There does need to be a line, and it's not just "puberty" or something. We can argue about whether it should be eighteen, but there needs to be a line. Also, it's not even hard and fast (heh) like people try to portray it. Lots of states have sliding ranges. I don't know the exact specifics, but something like, for example, consensual sex between someone 16-18 is legal if the other part is 18-21. I think many states do that.

I agree the 17.99 meme is a silly situation, and can lead to dangerous and unjust outcomes, but you also have to keep in mind it's a very dangerous slippery slope. Like I said, if the argument is puberty or something - the infamous 'if she bleeds she breeds' - that way...that way lies evil. If it's fine for a grown man to have sex with a sixteen year old, why not fifteen. And puberty happens much earlier...why not 13, 12? If someone goes through early puberty, why not like 9 or something?

I've said it before, but I'll take a solid cutoff that might even err on the side of caution, like eighteen, over a sliding scale that might allow sex with children. One evil is much lesser than the other.

Also, if you think sex with under eighteen is fine...do you think they should have other rights? Should sixteen year olds be voting, for example? Just because they might start being sexually active before eighteen doesn't mean they're adults, and doesn't mean they shouldn't still have extra protections, and not full rights yet. They're not children but, no, they're not adults either. They don't get to vote or sigh certain contracts, or buy certain products, and they should be protected from certain adult behaviors.

Or, alternatively, a "consenting" Aisha.

a 17 and 364 days old female is indeed underaged. the line has to be drawn somewhere, and 18 is the line.