I work as a librarian in a poor neighborhood in a big east coast city, and sadly, I see the consequences of very young girls having sex every day. The most troubled kids we deal with almost always has one parent--a mom who is fourteen or fifteen years old. In the library, staff members always refer to this phenomenon as "babies having babies", and it's really true. Unfortunately, the stakes for these girls and their potential offspring are so high that I believe that the age of consent should be set at a higher age, like 18, than a lower age, like 12, as Mr. Saleton has suggested. Many girls growing up in this environment are at risk, especially since there is no father around, and they will have relationships with older guys to get male approval. then, when the girls end up pregnant, many (though not all) of the guys leave. In this way, this tragic pattern is perpetuated. I think lowering the age of consent is a slippery slope, and for the poorest and most vulnerable of young girls, can have a life altering outcome.

He isn't talking about lowering the age of consent, he's talking about redefining it so that it makes more sense.

Look at it this way. It's easy to say that older men who have sex with teenagers are predators, and should be punished. He himself says that. But how do you define "older men"? Or even "older women"? How many of those young girls were impregnated by boys not much older than they were, who aren't in much- if any- better condition to judge risks than they were? Does treating one of them like a criminal make sense? If any punishment should be metted out, shouldn't it be to both kids for doing something unacceptably risky?

Yeah, raise it to 50.