Are they gonna tone down his predatory nature in the show?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Are they gonna tone down his predatory nature in the show?
Are they gonna tone down his predatory nature in the show?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
He's gonna be predatory towards Wallace's dick
This. Why is there so much straight shit?
>Why is there so much straight shit?
>Scott Pilgrim
This is probably one of the gayest comics out there that isn't strictly gay porn.
To be fair Scott Pilgrim is truly pretty straight all things considered. The only gay shit you have in the main cast is
>Wallace who is the most based homosexual in all of literature
>Ramon Bi-curious who makes fun of her Ex
>Two chicks kissing while drunk remembering their past love for the same boy (Happens once and is never brought up again)
>Stephen who randomly goes gay in the last volume
I'm expecting overdrive gay on the new show to fully put it in that realm and do full fanservice
Everything from having Wallace be Scott's ex to Kim and Knives hooking up at the end
I'm not expecting much of a change honestly, except for maybe making Stephen gay from the get-go like Invincible did with Mark's best friend. Although I don't know, Stephen and Julie's relationship was kinda important in the main story so maybe they don't skip it completely
>making Stephen gay from the get-go like Invincible did with Mark's best friend
That makes sense. May as well avoid the drama with Julie anyway.
I expect 3 hours dedicated to Scott's sister Stacey devouring Julie Powers' luscious filthy blackbarred twat in gorgeous, Netflix-animated detail.
They said there's some dramatic changes so I'm expecting they fix the loose ends regarding the gay stuff they wanted to get to but never got around to at the end
It's more like they are going to make Stephen coming out a major arc that lasts several episodes and takes up 30% of the show, while Scott and Ramona are in the background. Kims/Knives lesbo arc will also exist-but it won't be hot and there will be zero fanservice.
Wasn't Stephen going gay a result of the time he spent with Joseph mixed with the absolute bullshit he dealt with when it came to Julie?
Its hard to say, Scott does make the joke that Julie was such a b***h she turned him gay, but he could've also just come to the realization on his own.
I think the main point is that Scott was such a shit friend Stephen wrote him off immediately and had his own journey of self-discovery with hookers and blackjack. How he got there isn't super important.
I'm fine with Stephen being gay but the fact he got with a guy just as if not even more b***hy than Julie makes me worried about him. Like there's having a type and then there's a desire to be stockholmed.
>Like there's having a type and then there's a desire to be stockholmed.
Gays are not exactly known for introspection or self-awareness.
People aren't in general, sadly.
lol the gays have spent the past century producting media that's 90% navel gazing and autocritique to the point that the artistic reaction to it was to stop being such downers all the time
YEAH DUDE STRAIGHT GUYS
NEVER
EVER
VER
ER
R
THINK WITH THEIR DICK.
Stephen is a gay, he likes getting stepped on and hatefricking b***hy people or getting fricked by them. Julie and Joseph are both his type
Don't forget Scott the bisexual rentboy who sleeps with Wallace for rent
This is the only reason Netflix agreed to produce it
What predatory nature?
Ignore. There are a few mega-autists here (OP) who think that he's a predator because he flirted with Knives before finding out she was underage (after which he backed off completely).
They have been obsessively posting about it ever since the show was announced.
What are you smoking bro?
He dated her fully knowing she's 17 yo. Literally first pages of the book. First minutes of the movie, if you're autistic.
He only broke up with her because 1) he met someone way hoter and 2) because Knives were too clingy.
Also I am not sure about laws in Canada, 17 yo is underage there? If so then yeah, he is a pedo.
Have sex incel.
Already done it 13 years ago. What else?
Also last night did your mom. Seriously? That's your comeback? 1980 called, they want their insults back.
>It's illegal, b-buh it's not illegal
Literal morons...
Look I don't give a flying frick about one imaginary person dating another imaginary person, they can have orgies with babies for all I care, but why the frick do you pretend adults can date kids? Or the law doesn't exist?? Like why. You live on some sorta alternate Earth?
They kissed multiple times.
He wasn't initiator, but it still happened. Again, I guess, none of you actually opened the books.
>why the frick do you pretend adults can date kids? Or the law doesn't exist??
Because there is LITERALLY NOTHING ILLEGAL OR IMMORAL about it, see pic related. A Canadian 17 year old girl could date a 40 year old man and it would not be illegal. I'm in the US and even in my state 16 is the legal age of full consent. In fact, states with an age of consent of 18 are vastly in the minority compared to states where the age of consent is 16 or 17. This whole "18 is the only age of consent on the planet and also something something muh brain development" meme is just moronic fanfiction invented by woke feminist roasties who hate seeing guys go for younger girls.
>"try actually living in the real world for a while"
>says the guy dickriding a fictional predator on an imageboard
Do you actually think people irl would be more receptive to your pedo cope than Cinemaphile posters?
I've never heard anyone irl complain about Scott Pilgrim being a pedo predator
Even when the Scott Pilgrim movie came out no one ever had a problem with Knives and Scott's age difference. Normies who'd never even heard of Scott Pilgrim before watched that movie and it never became a controversy at any level. In real life, it's not even all that uncommon for 16 or 17 year old girls to date 20+ year old boys, it's not as taboo as online pearl clutchers like yourself want it to be.
I listened to this NPR thing a few years ago, where the staff did a retrospective on Scott Pilgrim since the series was being brought back for the 10th anniversary in theaters, and even the people on the radio were trying to backpedal and talk about how their "eyes were opened" on Scott being a creep in a way that you could tell they were trying to cover their asses for the audience. I don't think people care that deeply but do so for the sake of other people who make it out to be a bigger deal than it is.
Just plain ridiculous.
>no one ever had a problem with Knives and Scott's age difference
Because the movie, just like the comic book is very quick in establishing everyone thinks it's weird. You need to have brain damage to think, "oh that means it's acceptable." when the introduction to the character is people reacting to the weirdness.
Neurotypical people walk out of the cinema not talking about how they had a problem because they get the whole point already.
>You need to have brain damage to think, "oh that means it's acceptable."
A lot of people legitimately think depiction of something is the same as approval of it. Even if it's addressed multiple times and makes it clear that Scott was, at best, a douche because of it.
If the movie portrayed the age differences in being a problem than probably people would expressed that they agreed. The movie itself seems like it was trying to show use Scott wanted to be better, and became more self aware of what he was doing. Its only a problem when people start to collectively don't care if it's a problem or not.
People do express they agree when these threads come up anywhere but it's common sense so normal people aren't constantly starting conversations with
>Hey isn't a 23 year old dating someone in school fricked up?
>Hey isn't a 23 year old dating someone in school fricked up?
I concur, the issue is portraying someone as a predator out of ignorance, and not of malice.
There's a difference between "That's a little weird, but okay, whatever," and "Scott Pilgrim is a pedophile and a predator who groomed Knives and broke the law." The latter is what I've been responding to.
No it's more than a little weird. Just like you caring about the subcategories of an adult romancing someone who isn't an adult isn't a pedophile but aebephile or whatever the frick grooming apologists use as terminology is weird.
The reality is every 23 year old has plenty of prospective people to date that isn't in school, that has stood on their own two feet.
>No it's more than a little weird.
It's not. My parents are 10 years apart. Most of my friends' parents have a similar age gap. According to you we're all born of pedophiles. I'm not even saying it's hebephilia or whatever, I'm saying it's actually quite normal and as long as the relationship is genuine and the guy is decent most people in real life won't have a problem with that type of age gap as long as everyone's of legal age.
I don't care about age gaps.
What matters is when someone is under 25 they haven't finished mental development.
As a result, someone who is 17, who doesn't have a job, and hasn't moved out of their parents house probably shouldn't date someone who has 5 years of opportunity to find someone in the same life stage as them.
>opportunity to find someone in the same life stage as them
what first world entitlements are you suggesting?
>when someone is under 25 they haven't finished mental development
Yeah, I figured you were one of these types of moron.
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/21384/how-do-we-know-human-brain-development-stops-around-age-25
>Based on a review by Kolb et al, 2012, it seems that "the brain is finished developing by 25" refers to the point when synaptic pruning in the cerebral cortex levels off, on average.
Of course brains are very complex and it's not like a switch gets flipped and then there's no more development but people are allowed to use shorthand and broad strokes.
A 17 year old certainly does not have the faculties a 23 year old regardless of the semantics of neurology, but the fact that the average person at 17 is a lot further from being able to consent fully aware than a 23 year old.
>muh science
Science is fake and gay, those gaps and even larger were quite common for thousands of years
Nobody cares about age gaps, people care about minors not having adults lust over them.
An average person at 17 is a lot further from being able to consent fully aware than a 23 year old is reality, sorry.
In reality my state's age of consent is 16 and parents routinely have no problem with high school senior girls dating college guys as long as it's genuine and not a pump and dump situation (which doesn't happen because the guys don't really want to get shot by the girl's dad and all his friends).
>Science is fake and gay
Science is real but its not pretty as people still had no idea how to tackle mental health even as recently as the 80s. So when we see liberals praising """"trust the science"""" on taking drugs that are still in developmental phase and all the pharma companies are excused from being sued for possible future drawbacks. I start to understand the right most extreme magatards who refuse to trust it.
>liberals
Why are you bringing up liberals?
>Canadian comic book artist not being liberal
anon... just stop
Yeah, none of that shit actually matters in reality. Stop living online.
lol yes, it's the online people who think it's weird for an adult to date a kid, not literally everyone else in the universe for generations
>an adult to date a kid
>kid
You can't even have an honest discussion about this topic without exaggerating and intentionally using misleading wording. We're talking about 16 and 17 year olds, not kids.
indeed, because if that kid were any younger it would be open and shut rape and that isn't the message the story is sending. scott is a creep and an butthole, not a rapist.
https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html
Synpatic pruning doesn't level off in your twenties, or thirties.
