In the 1988 film Big, the character Susan takes part in child grooming, when she pursues a relationship with Josh.
It's also implied that she engages in statutory rape.
She's unaware of Josh's real age though, so I don't know the legal or moral implications.
Moral implications don't exist for her. She saw a fully adult male.
Legal implications don't exist, because no law on the books takes into account the concept of a child inhabiting an adults body.
Josh on the other hand......
Josh is a child and bears no responsibility for any sexual encounters
Solid assessment.
I think the closest legal grounds we have would be when an adult that has the mental capacity of a child is the victim. Of course this isn't the same scenario, and all tangible evidence is lost when Josh returned to his normal body.
Any questionable acts would happen after the movie's end. My thoughts have always been what the effects were to Susan once she saw he was telling the truth. We don't even really get that short of the look of amazement, and maybe shock on her face.
I'd imagine she would be the one feeling violated here.
At least he appears to be a grown ass man, unlike the Disney film Blank Check.
immediately what I thought of when I read this post. Even when I was 10 I was like "this is weird..."
Eesh.
Jfc. Gross.
The worst double standard we have as a society is that only girls are victims of weird stuff like this.
What the hell am I watching
She was a fed too wasn't she?
Ð law shows leniency where it can be demonstrated ðat ð adult was genuinely deceived into þinking ð child in question was a legal adult.
Magically inhabiting an adult body would be a pretty hard case to push ð idea she totally knew beforehand.
Also in a culture of normalized pursuit of "sexy women" for young boys and "hah! Lucky!" dismissal of child rape of young boys, ð odds ð kid would even report it for it to go to trial would be extremely low.
SPEAK NORMALLY
No.
Hey, I like it! Bringing back medieval English characters is cool.
Yeah! Haters gonna hate.