>>266626
<We have determined that at that age
>While that is usually true, that isn't necessarily always the case.
That's why the preceeding sentence was:
<At least here, the student cannot consent at that age.
>Either way, I don't think this is the standard we should be using when it comes to consent.
Well, we're going off approximate rate of brain development and accumulated life experiences, so there's aton of lattitude; but the purpose is to prevent people who can't understand the practical effects of being tied down with a gang of niggers for most of the next two decades from stepping into that responsibility, and to ward off older and wiser (at least in theory) adults from leading them into it.
>A lesser sentence of corruption of a minor (or something along those lines) is more appropriate for someone 14+.
Here, again, may be different elsewhere, but here, we have some variation on "Romeo and Juliet" laws, where as long as the two parties have less than three years of age difference, one being a minor and the other an adult is ignored. Past that, larger age gaps are really only a legal problem if the younger party or (more likely) their guardian decides to involve law enforcement. Of course, if the minor's a boy and the adult is a woman, the cops usually don't give a shit, and the case won't be picked up because the DA doesn't give a shit, and is pretty sure that a jury won't give a shit, either.
>At what age can a student consent then?
Here, I think sixteen. As to what age might be more appropriate? No idea. Not really interested in it enough to put in that kind of thought.
>In addition, what if it wasn't a student-teacher relationship, how would that affect things?
As above, legal or not, the real proofing is whether the kid's guardians care to raise a fuss. If you're some rando, or obviously a ne'er-do-well, you're more likely to have a problem than if you're a friend of the family and they know you to be trustworthy, considerate, and generally helpful; in other words the sort of man a father might choose for his daughter.
>>266628
>I really don't want to wade into this argument because I know the whole thing's going to go to hell within 5 posts or less
Eh, I'm not arguing, I don't even really have an opinion past "you should probably avoid legal liability whenever possible." Just answering anon's questions with my own personal understandings of the laws in my own neck of the woods.
>Anon I'm sorry are familiar with the existence of niggers?
Yeah, and they're still more likely to rape a girl in their apartment building whose name they know than a random stranger in the park, because it's easier to control the environment and lay a trap.
Not to say it doesn't happen, but statistically, random alley rape by a stranger is a tiny minority of rapes, at least in the US.