Its also a moronic GOTYA in general
>Hurr your brain doesnt stop developing until this age
So? That also doesnt mean its like a fricking lightswitch and the second you would hit 25 you are a mature adult
stop being a troony
>It's not. My parents are 10 years apart.
So is Knives's parents, more or less.
He was never serious and just stringed her along.
To be fair I was like Knives growing up and the 4 year age gap between my mom and dad did not seem like a big deal.
Are you implying it DOES seem like a big deal to you now?
No, but does that matter? If we all just do whatever we think is fine regardless what we ourselves think is right?
I just think it would be crazy to consider a 4 year age gap somehow problematic, but these days I would believe someone might say that.
It shouldn't be, but it gets teens and young adults into trouble at an age when they still don't know how the world works. Especially in a world with social media makes it easier where anyone can interact with someone to young to understand if they are being targeted for malicious intent or vice versa for catfishing.
>I would believe someone might say that.
They are though. Even 2 year seems like a lot for some people
That are just eternally online homosexuals that don't live in the real world. On paper, the age of consent laws are made to protect the majority of the populous, which the majority are not to bright to begin with. So long as the parents are okay with who you're dating you're fine. I guess you should not worry so long as you make your intentions clear to everyone, and you're genuine.
So you're fine with a 12-year-old dating a 16-year-old?
>bro did you ever think about how when your dad was 18 your mom was 8???
You're being beyond disingenuous here. 12 year olds shouldn't be dating ANYONE.
What about 13 year olds dating 23 year olds?
14 and 24?
15 and 25?
What is so magic about 16 and 26 that people want to defend it?
I dunno, it just feels right. 16 year olds can drive and get jobs, thinking back over my own life I was pretty much a fully autonomous person by age 16 while I was decidedly not before then. I consider maturity to be logarithmic; the difference between 14 and 16 is significantly more stark than the difference between 16 and 18, and I don't feel I've really changed significantly at all in terms of maturity since around age 20. I'm 35 currently, for reference.
Given that maturity is logarithmic, wouldn't the typical high-schooler be at a disadvantage in terms of being groomed by a 26 year old?
Maturity being logarithmic means that it changes a lot in the early years and less in the later years. I'd say around 16-18 is the most significant tapering point based on my own life experience. Like I said before at age 16 I was about as autonomous as I ever have been since. Once I had a job and a driver's license the changes from things like moving out weren't as significant in terms of how I conducted myself in life.
You didn't answer my question.
the fact it hasn't outright plateaued means the 26 year old has a massive power over the 16 year old regardless of if you had a part time job at 16.
Power in what sense? Dating isn't some super saiyan psychic mind beam battle, people are still people and people of the same age can take advantage of each other just as much as people of different ages. The only real concerns are ones of actual or perceived authority and dependency, but all that aside I don't see the issue.
Yes, authority and dependency. Particularly, groomers can have leveraged their percived authority for years leading up to the minor being 16.
A groomer tells the inexperienced minor "hey listen, just trust when I say you're mature for your age which is why you should do what I tell you to do."' and love bombs them to validate the affirmation they get back.
The entire time the adult should be able to get romance from another adult, but dodgy people will and have gone after inexperienced people because they're easier to manipulate.
We get it, you need a reasonable justification for any future acts of domestic terrorism in the vain hopes that they will get any charges dropped in court
>groomers can have leveraged their percived authority for years leading up to the minor being 16
No, this is VASTLY moving the goalposts. We have always been talking about people of these different ages meeting FOR THE FIRST TIME. This is even the context in Scott Pilgrim; he met Knives on a bus when she was 17, he did not know her as a pre-teen and groom her. This discussion is not about grooming, so don't even try to drag it in that direction.
>We have always been talking about people of these different ages meeting FOR THE FIRST TIME
No, the thread very quickly derailed outside of the premise of the story.
>This discussion is not about grooming, so don't even try to drag it in that direction.
There is always a risk of grooming when an adult tries to develop a relationship with someone who has to ask if they can go to the bathroom.
This is the point where we'll just have disagreements over the role of parents in these situations. Parents should always be watching out for their children when they get involved in relationships and help them vet potential partners so they don't get taken advantage of.
Agreed
But parents also don't like vaccinating their kids from polio because they can be or are just be stupid. As we seen over the last 8 years, most people are fricking stupid.
Ironically I think the types of parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids are probably more likely to be involved in their kids' lives in general. Avoiding vaccination isn't just a matter of negligence, you have to go through a lot of specific steps to get legal exceptions and take a lot of care to ensure your kids aren't vaccinated. It requires a lot of personal involvement in what's going on at the doctor's office, at school, with friends, with other parents, etc, etc. Just saying.
>hey listen, just trust when I say you're mature for your age which is why you should do what I tell you to do.
Yeah, that is the whole argument people in these kinds of thread don't understand. In fact, unless both people are comfortable than there is a power dynamic imbalance.
>A groomer tells the inexperienced minor "hey listen, just trust when I say you're mature for your age which is why you should do what I tell you to do."' and love bombs them to validate the affirmation they get back.
High schoolers of the same age do this to each other, too, you think high school juniors don't ever pump and dump each other? It's up to parents to teach them to know better so they don't get taken in.
>High schoolers of the same age do this to each other, too,
Yes but they don't have the autonomy and resources a 26 year old has so the magnitude is more intense.
Adults do it to each other too, but in that context it's an even playingfield where they shoulod have a chance to be self-sustaining without the resources the relationship gives them access to.
>Yes but they don't have the autonomy and resources a 26 year old has so the magnitude is more intense.
This is pretty much the issue.
Also, yes adults do that shit to each other to but they are adults and should have the mental fortitude or maturity to recover in some way and not loose trust in finding love again. This can be traumatic, and detrimental to younger people even before they matured and find their way in life.
I don't get what your point is. 16 year olds have the resources and safety net of their parents and if your parents aren't pieces of shit you typically won't get kicked out of the house after your 18th birthday. There's nothing really predatory about a 26 and a 16 year old going out on a date given that 16 year old is given increasing amounts of adult responsibility/can hold a job/drive/expected to be more responsible for their medical care and as has already been demonstrated in the thread, there isn't that big of a 'difference' in brain development enough to justify it as inherently predatory as bad.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441622
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3156171
Many forms of fluid intelligence peak by the time one is 16. Adolescent researchers pretty much agree 16 is old enough for 'consent'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2015/09/11/kylie-jenner-and-bella-hadid-are-18-their-boyfriends-are-25-why-do-their-relationships-elicit-such-different-reactions/
>16 year olds have the resources and safety net of their parents and if your parents
What timeline are you living in? Fricking 40yos cannot even buy a house with two full time jobs and kids. Shut the frick up you creepo.
>Fricking 40yos cannot even buy a house with two full time jobs and kids
Okay, what's your point? How does this beat my argument? 16 year olds typically have their parents to fall back on.
So you're a deadbeat who wants the girl's parents to fix your mistakes. We get it.
>feels over reals
Yes, morality is philosophy and philosophy is not proven with statistics.
Philosophy is useless is if it's not applicable, and much of it isn't in a practical real world sense, including your moralgay mental gymnastics in this thread.
>guns dont kill people, people kill people
>okay, dont give those people guns
>NOOOO MY RIGHTS THOU!!
>So don't be that person?
16 year olds don't have control of the resources of their parents.
A 26 year old has full autonomy and could be looking for love in places where all possible partners have just as much autonomy than they do.
So, deciding to consider someone who doesn't have the same autonomy as you is predatory because why else would you let that be a factor in your relationship?
Neither do 18, 20, 21, or 25 year olds. Your hypotheticals are falling apart on each other. A 16 year old has enough 'autonomy' to be able to navigate a relationship safely and many researchers tend to agree.
Anon, it's about social caste, not free will
So people of different wealth/intelligence shouldn't date?
That's what we will descend to at this rate, if we keep treating these increasingly conservative ideas with respect and idealization
I like how terminally online progressives were tricked into supporting conservative ideals/rhetoric. You see it when porn comes up or when humor is discussed.
I think it partially has to do with India's rise in online market influence, and how their culture is so much more conservative than ours (over there social media during protests is subjected to online blackouts)
Liberals are pretty mentally fricked because they lack any concept of self reflection in the hypocrisies they try to force on people.
They also don't have principles. You can see it in how they approach moral discussions by dumping statistics, scientific studies, and appeals to legal authority instead of discussing the issues from an actual consistent principled stance. It's more about following rules than following morals.
That's composition fallacy, that all castes structures should prevent any inter-caste romance if you advocate for minors not dating adults.
Adults should be able to date whoever they want.
People being wary of adults wanting to date minors is sensible.
Not mutually exclusive stances to take.
>why not use college students who still live off of their parents and have little real world experience?
That's called an adult.
See above.
What meaningful difference is it if they are biologically and socially/economically at similar levels of maturity? The age of majority isn't 18 everywhere, some places it's lower and some it's higher.
If you're gonna argue from a legal standpoint, 16 is the age of consent for 90% of the world so waffling over the age of majority is pointless. There are plenty of 18 year olds in high school or 19 year old/20 year olds who get held back. In some places they're in school later, in some they're out earlier.
more than 50 years ago the age of majority in most of the world was 21. Was it bad in retrospective for 18 year olds to date 25 year olds then or something?
