You make a valid point, but it doesn’t change the fact that the headline, and, by extension, the framed discussion, is entirely wrong. You may decide to consider that this piece is really about Marion Ravenwood and her experience, but you aren’t entitled to demand others view it through your revisionist lens. Barsanti…

Having relations with someone the day before they turn 18 may be just as illegal as having relations with a prepubescent child, in the sense that both actions are not legal, but, they are not the same thing. That’s not endorsing or even defending the action; it’s just a simple and obvious truth.

The headline links Indy with pedophilia. Ergo, this is the discussion. Some here are pointing out that the 1930s setting/1980s production time were different eras, and that (say) a 26-y.o. sleeping with a 16-y.o. was considered less taboo back then, but I don’t see a single commenter approving of whatever Indy did. So,…

It’s irrelevant to the morality and legality of the act itself. It - and the frequency of the action over a lifetime - are not irrelevant when considering whether Henry Jones, Jr. has the psychiatric disorder of pedophilia.

Premeditated murder and impulsive serial killing murder are both wrong, but they’re not the same thing, and the words used to describe the two are different. Somehow, however, no one complains when those terms are used accurately.

No, I wrote it correctly, and it displayed correctly when I tried to edit it, but the published post came out scrambled both times.

Other people being a-holes is no reason to be sloppy with language. Epstein was a a rapist, sexual predator, and a horrible human being, but, to my knowledge, he was an ephebophile, not a pedophile. Making accurate statements aren’t if of themselves defenses.

Acting upon pedophilic and ephebophilic desires are both morally and legally wrong, but they are, in fact, different.

You’re free to consider sources from outside what’s explicitly stated in the film as canon, but others aren’t obligated to do so. So, yes, based on what is said/shown onscreen, it’s indeed possible to interpret Marion as having been 18, i.e., literally not a child, at the time of the incident in question.

Apologies for the grammatical mix-ups, but it’s Kinja’s doing, not mine. I tried to edit it, and it reads correctly in edit mode.

Sigh. I know basic research and/or general accuracy is too much to ask of Barsanti, but here’s the standard definition for “pedophile”:

Showrunners, prestige directors... without a great script to start from, it’s all crap.

“Yes, because that doesn’t happen at countless other events (e.g. proms, homecomings, parades, quinceañeras) for teen girls and women of every fucking ethnic group.”

So this time, Barsanti’s level of snark is... snarky headline paraphrasing snark from noted irate person Russel Crowe, but he [Barsanti] actually agrees with, and is validating, said snark? Crikey, couldn’t we just say nice things about the 2003 film, and belay the snark entirely for once?

Django Unchained is much better than Kill Bill.

A lot of that alleged $200m probably went into the acquisition of Millar’s production company - i.e., straight into his pockets, for his oh-so-shiny IP. Not that that at all justifies such a number...

“It’s the slumber party of the decade, and no boys are allowed.” - Well, that’s refreshing. Because if there’s one thing teenage girls’ slumber parties are notorious for, it’s equitable gender representation.

You have a different definition of “obvious” than most people.

The phrase “stuff that dreams are made of” is also an obvious reference to The Tempest, but I guess even rudimentary familiarity with Shakespeare isn’t a requirement for culture writers around here...

Sigh... guess I’ve gotta make the point once again: would you wish someone a “Happy Holocaust Day”? Is “Have a Peaceful Memorial Day” too hard to express/too much to ask for?