So I totally get that this subject is.. uncomfortable. It should be. I’m not going to argue it should ever be comfortable. I’d like it to be a subject that never needed talked about or considered, a subject that didn’t even exist because such sickness didn’t exist and never would. Sadly that isn’t the case. So it needs to be uncomfortable because it is disgusting and should never be anything but disgusting. That said because it is so disgusting it is something that we must consider and talk about because of the critical importance that we deal with it and do so in a manner that best mitigates harm to those at risk while preserving those fundamental aspects of a higher system of order and morality.
I hope that this incident creates an opportunity for discussion.

So that is part of that discussion- does it diminish the impact of a word if we use the same word to describe an 18yo and a 17year 11 month 14 day old as a 56 yo and a 2yo; or does it just accurately express that in the social and by extension judicial view that both acts are equally reprehensible?
It’s an uncomfortable topic because it’s such a disgusting act and exploring where we draw the lines and why can mean a level of pragmatism and depth of consideration that offends the sensibilities. My natural instinct when confronted by the concept of an adult having any sort of sexual activity or predilection towards children; or any person forcing themselves sexually or sexually violating another is to line them up and shoot them- or not- because shooting is too quick and doesn’t hurt enough. Of course my logical mind defaults to due process and other issues of higher ethics and order, but my knee jerk reaction is revulsion and complete offense and anger.

young to make that decision and be bound to the lasting consequences- is available and binding. It’s a very sudden and stark transition. So that goes to this uncomfortable place where arguments exist to say what is the difference of a day or a week or a month? Minors can be tried as adults and courts have upheld contracts signed by minors near the age of consent but not there at the time of signing. As stated earlier there are also laws or exceptions in precedent as well as legal discretion for a judge in rendering verdict or sentence to determine if a situation is “close enough to count as ok…”
So that’s one side of the coin and the other is simply that it doesn’t matter. A kid is a kid until they hit the legal age of consent and there are no differences or exceptions between being 17 years 11 months and 14 days old and being 5 years old in the eyes of morality. I’m not advocating either moral stance here just presenting them.

get married for example- usually with certain conditions. Parental consent or emancipated minor status are two common ones and then there are often other criteria such as above where they might allow a 16yo and 18yo to wed but not a 16yo to wed a 32yo. As we approach the age of consent things can get uncomfortable- undeniably the human brain develops more rapidly over shorter periods at younger ages, and undeniably a single year is a much larger percentage of total life experience at a younger age than at a much older age. So that single year from 17 to 18 or 18 to 19 can make a drastic difference in the experiences and outlooks and even the physical development of a person compared to the changes one is likely to experience between 30 to 31 or 60 to 61. That said- one day you are a legal minor, then the clock hits 12am on your birthday and you’re an adult legally. So what was a crime or what was banned to you like joining the military or signing a loan because you were considered too

It is not a crime or decriminalized for a person below the age of consent (18 for the US in general..) to have sex with one over the age of 18 if the person under 18 is within a certain period of time from their 18th birthday- so it might in some places be legal for an 18yo or even a 40yo to have sex with a 17yo if they were say- 17 years and 10 months old. In other places the age difference between the two is the factor or one of the factors- so it might be legal for someone who is 18 years and 4 months old to have sex with someone who is 16 years and 9 months old but not legal for someone who is 19 years and 7 months old to have sex with someone who is 17 years and 1 month old. Or they may need to both be within an age range of each other such as no more than 12 months apart AND the underage person may need to be within X months of their birthday at which they reach the age of consent. Other places may allow for underage marriages- some US places have or still have allowed 16yo to

So it is inaccurate to call ANYONE whom has impulses or acts towards any person below the age of legal consent a “pedophile,” and it does perhaps arguably diminish the impact of the word some versus when it is used exclusively to refer to young children. I’m not advocating the use of the term this teacher used, but I do think there is a point of discussion in examining the use of language as it pertains to crimes of sex with minors and/or those of the age of consent who are deemed to lack the mental faculties to give informed consent. Accuracy in describing the crime or making the specifics of the crime known can be argued to have some value- but then again as a society or individuals we may not think that matters- one can take the view as described earlier that is is still horrible but perhaps slightly less so for an 18yo and a 17yo to have sex (an “adult” having sex with a “child” by legal age…) than an 18yo to have sex with an 8yo. Laws tend to observe this attitude, in many places