>What meaningful difference is it if they are biologically and socially/economically at similar levels of maturity?
Why would a 16 year old want to date a 26 year old with the social/economic maturity of a 16 year old when they can date a 17 year old with the social/economic maturity of a 17 year old?
>more than 50 years ago the age of majority in most of the world was 21. Was it bad in retrospective for 18 year olds to date 25 year olds then or something?
Judging the past through today's lens is futile.
I would guess probably it was in the context of that era.
>Why would a 16 year old want to date a 26 year old with the social/economic maturity of a 16 year old when they can date a 17 year old with the social/economic maturity of a 17 year old?
Because they love each other? And similar doesn't mean exact same. By social/economic conditions it could just mean living situation.
>I would guess probably it was in the context of that era.
Why? The age of majority (your parents are no longer legally responsible for you/legal adulthood) says nothing about who you can date. You can have relationships while living at home. A lot of people live at home in many countries including the US, especially with the way the economy is. There wasn't a crisis back then with 18 year olds dating 25 year olds, there really isn't one right now. All that matters from a legal standpoint is age of sexual consent.
>Because they love each other?
No they don't, they're not even dating when the decision to date a manchild over someone more mature comes up.
>Why? The age of majority (your parents are no longer legally responsible for you/legal adulthood) says nothing about who you can date.
I dunno why, as I said, it's futile judging through the lens of today.
>No they don't
According to who? If they both consent and agree to date, then who are you to say they don't love each other? You don't know their lives. Unless we're talking Scott/Knives but I feel the discussion is more about the age gap in general.
>I dunno why
If you don't know how to argue your belief system effectively, why are we having this discussion at all?
When you go on a first date with someone you don't love each other. You may be attracted but that's not loving each other.
>If you don't know how to argue your belief system effectively, why are we having this discussion at all?
I don't know why 50 years ago somewhere did something different.
That has nothing to do with my beliefs.
People can argue there are power dynamics in those 'different castes' too. The whole argument against age gap/under 18 dating over 18 is of some sort of a power dynamic. I don't see how that power dynamic goes away by 18 or how an under18 (no, I'm not advocating for 12 year olds you dishonest c**t) is helpless against anyone over that age because it's the age of majority. It's useful in designating who and who isn't a legal adult but it isn't so clear-cut as to informing a power dynamic especially right around that cutoff.
You sound like one of those people who thought it was 18 everywhere (even though that isn't based in anything), found out it wasn't, got their worldview shattered, and now you're trying to justify some post-hoc reason for why dating under18 is bad. I'm not advocating for 40 year olds dating 17 year olds. I'm just saying it's invalid to say they aren't capable of navigating relationships anymore than an 18/19/20 year old. You are placing way too much importance over the age of 18.
Yes power disparity in romance is bad. Clinton took advantage of a government employee and both were adults.
Age is just very easy thing to understand what phase someone's life is in.
You can use legal terms when discussing morality. Else you couldn't discuss the morality of a crime.
>You can use legal terms when discussing morality. Else you couldn't discuss the morality of a crime.
Murder isn't wrong because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's wrong. Predicating the morality of a relationship on the legal status of minor/adult is putting the cart before the horse, just like it would be to say, "Murder is wrong because it's against the law."
>Murder isn't wrong because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's wrong.
Okay.
Still can use legal terms when discussing morality.
I'm not predicating the morality of a relationship on the legal status.
I'm just using the term adult and minor to convey my thoughts.
It's not 100% analogous but the impression it leaves in the court of public opinion happen anyway.
>I'm just using the term adult and minor to convey my thoughts.
Okay, but why? What, really, is the difference between and 18 and 17 year old? And what value does the legal definition of adult have when it's literally just the age the government sets arbitrarily based on how many bodies they can put in front of enemy guns?
>What, really, is the difference between and 18 and 17 year old?
A year.
Usually a year where people are still in school, where they don't have the autonomy and resources of someone 10 years older than them.
>The court of public opinion isn't the court of law or ethics. And that court isn't the same in every culture or part of the world.
I didn't say it was.
>Some people start as friends and have a bond that grows into a more romantic love.
In the context of a 16 dating a 26 year old that's literal grooming.
My point is that it's easy to chose a relationship that doesn't make people concerned about age disparity.
>Usually a year where people are still in school, where they don't have the autonomy and resources of someone 10 years older than them.
Lots of 18 year olds are still high school seniors and their level of autonomy and resources don't change magically the day they graduate.
The day they graduate they are not beholden to an obligation to attend school.
They have the resources of a school qualification they can use to pursue further study or jobs.
Their autonomy changes significantly.
Even more reason for adults to not pursue friendships with children.
Nothing wrong with intergenerational friendships anon. I was friends with more than a few older men when i was younger.
Dont be a prude
If you're going to use legal obligations, the age to drop out is still 16/17 in most places.
The age to work full-time is 16. You're right that a high school diploma can get more jobs, but so could any type of college degree/apprenticeship training, and it's definitely possibly to get a diploma equivalence early. Many people well over 18 are working low-tier or part-time jobs.
I don't see how this affects autonomy regarding two people having a relationship though given what I just said.
People can survive without high school diplomas, if that is the argument. It's definitely less easier, and I think people should definitely try and get them. But that isn't really a statement on if a 17 year old should be allowed to date a 24 year old. They can both work, they both know what they're doing, what's the issue?
>In the context of a 16 dating a 26 year old that's literal grooming
Depending on who started it, it could be coercion.
An 18 year old is often still in school and doesn't have the resources of someone 10 years older than them. Mentally and socially not much changes in that year for the average folk.
>In the context of a 16 dating a 26 year old that's literal grooming.
You can meet someone at 16 and become friends with them and then see that develop into romance. If you met someone before that age, it depends on the situation of course. I personally have no interest in being close friends with people so young, but having a minor connection to someone (a family friend for instance) and then happening to reconnect at an older, more appropriate age can be totally innocent. I don't condone actual legitimate grooming, like being close friends with an actual kid for years and being such a big influence on them with the intent of conditioning romance onto them and then dating them... that's different I feel from what I am defending.
>My point is that it's easy to chose a relationship that doesn't make people concerned about age disparity.
It is, but not everyone is worried about other people's concerned.
The court of public opinion isn't the court of law or ethics. And that court isn't the same in every culture or part of the world.
>When you go on a first date with someone you don't love each other. You may be attracted but that's not loving each other.
You can say this about any couple on the first date. And some relationships are more slowburn and take more time before they get to the first actual date. Some people start as friends and have a bond that grows into a more romantic love. Many feel that bond develop over the course of their relationship. I don't see what this seems to do with your argument and at this point you're talking in circles.
Age isn't 100% analogous to power disparity
>You can use legal terms when discussing morality.
It's kind of pointless because what makes an adult/minor is arbitrarily defined and what we're describing in this thread isn't even a crime and has no practical reason to be considered one that couldn't be argued for older and older ages.
>Adults should be able to date whoever they want.
>People being wary of adults wanting to date minors is sensible.
But "adult" and "minor" are legal terms. Are you suggesting that morality should be defined by the legal system instead of the other way around? That the government knows better for you and your family than you do?
18tards don't even realize that they're only arguing in legal terms and not moral ones. In terms of sexual congress a 16 year old is not a minor so the entire legal standpoint argument is void. No one is arguing to be able to frick 12 year olds. I am arguing that your morals and ethics are misinformed and illogical.
I agree, there's also a lack of recognition that the age of consent and the age of majority have been different ages for a very long time, and used to be much further apart than they are today. It's weird that people are suddenly arguing that the age of majority should define the boundaries of sex and dating when that was never the case in the past and still isn't the case today in the vast majority of places in the world including locally within the US.
Woah almost like times change or something
Nice appeal to novelty. Why should people crying over age gaps/age of majority defining sexual consent in modern times inform my own morality when theirs is so poorly informed?
Nice fallacy fallacy
You seem anally ravaged.
You sound like a creep
Cool. Is that supposed to sway me?
These changes are completely arbitrary, though. The age of majority in the US was lowered so more people could be drafted and sent to war during WW2, for example. It wasn't some analysis of the mental and physical capabilities of 18-21 year olds, it was literally just "We need more bodies on the front lines. You're all adults now, so ship out!" The age of consent in most states was raised because of feminists whining, not because of any detailed analysis of psychology.
Humans are arbitrary
Your mental maturity ends at around 25, but your IQ will always be the same. I'd sooner say they should start doing IQ tests on who should frick who like some eugenics dystopia incels think they would thrive in being talentless, and lacking any social skill just because they do the bare minimum to stay alive like making money.
https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html
You guys are very wrong about this. It's a myth. Mental maturity never ends and adult levels are reached well before 25.
Ah yes, a SLATE link. Truly the smartest of the smarties knows they have all the answers!
https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/britney-spears-woman-in-me-psychiatrist-mental-health.html
[News article of choice] also wrote [thing you don't like], does that mean they're lying?
Hey homosexual, the neuroscientists who spread the 'brain matures at 25' meme are in the article linked debunking it. How about you stop slurping wiener and read it?
>Of course brains are very complex and it's not like a switch gets flipped and then there's no more development
the phrase "not developed until 25" is a vast oversimplification but serves as an acknowledgement that there is plenty of differences between the brain of a 16 and a 26 year old.
There's also a measurable difference between a 26 year old and a 36 year old.
16 year olds have already reached adult level capacity by the way. I believe the range is 14-16?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6551607/
>There's also a measurable difference between a 26 year old and a 36 year old.
