Grimreaper

I've thought about this a lot, and I think the age of majority should be 21 years old and the age of consent should be 25 years old.

18 is too young to be legally an "adult"; they're still in high school most of the time. I think 21 is a better age; they are in their 20s, so not a "teenager" or a "child". At that age you can sign up for the military, join the police force, or become a firefighter. Handle your own finances, sign a lease, etc.

I think 25 is good for the age of consent because at that age the brain is fully developed. If a 25-year-old wants to consent to sex with someone in their 40s, 50s or 60s, they should be allowed to, but 21-24-year-olds should not be able to consent to sex with much older adults because they aren't able to and shouldn't have that choice yet.

Unpopular opinion, but R-rated “teen dramas” like Euphoria should just be set in college.

The characters don’t look or act like teenagers. They’re played by adults, doing adult things—clubbing, drinking, hooking up, and having way too mature relationships for high school. Yeah, some teens experiment, but not like this. If you removed the scenes at school, everyone would assume these characters are 21-25.

Character ages should make sense narratively. Nickelodeon and Disney shows like iCarly or Victorious worked because they were actually about teens, played by teens, written for teens. Even Spider-Man makes sense as a teenage story—he’s a kid juggling real responsibility. But with Euphoria, it feels like they just made everyone “15” for shock value.

If your show’s rated TV-MA and aimed at adults, just make the characters adults. It’d be more believable and way less creepy.

I know this might be an unpopular opinion, but I really think R-rated teen dramas like Euphoria should be set in college or centered on young adults instead of high school students.

First off, the “teens” in these shows don’t look or act like actual teenagers. Most of the actors are in their twenties playing 16-year-olds. Sure, sometimes you’ll find a 25-year-old who looks 17 or a 17-year-old who looks older, but that doesn’t mean everyone in high school looks like a full-grown adult.

Then there’s how they act. These characters go clubbing, drink constantly, have casual sex, and talk like people in their twenties. Yes, some teens do that, but not to this extreme. Relationships in these shows are also written like adult relationships—serious, dramatic, and way too mature for high school. In some cases, the teenage characters are even involved with adults, and the shows barely acknowledge how wrong that is.

Take Euphoria, for example. The characters are supposed to be 15 or 16, but they act like they’re 21 to 25. It’s a TV-MA show made for adults, so why make the characters children when the target audience is clearly 18–25? If you removed the scenes of them going to high school and kept their ages ambiguous, most people would just assume they were college students.

Also, character ages should serve a narrative purpose. Teen shows about actual teens make sense when the story fits that age group. Shows like iCarly, Victorious, or Drake & Josh worked because the actors were real teenagers, and the shows were written for kids and teens. Even though the situations were ridiculous and comedic, the stories were about friends hanging out—something their audience could actually relate to.

Look at Spider-Man, for example. Peter Parker being a teenager makes sense narratively. He’s a kid juggling adult responsibilities—taking care of his aunt, worrying about bills, trying to survive high school, all while being the only teenage superhero in a world full of adults. That’s why people relate to him. But it wouldn’t make sense for heroes like Daredevil, Batman, or Superman to be teenagers because their worlds and responsibilities are built for adults.

That’s the problem with a lot of these modern “teen dramas.” They want the intensity and freedom of adult stories but still call the characters teenagers. If the characters are going to act, look, and live like adults, then just make them adults. It would make the story more believable and a lot less uncomfortable.

Fridging is when a love interest gets killed just to push the main character forward. It used to mean a woman getting hurt to make a man act. Now it covers any partner dying to pump up the plot.

Here’s the cold truth. A romantic loss is the only loss that actually justifies losing your head over it. If your boyfriend or girlfriend dies, that grief can spiral into obsession or a need for revenge. That is story fuel. Everything else is background noise.

An uncle, a child, a best friend, a parent, a teammate getting killed is not tragic nor is it enough to be sad and enough to motivate you to be a hero. Those losses might be a little sad but they do not automatically justify turning your life into this crusade against injustice. They are not dramatic enough to demand you drop everything and hunt a killer down.

