A quick Google has told me that the age of consent in California is 18. This girl was 17.

However, here is the law (found at moraloutrage.net, I am not any kind of lawyer myself):

261.5. (a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age.

(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

(d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the following amounts:

(A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).

(B) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

(C) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

(D) An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).

So if any of the guys were 21 or older, it looks like they have a case regardless of consent. Otherwise, the best they can get is a misdemeanor.

Though walking into a room with ONE guy is not consent to have sex with ten of his best friends, even if you are foolish enough to go near frat parties. So it seems like someone would have had too see her willingly accompany all of them, doesn't it?

(A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).

didn't read this part correctly. The "three years older or younger" looks like it is meant to cover cases between minors, e.g., a 17 and a 13-year-old. If I understand this right, this $2000 penalty, while kind of paltry under circumstances such as these, looks like it's a felony conviction, right?

Well, my dear, a man has certain things, certain considerations, certain processes he has to go through, certain cycles of reconciliation and getting used to ideas.

Poor fragile little darling. Perhaps he ought to run home to mummy until he's feeling a touch more secure?

She sounds like she's "mummy" for this guy, actually. Unconditional acceptance of everything he does, willing to emotionally coddle his scared-little-boyness until he feels "ready" (which means "I'm still hoping some 25-year-old mentally-challenged hottie will overlook my ordinariness and I don't want to be tied down when that happens).

Nah, ditch him. The fiancee he was still with when he started seeing you, the ex-wife, the supposed "fragility" of his whole situation, all this makes him sound like a big whiny boy.

Yuck.

But watch your back, LW. This person knows you know his secrets. This means you may be perceived as a potential threat. Be very, very careful when negotiating office politics involving him. He may look for a way to throw you under the proverbial bus in order to neutralize you.

And if you yourself are devious and manipulative enough, you may be able to invent a way to throw HIM under the bus instead. That would solve everyone's problem.

Yep, not only is the commercial airport named after Will Rogers, there is also a municipal airport named after Wiley Post, who died in the same crash that killed W.R. But if you ever do spend anytime in OKC, you will likely notice that the natives do tend to have an odd sense of humor.

If you had ever BEEN a twenty-something-year-old woman, you would know damned well that it's nothing that most women would wish themselves back to. And twenty-three with a seven-year-old child and some misty-eyed romantic fool 18 years her senior pining after her? No thanks.

I don't have a moral problem with the scenario, but for practical reasons, dating men in their early 20s doesn't really appeal to me. All the men I know in their early 20s think they KNOW so much. They've got it all figured out, and are so certain of precisely where their lives are going to take them. It's annoying. I'd rather see them 10 years alter, when they've proven whether or not they can weather life's storms with some grace and dignity.