Cool.
Contextually though the 26 year olds tend to have a good idea of how to navigate the world though, don't they? So nobody is losing sleep over people of those ages dating.
I don't really care if anyone loses sleep over any age gap relationship. Plenty of 16 year olds are capable of navigating the world and maintaining their own relationships and the difference between one and an 18 year old is barely one at all outside of a legal age of majority standpoint (which doesn't really affect love and it's still 21 or even 19 in some place)
Sure. minors can be put into the workforce and survive the world.
But given the choice plenty would rather be at school and not have to deal with the burden of navigating the real world. And that's how groomers take advantage of them. Chances are,14 year old prostitutes in the industrial era "survived" just fine but today we have people pursing those in schools who don't have the experience of the environment a 26 year old has had an abundance of.
>a legal age of majority standpoint (which doesn't really affect love
What
It's really easy to not pursue a relationship with someone even if you are attracted to them.
You writing that betrays that you feel sympathy for people who assault minors because "it's not their fault they fell in love the heart wants what it wants"
>But given the choice plenty would rather be at school and not have to deal with the burden of navigating the real world.
They already do start to navigate more of the real world at that age. If you're gonna use high school juniors as an example, why not use college students who still live off of their parents and have little real world experience? I know you're being really disingenous when you're starting to compare the relationship between something like Scott and Knives to a 14 year old prostitute (possibly with years of experience) or 4 year olds working in factories. That's disingenuous as frick.
I'm sorry I (and many others) didn't have the privileges afforded to you that allowed you to not grow up in your teens. Many don't have the same experience. As a 16 year old I could safely navigate the world.
>Importantly, whereas cognitive capacity reached adult levels around age 16, psychosocial maturity reached adult levels beyond age 18, creating a “maturity gap” between cognitive and psychosocial development
bruh, lay off the crack pipe
Psychosocial maturity (which is more culturally defined) levels haven't even plateau'd by age 30 in those tests, and 'adult levels' in the tests are defined as a plateau.
Cognitive capacity is easier and more objective to measure and many people seem to test at an adult level well before 18.
lol
>no rebuttal cus can't into neuroscience, only a lolcope
Scientists admit that 16-17 year old psychosocial maturity isn't far off from 18-21 year old maturity, and 22-25 isn't far off from 18-21 year old maturity. It's a slow never-ending process and it doesn't really ever plateau. It just maybe gets a little slower starting in your 50s or 60s. You don't have a grasp on the literature like I do.
You already lost
Cope.
You are acting fricking fricking children yourselves. Shut the frick up about what other people do and worry about what YOU are doing. If you're thinking its wrong, than it already is. You cannot excuse how you feel unless you knowingly wanting to take advantage of someone which seems to be more normalized in the west because taking advantage of people is a common lesson in the free market.
A freshman in High school dating a senior is skeevy as frick, dude. Same as a dude who's already finished college getting with a girl who's not even out of high school. There's differences in life experience and maturity that comparatively a 22 year old and 26 year old would not have.
>A freshman in High school dating a senior is skeevy as frick, dude.
Maybe now, but not decades ago. People develop differently, and men and women have different life priorities. Most men are going to be the bread winners, and women will want to try and raise a family before they are to old and tired to do it. Sharing life experiences is the only thing left most people have to draw a connect saturated by to mainly external micro experiences.
The economy does not care about social issues or biological clocks.
have a nice day troony pig.
You will never genocide humanity.
jesus christ dude
That's why Scott got with Ramona as soon as she showed up. He wasn't interested in Knives beyond her being a distraction from the emotional pain he felt. Knives was more emotionally invested because she thought it was real and Scott actually loved her.
Its automatically implied if the dude must have an ulterior motive, and that is having sex with girls.
Degenerate!
Oh, and just in case you try to go one about exploitation or something, see pic related as well. Between Knives and Scott, there is no relationship of trust or authority, Knives is not dependent on Scott in any way, Scott never manipulated Knives in any way, and the relationship wasn't secretive because her parents knew about it and were find with it.
Source: https://justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/clp/faq.html
Now stop clutching your pearls over your imagined fiction of how the world works and try actually living in the real world for a while.
In Canada age of consent is 17. In Norway, Japan and Mexico the age of consent is 14. In many countries, it's even lower.
>Look I don't give a flying frick about one imaginary person dating another imaginary person, they can have orgies with babies for all I care, but why the frick do you pretend adults can date kids?
Teenagers aren't fully mature, but 17 isn't a kid. We need to stop infantilizing people so much. And there's a big difference between a guy in his early 20s dating a 17 year old and a 50 year old dating one. Scott got the right amount of grief for it in the comics. It's not on the same level as being a pedo and I don't like people diminishing the word pedo by calling him one.
>They kissed multiple times.
Yeah, they kissed. They didn't do more than that.
Every female's go to insult is to sex shame men or attack their dick size. Every time. Sex is all these femanon coomers ever think about.
Even if it's illegal there, it wouldn't be pedo. Not that I'm advocating for dating 17 year olds, just saying.
Plus he doesn't even do anything with Knives
There's literally nothing immoral or illegal about a ~22 year old dating a 17 year old.
The morality of the 5 year difference isn't inherently wrong or bad. However, Knives was pretty much an inexperienced kid with no context for how relationships should be. It comes off as predatory, with everyone pretty much recognizing this except him.
Almost everyone I know has parents with a 7-10 year age gap who started dating when their mom was a teenager, including mine. Go outside, talk to people, and stop pretending perfectly normal and common things are some crazy uncommon taboo.
That is pretty messed up.
Lol, In South America we don't give a shit about a small difference.
>3rd world Hispanic has no morals
Go shoot up a supermarket Pablo
knives was too good for him anyway
Uhh
>Uhh
Prove me wrong, you can't. The age of consent in Canada is 16. Note what I've already posted here:
yeah but you can legally frick animals in Canada too
theyre not a benchmark for morales
not saying america is either but come on now
IIRC the literal first line of the first page of the first book is, "Scott Pilgrim is dating a high schooler!"
SHE WAS SEVENTEEN YEARS OLD YOU SICK FRICK!!! Do people seriously get bent out of shape over this nonissue?
It's more weird that after Scott was done with Knives, the rest of his creepy gang took turns getting her drunk and fricking her too.
>fricking
>implying
headcanon and conjecture other than her getting drunk and making out with knives
meds, NOW
Just Kim did that. Young Neil got in a legitimate relationship with her, it's not uncommon for people in the same friend circle to date
Knives only got together with Young Neal to make Scott jealous, and he ends up hating his shitty hipster friends. Most relatable character.
He really ironically was probably the most mature out of the lot considering his age. He got mistreated by everyone
We don't know anything about his character other than he was quiet and played gameboy all the time. He matures at the end when he realizes his "friends" are all buttholes who don't care about him so he ditches them for greener pastures.
I read the comics in my 20s after watching the movie, I can relate most to the more mature characters like Stephen, Young Neil and Wallace.
In fact, the most interesting thing is how everyone gets more mature except Scott. And while the comic wants to tell me he and Ramona grew as characters, to me they really don't. Everyone changed, they are the same buttholes as ever.
Hell even Knives gets more mature than him and pretty much dumps his abusive ass.
To anyone who didn't read it:
At the end, when Ramona is missing, he basically goes around from friend to friend begging them to frick him, but they are tired of his shit. Even his apologies don't feel honest.
Yeah Scott goes to each of his ex's thinking they'll fill the hole in him when he just has to confront himself, that's the whole point. I'd say after negascott his apologies are earnest
Yeah, you're right. Scott never matures. In fact, he regresses into ultra-pacifist Steven thinking that's the answer to all the damage he caused to others in SP.
(/schizo)
He did, but according to him he didn't do anything. Which is baffling because he fricked literally everyone including the background characters.
When you're fricking everyone, it's nice to have someone who's off-limits.
Scott made a lot of bad decisions and was drowning in them. Knives was an escape from all that. He couldn't touch her, just spend time with her.
>Knives was an escape from all that. He couldn't touch her, just spend time with her.
that just makes him seem like a bigger creeper than if he actually was trying to frick her.
Get fricked already you hopeless misanthrope
Age of consent is 16 in Canada
Anyway they were just dating and not having sex plus he always had mixed feelings about dating a highschool girl and his friends called him out on it
16 is legal in Canada, and he's only 5 years older. Besides, 17 is morally old enough.
The problem isn't the legality here but rather how Knives is presented and how Scott orders her around like a kid.
Well I'm just glad they didn't end up together.
Other thing though, Knives wears the fanciest clothes. Those friggin kids are all rich despite having shitty jobs or no jobs.
>before finding out she was underage (after which he backed off completely
Did you miss the first 5 pages of the first book?
sure bro
Oh wow
Scott also fricks Wallace Wells for rent and is his gay rentboy. In the film there is even a scene where Scott wakes up shirtless in Wallace's bed next to Wallace and Wallace's naked bf. It's played off as a joke and Scott Pilgrim fans refuse to acknowledge it
Dudes just sleep shirtless man, guys will be guys. If he woke up pantsless it would be weirder
Damn that is sketchy.
Ah, now I see the problem. Yeah, that is sketchy when he was aware of the fact. I'd say it'd be different if he wasn't aware because normally you don't ask someone's ages when you're hanging around the same group of friends. That is like an 8 year difference from a fully mentally matured adult to a growing person.
He spent the entire first 3 chapters bringing it up in every conversation. Scott was proud of the fact he was dating a 17 year old school girl.
>Scott was proud of the fact he was dating a 17 year old school girl.
