In the cases where it is a teacher/student relationship I see this more as an abuse of power. No teacher should get involved sexually with a student- regardless of age. While a 16 year old may be sexually ready, the adult (the teacher) must refrain from surrendering to their desires. It doesn't matter whether the teenager belives to have been abused or not. What has been abused is the integrity, the trust, that should be present between teacher and student. Besides, it is often the case that a victim of abuse needs some distance from the situation before realizing there has actually been abuse. Let's not excuse this behavior toward children and sexualize them even more.

The harm that these statutes seek to prevent isn't simply the harm against that particular child but, rather, the harm that results when the law gives the go-ahead to adults seeking to have sex with adolescents. It doesn't really matter whether the particular child is exceptionally mature or not. That's why statutory rape should remain statutory and not involve an analysis of consent.

And to the dad who'd be "bemused" by his 11-year-old's relationship with an adult teacher - that's creepy as hell.

We have two different issues going on. The so-called "age of consent" laws are outmoded and ridiculous, based erroneously on the concept of an innocence of childhood and in the position of girl-children as property (hence the double standard that a boy is "lucky" to get an older woman, whereas the girl must be a victim). There is NO evidence that consenual sexual activity among teens is harmful. Lots and lots and lots of people assume that having sex "too young" is harmful, but no studies that I can think of have shown that anecdotal "of course" attitude to be proven true. Think about it: how old were you when you first had sex? Below the legal "age of consent" for your county? Has your life been ruined? (For more, I strongly suggest the book Harmful to Minors for a brilliant discussion on this topic.)

The second issue is one of the difficulty in obtaining any kind of real consent when there are power dynamics involved. I'm not simply talking about a few years age difference, but of differences in position, in authority, in class, in economic advantage: in short, power differences. A teacher, whether male or female, having sex with a student over which they have charge, is wrong. Not because of the age difference, but because no real consent can be granted on the part of the minor in such a situation. It is just as wrong for a college professor and a grad student (both, presumably, over an arbitrary age of consent) as it is with a teenager and a teacher, and for just exactly the same reason.

Hey Anonymous with the two sons, what if your 15 year old became a father as a result? Would you still be delighted for him???

The problem, as I see it, with these type of laws is two fold. One issue is that it is probably reasonable to believe that each situation is different and unique. Take me for example. I think back to when I was 15 and I sure wish I would have had a sexual mentor.

Another issue is harm done. Laws are meant to protect and before anyone is thrown into prison it should be incumbent upon the porsecutor to prove that harm was done. I would think that wouldn't be too difficult in power abuse situations. But, if as Ms Clarke claims, the boy was in pursuit, it may be impossible.

Where Ms Clarke stepped over the line was in getting pregnant, and then entering into marriage. Now we are talking about the future of 3 individuals, one of which had absolutely no choice in the matter.

Sexual abuse isn't about sex it's about power, we all know that, don't we? In instances where there are no power roles at play (teacher or parent vs. student or child's friend) and the child is claiming consent, then I don't honestly know that there would be any grounds to consider that abuse. Stupid, unwise, reckless - sure, but criminal??

In the case of a teacher student relationship you could make the argument for abuse not only because the teacher's power is implicit, but because with that power comes a responsibility to make decent decisions on behalf of his/her students - and not let personal feelings take over. Same holds true for the mother child relationship - which boy is more at risk, the one she married or her own son, for whom she has ultimate responsibility. Ditto the women feeding her daughter's friends drugs and beer and sexual education - the friends will walk away relatively unscathed, but the daughter cannot. These are cases of abuse, because abuse is about power.

In reality these cases are not about sexuality, so lowering the age of consent can't make them any less thorny, except perhaps by turning focus to the things that make up the bulk of what is wrong in these cases - an irresponsibility on behalf of the "adults" having nothing to do with sex, per se.

This is such a tough one -- you really wish that each case could be looked at to see whether the older person is using their age or position or greater life experience to manipulate or coerce the younger person into a sexual relationship.

But there's enough bias in the way judges decided things and police prosecute things without giving them even more latitude to decide individual cases.

As a reporter who often covers local police and courts, most of the statutory rape cases I cover don't involve 30-plus year old adults and 13-year-old girls. Rather, it's 18-year-old black teens and 16-year-old white girls, often just a grade or two apart in high school. Daddy finds out about it, and bam, the cops are called.

Most often, it says right in the girls' statements that the sex was consensual -- sometimes in stark terms. "He asked me if he could touch me and I said 'yes.' It felt good," is one recent example. But the boys still often end up with a prison sentence. As long as that can be allowed to happen in our society, then these women can't be given a break, regardless of how their "victims" characterize the relationship.

I've always felt that for an adult to be sexually attracted to any post-pubescent teen, even if that teen were quite young, say 13, is "normal." The signs that signal sexually maturity are all there. We're hardwired to respond to that, at least inwardly.

But you can't have adults going around hitting on 13 year olds, even if that 13 year old is sexually mature and maybe even sexually active with his/her peers.

So, as a society, we have to set the line somewhere, a line that says -- "even if this person really wants to be with you, if you are above this age and they are below it, you can't act on that attraction."

It is totally arbitrary, but 18 seems fairly reasonable to me.