So yeah, fridging as a device works because romantic love is one of the few things audiences treat as absolute.

Whenever there is a story about a main character who is depressed because their best friend, parent, or child dies, I just can't get into it, and I'm always like, "Please get over it," because this isn't enough to be depressed over, and it's not enough to want to become a good person.

Clark and Lois are not as attentive to Jon's needs as they are to Jordan's, but their reaction (or lack thereof) to Jon breaking his arm was particularly egregious. One line that stood out to me was when Lois said, "It could have been worse," in response to Jon being upset about getting hurt and possibly not being able to play football again. It came across as incredibly dismissive and callous. This is compounded by the fact that neither of them bothered to check on Jon when he stormed off. (In fact, he is not seen again for the remainder of the episode.) In short, Jordan seems to get all the attention and support, while Jon is basically expected to take everything on the chin while also being a "good brother".

Don't get me started on the XK. Jon doing drugs is not wrong, especially in comparison to all the lies Clark and Lois told them. Jonathan has no powers, and Jordan does. Clarke spends more time with Jordan. He doesn’t realise that he’s doing real harm by spending most of his time with Jordan. That’s why he took the drug in the first place, but of course Clark doesn't care about this.

Overall they pretty much just emotionally abused and neglected Jonathan. In season 1 Jonathan told his dad he wanted to leave Smallville and go stay at his friend's place and cut contact with Clark and Lois, and Clark said, "No!" and I was like, "WHY?!" Why can't Jonathan leave? Let him go stay with his friend in Metropolis; let him go live with his Aunt Lucy. Fuck, let him go wherever he wants to go; that's not Smallville. Jonathan literally has no powers; he lost football, his friends are arseholes, including Sarah, and his girlfriend is a poor former drug dealer with a poor criminal father. Like, dude, just let him go; he'll have a much better life with Clark and Lois not in his life at all, actually. For 4 seasons Jonathan wants to be left the fuck alone, and these people just keep fucking with him. Jonathan was minding his own business in the first fucking place, and they moved him to Leatherface town. THEY KEEP FUCKING WITH HIM FOR NO REASON!

If real people got powers, do you think they would all become corrupt, evil psychopaths?

I know Superman fans may not like this, but the act of keeping a secret identity has always involved gaslighting, lying, and manipulating people. My question is: between Light Yagami/Kira and Clark Kent/Superman, who’s the better liar, manipulator, and gaslighter?

Do you think people who illegal street race are 'bad people'?

I've always had this question about exclusive private schools for extremely rich kids, like kids from multi-multi-millionaire families. This question applies to private schools from elementary to high school. Do their private chefs just pack them lunches, or do private schools have high-end food for lunch in the cafeterias?

This question is for ‘hero’ in all forms: realistic, fiction, superhero, comic book, anime, etc. Let’s say a person is flawed, or is very arrogant, or has a superiority complex, etc., but also does heroic things—like being a firefighter, doctor, wizard, superhero, whatever. Do you think that person is still a hero despite having negative personality traits?

Street racers aren’t criminals. To me, being a criminal means intentionally hurting people, scamming, stealing, or exploiting others. Street racing is illegal, sure, but most people do it as a hobby because they love cars and racing and just becuase you break the law doesn't make you a "criminal". I hate how games like Need For Speed always paint racers as villains when the reality is way less black-and-white.

To clarify, I don't mean an employee sleeping with their literal direct boss. Here is what I mean: if a 23-year-old police officer is in a romantic or sexual relationship with a 57-year-old police captain, sergeant or lieutenant, then that 23-year-old police officer should be promoted to detective or something or at least have some authority in their unit. Now that's just an example; this goes for any job: firefighter, doctor, military – anything really. If you are old enough to consent to be in a relationship with someone who is a higher rank, then I think that should qualify you to at least move up to some degree.

I'm not saying give that 23-24-year-old the biggest position in the job, but move them up a rank or two.