His pride in it seemed like cap at best. He clearly was in a terrible place, but having a girl he could pretty much hang out with and not worry about was enough to massage the pain away until Ramona showed up. He told other people he was happy, then continued to be miserable while convincing Knives he was actually into her.
>He told other people he was happy, then continued to be miserable while convincing Knives he was actually into her.
that's called grooming
grooming is a meaningless term.
>grooming is when the groomer is unhappy with the relationship but stays in it to keep the victim from being upset over a break-up
What the frick are you even saying?
They’re saying buzzwords, that’s all. They know this word means a bad thing and therefore if you think this isn’t as bad, you are bad and wrong while they are right.
Zoomies, man. I know it’s not just them, but they fricking ran that word to the ground like the boomers did for woke
Love Moss
The hell is grooming? Is it when you do things that makes someone love you, is taking a girl out for dinner and telling her she is beautiful grooming?
Real answer: Grooming is when an adult targets a minor below legal age and becomes close with them and/or their family and uses that to gain trust and plant ideas so that the minor will eventually be manipulated into seeking out the adult for romantic and/or sexual relations.
Woke feminist answer: Grooming is when I'm jealous of younger women getting more attention than me.
So grooming is a legal term?
Grooming is a bullshit word, going out of your way so people like you is a part of a healthy social life. If you call such niceties grooming so be it, in that case grooming is something everybody does and not a bad thing.
>So grooming is a legal term?
Yes: https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/child-grooming/
17yo is not a child though.
I agree because I'm not a moronic woke feminist. Please read my first post more carefully:
My apologies, I lashed out. I visualized you as an eggless roastie when I read the first sentence of your post.
>that's called grooming
>What the frick are you even saying?
>They’re saying buzzwords, that’s all.
Scott Pilgrim is an adult white male that initiated a relationship with a 16 year old high school girl on a bus and waited until the day she turned 18 years old to proposition her for sex.
He is the literal textbook definition of a groomer.
Knives was groomed.
If this were the cast of Smallville, everyone of the Sex Bob-Bombs would be in prison.
have a nice day
>Scott Pilgrim is an adult white male that initiated a relationship with a girl of legal age on a bus and waited until the day she turned still exactly as legal and nothing changed at all to proposition her for sex.
Yeah, wow, what horrible grooming behavior.
Scott is clearly just dating knives because some butthole told him that was cool. He obviously is just trying to feel better after envy left him. It's why leaving her for loose pussy was so easy.
Scott's a great dude. People need to read slower.
That's because there's literally nothing immoral or illegal about it.
It's not illegal but it seemed like he fetishized her race and age
Okay, and?
>he fetishized her race and age
Neil was more of a fetishizer than Scott. He proceeded to date every Asian girl he met and only was interested in Knives because she was Chinese. I think for Scott (and oddly enough Stacey) the bigger deal was she wasn't white
So seems like all these people are not good people. No one has a right to judge each other like this.
Its not like girls are fricking angels. You cannot keep placing blame on guys hitting on girls and not asking their age when they occupy the same spaces. That is of itself is creepy, and already sounds predatory.
Normal people don't do that. They just talk to each other and vibe. Finding love is not some weird science project where you have to check boxes before approaching. If you both make eye contact and inviting advances. That is courting.
This comic was written by some low self esteemed wannabe cool guy that everyone seems to think is okay to shit on. Going by the fact he sleeps with his land lord, Scott has no moral values to begin with and did not see the issue with dating someone nearly a decade his junior.
>Its not like girls are fricking angels.
I think it's pretty clear in the series that Knives and Kim aren't perfect girls. Knives's obsession with Scott hits its lowest point in book 5, and Kim is shown to have various insecurities and uncertainty about what she actually wants in life. Not to mention Envy and Ramona, who are outright shitty or antagonistic during the series.
Scott Pilgrim feels more like a satire on how a westerner sees Japanese romcoms of their time.
>Advanced American bawd technology.
kek
The series has its funny moments
Even if it isn’t illegal maybe don’t go boasting about how your banging a high schooler if you don’t want to seem like a massive creep
I like that despite everything, Knives still loves him as a person. She clearly is into being his friend here, even if she is disgusted by the idea of making out with him by this point. I hope they capture this in the series.
isnt the age of consent in canada like 16
God I love her sexy soulless black eyes.
Same here.
I actually think it's a very clever artistic choice to differentiate azns visually. Especially since it's sort of a gag that the 'anime style' in general makes everyone look like a cat. Or Caucasian.
>he flirted with Knives before finding out she was underage (after which he backed off completely).
this never happened. he continued to date her while humble bragging to all his friends that he was dating a 17 year old chinese school girl. Then after he dumped her all his friends plied her with drugs and alcohol and took turns dating and fricking her, first Kim Pine, then Young Neil. Knives got groomed by a creepy gang of Canadian predator hipsters.
>Then after he dumped her all his friends plied her with drugs and alcohol and took turns dating and fricking her, first Kim Pine, then Young Neil.
Scott's crew doesn't do drugs, but they did give her alcohol. Neil also fricked Knives first, then Kim afterwards since she was probably fighting with Neil at the time.
This is the one thing that pisses me off
The internet just shits on Scott hard but excuses Neil but especially Kim
Neil was 19, so it's a lot less bad at first glance. Kim was probably worse, but I don't think people care as much about the kiss since Knives was already a member of the crew by then and wasn't the stereotypical "impressionable teen" at that point compared to when she first met Scott.
>but I don't think people care as much about the kiss since Knives was already a member of the crew by then
They definitely did more than just kiss, and Kim is the second in Scott's gang to groom Knives after she plies her with alcohol and gets her drunk.
>Young Neil
Also creepy because he's taking Scott and Kim's sloppy seconds.
Kim gets a pass for being a groomer because she's a lesbian and Young Neil because hardly anyone even remembers him.
Honestly you just sound jealous.
>jealous of being a pedo
Nice cope
No, jealous of Knives because you missed out on teen love.
>teen love
There's better teen relationships to have been in than what Knives experienced with Scott. Even the relationship between Scott and Kim was flawed.
It's fine to say they have a flawed relationship. It's ridiculous to call Scott a pedophile and a predator.
He's not, just an idiot.
>They definitely did more than just kiss
Maybe. I wonder if someone wrote fanfiction about it though.
Damn he did his own race like that?
Thank god their are no homies in this I know they'd be lame af.
>O'Malley is half Korean and half French-Canadian
I mean are you denying he is a self-hating beta cuck? Got the Asians looking like subservient chumps kneeling to their white masters.
>French
>Canadian
>Korean
I'm surprised he didn't come out with the most fricked up fetishes, and just likes drawing sexily dressed adult women
>friends plied her with drugs and alcohol
The Jim Jeffries special
don't be a homosexual on purpose.
The sucky thing is, since the show likely will be done by californians, they of course will "redifine the definitions", if you know what i mean
Californians are not human per say, but subhuman.
I want to apologize for this post. I don't know why I believed this but it is not true. After anon posted a screenshot of the panel in response to this, I thought it may have been shopped so I read early SP online again. Then I thought it may have been some wild revisionist history type deal so I went and got my SP volume 1 out of storage.
The anons who replied to me are absolutely correct. I think I Mandela'd myself since it's been so long since I've read it and I probably absorbed misinformation and substituted it for the real thing.
So yes, ignore that post, it's factually incorrect and was my mistake.
Behold: the very first page of the first Scott Pilgrim book!
They’re framing his as pathetic and creepy for doing this. I don’t know why other anons can’t see that.
My issue with the series isn’t Scott’s character so much, because I believe O’Malley wants him to be a flawed loser who needs to improve himself. It’s that the series tries to have its cake and eat it to by portraying him as a badass chick magnet action hero despite having no qualities that would earn such things. A lot of readers are just going to see this as a video game power fantasy. I did when I was younger. And that’s what the majority of the fandom focuses on.
Still a funny series though.
Like another anon said earlier in the thread, he got the appropriate amount of grief over it but he's not a predator or a pedophile. The problem is that there are people in this very thread who believe that Scott is an actual sexual predator who should be put in jail, so to them getting a little flak from his friends isn't enough and makes the whole series abhorrent.
>badass chick magnet action hero despite having no qualities that would earn such things
many such cases in life
And here's the 2nd page
>style imitates awkward english anime dub
>but it's originally made in english
That's fricking fascinating
Was Scott Pilgrim a frick boy? I honestly never read this because it looked like a knock off Rumiko Romcom trying to be anime. Only the difference is culturally it's genuinely not okay to be a 20yo dating a teenager unless they are 18. So is this some stealth demoralization piece to gaslight a generation that they were all predators in the same generation by a fracture of 4 years?
>Was Scott Pilgrim a frick boy?
Canonically speaking, yes. He was something of a womanizer when he was in college, to the point it's not totally certain that Sandra and Monique (two minor characters) didn't frick Scott during their freshman year. Besides that, his character takes little responsibility for things and is essentially helped along by his friends until Ramona forces him to consider what he's doing and actually start to make a conscious effort to get his life together.
The series is pretty much a frickboy moron figuring out he has to develop into a better person.
I don't know, it seems like everyone was just picking on Scott, Scott didn't care, Knives didn't care, Knives' parents didn't care.
>Knives' parents didn't care.
Not until the end of book 4.
>four books with Knives saying she’s chinese
>dad walks in
>speaks fluent japanese
>Knives doesn’t understand him
>says she doesn’t understand chinese either
>all these implications never mentioned again
Book 4 was the best.
Wonder why that was?
