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
    36
    ·
    5 days 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
      9
      ·
      5 days 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.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 days 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.