JFL 1969 film Age of Consent was based as fuck

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

Old dude Bradly Morahan is innocently paying the Cora Ryan the JB to model nude so he can paint her and then complications arise because she's underage and gets false rape accused by older foid. Roasty gramma is jealous and screeches at him about it being "rape" and how she is "underage" and

Anyone who hasn't seen it you can watch it the entire thing for free here from archive.org/details/age-of-consent-1969


View: https://archive.org/details/age-of-consent-1969

Spoiler: here is the ending

even after drunk gramma blackmails him under threat of filing a false rape accusation to police, she's greedy and also she steals the modeling fee from the daughter.he daughter wrestles it back and in process pushes roasty off cliff to her death.

the only thing disappointing about this is the actual actress portraying Cora wasn't under age - Helen Mirren was born in July 1945 so she was 23 when this debuted in 69. They never actually specify what the age of consent is or how old Cora is, but I expect she's meant to be a busty fifteen year old.

 

[BlackPilledOverdose]

0:17 1960s version of reddit roasties and soy boys chimping out over a 21 year old man dating a 14 year old foid.

 

[Zhou Chang-Xing]

Yes, but what's actually disgusting is if she were a little kid. Teenagers are biologically adult but socially underage which is why I find the age of consent being higher a good thing, as there are actual power dynamics that older people can abuse.

But I doubt that an actual small child would be deemed acceptable. Though I'm sure I'd be called "an agecuck" for thinking this.

 

[Mecoja]

I wish i had a power dynamic over a 15yo girl.

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

what's actually disgusting is if she were a little kid. Teenagers are biologically adult but socially underage which is why I find the age of consent being higher a good thing, as there are actual power dynamics that older people can abuse.
But I doubt that an actual small child would be deemed acceptable. Though I'm sure I'd be called "an agecuck" for thinking this.

15 year old girls wield far more social power than 99% of adult men.
Teen girls are not "socially underage" at all in respect to men. At best this power imbalance only exists with adult women.
This was true even in 1969 and you can see it at play in this film where the guy's life could be ruined by a false accusation just by a third party not even by the girl herself.

I can't have specific debates with you over vague terms like "little kid" or "small child" though because I don't know by using that if you're referring to teens (13-19) or younger.

This film is based on a 1938 biography by artist Norman Lindsay (born 1879 so he was 59) and takes place in Australia. He actually had to publish in Britain, Australia banned the book until 1962 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Lindsay#Career

Going by https://apo.org.au/node/41113 (page 6 of 108) it seems by the 1890s the AOC in Australia had consistently been raised to 16 pretty much everywhere, so her being 15yo JB remains my estimate.

 

[sub8male]

Yes, but what's actually disgusting is if she were a little kid. Teenagers are biologically adult but socially underage which is why I find the age of consent being higher a good thing, as there are actual power dynamics that older people can abuse.

But I doubt that an actual small child would be deemed acceptable. Though I'm sure I'd be called "an agecuck" for thinking this.

You wouldn't be called an agecuck for saying a small prepubescent child is unacceptable, but thinking 15 or even a tad younger teen is socially underage is definitely agecuckery, if you even know what that term means.

15 year old girls wield far more social power than 99% of adult men.
Teen girls are not "socially underage" at all in respect to men. At best this power imbalance only exists with adult women.
This was true even in 1969 and you can see it at play in this film where the guy's life could be ruined by a false accusation just by a third party not even by the girl herself.

I can't have specific debates with you over vague terms like "little kid" or "small child" though because I don't know by using that if you're referring to teens (13-19) or younger.

This film is based on a 1938 biography by artist Norman Lindsay (born 1879 so he was 59) and takes place in Australia. He actually had to publish in Britain, Australia banned the book until 1962 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Lindsay#Career

Going by https://apo.org.au/node/41113 (page 6 of 108) it seems by the 1890s the AOC in Australia had consistently been raised to 16 pretty much everywhere, so her being 15yo JB remains my estimate.

People literally make up things out of nowhere, "socially underage", as if that is anything remotely tangible and not just a result of brainwashing.

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

You wouldn't be called an agecuck for saying a small prepubescent child is unacceptable, but thinking 15 or even a tad younger teen is socially underage is definitely agecuckery, if you even know what that term means.

A small prepubescent girl is an unacceptable target for a huge horse dick because it would permanently maim her.

The only exceptions would be Helen Parr since she was born with stretching powers so you could fuck her when she's a 5 minute year old baby without damaging her body.

People literally make up things out of nowhere, "socially underage", as if that is anything remotely tangible and not just a result of brainwashing.

Well nothing "social" is "tangible", we can still discuss the concepts of society as meaningful long as we keep em in realistic perspective as the artifice it is, and treat biological sciences separately. We tend to conflate government behaviors of a given time as what reality is.