I hope Lisa got some dick eventually. The girl needs it desperately. Even Kim got laid, by both genders.
That text bubble is in chinese not japanese
All that oriental chicken scratch probably looks the same to him, lol.
I can fix him.
I am convinced the only reason Netflix agreed to produce this was so they could really ramp up the "Scott is a bisexual homosexual and all of his friendgroup are bisexual or purely gay homos too" angle.
Its like how Netflix puts Dahmer in the LGBT Friendly listings. Netflix is the most soulless content generating streaming platform out there.
Why michael cera?
Scott Pedophile
Netflix making this show makes a whole lot more sense now.
exactly
She needs to menstrate sixty more times you sick frick!
Depending on where you are, the age of consent isn't a worldwide 18 just fyi. Even in US it depends on the state.
They're already gone on record saying they're gonna change some things for "modern" audiences, I think mostly around Ramona. So expect her to be an even more insufferable c**t.
Scott will be in the background as the story focuses on his diverse LGBTQ friend group and Steven Stills' gay coming out arc will receive heavy focus. Also Knives and Kim's lesbo arc will probably be pushed more.
Scott will get pounded by Wallace in a flashback
That canon does happen in the source material but is never explicitly shown. I agree that Netflix will not miss this opportunity to explicitly focus on Scott's gay rentboy relationship with Wallace.
>modern audiences
>It's been only 13 years.
It's a 2000s novel that is trying to appeal with audiences too young to remember the 2000s or who weren't even born by then. However, it's probably the best thing from that era that could still appeal to 2020s audiences.
>all that fashion sense of a westerner weaboo
>still relevant today
time is a circle
Zoomers love the early 00s aesthetic.
early 2000s weaboos were way ahead of their time. Anime is now mainstream and cool, as are K-pop and J-pop, and emo. Early 2000s Weaboos and nerds have won
Turning Red was the same-an attempt to create a PC version of the early 2000s that never existed, where "gay" and "homosexual" weren't the most common insults kids and teens used, and where every one is accepting towards the gay community. Stranger Things was the same when the Icecream girl came out as a lesbian and everyone was completely cool with it. It's basically a version of rewriting history.
>the same-an attempt to create a PC version of the early 2000s that never existed, where "gay" and "homosexual" weren't the most common insults kids and teens used
You should play Perfect Tides then, where the main character gets sexually harassed in school, almost raped, and see people call your friends homosexuals.
Gay as an insult or way to say lame was big in 2000/2001, but we were also becoming more accepting towards gay people at the same time. Maybe it boosted awareness of gay people in a way too. Even people using the term generally didn't hate gay people, gay people themselves used it sometimes. There was also already some backlash against the word being used that way even though it was widely used.
My main point is that most people I knew weren't saying "that's gay" because they hated gay people. It was a thing people said without thinking too much. In my case I think I just started saying it for a while after hearing it on South Park as a kid. Obviously acting homosexual was stigmatized more, but calling things gay didn't mean you hated gay people much more than saying "I got gypped" meant you hated gypsies (though it that case I wasn't even aware of the origin of gypped until I was older).
Stranger Things hasn't pulled this (yet) since the Lesbian came out to one person and he was both a really cool dude and trauma bonded and also high on truth serum.
The original books are from the mid-2000s
Like what? Beyond Scott and Knives, there weren't any more things that could be "problematic" in the comics, right?
>I think mostly around Ramona
It's true. She works for Netflix now because Amazon didn't let her pee
>Canadian Liberals
There is your answer.
If you want a romcom with stupid hijinks that seems less driven by social commentary on relationship power dynamics; just check out Ranma or Urusei Yatsura.
Scott Israel
Scott Palestine versus the (New) World (Order)
I dont know guys. 22 years is old enough to be a college graduate. What the frick kind of college graduate dates a sophomore in high-school? Its creepy.
17 is a junior.
>What the frick kind of college graduate dates a sophomore in high-school?
Senior. Still bad, but she was a senior.
It is, and that was the point it seems.
>What the frick kind of college graduate dates a sophomore in high-school?
complete losers do it
That doesn't matter for most people because most people frick people in their area. And in 31 states it is 16.
If you were not already part of a community of your peers who don't mind shagging with you within a 5 year age difference than the problem was always you.
People meeting each other is a lot more organic than that. It's weird that you have this rigid, transactional concept of relationships where everyone has to establish themselves within some kind of guild of peers near their own age and the only way to end up dating someone outside that rigid group of people is to intentionally seek entrance into a different guild of a different age group. The reality is that sometimes people meet at the fricking grocery store or a public event, hit it off, and end up dating.
That is correct, but it is not up to people to convince you that is okay. You're no less grooming social behavior than other people. A 22yo should not being dating a high schooler unless they were already a couple going into or during the time they shared together.
I started dating my wife when she was 16 and I was 22
What was so wrong with all the people you could have dated that were close to your age at the time?
I dated women close to my age and even older before. I was 18 and with a 47 year old woman.
So why did you pursue someone still in school when you had reason to be confident in dating people who weren't in school anymore?
>dated
I sure people love the concept of everyone thinking and agreeing the exact same way but is two functional adults decides to stay together for so long even with a major age gap. They can do whatever the frick they want. Especially in a world where love seems to be an alien concept to zoomers or even gen alphas who themselves are becoming sexless virgins because the cost of living is so bad. They cannot connect emotionally, nor authentically without thinking everyone else is out to get their at their expanse.
This. Men need to stop caring about social norms being imposed on them by feminist karens. I dated much, much older and much younger in my life and even though I would get shit for it, I didn't care and now I'm married with 2 kids
Because I liked her and she liked me. I don't really care about these moronic nu-male supported social norms that weren't a thing when I was already born. My grandparents have a 10 year age gap.
Why are you agreeing with someone talking about adults consenting when you went out of your way to date someone who wasn't an adult?
And age gaps aren't the issue nobody cares about age gaps. People just think anyone so desperate they consider a minor liking an adult is good enough reason to date is incredily concerning which is why laws often have 18 be the age of consent.
Well it's a good thing you have no power and I already did what makes you seethe a decade ago
>laws often have 18 be the age of consent
lol no
18 is pretty much the least common age of consent on the planet and it's not even common in the US alone, with 40/50 states having an age of consent below 18. Seriously, stop living in your perpetually-online Californian fanfiction distortion of reality.
I didn't say 18 was the most common. It's 16 where I live and I'm fine with that because any adult dating someone in school is considered deplorable; the checks and balances against grooming apologists work quite well regardless of laws.
>checks and balances
Nothing bad happened to me
Plenty of people didn't want to and don't associate with you over your creepy vibe.
Untrue. My friends back then knew and I'm still friendly with all of them. My family didn't care either nor did her friends or family because they aren't moronic Californian liberals.
Retaining a friendship isn't a badge of honour in this context.
People still talked behind your back, and acquaintances heard about who you were dating and decided they didn't want anything to do with you.
To this day people who have done the maths do a double-take and are unnerved.
>everyone is as much of a spiteful vengeful c**t as me
not him but you're clearly very bitter about something
We're social creatures who don't like minors being exploited, the rumour mill operates 24/7
>I did with no problems from anybody ever
The point is you can't put a number on the people who have withheld friendships and business opportunities specifically because they find you pursuing a teenager repugnant, whereas those without rumours of this nature circulating don't need to worry that at all.
Sorry, bud but I won the game I wanted to play and that's it. I don't care about some made up alternate timeline BS where I somehow lost opportunties I never even noticed. Multiverses are gay. Enjoy seething in this thread, I need to go be with my wife and kids.
How old are your kids?
You don't need an alternate timeline to miss opportunities.
Just like how you missed the opportunity to know with any certainty when you meet someone if they've already judged you as a predator.
>she thinks people will consider him a predator for being married to a 26 year old
lol you're such a moron
He isn't the pedophile here, is he?
He said he dated a 16 year old 10 years ago and he's now married to her. That makes her 26 today and I guarantee no one even bats an eye at that fact.
I guarantee they do more often then you think. Besides, They'll be divorced by the time she turns 30. Statistics aren't wrong.
Yeah on the surface.
Any normal questions about the relationship, such as "how did you meet" expose the fact she was in school at the time.
But sure, passing in the street the only thing that betrays anon as dodgy is him staring at schoolgirls but his wife just does look like your average wife.
>hey did you hear about anon?
>what, seems like a nice guy
>yeah but he's 32 and his wife's 26 and they have been together for10 years
>that's messed up
Who cares?
You don't have kids, because you wouldn't be online shitposting on Cinemaphile like a loser about fictional circumstances about taking advantage of under aged people because it seems """"normal"""" in parts of the world that have actual problems.
Cope. I'm actually pretty beloved which is why I was able to do what I did with no problems from anybody ever
Yes, am I supposed to marry every woman I've ever fricked? I would have been divorced 30 times by now
>dated
>30
>well liked
Problem?
>problem?
>I didn't say 18 was the most common.
You said laws "often" set 18 as the age of consent, which can't possibly be considered true when it's in the vast, VAST global minority.
Has it been legislated more than a few times?
Yes.
So it qualifies for often.
You're such a dishonest moron. Just admit you made a mistake and spoke on something you didn't have knowledge of.
>didn't use the word majority
>selected a word that reflects that something has happened often
What mistake?
>used a word that implies it's a lot more common than it is
>when called out, backpedaled on the basis of it being just vague enough of a word to be re-interpreted to save face
You inferring that often means majority is your issue.
Just keep on bragging about your ignorance if it helps you feel better. I'm not fooled.
