The Elephant In The Room - Real Genius

[GEMINIGUY]

I meant to Post this somewhere for years but kept forgetting about it, I want to hear everyone's opinion.
I Posted this here because this IS a movie. It could also be under Sex Talk, maybe. The thing is , there an elephant in the room when it comes to this movie.
I'd heard about and finally saw it end-to-end maybe ten years ago. Now Val Kilmer gets top billing in this film, but the main character is a boy named Mitch who is a genius.
Now considering what has happened here at KB, this has been a hot bed subject and I don't think anyone discussed this when the movie came out in 1985. Mitch is very underaged. As a subplot, he has the hots for a College girl - very overage, correct? Mitch admits his feelings to her and offscreen she takes his v-card.
How did Real Genius get away with this? Simply because we never saw it? Really?!? I just don't get it . . .

[MissBarbara]

I meant to Post this somewhere for years but kept forgetting about it, I want to hear everyone's opinion.
I Posted this here because this IS a movie. It could also be under Sex Talk, maybe. The thing is , there an elephant in the room when it comes to this movie.
I'd heard about and finally saw it end-to-end maybe ten years ago. Now Val Kilmer gets top billing in this film, but the main character is a boy named Mitch who is a genius.
Now considering what has happened here at KB, this has been a hot bed subject and I don't think anyone discussed this when the movie came out in 1985. Mitch is very underaged. As a subplot, he has the hots for a College girl - very overage, correct? Mitch admits his feelings to her and offscreen she takes his v-card.
How did Real Genius get away with this? Simply because we never saw it? Really?!? I just don't get it . . .

Get away with what?

While I've never seen "Real Genius," it's one of hundreds and hundreds of movies that depict people under 18 in love with, or lusting after, people over 18. There's nothing illegal about that, especially since, as you note, the "action" takes place off screen.

I would not describe the average college student as "very overage." The majority of college students are 18-22, making them only a year or two past the legal age. At the same time, kids in their later high school years are typically 16-18, and that's hardly "very underage."

You (along with others) miss one very important point. You write, "Now considering what has happened here at KB..." What's happening here -- the proscription against underage stories -- has absolutely nothing to do with legality, illicitness, or even morality. It's entirely due to the fact that KB's host does not allow underage content, and they will shut down the board -- as they've already done temporarily at least twice -- if this content continues to appear on the board.

I get it: You and many others dislike the fact that underage content has been proscribed on KB. There have been many posts over the past two years "protesting" and "condemning" this decision. Like it or not, agree with it or not, it's a reality, something that has been put in place for clear and obvious reasons. It's not an "elephant in the room," it's a simple reality.

[GEMINIGUY]

I meant to Post this somewhere for years but kept forgetting about it, I want to hear everyone's opinion.
I Posted this here because this IS a movie. It could also be under Sex Talk, maybe. The thing is , there an elephant in the room when it comes to this movie.
I'd heard about and finally saw it end-to-end maybe ten years ago. Now Val Kilmer gets top billing in this film, but the main character is a boy named Mitch who is a genius.
Now considering what has happened here at KB, this has been a hot bed subject and I don't think anyone discussed this when the movie came out in 1985. Mitch is very underaged. As a subplot, he has the hots for a College girl - very overage, correct? Mitch admits his feelings to her and offscreen she takes his v-card.
How did Real Genius get away with this? Simply because we never saw it? Really?!? I just don't get it . . .

Get away with what?

While I've never seen "Real Genius," it's one of hundreds and hundreds of movies that depict people under 18 in love with, or lusting after, people over 18. There's nothing illegal about that, especially since, as you note, the "action" takes place off screen.

I would not describe the average college student as "very overage." The majority of college students are 18-22, making them only a year or two past the legal age. At the same time, kids in their later high school years are typically 16-18, and that's hardly "very underage."

You (along with others) miss one very important point. You write, "Now considering what has happened here at KB..." What's happening here -- the proscription against underage stories -- has absolutely nothing to do with legality, illicitness, or even morality. It's entirely due to the fact that KB's host does not allow underage content, and they will shut down the board -- as they've already done temporarily at least twice -- if this content continues to appear on the board.

I get it: You and many others dislike the fact that underage content has been proscribed on KB. There have been many posts over the past two years "protesting" and "condemning" this decision. Like it or not, agree with it or not, it's a reality, something that has been put in place for clear and obvious reasons. It's not an "elephant in the room," it's a simple reality.

