Age of consent laws should not be legal

I am glad my opponent has changed her mind. I have a daughter of my own, and feel this is a very personal issue. I have also worked with many women who were abused sexually as children- some not against their will. Though at the time they felt "ready" and "willing", they later found out they were not. I have even spoken with women who were raped, and did not realize it until I explained to them that they could not have been a willing partner in the sexual acts committed against them, ie. I had a friend who told me she had sex with two guys at once. At first she seemed amused, and when she told me the story she said she "thought" they penetrated her anally. I asked what she meant by "thought", and she said that they had given her lots of alcohol and had gotten her high. I explained to her that this was rape, as she was not capable of consenting to this. At first she seemed apprehensive. I asked her if she would tell anybody else she had sex with these two guys, and that they penetrated her anally. She said no- I was the only person she had told. I asked her if she was proud- she said no. I asked her if she felt violated- she said yes. She felt violated because she was. Rape occurs amongst adults beyond the age of consent- even amongst "friends". "Although some young people may feel that they are mature enough to engage in a sexual relationship, others may lack the emotional development to deal with this or to feel confident enough to say 'no'. Age of consent laws are there to protect young people from being sexually exploited by adults." (http://www.avert.org...) My opponent, even if she has conceded her original premise, now states that the laws "should be altered a little bit". She originally invoked California law, so let's examine age of consent in California and debate whether these laws should be "altered a little bit". CALIFORNIA CODES PENAL CODE 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. What this law basically states is that persons who are 18 years of age may legally (in most cases) have sexual intercourse with someone who is 15, but not 14. Why should we alter this law? I think the law protects children as it is stated, and though my opponent may feel ready enough to be with an 18 year old, I am sure there are other 14 year olds who are not. I'm sure there are 17 year olds who are not as well- and that is why rape laws are also in place. Any altering of the law in favor of the mature adversely affects the intended protectorate of the law, ie. the 14 year old child.