.. should be protected but does have some capacity for understanding or experience.
So in common discussion, in media, and often in the case of court and legal documents that come up in trail and sentencing, using language that specifically denotes the severity and has an emotional or psychological association to how particularly and exceptionally heinous the crime is when younger children are involved is has a level of importance. We are influenced by language, calling something “constructive criticism” vs. “feedback” can change the course of a discussion even when the content and subject are the same. This is what those who have marketing degrees and such spend years studying and what many billions of dollars and far more important things than that ride on- the use of language to guide or influence perception of the same set of facts.

.. not really construed so much in common use to apply as it has some implication that there is someone who has or reasonable would have some idea of The subject matter but is not legally able to consent as opposed to someone who could not or is not reasonably expected to have any level of understanding or experience in such matters.
There are other uses for the term but this is sort of abridged and focused to the topic at hand.
So we don’t have many of any widely used and accepted terms that accurately describe the general act of sex with a person below the age of consent except some version of that such as “sex with a minor.” In our society, sex with minors is rightly so considered a crime and deplorable; but it is double rightly so that sex with a 10 year old or such a young or younger child is considered particularly heinous compared to say sex with a 17 year old who may be physically mature and a year or even weeks or months from legal age of consent but is still a minor and..

.. all the acts that could be inappropriate or illegal concerning a person below legal age of consent. The term “statutory rape”is probably familiar to many? Usually used ti describe when someone like a 20 or 40 etc. year old has sex with someone like a 16 or 17 year old or something like that. Statutory is a qualifier and rape is the crime. The distinction is that in a case of statutory rape, the rape victim has “consented” and may not even be upset now or ever about the act. It is rape because by Statute- law passed by legislative body- a person of that age may or may not be able to make an informed decision but is not legally recognized as being able to give consent in the eyes of the law- they couldn’t enter a binding contract such as to buy a home and they cannot consent legally to sex- so while they may have given consent- that consent is not considered in law and thusly legally it is sex without consent.
That term often doesn’t apply in the case of younger people and is…

So defying expectations doesn’t always make a jolly time. This is a type of “an service” except it transcends fandoms. We tend to want to see certain things. We want to see things like the “villain” lose or the “cathartic revenge.” If Iron man 1 had Tony Stark realizing he was being dumb and selfish fighting crime and instead turned his attention to solving things like world hunger and retiring from weapons and fighting, so that through the other avengers movies you just see him solving social issues and not fighting… I mean… that’s different. Would you watch it? Did you watch the Avengers and MCU films? Watched any lately? Notice any differences from the previous characterizations etc? Oh. Well I guess maybe you are ok with rehashing the same characters slightly differently and it’s more a question of making it entertaining or having those different takes fit your politics and preferences…?

Fiction is like that too. Tropes aren’t just tropes because writers are “lazy” or “bad,” they’re a form of language. Viewers have expectations. We know that in general- a film like Die Hard that is considered a classic and generally well lived and did well commercially- we know that if that film ended with Bruce Willis dying or the bad guys getting off scot free- it probably would have flopped. Back to Sam Jackson from earlier- when you go to a film with him, most people are expecting, perhaps waiting for the moment he utters one of his famous phrases. To exclude that defies expectation and may be a surprise- but a surprise in the way that doing absolutely nothing to celebrate or acknowledge a close loved ones birthday might be a “surprise,” but probably not as happy a surprise as a surprise party no?

was taken. But… it’s still there. I lived Fury Road but it isn’t Road Warrior and personal issues asides Hardy isn’t Gibson. My Max is still there. I have him on DVD and Theron and Hardy didn’t erase him. I mean- go watch the 90’s power rangers- or even probably a current power rangers. To a 90’s kid those suits and robots were THE image- now imagine those on screen in 2022 where you paid $20 to watch. You’d probably not be happy. So things are going to change. Talk to my father and in his day- when 100 horses died in screen they killed 100 horses and filmed it. It doesn’t matter how dated or rudimentary those films are forget how primitive or problematic or inhumane- you could remake them 100 times and he’d probably insist the original was the best one. That’s his movie. That’s what he grew up with. Around the world cuisine and “hime cooking” and “comfort food” tend to be different- what we grow up with and are familiar with tends to stay with most of us and form our preferences.

