comment: >
  
  I define a minor as a child and teenager, someone who isn't an adult yet.
  Once again, a minor is a minor regardless of location and maturity level.
context: if you're 19 you're still technically a teenager and it makes no sense for it to be, at a maximum, 18.
  
  It makes as much sense as 20. Literally the only reason you're a teenager at 19 is because the word "19" ends with "-teen". All of this is arbitrary. >
  
  Indeed. It is such an odd argument to make laws based on linguistic peculiarities.
  How does the law change in other languages?
  In French for example, the words 11-16 have their own unique words:
  
  onze
  douze 
  treize
  quatorze
  quinze
  seize
  
  However, 17-19 are literally worded ten and whatever is the second number.
  
  dix-sept (ten-seven)
  dix-huit (ten-eight)
  dix-neuf (ten-nine)
  
  So, does this mean in France, the AOC should be 17 because that is when the linguistic trend changes? Why would England and France have a different "correct" AOC? >
  
  And in French-speaking countries smoking weed should become legal at the age of 80, because quatre-vingt means 420. >
  
  Lol, indeed. >
  
  So first off, there is no universal authority with the ability to govern age of consent.
  Second, I don't see how the age of consent has anything to do with drawing people. A drawing can't consent, no matter how old it is, it's a drawing. Also, how do you tell the difference between a 19 year old somebody drew, and a 21 year old? Again it's a drawing. >
  
  As far as the drawing part, I think OP might be talking with respect to the lollicon thing that is (I believe) illegal in US, but not in other countries since it is drawing. >
  
  Yea but that has nothing to do with age of consent, because a drawing doesn't have an age, and can't consent. >
  
  Well I understand but what I was saying was that if you draw a character that is supposed to be (doesn’t have to be based on a real person) underage, below the age of consent, then in the US that drawing is/has the potential to be classified as child pornography. I wasn’t making an opinion about that but saying I think that might have been what OP was talking about. >
  
  I see a number of major issues with your position:
  First is the pragmatics. How do you plan to enforce a universal law of this kind? There are 195 different countries in the world. Many of them do not have the most congenial of relationships with one another. They struggle enough to agree on universal issues that directly impact international relations. Let alone domestic policy issues (i.e. something that is aimed at policing their internal population rather than their nations interactions with other nations).
  Secondly you risk criminalising large numbers of teenagers. We’ve already seen this in the US where there have been a number of high profile cases in which teenagers having perfectly normal sexual relationships have been caught up  in the criminal system and classified as sex offenders. Yet, I hope we agree, there is nothing creepy or wrong about two sixteen-year-olds being attracted to one another.
  Teenagers are going to have sexual relations with one another. This is totally normal. We can make sure that they are as safe as possible by teaching them good health and hygiene practices, and ensuring that they have access to contraception and support where needed. But simply trying to criminalise them is not going to help. It’ll not stop them having sex. It’ll just make their doing so more risky, and in a small but significant number of cases, result in bad justice.
  I think a much better solution is to have a more nuanced law. For example, a legal age of consent at 16, but a limit on how much age difference there can been between the parties. Two people who are both 16 having sex with one another in a consensual way is fine. A creepy old man having sex with a 16-year-old is not. And so why not create a law that reflects that nuanced reality, aimed at protecting younger people from those who are predatory, while avoiding the blanket criminalisation of what is a normal and inevitable behaviour between people coming into adulthood.
  ​
  ​
  
  The age of consent for someone to have relationships with older people should be 20, including drawing underaged characters. 20 is the end of "teenage" years, if you're 19 you're still technically a teenager and it makes no sense for it to be, at a maximum, 18.
  
