilting you first in favour of it and then against it. Imagine, first of all, that it is your 14-year-old daughter who had sex with a 16- or 17-year-old. Depending on the circumstances, you might be mad at her to begin with, but more likely you’d be mad at him, and if you discovered that what he did was not only against the law but technically constituted statutory rape, you’d be down to the garda station looking to have the book thrown at him.

Now imagine that it is your 16- or 17-year-old son being accused of statutory rape. She consented, insofar as a 14-year-old can consent to sex. Your son also tells you he thought she was 17, that she looked 17, and that she told him she was 17. Do your think your son, under these circumstances, should automatically have to go to prison for rape with no right to use his honestly held belief as a defence? So this is complicated. The law seems just when it’s your 14-year-old daughter who’s involved, but unjust when it’s your 16-year-old son.

To listen to some of the reaction last week, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the offence of statutory rape had been wiped off the statute books for good. But no, it is merely a law from 1935 that has been struck down.

Michael McDowell, the justice minister, says he will as soon as possible introduce a new law that takes the Supreme Court decision into account. But what form should this new law take? First, it has to allow a right to a defence. Second, it should, as in other countries, impose a much harsher penalty on offenders where there is a significant age gap between the two parties than when the gap is a matter of only a few months or years.

The law-makers must also consider what the age of consent should be. Here’s where we play our part. The age at which we start having sex is getting lower all the time. About one in 10 have sex by the time they’re 15, meaning statutory rape happens all over Ireland every single day and the vast majority of the time nobody gets caught. Many of these cases are like the one that came before the Supreme Court, involving girls of about 14 and boys of 16, or even younger.

The age of first sexual intercourse is getting lower because we subject ourselves, and our children, to a ceaseless propaganda bombardment that equates sexual fulfilment with fulfilment full stop. Why be surprised when some people actually believe this, including impressionable teenagers? If adverts, films and television programmes make an impression on adults, shaping our mores, both sexual and otherwise, imagine the impression they make on 13-year-olds?

So here’s the question: are we serious about tackling underage sex, or aren’t we? There’s no point in creating a song and dance about statutory rape and the Supreme Court’s decision when we’re doing everything in our power to convince kids that sex is the be-all and end-all of life and if they’re not doing it, they’re losers for life.

Maybe some day a genius will work out how to bombard adults with sexual imagery while insulating kids from it. But until then, the chances are we’ll continue on our hypocritical little way, decrying last week’s Supreme Court decision while tacitly supporting the propaganda that indirectly encourages 13- and 14-year-olds to have sex.

Times Recommends

• No apology for Germany’s own Nazi victims
• Intricate web of fear and hope tying down deal
• Victims remembered a year after Mumbai attacks