18 is the federal law anon. States rights were always bullshit because any jack ass with a car and just drive to the next state over and take advantage of under aged girls. If states rights were still a thing then worst things would be allowed. Like child labor, and sex trafficking. Wisconsin is like a 3rd world shithole with a senator trying to pass a bill to let minors work in coal mines.
These nut jobs in the Republican party are fricking subhuman.
there is no such thing as a federal age of consent
why do you post about things you dont know the first thing about?
>there is no federal age of consent
I'm sure repeating that yourself will make it true one day. To bad the law don't see it that way.
ok have fun with the rest of your life continuing to be moronic and wrong about things you could easily find out in 5 seconds with a google search im sure itll work out for you
You're not even American, so stop talking like you are. No one who lives in America just post images of ages of concept by state for any other reason than to be a creep.
It's illegal to cross state lines to dodge age of consent laws (and many other state-level laws), but that doesn't change the fact that the laws in each state are what they are.
He's right, the federal government only steps in if you try to jump state lines to avoid the law. The FBI won't come knocking on my door over a relationship with a 17 year old when it's fully legal in my state. In that sense, there is no federal age of consent.
>He's right, the federal government only steps in if you try to jump state lines
So you completely proven my point.
>States rights were always bullshit
But if no state lines are crossed state law is enforced, you're now admitting.
Your point was that the "true" age of consent is 18 because of federal law, which is false. State age of consent laws are upheld as long as no one crosses state lines to avoid or subvert them. The federal government will stop a Californian 16 year old from being brought to Nevada for sex, but the federal government will NOT stop a Nevadan 16 year old from having sex in Nevada.
You're arguing semantics in regards to the law. Everything I said was correct and it's just extra steps. If someone with a high paying job can just up and fly or drive anywhere in the states to find under age flings and return none the wiser. It's still a crime.
Nah, they were right and now your arguing semantics. But if you'd like to argue some more, some (or rather many) states that consent has an asterisk, such as the older partner being under a certain age until 18. Usually 21 or 22.
But that part is rather inconvenient.
SP is the gayest shit I ever read. Massacre every last Canadian.
>are they going to town down scott's creepy loser side when it's one of the biggest things you're supposed to notice in the story
hmm
No, they think Scott being not a great guy who grows up and becomes better is too subtle a condemnation of his early behavior, so they are going to amp up everything bad about him, make him more pathetic than even the Michael Cera version, and give him an unhappy ending.
I don't get the confusion, scott's an butthole who rides the fine line of wtf
>what is reading comprehension for 500
Scott Pilgrim is a self insert character for people to don't have a moral compass. It's okay not to """"get it"""" because most people don't like Scott Pilgrim as a character to begin with. He is pretty bland, kind of dumb, and don't really have any direction in life beside trying to have sex.
>Scott Pilgrim is a self insert character for people to don't have a moral compass. It's okay not to """"get it"""" because most people don't like Scott Pilgrim as a character to begin with. He is pretty bland, kind of dumb, and don't really have any direction in life beside trying to have sex.
Not quite.
Scott Pilgrim is a bad guy, but he's not a bad guy.
Scott Pilgrim is the Goku of Cinemaphile.
He's probably just as bad a dad, if not worse for not having spent as much time being dead.
They have to. Zoomers can't handle when a bad person does bad things on screen.
why though?
When you live your whole life through a screen you can't separate life from fiction.
Maybe it's just because age gaps are the norm where I'm from, but a 6 year age gap isn't uncommon where I'm from so I didn't find it all that weird.
There are 18yos right now that are literally killing kids in the middle east and I find it very hard to care about age gaps between a 17yo to a 20 something doofus thinking he is some clever degenerate taking advantage of his youth.
>SCOTT GROOMED HER
Wasnt literally the plot of the entire book Scott is a giant manchild and he needs to grow up.
Him dating a teenager is literally a part of that
Yes this thread is moronic. They hang out and Scott specifically says they don't even hold hands. When she kisses him for the first time he immediately dumps her. Him dating her for in the first place and is a sign of his arrested development/cry for help. I cannot believe how media illiterate people are.
That because you're arguing with fricking tweens on twitter who have the reading comprehension of a elementary or high schooler. I shutter knowing how many actual adults lack the fundamental reading comprehension and critical thinking required to be a function adult.
More banger articles and opinion pieces!
https://slate.com/culture/2023/10/amazon-jeff-bezoss-company-promoted-sexism-through-meritocracy.html
Imagine viewing romantic emotions as such a massive threat to the capitalist vision of democracy that you have to spin them as being childish and vulgar distractions from a proper life
Can we all agree Pilgrim deserves rape?
Only by Kim Pines, in an Amazonian position and no one else. Unless they like to watch...
I think the GPT bot for this thread is going to spam soijaks and scientific statistics to try and deflect from the fact that this moralist ideology helped create Eric Rudolph (the Centennial Olympic Park bomber), the only terrorist to be publicly defended and cheered on as a hero by "normal" Americans on live TV
Yes. He is a cute twink who is drawn as a shota.
That's the reason why so many people gave this comic a read in the first place.
Only by Wallace Wells
If Scott knew Knives before while knowing her age and still perused her that would be grooming behavior. The problem is that both Knives parents said it was okay, and Scott instead just accepted it even when he felt it would be creepy.
Everything else about this subject is moot because it is then up to the individuals because it's their fricking lives, but is Scott being genuine while Knives is just being naïve and possessive? Scott should had known better, and just flat out reject her.
Am I the only one growing resentful towards this incessant reinforcement of the objectively obsolete "vertical" view of power distribution? I say power is fluid and should be treated as fluid
That is fine, hopefully society at large wont see you as a predator to keep eyes on. Because those VPNs don't hide your true intentions.
Are you trying to intentionally scare off anyone who is NOT dumping statistics
If you need statistic to prove a moral point, you're already wrong.
>do not reply to non marketer posts
>do not reply to non statistic posts
He was always an extremely flawed dude. The conclusion of his arc was basically coming to terms with that and getting together with a girl who was also packed with skeletons in her closet.
Skeletons are supposed to stay in your body, not your closet. How will they enjoy calcium if they are in the closet?
Groomer thread.
The only way to not be a groomer is to die alone with no contact with anyone. When you interact with people you are grooming them
kek the 18tard gave up after all of their arguments were dismantled
If she were 18 at the time, would it have worked out?
lolno
Sadly, I think you're right. Ironically though, if Knives never dated Scott, she would've never been compelled to grow and improve and probably would've ended up like Tamara at the end of the series.
This could’ve been a wholesome scollace thread, but it instead turned into some pedo shit
How is Wallace supposed to tie Scott up to frick him if there's no bedposts?
angst fuel image
Did wallace love scott or was he just interested in clapping cheeks?
He’s gay, there is no love. Only mindless lust.
That's actually pretty sad. Scott is lucky.
Depends how you see it, you can argue he wants Scott to love him back but is increasingly pushed away by his girl crushes until he forces Scott out
Or he only wants to own that white boy's ass
if that was the case on the former, why didn't wallace confess his feelings for him? I am sure there was opportunities.
Because the writer is a homophobe
Wallace, like all gay gays, is not really capable of love and only capable of clapping cheeks and getting as much ass as possible.
Scott is very unintelligent anon, Wallace probably did or made it insanely obvious (especially if the fact they were straight up fricking was considered) but he just never got it
Wallace doesn't love Scott, he just likes fricking him. Scott is totally his b***h forever and Scott knows it.
Scott standing up to wallace when? He will be a b***h no more!
Scott vs wallace fight now.
Scott is a parasite living at Wallace's place, not vice versa.
He pays rent through sex, that’s not being a parasite, get it right.
He's a sex parasite then.
A sexasite
Scott enjoys his rentboy relationship with Wallace, why would he fight him?
He's not a parasite if he pays for rent with sex.
>it's not uncommon for people in the same friend circle to date
Is it common to pass girls around to eachother in that friend group? Only in How I met Your Mother and Friends-that shit rarely happens in real life.
>Young Neil got in a legitimate relationship with her
He went after her when she was vulnerable after both Kim and Scott used her and broke her heart.
Why is this thread being raided by a self-loathing autist who can't get over the fact that his ex lied about being over 18 when they first met?
Your ex was underage and lied abut it, why do you consider that fuel for trying to silently push for things like caste segregation and honor killings?
>thread slides when autist is called out on his bullshit and his botnets can't hide the post
I never read Scott Pilgrim but damn it's easy to tell it was written by an asian dude.
half Asian
More importantly, will people finally realize that Envy is objectively the best girl?
she's the hottest but far from the best. come on, she literally cheats on Scott probably multiple times.
There is no best girl in Scott Pilgrim. Knives is the only candidate for best girl and she's really not great.
Lisa is a cuck queen, she gets off from losing her man to other girls.
>Lisa is a cuck queen, she gets off from losing her man to other girls.
Man, no wonder she was practically soaked all of book 4.
Also, she probably would've let Scott hit back in high school. We all know Kim did, but Lisa probably would've too.
Is the show going to have Lisa or is it just sticking to the characters from the movie?
I think Lisa's teased, someone posted a screencap on an older thread
Being a 22 year old rentboy who grooms 17 year old highschool girls isn't cool or aspirational.
Is this comic worth reading for someone who isn't Canadian and wasn't born during 1995?
yes
Someone needs to inform Bryan Lee O'Malley that being a 22 year old groomer and bisexual rentboy is not cute, quirky or cool
Breaking News:
Scott is a scumbag and you only read or watch it for the side characters.
ladies and gentlemen
post pics of Kim
adorbs.
