(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

veneotaqueen
2011-02-02 10:16 pm UTC (link)

Well, I can always brush that off like those were the mores of yesteryear, when there was more socially accepted that a 14 years old could be married with men twice her age without no one batting an eye, hitting in a girl would be acceptable once she hitted puberty and grow tits, and people was less squeamish about having sex with people under 18 years old.
...
Yeah, I got nothing.
No, wait, I got something: George Lucas has the same criteria about intergenerational relationships (for giving it a name) that 70% of the men in my backwater country. I'm still on the edge of deciding if that is bad or very bad.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	snarkhunter 2011-02-03 12:12 am UTC (link)
	If they weren't talking about her being TWELVE...yeah. I'd brush this off as "the movie is set in the 30s, and their relationship was in the 20s." If she was 15, 16, 17? No biggie. Icky, maybe, but realistic and not as problematic by the cultural standards of the day. 12? That's just fucked up. Right there with you. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cmdr_zoom 2011-02-03 01:11 am UTC (link)
	This. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	risha 2011-02-03 01:47 am UTC (link)
	And 11 unspeakable. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -