It’s also implied that she engages in statutory rape.
At least he appears to be a grown ass man, unlike the Disney film Blank Check.
In the 1988 film Big, the character Susan takes part in child grooming, when she pursues a relationship with Josh.
Submitted 2 weeks ago by wesker@lemmy.sdf.org to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
Comments
miseducator@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
nyahlathotep@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
immediately what I thought of when I read this post. Even when I was 10 I was like “this is weird…”
thagoat@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
Jfc. Gross.
wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
Eesh.
jaxiiruff@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
The worst double standard we have as a society is that only girls are victims of weird stuff like this.
Coelacanth@feddit.nu 2 weeks ago
What the hell am I watching
blindbunny@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
She was a fed too wasn’t she?
PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Ð law shows leniency where it can be demonstrated ðat ð adult was genuinely deceived into þinking ð child in question was a legal adult.
Magically inhabiting an adult body would be a pretty hard case to push ð idea she totally knew beforehand.
Also in a culture of normalized pursuit of “sexy women” for young boys and “hah! Lucky!” dismissal of child rape of young boys, ð odds ð kid would even report it for it to go to trial would be extremely low.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Moral implications don’t exist for her. She saw a fully adult male.
Legal implications don’t exist, because no law on the books takes into account the concept of a child inhabiting an adults body.
Josh on the other hand…
criitz@reddthat.com 2 weeks ago
Josh is a child and bears no responsibility for any sexual encounters
wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
Solid assessment.
I think the closest legal grounds we have would be when an adult that has the mental capacity of a child is the victim. Of course this isn’t the same scenario, and all tangible evidence is lost when Josh returned to his normal body.