  You seem to be hanging on the arbitrary word “teen” here in the numerical sense. I would moot that what matters is not the specific number per se, but the physical and psychological maturity of a person. It may be that 20 is the right choice. But that choice should be grounded in our best understanding of how people develop and at what point they are mature enough to make these choices in an informed way.
  It should not be grounded in the arbitrary and irrelevant fact that we use a decimal counting base to track numbers. >
  
  An 18 year old can join the army to fight for their country and they are viewed in the court system as an adult. 18 should be the universal age of consent >
  
  There is no universal government. So you can’t say what one country does applies to another. That’s the problem. >
  
  There's two separate arguments here:
  
  That the age of consent should be one specific age, that is objectively the best age to have it
  That irrespective of what the age is, that age should be universal
  
  On point 1, while you say that 20 is the right age, I think most people would disagree and would say it should be younger. Certainly most countries do have a younger age. I don't think there's anything particularly special about any particular age, and can't advance an argument for or against any age in particular beyond simply saying "seems a bit too young", or "seems a bit too old". Some people think that having one age to make people a legal adult makes sense, and that the age of consent should match the drinking age, the voting age, the age you can leave school or the age you can join the military. This makes some sense, and has a consistency to it, but of course the age you can do those other things vary by country too, so you can't keep them all in sync everywhere.
  On point 2, there are a lot of things that are legal in one country and not another, and for the most part it doesn't cause very many practical difficulties. The law of the country you're in applies and the fact that the law is different somewhere else isn't very important. If there's anything we know from centuries of diplomacy it's that international agreements are hard. There aren't effective decision-making bodies at the global level, and those we do have (the UN) struggle with both democratic legitimacy and enforcement of anything. On the other hand most countries have a relatively effective national legislature, usually with some degree of democratic accountability, and make laws that are acceptable locally and therefore can be enforced.
  I don't think either argument has much merit >
  
  
  Why is it okay for a 15 year old child to have sex with an older man in one place but that same child needs to be 18 somewhere else?
  
  The same reason it's ok for women to drive one place and not another, or for people to drink at 18 one place and not another. Laws are different; cultures are different. 
  
  The age of consent for someone to have relationships with older people should be 20, including drawing underaged characters. 20 is the end of "teenage" years, if you're 19 you're still technically a teenager and it makes no sense for it to be, at a maximum, 18.
  
  Who is going to implement a global law? We don't have that for anything (some Hauge-related offenses aside). 
  Also, what's older, in this pretend scheme? Can a 17-year-old not date a 19-year-old? >
  
  Wouldn't you agree that a minor shouldnt be in a relationship with an adult? A minor can't consent while an adult can. Why are we going to say minors cannot consent but yet we can't even agree on what classifies as a minor? >
  
  
  Wouldn't you agree that a minor shouldnt be in a relationship with an adult?
  
  Depends on what we're talking about. A 16-yr-old and an 18-yr-old is a minor and an adult, 17 and 19 is a minor and an adult. 14 and 35 is a minor and an adult. One of those is not ok, 
  
  Why are we going to say minors cannot consent but yet we can't even agree on what classifies as a minor?
  
  See above, because laws and mores differ. >
  
  Why does there need to be universal morality when morality isn't universal? >
  
  
  The age of consent for someone to have relationships with older people should be 20  
  
  Where is the evidence for this?  Your only argument is the name "teenager" which only works in English, why would you think English is the only basis of world legislation, including china, india or egypt?  
  Have you travelled outside of your state?
  In countries like Brazil where sexuality is very open and relaxed, youg kids around 14 are more sex aware than 17yo latin american girls that go to nun's schools, who are more sex aware than 20 year olds in north carolina, US.  UK is about in the middle depending on location.  Even the urban/rural distinction changes the likelihood of a young person to be able to decide how sex works for them.
  Even more, in places where education, contraception and health care is more present, the age can be a bit lower with less social risk.  
  While I think the age of consent is not a settled matter, and agree 12 is too young and 20 is quite passed, I don't have a problem with this varying across very different cultures. >
  
  I think the world needs to decide on what is a minor, it doesn't matter how mature a kid is, a minor is a minor, and minors cannot consent. And the meaning of a child shouldn't be something that changes based on location. >
  
  But your answer is only circular, how do you define a minor?  
  I didn't say just location, I said a lot more than that.