Strings, unfortunately, the data suggest that not laws but culture (and, I'd argue, social perception of sex) is the important factor.
Canada, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, even Puerto Rico... age of consent - 14
France - 15
Spain, South Korea - 13
(U.S. states' age of consent ranges from 16-18)
Yet the U.S. is much worse than countries such as Canada, France, UK, Spain, etc. when you look at teen pregnancy rates, teen abortion rates, STD rates, percentage of teens age 14-16 having sex... the only area where the U.S. is "better" in a pro-life sense is that the abortion _ratio_ (teen pregnancies aborted per capita) is less. But that's a Pyrrhic victory, since the teen abortion rate is higher; it's just that a lot of pregnant teens in the U.S. tend to keep their babies, while those in other countries don't keep them nearly as often.
I also haven't heard about hordes of antisocial misogynists in the above countries, which Strings' theory would suggest there should be, assuming laws control teen sexual behavior.
I think you'd be much better off trying to negate the media's hyper-sexualization by downplaying sex qua sex. I doubt anything else will help.
Strings, jfr, and just about every other social conservative here are not making an argument just about adults having sex with minors, but about minors having sex at all. Of course everyone agrees that sex between adults and "children" carries more risk of serious consequences in many cases, but the core issue is that social conservatives think that the law needs to protect children from the consequences of sex.
I hate to break the bad news, but minors having sex with their peers (within a certain age differential) is legal just about everywhere down to a certain age (usually somewhere between 12-14). Even in cases where kids younger than that have sex, it's almost never prosecuted, even though it's technically illegal, unless there's a substantial age differential. How exactly could you justify prosecuting a 10-year-old and an 11-year-old fooling around, no matter how much you might disapprove? Before puberty, the harm of punishment doesn't make sense given the typical innocence of those involved. And after puberty, anything you do or say is going to have to compete with a) hormones and b) the media. I doubt that laws can compete with those forces. Only upbringing and choice of socialization groups can.
Kidding aside, doesn't the notion of adults taking advantage of sweet young 13-year-olds seem like terror to some of you? Why are we not invading Spain? Or South Korea? Oh wait, we HAVE troops in Spain and South Korea, and we haven't done anything about THAT.
Barbara, as Tallpine implied, your comment suggests that you need to research age of consent laws. There is no general prohibition against adults having sex with minors, if that's in fact what you meant by "children." Basically, minors cannot enter into contracts, but sex (with peers) is not deemed serious enough to require a contract.
Nevertheless, I realize that most people, including parents, think that turning 18 makes sex with a 17-year-old magically illegal... even though that's almost never true (maybe in some 3rd world hellholes). I know that when I was in high school, a classmate's parents (who weren't exactly dumb... the father was a general counsel for a major company iirc) were telling other parents that they'd cautioned their own son on precisely those (imaginary) grounds.