You said Get away with what? Exact

I meant to Post this somewhere for years but kept forgetting about it, I want to hear everyone's opinion.
I Posted this here because this IS a movie. It could also be under Sex Talk, maybe. The thing is , there an elephant in the room when it comes to this movie.
I'd heard about and finally saw it end-to-end maybe ten years ago. Now Val Kilmer gets top billing in this film, but the main character is a boy named Mitch who is a genius.
Now considering what has happened here at KB, this has been a hot bed subject and I don't think anyone discussed this when the movie came out in 1985. Mitch is very underaged. As a subplot, he has the hots for a College girl - very overage, correct? Mitch admits his feelings to her and offscreen she takes his v-card.
How did Real Genius get away with this? Simply because we never saw it? Really?!? I just don't get it . . .

Get away with what?

While I've never seen "Real Genius," it's one of hundreds and hundreds of movies that depict people under 18 in love with, or lusting after, people over 18. There's nothing illegal about that, especially since, as you note, the "action" takes place off screen.

I would not describe the average college student as "very overage." The majority of college students are 18-22, making them only a year or two past the legal age. At the same time, kids in their later high school years are typically 16-18, and that's hardly "very underage."

You (along with others) miss one very important point. You write, "Now considering what has happened here at KB..." What's happening here -- the proscription against underage stories -- has absolutely nothing to do with legality, illicitness, or even morality. It's entirely due to the fact that KB's host does not allow underage content, and they will shut down the board -- as they've already done temporarily at least twice -- if this content continues to appear on the board.

I get it: You and many others dislike the fact that underage content has been proscribed on KB. There have been many posts over the past two years "protesting" and "condemning" this decision. Like it or not, agree with it or not, it's a reality, something that has been put in place for clear and obvious reasons. It's not an "elephant in the room," it's a simple reality.

You asked Get away with what? Which was exactly my point. I know they got away with a lot of stuff during the '80s, and they were very sneaky here. Early on they tell us Mitch's age. Maybe they were hoping we'd forget? Even though there was no sex shown, it was implied to have happened "between scenes".
Not that I'm personally complaining.  I love the movie, the older girl was hot and older women is one of my fantasies. I just wanted to get other thoughts on this.

[purpleshoes]

There are a lot of main stream books and movies that go beyond anything we'd be allowed to post here. Mostly they are just briefly touched upon and are not the central theme of the work, but consider the novel Lolita. There's not a chapter in that book that could be posted on KB without running afoul of the host's rules.

[MissBarbara]

You asked Get away with what? Which was exactly my point. I know they got away with a lot of stuff during the '80s, and they were very sneaky here. Early on they tell us Mitch's age. Maybe they were hoping we'd forget? Even though there was no sex shown, it was implied to have happened "between scenes".
Not that I'm personally complaining.  I love the movie, the older girl was hot and older women is one of my fantasies. I just wanted to get other thoughts on this.

You're missing the obvious point that there's no comparison whatsoever with a movie produced in 1985 and internal rules established on KB in 2023 --  close to 40 years later.

How did that movie get away with suggesting (but not depicting) a sexual relationship between someone under 18 and someone over 18? It was submitted to the  Classification and Rating Administration of the Motion Picture Association of America, which gave it a PG rating. Clearly the MPAA watchdogs didn't think it "got away with" anything.

There's nothing "sneaky" about that movie, based on your descriptions. Relationships of this type have been subtly -- and sometimes overtly -- depicted in thousands of movies, TV shows, and books for decades. Many of the R-rated "sex comedies" of the 1980s and 1990s depicted sexual relationships between younger people and older people, and none of it was illegal. Then, of course, there's "Lolita" (the book and the movie), which includes a much older man and a much older woman.

All of this has nothing to do with KB's internal rules, which were established for very obvious reasons.

[Writers Bloque]

You asked Get away with what? Which was exactly my point. I know they got away with a lot of stuff during the '80s, and they were very sneaky here. Early on they tell us Mitch's age. Maybe they were hoping we'd forget? Even though there was no sex shown, it was implied to have happened "between scenes".
Not that I'm personally complaining.  I love the movie, the older girl was hot and older women is one of my fantasies. I just wanted to get other thoughts on this.

You're missing the obvious point that there's no comparison whatsoever with a movie produced in 1985 and internal rules established on KB in 2023 --  close to 40 years later.

How did that movie get away with suggesting (but not depicting) a sexual relationship between someone under 18 and someone over 18? It was submitted to the  Classification and Rating Administration of the Motion Picture Association of America, which gave it a PG rating. Clearly the MPAA watchdogs didn't think it "got away with" anything.

