I've always had misgivings about the way we address age-of-consent. I've no strong opinions as to how that sort of law should work, only a big mix of rhetorical and, in some cases, non-rhetorical (as in, requiring an answer) questions.

More to the point, I think the victim's age is a matter that clouds the issue. On the one hand, it triggers the one muscle on which liberals and their social constructivism and conservatives and their fictional deity and their fictional Mayberry past are all equally hysterical; on the other, it gives those who might have reasonable doubts about that hysteria room to insert those doubts into the matter of Polanski's alleged crime, when Polanski's alleged crime was clearly rape due to other factors that were part of the testimony.

And no, I don't approve of grown men having sex with 13-year-olds. Given that 13-year-olds were having sex with one another when I was that tender age, I'm of the opinion that the law is, of necessity, too blunt an instrument to adequately define and regulate such parameters. I do believe, however, that the community has a stake in such matters; how that stake is played out, I don't claim to know.