And I mean- maybe that’s societies fault. I don’t know if it is good or bad that people can’t just say those things out loud. I’m old. I’m old enough to have seen so many “updates for a new generation” of classic properties that I get how some can feel that something is being “taken away,” when this fiction you feel this connection to, that shaped your life or was something you felt really represented you or a time in your life gets changed for a new audience that has lived a different life or a different time etc. when the stars of “your day” are replaced by new faces and who you see as “legends” in “timeless performances” are perhaps even unknown and their performances are seen as dated or hokey etc. by a new generation. So these new faces that maybe are big names to the kids are not the legends, the icons, the standard you have in your mind when you think of that character. The characters story and personality that spoke to you or of you isn’t yours anymore. So you feel something

It often means that the attractive young special agent you used to be able to diddle yourself to was given an outfit that actually might make some practical sense, or their dimensions were changed to be more realistic or even physically possible. It often means that your “wifu/husbandu” was “your type” and now they are blonde or they aren’t blonde or whatever and you don’t find the character attractive. It often means that your upset isn’t from the perspective of enjoying the story but is political- that you are upset that you feel a choice was made for political reasons- perhaps one’s you don’t agree with. If often too might mean that a change was made and you just don’t like that type of person or don’t identify with them and are upset because now you can’t Halloween play as spider man without getting an angry letter from some organization for your questionable use of face paint.

There may be some or even many on the list you don’t like- but chances are there’s several you did- probably several things you’ve enjoyed that you didn’t even realize were literal reboots of older pre existing characters and stories that you just weren’t aware there was an older version of or didn’t connect the two together.
I adore the modern “She-Ra” cartoon, and it’s one I highly recommend. The original isn’t without any merit but I wouldn’t call it good lol. The new She-Ra took mostly the same characters and overall plot and tweaked it into a totally different story with some wonderful moments.
Should they have just taken the nostalgic but objectively not very good original and ran with it? I mean- come on. When most people start talking about not wanting characters changed- especially online- we know what that means.

The cry for new or novel or different isn’t one I oppose. We do have to accept that it is rare that truly game changing works come along. We have to understand that most stories and characters are some sort of riff on an existing one.
We have to ask- is that REALLY what is being said when some people say this? Is the complaint REALLY that they don’t like old characters being rehashed? LOTR, The Star Trek reboots, Ghost in the Shell I’ve action it SAC and later works), Mad Max Fury Road, Conan, Terminator films, Oceans 11, any of the post 1980’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Almost any Disney movie, Shrek Films, countless other movies and TV shows- didn’t like any of those? Think they should have never been made?

We aren’t smart enough, we aren’t open enough to get truly new stories for a mass audience. The interesting and compelling stories that are most untouched are the ones society hasn’t allowed to be touched.
The film “broke back mountain” and the book created all manner of moral panic and ouch back and continue to do so… in 2022.
A story about two men falling into a forbidden love. Forbidden love and “unlikely romance” stories aren’t new- but you won’t find alot of mainstream stories with main characters grappling with forbidden love in the context of being a closeted homosexual from a culture that had rigid standards of masculinity and sexual morality which preclude that possibility as socially valid while balancing their own responsibilities and sense of obligation. That’s a novel story with fairly novel characters- at least a fresh angle and “gay coy boy” isn’t a staple or genre of American film outside perhaps porn and comedies mocking the concept.