There's nothing "sneaky" about that movie, based on your descriptions. Relationships of this type have been subtly -- and sometimes overtly -- depicted in thousands of movies, TV shows, and books for decades. Many of the R-rated "sex comedies" of the 1980s and 1990s depicted sexual relationships between younger people and older people, and none of it was illegal. Then, of course, there's "Lolita" (the book and the movie), which includes a much older man and a much older woman.

All of this has nothing to do with KB's internal rules, which were established for very obvious reasons.

Too true.

Like in The professional, it was hinted at that about halfway into her training, Natalie Portman's character was falling in love with Leon, but he rebuffed her advances. But no one called it out for that because of the context. I mean Like MissB said, That is that and KB's Rules are KB's Rules. Look at weird science, my science fair project, war games, back to the future, etc. It was in the popular culture, in my opinion because back then it was just a little spice for the story, not that I condone it, but it was barely accepted. Now, even the tiniest breath of it will get you condemned to hell and back. It was the times back then.

[Pornhubby]

There is no elephant in the room. Because there is no universal rule concerning underage material.

KB has a very conservative set of content rules. This came about for two reasons.

First, we were becoming a pedophilic website that primarily revolved around underage stories and material. And it was having a negative effect on membership and other content. At that point (2018), we decided nothing under the age of 13 would be allowed. And a lot of people left over it.

Second, the entire website was shut down twice in 2023 over underage content. At that point, we decided not to allow anything under the age of 18.  No photographs under the age of 18. No stories under the age of 18. The Sears catalog is racier than KB in this regard.  You can’t post a photo of the Brady Bunch here.

Is it necessary? Who knows. Pornhub is now unavailable in half of the United States. And Project 2025 is vowing to “eradicate pornography” in the United States in the next four years (despite the fact our President elect is a convicted felon who paid sex hush money to a porn star). That is the real elephant in the room.

So we’re just doing the best we can with the hand that was dealt. Do we like it? No. Would we choose to do this if we didn’t think it was necessary? No.

I’m sure I could compile a list of hundreds of movies, magazines, and books, involving underaged sexual activity. If you just read the news, there’s going to be a story about a teacher or coach or priest/minister or scouting leader engaging in illicit sexual activities . We just aren’t going to make this forum be the host of that. There are MANY other places to find that on the Internet.

End of rant.

[Dudester]

I can completely understand why KB would ban under 18 anything. Unless you have a server in a country where the long arm of the US can't get to AND you have a staff committed to under 18 material, it is dangerous to post any underage sympathies and material.

When I was 14 I met a girl my age that I took an immediate liking to and when I asked her out, not only did it turn out that she was married, a lot of girls in the area her age were also committed or married. Suddenly, a light bulb went on in my head about a great many things. That was the way it was in the mid 1970's. The US federal government finally got around to banning under 18 film and pictures in 1978 and this only happened because Brooke Shields played a 12 year old prostitute in a movie and there were plenty of scenes where she didn't wear clothing. Then there was the Tracy Lords situation.

Tracy posed nude for Penthouse magazine a month before her 16th birthday and a year later she was the biggest porn star on the planet. The entire Tracy affair came to light because Tracy got a passport (to make a porn movie in Japan) using forged documents. Federal authorities were waiting for her when she got back and Tracy named names. It turned out that Tracy wasn't the only under 18 in porn, but she was the best known. The porn industry quickly tightened up their rules and cleaned house.

The "Me Too" movement, in 2017 claimed a victim of the earlier mentioned era. David Hamilton took artistic nude pictures of girls under 18 (published a number of books with the pictures) and he produced five films with this kind of theme. This happened from the mid 1970's to mid 1980's. When the whole Me Too thing went down, one of David's former models said that David did more than take pictures. David ended himself before a full investigation could ramp up.

In 1995, a major scandal happened in Belgium as it turned out that a number of government officials were trafficking and using girls. There is a great movie (The Memory of a Killer) about the scandal. As the trials happened, European countries began tightening their rules about age of consent as well as literature.

Finally, a Belgium like scandal is about to explode in England. It has been said that gangs of Arab men have been abducting and raping girls, and that's not the horrible part. English police have either been arresting and jailing people that spoke up about it or have warned people to keep their mouths shut about it, or else. Being that Prince Andrew has already been embroiled in one sex scandal, it is rumored in England that one or more royals are somehow connected to this whole thing.