You are incorrect about New York. (Are you Anne Marie Waters?) The statutory age of consent in New York has been 17 years old for decades. I think that you are confusing the legal marriageable age in that state for its statutory age of consent, because not too long ago it was legal for someone as young as 14 years old to get married by going through the proper legal channels in that state jurisdiction. The marriageable age floor in that state has been raised to 17 years old and there has been talk about raising it to 18 years old.

I realize that I have walked into the lion's den. However, let me just say this. If you British people are going to raise your nation's statutory age of consent to 18 years old, you might want to consider having the crime of "statutory rape" legislatively changed from a strict-liability offense to an "intent" crime. The United States of America suffers all sorts of societal problems inasmuch as supporters of higher statutory ages of consent want to have their cake and eat it to. The Netherlands had a statutory age of consent of 21 years old up until 1990, and it proved to be a disaster. Their current statutory age of consent is 16 years old.

Argentina has a statutory age of consent of 18 years old. However, they are well ahead of the game. In their nation, if an alleged victim of "statutory rape" is between 13 and 17 years old, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that the minor suffered manipulation or some kind of exploitation at the hands of the accused. The culpability of the defendant is not purely based upon the math in that nation. That is, it is not based purely upon whether the accused is over the legal age of majority and the alleged victim was below the statutory age of consent at the time of the said offense, although that element does factor into the equation in that nation.