TheStarsOfTheLion

Oh, after check the ep more carefully, it seems that Hero picked on Pop because Pop ridiculed his writing multiple times, so Hero pulled cruel pranks as payback.
And he stop bullying Pop not because Pop's poor, but because he heard that Pop doesn't have mother (just like him).

Age of consent is still matter, because it the age someone can do sexual activities. Even if it's acting, if a 27 actor French kisses a 14 actor in a country with AoC of 15 then he can be charged with sexual assault. So AoC is the baseline.

I agree with voicing concerns and asking questions. And if some here have time and opportunity to dig into what happens behind the scene, to know if there are any corruption and abuse of power, it's great. Though, making accusation and calling names before they have any proof of infraction as a few here have done previously is another matter.

Regarding flashbacks of Gu Hai & Bai Luo, I highly doubt they would do it. I'm not sure, but highly doubt it. It's a big no-no on Gu-Hai part and would gets lots of flames, costs some sympathy from audience. There's a chance they may do it, but that would be stupid.
As for actors' age, there are two periods of time in the source material: high school and around a decade later. Maybe they want their actors to reflect that?
About age of consent in Thai, it's 15 with a twist (not allowed with persons of trust: guardians, persons with power of attorney, ect.).

Your concern, I can agree.
But this part - "And how arguments about age of consent do not apply for a filming and distributing content, and child pornography laws discussions would make sense" - I would not. Filming and distributing content does not automatically make it porno to pull pornography laws in here and disregard and "do not apply" age of consent.
Prove it to be porno first, then talk about porno laws. Otherwise, with just intimate contents then it would be age of consent that would be taken into consideration. None here managed to prove it as porno yet, they only made a fuss about the kissing and intimate scenes typical of BL genres and the actor's age. None of the things warranting porno laws happened, and yet you want to pull it in.
I repeat, you're making a mountain out of a molehill, with malice intention.

Perhaps, it's as you said.
Still, as I said, pornography is a serious label so don't apply it carelessly. Prove that this series do child porno first before insinuate it as such.

Regarding "50 shades of grey", I haven't watched it, as I don't like explicit sexual contents in movies and TV series. I see them as a cheap way to gather attention instead of focusing on plot. I'm surprised when you said that there's barely any sex there, that's what it's infamous for! Maybe there's a chance that you watched the cut version of it? Since I heard that some contents was cut when aired in some countries.

Back to the topic, the movie is an example that cinematic business worldwide uses intimate scenes for quite a long time already, and quite boldly at that, not just BL industry. Not everything intimate was considered obscene.
In the end, pornography is a serious label; don't apply it carelessly.

I agree that laws can be elusive sometimes and depended on the ones upholding it.
Though, I think it's still too early to pull pornography into this. I can't claim anything for I can't see the future, I can only say that uncut contents may not necessary contain explicit sexual contents (bedroom activities). It may just contain kissing scenes, strong languages, violent actions. It's because they may show it all in Thailand, but in some countries where age of consent is 21 perhaps then all of kissing scenes needed to be cut (even those done by the 27-year-old actor because he's still depicting a high schooler), or in some countries where strong languages and violent actions are not approved then it need to be cut too.
It's just too soon to label it, and porno is a very serious label.

To apply child pornography laws here, it needs to be proved that this series is pornography first.
If by Thai standard, this is pornography then it would be judge accordingly. Though, given that even "50 shades of grey" can still be showed in theaters in many countries without being deemed as porno, claiming this series doing porno so soon at this moment would be like making a mountain out of a molehill.

Pornography would be applied to pornography laws. My country's laws, for example, states that 16 is age of consent, but outlaws all pornography contents, no matter whether it's 16 or 61 => charged.
And it needs to be proved that this series is pornography first before condemning it to filming child pornography. But, seeing as even heavy sexual contents such as "fifty shade of grey" is still not considered porno in theaters, I doubt this series would qualifies.

Show me where you see that "rated 18+". Proof.

"I’ve used many examples of what other Thai actors and dramas have said or done to form the basis of my opinion regarding the Thai entertainment landscape, you just don’t care" - I don't see how this would be applicable to this thread here. And if we do into it, then in a reply to you from another thread, I already point out that if there are abuse then you need to remove the abuse, not remove the actor's chance to develop.
Protecting children should be universal, but the definition of which age, which action, which degree of intervention varies and there is no universal one.

I acknowledge that the age gap can be a concern and make some people uncomfortable. A 20 and a 40, despite both being adults, would cause uncomfortable too.
I know that rules and standard varies from country to country, from people to people. And I have no problem with them voicing their own, or making they own decision regarding supporting this series or not.
However, some commenters here were not just voicing their opinions, they judged the film maker and supporting audience using their own standard and their own laws, called names such as horrible, disgusting, child abusers, pedophile. That was where the objections with their comments came from, at least in my case.

I don't try to excuse it, just explain the reasons behind his behaviors. The character of Hero is an douchebag. In the original source (book), his character would still be so for quite some time :)

You gave an omitted information regarding a 18 sleeping with an 15, in that the 18 may be charged with lack of consent but cannot be charged with the age of their partner, to target at the people saying there is nothing wrong with the age.
You know things are not always black and white, and yet you can't see that the violation of ethical codes you're talking about is according to YOUR ethical codes, not the universal one as there is none of such thing. The problem is that you cannot accept the concept that other people's ethical codes are not necessary align with yours, and yours is not the only one valid.
You can express your concern, your dislike with casting decision, your opinion and belief, but you don't address other people criticizing them for how they don't see things the way you do and how they don't judge things according to your standard, as you have done in other threads you made.

"he himself couldn't even watch it due to the age rating" - I see no proof for that claim. You pull it out of your ass, don't you?

Time and time again, you have prove that you only see YOU as the only one that matter with a moral superiority.
The Thai government is bad. The film makers is bad. The actor's parents are bad. The decision of the actor himself is bad. All because of some theories and hypothesis.

Hero is a mean kid, grew up in military environment, lost mother at young age, lacks father's affection, and his father just get remarried to another woman whom Hero sees as a replacement for his mother. He's bitter. And he admits that Pop remind him of that woman's son, so...

Mac is on the set, that means he wants it, and his parents or guardians would have given permission for it, as per laws require, else there would be lawsuit from his parents. You're objecting at nothing here.

As for Japan's previous age of consent, 13 may be too low. However, that is merely a personal opinion, not the things to force others to abide by. And that's a problem with the laws. If the laws is bad, then address it and change it, not attack citizens for lawfully abiding by the laws.
Just as when Chinese outlaws LGBTQ+ contents, if people have problem with it then they need to change it, not to critique the film makers for removing LGBTQ+ contents from their products as per their country's laws.

As I have said in another reply to you elsewhere, you lack logical thinking. It's best for this conversation not to be continued.

I agree that we should end it here. You seem to lack logical thinking.

The topic here is the topic creator asking about her particular situation. You bring in the conversation from elsewhere.
You went off the topic.
I didn't say you misrepresented, I say you created the misrepresenting by not following the topic. I won't bother with you trying to twist things.

And for the third time, my question for you still went unanswered: "If that is not your intention, then what is?"
If you still not answer that, then it's true that you intent to insinuate that the others are wrong for not doing your ways.