I only ask one thing from this show, make Stacey and Young Neils a thing
What's this from?
it's a panel edit by some dude on tumblr.
he does scott pilgrim panel edits like removing word bubbles, hair color changes, etc... and of course, cat ears.
i cannot remember what the account name is right now but you can probably reverse image search it and find the account anyway
SP is currently on fraudwatch. I don’t think nostalgia is saving this show.
>fraudwatch
what is this zoomer slang term
It’s for describing shitty characters like Kim for example. A fraud.
Kim isn't shitty frick you,
you stupid insipid piece of shit
So he's 23 but everyone itt acts like he's a grandpa?
I have a feeling that zoomer viewers are not going to relate to Scott Pilgrim and his millenial crew of deadbeat hipster groomers. Netflix will have to do some serious "updating for a modern audience" to convince kids to like Scott and his creepy pals.
This never shows up in any part of the franchise, but SP was very stressful. Scott thought he could do what he wanted and who he wanted which is pretty much everyone and then has to live with the consequences he thought he could escape.
Also, SP captures a certain amnesia wall within Scott himself. He fights and fricks off-screen. He's a violent, horny fricker, but he pretends he's a cute, harmless puffball on-screen.
It's kind of confusing that such a harmless-seeming guy can cause such havoc. You really only see that side of him in the fights and not his relationships.
He's a textbook narcissist. They use people and cause destruction in their social circle and ruin every life they touch-but in their own heads they are perfect rays of sunshine who never do anything wrong, and if they do something wrong by accident, it's cute and no big deal.
You can mistake a lot of people in their early 20s for narcissists. Many of them have unknown issues and are slamming into walls while figuring out the lay of the land.
meds
NOW
Kim, Lisa, and Envy have witnessed Scott being a brute and try to address it with him, but Scott doesn't acknowledge it which is probably why everyone thinks he's an butthole. But man, that amnesia wall is really something. It's not so much a choice as it is a defense mechanism first and foremost. Scott doesn't even realize he's using it to protect himself when he's in puffball mode.
>Kim, Lisa, and Envy have witnessed Scott being a brute and try to address it with him, but Scott doesn't acknowledge it
being a brute? Do you mean being an emotional and physical abuser who constantly gets in fights with other dudes over women?
Lets be honest, thats a moronic take. The ex's fricking attack him first
Minus Kim's ex, Scott was just a dickhead but still
Ramona and Scott are actually two different aspects of the same psyche. I think Bryan tried to capture the hard details in the story, but it was just too elusive at the time. But you can see it in the overall gist of the characters.
Ramona has a dark past and has been abused by men - ergo the evil exes, even though none of them are all that evil when you meet them. Not even the big bad. Scott's mind is segmented and Amazon is literally using it for...distribution, or something.
There are multiple Ramonas because Scott's mind is segmented.
It's a lot and it was the early 2000s. None of us knew about this stuff. We hardly know about it now.
/schizo
You can't really mature within walls of amnesia.
So, sort of related question.
What other comics and/or literature would you recommend if I really liked Scott Pilgrim, and especially if I really liked Lost at Sea (the graphic novel Brian made before SP. I think it's really good but it's one of those 'not for everyone' stories.)
visual wise french stuff, Kairos by ulysse malassagne, or ptsd by singelin whatever his forg name is.
if anyone knows of something like sp or lost at sea story wise i would like to know also.
I want to marry both Ramona and Kim tbh they'd make very nice wives
Why do people here get so defensive when people call Scott out on being a creep? Are they really incels? Has their coomerism rotted their collective braincell?
30 year olds who want to frick teenagers.
It's just dumb twitter shit we've heard like a million times over.
No, Scott's not this super evil predator and you don't need to whinge about it to prove you're a loyal adherent of the party. Scott dating a high schooler is just a window to show he's kinda pathetic and emotionally stunted. Shut up about it.
It's millenial gays who grew up thinking Scott Pilgrim was awesome and now are upset that their homosexual hero and IP is being called out as problematic and pro-groomer. That's all there is to it.
>millennial *illiterates
The message has always been the same. The comic is 100% explicit about how Scott is supposed to be taken.
You can't deny that the games and film glorify Scott and all his butthole friends. Many teens reading the comic see Scott as a totally cool awesome self insert guy. The cutesy art style and videogame reference confuses many readers.
I wouldn't say the game has a real story to judge. The movie also gets a partial pass due to timing, and it's still clear enough that he's in need of correction even if it doesn't anticipate the full intent of the book.
Millenials are the ones who called Scott Pilgrim fake manga for fedora lords on Reddit.
No, Millenials are the ones who read and bought Scott Pilgrim comics and turned him in to a cultural icon.
It wasn't zoomers and Gen Xers buying the comics, it was millenials.
It was a bit of both. Scott is in the Xennial microgeneration, which is very blurry.
I really doubt every single detractor for this property was born before 1980 or after 2000.
Do you think Gen Xers and boomers were buying this shit? It was entirely millenials. Zoomers were babies and in kindergarten while this book was being published.
Because Scott wasn't really a creep.
The problem is, the hip and trendy thing to do is be outraged...power imbalance, age difference, thinking jailbait is hot, etc. The most vocal people are homosexuals on reddit. IRL, no one really cares.
Even though he was 'dating' Knives, he basically wasn't. Scott was literally just 'dating' her because he actively didn't want to have any actual strong commitments/have to deal with real relationship stuff, but also didn't want to be alone.
He even states outright that the most they'd done is like, hold hands. The one kiss they did share was one Knives initiated out of nowhere and which Scott found very uncomfortable.
Scott is undoubtedly an butthole in this scenario, but there's really nothing predatory out of it. All he ever wanted from Knives was an emotional buffer/distraction because of how lonely he was.
Why are age gaps seen as so much more problematic than they were 20 years ago anyway? What changed? Even back then it was treated as a pretty immature move on Scott's part but the way people talk about him now you'd think he was an irredeemable monster.
People have just become a lot more judgemental because you can get ousted by society for even the slightest shit nowadays.
Also it doesn't help that most of the people throwing a fit have never even read the comic and just hear '23 year old dating a 17 year old' to mean that they're fricking or whatever despite the fact that the Scott explicitly didn't want to have that sort of physicality with Knives.
have just become a lot more judgemental because you can get ousted by society for even the slightest shit nowadays.
I really fricking hate social media for turning everyone into such boring people walking on eggshells 24/7 and never really being genuine with anyone, since everything you do is recorded for the entire world to see, and the slightest misstep will have hordes of "morally correct" banshees jumping down your throat to ruing your life.
Society has always been like that. It just used to be harder for people to find out stuff if they weren't standing next to you or a gossip you both know.
I know, gossiping has been the favored activity of c**ts since like, forever. Social media just made it way, way worse.
It's a real shame the early internet practice of never revealing identifying information online gave way to everyone announcing themselves constantly and documenting their whole lives.
Like, holy shit it's insane just how hard it 360'd. I remember being in HS and sitting through an "safe internet use" seminar that stressed, hard. "DO NOT EVER PUT YOUR REAL NAME OR ANY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OUT ON THE INTERNET, EVER." and it was just common sense - you didn't want any Tom Dick or Harry online knowing who you were and where you lived. Then fricking Tom Anderson invented MySpace and the floodgates opened, and the powers that be encouraged it since, it turns out all of a person's personal information and private life being on the internet makes it a frickload easier for them to be monitored and marketed to.
It's best not to conflate age gaps where the individuals meet as adults and age gaps where they meet when one is a minor. The latter case has been considered kind of creepy, if legal, for a long time. Getting mad at age gaps in general because it means that one person turned into an adult first at some point in the past is a very recent form of zoomer moralgay stupidity.
Stfu 16yo was adult status for 99% of civilization. Infantilizing the youth when they're in peak fertility will backfire. We already have enough women in their 30s giving birth to defects we don't need to encourage them anymore.
no one cares about your medieval fantasy, homosexual
adults dating minors has always been viewed as a weird thing to do in any modern society
no one is talking about age of consent here. it goes without saying everyone is consenting because the issue is not that the character is committing a crime. a 24-year-old dating a high school student is going to get shit from his friends no matter what.
Medieval society?! most of our gramps were plowing pussy well below the 18yo baseline and look how better their marriages are compared to the average gen x/millennial. In modern society you can chop kid breasts and tips off, you think modern society should be the exemplar for what civilization should be? You will get shit on by your "friends "because they're jealous.
Age has changed from a physical barrier to a class barrier
I think this thread was made by a discord of self-loathing autistic guys who are all in IRL age-gap relationships and want pity parties for how "fricked" their lives are, and they're hoping to recruit ne members
I'd like to see them try. I sometimes wonder to myself what scenario or event it would take for the media to start attacking current generations for literally ANYTHING AT ALL, and sadly I think painting them as being materialist, anti-art and anti-creative as a whole is the only way that's feasible
Giving us two much credit assuming we all have teenage gf's. This thread hits close to home since I was in Scotts position except I was 19 and she was 16. Every single women I knew just went full on seethe. It's frustrating since a good portion of those girls I knew back in hs were jumping on late 20yo wiener as sophmores. They don't care about teenage girls they care that a guy is happy with someone who isn't a hag.
>itt a bunch of old millenials defending their groomer comic about creepy millennial predators
They can't possibly match Knives as this fricking cute in the show.
Okay.
Are they going to start categorizing media by generations in order to adhere to modern standards to bypass homosexuals like OP? I mean that would be the most safest and fascist way to doing things correctly. You cannot have works of fiction be doing this!