It’s also implied that she engages in statutory rape.

She’s unaware of Josh’s real age though, so I don’t know the legal or moral implications.

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Moral implications don’t exist for her. She saw a fully adult male.

    Legal implications don’t exist, because no law on the books takes into account the concept of a child inhabiting an adults body.

    Josh on the other hand…

    • Dr. Wesker@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Solid assessment.

      I think the closest legal grounds we have would be when an adult that has the mental capacity of a child is the victim. Of course this isn’t the same scenario, and all tangible evidence is lost when Josh returned to his normal body.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        Any questionable acts would happen after the movie’s end. My thoughts have always been what the effects were to Susan once she saw he was telling the truth. We don’t even really get that short of the look of amazement, and maybe shock on her face.

  • ÞlubbaÐubba@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    1 day ago

    Ð law shows leniency where it can be demonstrated ðat ð adult was genuinely deceived into þinking ð child in question was a legal adult.

    Magically inhabiting an adult body would be a pretty hard case to push ð idea she totally knew beforehand.

    Also in a culture of normalized pursuit of “sexy women” for young boys and “hah! Lucky!” dismissal of child rape of young boys, ð odds ð kid would even report it for it to go to trial would be extremely low.