>

Do you think your experience is universal? No matter what the age is, there will be people be people over it who don't feel mature enough to consent. Also checking your profile reveals that you had sex with your boyfriend when you were 14 and he was 16. Do you think he's a criminal who needs to be locked up?
If you say nothing about you has changed since you were 13, do you think there's going to be a big difference in the next 12 months, between now and when you turn 17?
Laws have to be written according to age, or else the government has to take on the cost of stringent tests. While a single age of consent is simplistic, "Romeo and Juliet laws" which give a little leeway among similar-aged parties are a sensible option >

Technically, my body hasn't changed much due to my medication. My puberty was held back until I was 14, so I'm not even that far into puberty myself I'm nearly 16 nut my body makes me look like a 12/13 year old instead of a 15/16 year old. >

Mental maturation is hormonally based. If you are blocking your hormones you are also blocking your mental maturation. You can’t assume the average mental ‘age’ of your peers as you have deviated from this. >

If the difference between a 13yo and a 16yo isn't significant, surely the difference between a 17 years and 364 days old person and an 18 years and 0 days old person is even more trivial. In life, you'll find that you rarely feel fundimentally different from how you did a few years ago, but you'll change a lot. And you aren't always the best judge of that change. That said, if you don't feel ready to engage in sexual activity, don't. Despite what some people will relentlessly tell you, there's no rush.
The law uses arbitrary lines, because it's impossible to capture and integrate the full complexity and range of human experiences in a way that can be applied practically. What's more, the capacity for consent is somewhat fluid, not just a property that a person always has or doesn't. There isn't a handheld device that can scan a person's brain tell everyone that the person can >

I guess but even then consent is never a given thing and you can't force someone to give consent even someone 16 or 18 years old and over. >

Forced agreement isn't consent. The purpose of the age of consent is to protect people who aren't yet ready to make their own sexual decisions or to stand by them in the face of pressure from others from exploitation. If you pass the age of consent knowing that you aren't ready for sex, that you never have to agree to someone's advances and that you're willing to stand by these principles, then in a sense, the age of consent has it's job. Consent is as much about saying 'no' (and witholding agreement) as it is about saying 'yes'. >

Ok I understand what your saying then,but what about my 13 year old sister who has gone through puberty and has a mental state of a 16 year old shouldn't she be allowed to consent or she can't because the government put a arbitrary number on a piece of paper. >

The law puts limits based on age because it's the most practical way of doing it, not because something special happens when you change age brackets.
This applies to all age based laws, not just sex related ones.
The question is not "how mature is your sister". 
The question is "what % of people at age X, are mature enough".
Let's say you have a study that evaluates that a drug is harmful to :

90% of people below 17 years old
70% of people at 18 years old
25% of people ar 19 years old
0.1% of people at 20 years old.

If you make a law that minimizes harm, your put the limit of purchasing that drug at 21 years old.
Note that the law putting the age limit at 21 doesn't mean that people below 21 will necessarily be harmed.
But from a practical standpoint, sorting out people below 21 between vulnerable and not is too complicated and is more likely to cause harm if mistaken.
And while harm can come to the 21 and above, it is less likely.
So the law has to draw the line according to probabilities and expected outcomes, not specifically for each individual. >

You missed the point I was trying to make I doubt my sister is that special there are probably tindms if girls and boys out there that are "ready" to consent and have the knowledge and mental fortitude to make a commitment like that the only thing stopping them is a stupid law written on paper, and tbh I'm almost 16 myself snd I dint think me ir my body is even ready for sex so this law on the terms you put it doesn't work or even taking into account people over 18 whose bodies are not ready for sex or are not mentally able to give consent the law doesn't protect them despite there probably being a vast amount of people like that. And if you support aoc being 16 your basically saying it's ok for guys in their 50s like my dad should be allowed to go fuck people 16 years old, my dad was screwing people my age you dint see a problem with that. >

IMO setting the age of consent as 18 is too high.
The age of consent here is 16, which I think is perfect.
Lower age of consent results in younger people being able to get condoms and other types of prevention (pills etc.) more easily. Here you can even get free condoms from your school nurse if you so please.
The sex education happens also quite a bit earlier (around 10th grade, when we are 15-16) which helps prevent possible "bad" outcomes of sexual experimentation.
So IMO the AOC should be 16, sex education should be given around that age and prevention should be easily accesible.
Having the AOC at 18 will most likely result in more kids becoming pregnant, getting different STDs or any other sex related problem.
16 year old kids will have sex whether it's legal or not, as they are at (maybe) the hight of their sexual lust because of puberty. So making this be the legal age, and giving the correct education will result is much safer sex.
But don't get me wrong, the AOC should not be lower than 16, it should be exactly 16.
Sex is natural, and creating a more "safe" environment around it is crucial for safe sex amongst teenagers. >

Laws are made with the perspective of "general" situations. Your sister might be an exception, not the norm.
If I follow your argument that there is no significant difference between a 15 year old and a 16 year old, the same can be said for a 14 year old and a 15 year old. We can keep going backwards till a certain limit. There are some differences between a 13 year old and a 15 year old, even more differences between a 12 year old and a 15 year old and drastic differences between 11 year old and 15 year old (assuming puberty hits when you are around 11)
Whenever an age of consent is decided, it is based on a few factors


Societal need: if the society has an insanely low birth rate, then the age of consent needs to be reduced (and if there is a legal age of marriage then it needs to be reduced too) so that the birth rate increases. Vice versa for other societies


Biological development: if it has been observed that by a certain age, a woman's body is "ready" for sex, then that age is considered as a "minimum ".


Maturity: even if your body is ready at a younger age (suppose 13), then are you mature enough to handle the consequences of your acts? Here, maturity is defined as the years you have lived (the more you live, the more you learn and observe the world) and thus, taken into consideration. >


Laws are made with the perspective of "general" situations. 

It should be noted that pure age-based age of consent laws are mostly an Anglo-Saxon common law thing.
In most countries in continental Europe or say Japan and other civil law countries, more factors than merely the ages are considered and there are no “clock of midnight” laws. The court does evaluate the circumstances, mental maturity of the younger party and how the younger party reflects upon the act in hindsight.
So they are not made based on “general” situations but look at the individual situation. This follows the general principle of sex crimes in those countries due to the fact that a general solution can never be satisfactory and there are too many factors the lawmaker could never consider. It is surely a sex crime where I live to by surprise grab the genitals of a stranger, but doing it as a joke to one's spouse one has an active sex life with for many years would not be. The law could never formulate where the line lies here. >

The fact is that teens are going to have sex, whatever the law is. 
In this situation, what seems the best outcome to you ? 

14-16 yo couples have sex together and that's it. 

or 

14-16 yo couples have sex and now they go to a rehabilitation center as young criminals ?