Taboo “shared bed.” Or “unmarried couple living together.” People protest drag queens reading stories to kids at the library or trans characters in kids shows because they can’t get their heads around a concept as simple as “this person doesn’t want to be/isn’t a dude/lady” or are afraid that seeing it will somehow… make children… “catch” trans…?
You don’t think that one day in the future we will be looked at like the idiots who thought that a character as milk toast as “Fonzie” from happy days wearing a leather jacket would incite the youth of America to a life of crime..? Look it up, that’s a real thing, and I sadly realize many of you probably don’t get the reference to Fonzie or the show “Happy Days” even if you are from the US because that’s maybe before your parents were born. Look it up if it went over your head. The point is:

At the end of the day- we know what people tend to look for in fiction. The escape, the fantasy, etc etc. we like ideas that make us feel smarter but ideas that are too smart make us feel dumber- and in a mass audience… look at the politics and internet of just the previous so many years and you’d realize that sadly- being able to read with rudimentary comprehension or at ALL, and follow basic logic probably plants you at least in the top 50% of folks in a random room if not top 20%. So sorry, the ideas that people are capable of handling are sadly en mass, on the smaller side. We weren’t ready for a woman president and a shocking number of people aren’t ready for a female VP. We can laugh or be saddened looking at the people who freaked out when toilets or shared beds were shown in television because their tiny minds couldn’t cope with the idea but a lot of have lived through a time when characters being gay- let alone an onscreen kiss between same sex characters, was a generations…

Those types of films are the limits of what most people can approach digesting.
But more often these complaints are about… a freaking comic book character. A one, maybe two dimensional super hero in a suit who punches things and maybe has some life angst from their dual identity or stresses or alienation or whatever.
Or some made up fantasy creature or one of a billion set ups to put an elite soldier or disgraced ex soldier or skilled criminal or “Everyman” who happens to be a one person army or whatever…. And how deep is that characterization? What do you want? We’ve had the squeaky clean cop in a sterile world where cops are all heroes or exposed as “bad.” We’ve had the squeaky clean cop in a dirty world; the dirty cop in the clean world, dirty cop dirty world, gray cop in the…. And we’ve replaced cop with vet or security guard or farmer or outdoorsy type or random literal child who likes practicing with a bow…

What’s that? No? You don’t want to do that either? They’re often boring or weird or just bad? The writing is poor or the acting or the cinematography or editing or pacing or production values and effects…? They’re too strange or niche or artsy or high concept…? But… those are the things you won’t tend to find in big studio films where “mind blowing” “original” “smart” films are things like the easily understood Tennant, Inception, Interstellar (all fun and good movies in my book with interstellar being my top pick and one of my modern favs..) but like- they aren’t “smart movies” or “complicated” or anything like that objectively. They’re pretty straight forward and they aren’t written for master degree researchers in the field- it’s mostly plain language or jargon defined in dialog or through context. They use some very simple and sometimes faulty but often spelled out logic to drive their plot engines.
There isn’t anything “high concept” or particularly academic about any of them.

Books are a different matter- but there are plenty of books that are original or fairly new and novel and so many books that there probably are few if any people who have been through all of them to be able to complain that they can’t find a book that isn’t a cookie cutter- so this complaint seems aimed at the screen not the page.
The wonderful thing is, you can make stories and make videos! YouTube is full of fan and independent made series and shorts and animations. People make films all the time- if you have a cell phone or modern laptop you can probably make a movie or series! So get out there and do it. Go show us what a good and original work looks like. If you do a good job people will love it and you’ll gain support and financing and perhaps change the entire film industry! Not going to? That’s ok. Lots of other people do it every day! Go watch their movies and works. Go watch indie films and YouTube videos for original or novel content that compels or captivates you!

So often we don’t really care about the character when we are talking about Tv or film so much as we care about the actor and how fun or lovable or attractive or cool they are standing there, usually as a fill in for us and our fantasies of power or escape and adventure etc. we care more about how well the character represents us or who we want to be or who we see ourselves as and wether we enjoy their exploits vs. if their exploits and such are original or not.