I genuinely love how there was no reason for this whole plot point, the actress was already legal when they were making the movie, they just shoehorned it in lmao.
The urban legend is that one of the movie's producers had a son who got in hot water dating a girl under 18, but was covered by this law. The producer asked that the scene be included to try and "normalize" his situation.
Of course that didn't work and it just came across as weird as shit.
In Transformers 4 there’s a 20 year old male character in a relationship with a 17 year old female character and the movie stops dead in its tracks to explain why it’s technically not illegal, he even carries a laminated card with the specific law that makes it ok on it.
[...]
The urban legend is that one of the movie's producers had a son who got in hot water dating a girl under 18, but was covered by this law. The producer asked that the scene be included to try and "normalize" his situation.
Of course that didn't work and it just came across as weird as shit.
The conspiracies about Hollywood seem much more true, weird. stuff
The full context is that Bay has been criticized for including very young women as eye candy in his films so he took it to 11 in this movie with a 17 year old
>make movies for teenagers >add eyecandy who are around the age of the teenage audience in question >NOOOO HOW DARE YOU! DROOL OVER WOMEN WHO HAVE HIT THE WALL ALREADY
complete unnecesary scene that contribute nothing to the plot nor the movie entirely. it's just a weird thing added to make rural white americans look weirder than they're already are.
They could've made it more platonic like he is the girl's crush for years but the dude keeps his distance knowing full well or at least willing to wait until she is above aoc out of respect of being friends or acquaintance of her dad
>here is my laminated card that I carry around in my wallet which explains why I am allowed to bang your underage daughter bro >A TRANSFORMER KILLED MY FRIEND AN HOUR AGO
The Romeo and Juliet law doesn't even apply to 17 year olds dating 18+ year olds. In Texas, 17 is the age of consent and when you reach the age of consent you can have a sexual relationship with anyone who is also at or above the age of consent. A 17 year old having sex with a 20 year old is simply legal, no exceptions needed. What the Romeo and Juliet law protects is someone who's 17 or 18 and has a relationship with someone who's 14 or 15. That crosses the line where one party is above the age of consent while the other isn't, but the law grants an exception if they're close in age because it's understood that 17 and 18 year olds are literally still classmates and peers with 14, 15, and 16 year olds and may end up in relationships together that shouldn't be considered illegal.
Because the progressive narrative around the age of consent doesn't actually reflect the law. You'll find a lot of things progressives believe aren't based on actual reality.
so the only way that the law applies and protect the eldest is to demonstrate that they've met while in high school and dated when both were still underage? wouldn't be eaiser if the parents of the minor in question gives permission to be dating otherwise it is sexual assault?
No, it protects anyone who's both above the age of consent and within 3 years of age of the one below the age of consent. There's no requirement for proof of meeting in high school or having a relationship before either party reached the age of consent. A 17 year old could meet a 14 year old from another town at the mall and end up dating and having sex and it would be fine. That's not to say there can't be some scrutiny applied if something seems fishy or abusive about the relationship, especially if the parents disapprove, but it's there to protect against unreasonable punishments or assumptions of guilt for people dating while in roughly the same age group.
so the only way that the law applies and protect the eldest is to demonstrate that they've met while in high school and dated when both were still underage? wouldn't be eaiser if the parents of the minor in question gives permission to be dating otherwise it is sexual assault?
This could have been funny in the right sort of movie, but being in a fricking Transformers movie of all things made it hilarious.
It would be funnier if he pulled out a clown college diploma instead
>movie's plot grinds to a complete halt so they producers can explain to the audience why pedophilia is okie dokie
Huh what you mean?
I genuinely love how there was no reason for this whole plot point, the actress was already legal when they were making the movie, they just shoehorned it in lmao.
The urban legend is that one of the movie's producers had a son who got in hot water dating a girl under 18, but was covered by this law. The producer asked that the scene be included to try and "normalize" his situation.
Of course that didn't work and it just came across as weird as shit.
Micheal Bay is genuinely one of the most talented comedy directors in history
Context?
Transformers
Nope - none of that.
In Transformers 4 there’s a 20 year old male character in a relationship with a 17 year old female character and the movie stops dead in its tracks to explain why it’s technically not illegal, he even carries a laminated card with the specific law that makes it ok on it.
The conspiracies about Hollywood seem much more true, weird. stuff
they're all true but they tell you it's a conspiracy until they choose to come clean
The full context is that Bay has been criticized for including very young women as eye candy in his films so he took it to 11 in this movie with a 17 year old
you do realize he had megan fox in a strip club when she was 15 years old in bad boys 2 right?
he was always a pedo.
American problems lol, cant even smash 15 yo pussy
no wonder pakistanis are flooding the UK. UKuks are offering prime fresh meat to them
UK age of consent is 16, wouldn't those types of people target one of the many countries whose age of consent is 14 or 15?
that's what I'm referring to chud
>make movies for teenagers
>add eyecandy who are around the age of the teenage audience in question
>NOOOO HOW DARE YOU! DROOL OVER WOMEN WHO HAVE HIT THE WALL ALREADY
complete unnecesary scene that contribute nothing to the plot nor the movie entirely. it's just a weird thing added to make rural white americans look weirder than they're already are.
They could've made it more platonic like he is the girl's crush for years but the dude keeps his distance knowing full well or at least willing to wait until she is above aoc out of respect of being friends or acquaintance of her dad
Bay is one of a kind
>here is my laminated card that I carry around in my wallet which explains why I am allowed to bang your underage daughter bro
>A TRANSFORMER KILLED MY FRIEND AN HOUR AGO
>I'M AN INVENTOR THIS COULD BE A GAME CHANGER
what's even funnier is that even with that laminated card, he's still considered a predator just by making out with her
The Romeo and Juliet law doesn't even apply to 17 year olds dating 18+ year olds. In Texas, 17 is the age of consent and when you reach the age of consent you can have a sexual relationship with anyone who is also at or above the age of consent. A 17 year old having sex with a 20 year old is simply legal, no exceptions needed. What the Romeo and Juliet law protects is someone who's 17 or 18 and has a relationship with someone who's 14 or 15. That crosses the line where one party is above the age of consent while the other isn't, but the law grants an exception if they're close in age because it's understood that 17 and 18 year olds are literally still classmates and peers with 14, 15, and 16 year olds and may end up in relationships together that shouldn't be considered illegal.
why did stephen colbert shit his pants about the guy having sex with a 17 year old if 17 is legal in new york
Because online rhetoric infantilises even 25 year old women having relationships with 40 year old men.
Because the progressive narrative around the age of consent doesn't actually reflect the law. You'll find a lot of things progressives believe aren't based on actual reality.
No, it protects anyone who's both above the age of consent and within 3 years of age of the one below the age of consent. There's no requirement for proof of meeting in high school or having a relationship before either party reached the age of consent. A 17 year old could meet a 14 year old from another town at the mall and end up dating and having sex and it would be fine. That's not to say there can't be some scrutiny applied if something seems fishy or abusive about the relationship, especially if the parents disapprove, but it's there to protect against unreasonable punishments or assumptions of guilt for people dating while in roughly the same age group.
so the only way that the law applies and protect the eldest is to demonstrate that they've met while in high school and dated when both were still underage? wouldn't be eaiser if the parents of the minor in question gives permission to be dating otherwise it is sexual assault?
it's funny how california is the most puritan out of many when is also the most degenerate and pushes for minors to transition and watch gay sex
Michael Bay should have been taken away from Transformers after 3
He was going to step down after 3 but didn’t want anyone else sullying his vision (yes, really)
Disgusting dirty nails