I watched the show last night as well. I liked the one guy who was in his lower 20's that said, after being busted, something to the effect of how now everyone will think he's a loser. Here's a hint pal - anyone in their 20's that goes after a 13/14 year old (or anything under 18)
IS a loser.
A good rule of thumb, if you're 18+, as to the minimum age of a person you should be dating is half your age + 9.
Popular culture might say I am beneath the status of some women...
My Dad has always told me that there's no way I could ever marry a woman below my status. 
A good rule of thumb, if you're 18+, as to the minimum age of a person you should be dating is half your age + 9.
That's a pretty ridiculous formula.
Nice addition to the discussion. Why even hit reply?
Because it was. Seriously, say a person was 50; that would mean that they could only date people at age 34 or older. It's absurd because they are perfectly capable of dating someone much, much younger than that and still not get in trouble with the authorities.
There's also the issue of some states having the age of consent being 16 as opposed to 18 (in Hawaii it used to be 14). So the whole DON'T DATE ANYONE UNDER 18 principle is not entirely universal.
If a 50 year old wants to date a 16 year old, that's pretty messed up, even if it is legal. I'd say the same thing about a 50 year old and an 18 year old.
The "rule of thumb" has nothing to do with what's legal - it's a guideline. Rule of thumb from dictionary.com - "a general or approximate principle, procedure, or rule based on experience or practice, as opposed to a specific, scientific calculation or estimate."
What my reply should have said is to explain why you think the formula is ridiculous (which you have now done). It's like someone expressing an idea and replying "That's stupid." Well, why?
An 80 year old man should not date a 48 year old woman.
Absolutely correct. An 80 year old man should not date a woman that is 48 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds old.
I know one "feature" of AS is rigid thinking, but give me a break. 
I can tell the difference between two teenage lovers and an attack by an older person on a younger person.
Her
boyfriend bought her that ring with his paper route money.
I am thankful, today, that none of my teachers ever tried to fall in love with me, from middle school to high school to undergraduate to graduate and finally to community college/vocational rehabilitation.
This woman is a child "molester" she was a teacher who slept with her 14 year old student. He wanted to and arranged times with her but the law is the law, and I agree with the law.
Here she is: I really have no comment here.
Hey, I took criminology as a sociology major from a professor who retained his foriegn citizenship in Gambia (Kunta Kinte, prof. was also Muslim). Professor said he didn't know he was black before he came here. Criticized some politics for suggesting to white voters "you can keep your guns and we'll get those _____" and reported it is almost impossible not to get a race distorted worldview growing up in America.
We learned that rape has many facets. Not just involuntary, but also too young and drugged or drunk. Not merely by a man's less honorable parts, but also by fingers or any foreign object.
Sorry, Max, if the woman is drunk she can't consent, it is the law. It is intended to protect people who wouldn't do that kind of thing cold sober. Still, two kids screwing around is not the same as one person doing it to someone reasonably young with intent to humiliate or otherwise hurt. Two kids screwing need a lecture in sex ed. A pedophile needs a jail cell for the animal he or she is.
It would be hard to turn down a woman with raging desire, drunk or not. And I'm sure us geeks seldom have to worry about it.
I was shocked while a grad student when a professor described how bold some women would get to a handsome, moneyed professor. I think his point was it depends on the man and what he has, and women usually do, to some guys.