No, it's guaranteed to be true based on the way the sentence was constructed. You're still using circular reasoning. Rather than explain it, change the ages to 65 and 7, and see if you can still write the above with a straight face.But that can be true. There's probably nothing wrong with base jumping, as long as the individuals understand the risks involved, they should be free to try it. If they land safely, then it was a great adventure.
It wasn't the first movie of that kind and it won't be the last. Society didn't just suddenly turn on a dime after that movie, dumb ass. And I said "intrigued" not "endorsed". There is a certain level of endorsement, however, with things that intrigue people. The point is, it's not totally taboo. It's supposed to be half intriguing and half inapprpriate and shocking. If the girl were 11 instead of 18, even if the actress was 18, it would be taboo and widely condemned. The examples of outrage were relatively minor. It wasn't like the ACLU or some Christian parants organization tried to get the movie banned.But that's probably not the case anymore.
That was your job, not mine. In order to show a double standard, you have to show how the same people who condemn one thing, failed to condemn another thing of similar kind. These are apples/oranges, beginning with the reasons I already explained -- the popularity and type-cast nature of the leads. But your comparison goes downhill from there. Showing nudity is different than showing a controversial relationship.No idea, can you show me some articles saying that people were outraged about the penises in Euphoria?
Male nudity is gaining popularity as a way for liberals to take revenge against the objectification of females in art and film since time began. I'm not a liberal, and so I am uninterested in supporting such a campaign by watching these kinds of movies myself. However, if I condemned the making of a movie like Euphoria on moral grounds, then I need to be equally outraged at the hundreds of 80's coming-of-age films that showed female nudity.
You picked the wrong comparison. If there is anything morally wrong with your movie, it's probably a subtext of sexism. In young-girl / older-guy dramedy, the young girl is always the aggressor. In young-guy / older-woman movies, the older woman is always the aggressor.
You'll have to count them and let me know for sure. I would say this movie played it really safe, having a 21-year-old actor play a girl who was 18. It's probably true that Hollywood doesn't dare push the age differences below 18 as it used to do. In the 90s, the movie American Beauty with Kevin Spacey got high reviews and the girl he liked was 16 or something, and the actress really was 16. There was also a 90s movie about a girl pursuing an older guy and she was 14 or 15. I highly doubt it showed them doing anything. But even just implying a relationship between a middle-age guy and underage girl is probably taboo enough today that such a film wouldn't get made. That I think is definitely true. Do you see that as a problem?But it's not as common as it used to, it's becoming less common. You won't find a lot of new movies about older men with women under 25.