/u/the_murz made an interesting claim below:

The age of consent being what it is today was based on a tabloid newspaper publication in 1885 that incited a moral panic about child prostitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiden_Tribute_of_Modern_Babylon

"The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon" was a series of highly controversial newspaper articles on child prostitution that appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette in July 1885. Written by crusading editor W.T. Stead, the series was a tour de force of Victorian journalism. With sensational crossheads, such as "The Violation of Virgins" and "Strapping Girls Down", the Maiden Tribute threw respectable Victorians into a state of moral panic, and achieved, as a consequence, the implementation of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, which raised the age of consent for girls from 13 to 16, and also re-criminalised homosexual acts.

The thought that there was any substantial thought given to it, or that it is based on a modern understanding of science or anything like that, is not accurate. Literally, the age of consent being what it is today is traced back to a sensationalist tabloid publication in 1885.

It had nothing to do with the infant mortality rate, or anything else. There are a billion catch phrases that people recite to justify why the age of consent was raised, but they are completely baseless. In reality, there is not a strong argument for the current age of consent, it is not the apex of human development or anything like that, it is the after effect of a panic that was incited toward the end of the 19th century.

How do you guys respond to this?