TheStarsOfTheLion

I think you're attempting to give misleading information.
"Age of consent being 15 in Thailand does not automatically mean people over the age of 18 cannot be charged with sleeping with a minor. They very much still can." - This is true, because there is an element of consent being involved. However, having sexual behaviors without consent is an infraction regardless of age, whether it's 15 or 51. In this matter, a 15 and a 51 are no different.
The only other restriction of having sexual encounter with someone in range of 15-18 in Thailand is person of trust, meaning that the guardians, the persons with power of attorney are not legally allowed.
None of the above is the case here in this show.

So "we" is not related to me and the topic creator. In a topic, an exchange between me and topic creator, you come to talk about something that's not related to it.
You went off the topic, you intentionally created the misrepresenting. Admit that?

Now, if we talk about my other comments from OTHER TOPICS, then those were written to reply to people who were trying to say that the series crew was wrong for abiding by Thai laws and casting a 16, and calling them as well as the audience who want to support this series with names such as horrible, child abuses, pedophile. All because their standard are at odd with the crew's lawful decision.
"Also where did I say others are wrong? Where did I say the audience is bad for supporting it?". Despite you trying to refuse it, you still haven't answer my question: "If that is not your intention, then what is?".
WHAT IS YOUR INTENTION when you created the first comments replying to me?

If Thai laws allows Mac to be cast, then respect Thai laws and let Mac be cast.
If Thai entertainment industry is abusive, then address and remove the unlawful abuse, not prevent actors from lawfully taking the roles.

The nature of what you're doing is overbearing. You're using "protecting children" as excuse to take away their right to choose for themselves.

The laws say that Mac is legal to make decision for himself, and here you are saying that what he chooses doesn't matter because he wouldn't know what's good for him. And the audience who support his decision are horrible creatures.

You try to make it as if 16 is prepubescence. Fact: A 16 can legally date and kiss a 30 in real-life, so a 16 kisses a 30 on scene is nothing wrong. Just because you feel uncomfortable about it, it doesn't mean they're wrong to do it.
You may think it needs to be 18 to be old enough. Others decide 16 is old enough already. Some others decide it needs to be 21. Your age standard is not the one true way in the world that everyone must be wrong for not following it.

In the end, it's just you wanting everyone to live the way you decree.
I will conclude:
-Mac has legal right to join this series's crew.
-The crew has the legal right to accept him.
-Mac is within the age allowed to be intimate with others, regardless of whether the others are 18 or 27 or 60.
-If Mac, the crew, the series's audience are doing it legally, what is your right to condemn?
-You disliking the age difference between 16 and 27 is your own personal opinions. Just that, personal. You don't get to decide how the others must live.

You said I quote incorrectly, but look at what you quote me: “others shouldn’t be concerned”. Where did I write that?
On the other hand, you wrote "We are just saying we can’t support it and feel it is a poor choice", what is the "we" here?

Then back at the topic, the topic creator post a comment asking for whether she should watch it, since the age of consent in her country is 16. I said that if her country allow it then she shouldn't be concerned at the age problem and should choose by her interest.
Then you come picking at me for how could I not be concerned. Even though the country, either mine or that of the topic creator, deems that 16 is already matured enough for sexual behaviors, you demand that I must disagree with it because your standard say otherwise.
If that is not your intention, then what is?

You can disagree and dislike the series producer's decision, and you can not watch the series. But don't come saying they are wrong, or other audience are bad for supporting and watching it.

I will get this over with first. You demand an answer for your question? I will answer: I don't agree with killing gay people. But that is no excuse for you to demand Thai people to disregard their standard of 16 and must abide by your standard of 18.
The Chinese ban LGBTQ+ contents and not agree with it, must your country also ban LGBTQ+ contents following the Chinese, too? You don't agree with them, they don't agree with you. Why they must follow your rules and not you follow theirs?

Back at the main problem, the reality of the situation is that, by the laws where the series was made, there is nothing wrong with 16 and 27, and a 16 can date a 27 for real in real life not just on scene. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong. What base you rely on to judge it? Your country's laws?
You said "Who is meddling in another country’s laws? No one here", and yet you come to a Thai series created by Thai people in Thailand to voice up that they are wrong to follow their rule and ethic instead of your laws. And I must not allowed - quote you: "can't" - to support it. You not only want to force the series producers but also other audience from all over the world to follow your rules too.

I really ask for the explicit reason why we must do as your standard instead of our own.

It is the same in the sense that fictions and reality should be differentiated. When you see on scene two high school students together, there is no problem. It's only when you look at it and match the real-life actors together that you think it's a problem, but the action of matching real-life actors is the problem itself.

You tried to use "killing" excuse for your meddling of other country's rule. Your country say it needs to be 18, their country say it's only need to be 16. What's your right to demand that they must do your way and their 16 are not allowed to do the things they want?
You must respect a country's laws and ethic regardless. An example is that Football World Cup 2022 was held in Qatar, where all homosexual behaviors are outlaws, and all participants from all over the world must abide by it when they were there.

Stop demanding others to live your way.

P/S: If you're already familiar original material, then you should know that they won't bring all of it on scene, even if they use adult actors. You're trying to create problems where there's none.

The actor I mentioned in my second paragraph can be either actor, but it's mostly August, since I don't know much about Mac.
The actor I mentioned in my first paragraph is Mac. He's still young but he want to have an opportunity, we shouldn't stop him.
Nevertheless, crazy fans will be crazy fans; nothing would stop them from popping up and stalking and wanna control an actor's life, whether in this series or others. Call them out when they appear, but those wrong behaviors from some outsiders shouldn't be the reason to prevent Mac from his career advancement. Else, it would only empowering those wrong behaviors.

I see that you use western production as an example of media reaction. But western production has their own problem as well. That is if it's a cast between a 16-year-old girl and 30-year-old man there would be outrage indeed, but a cast between 16-year-old boy and 30-year-old woman won't raise anything. The double standard from their feminism movement is a thing nowadays. They are not exactly genuine and shouldn't be the standard for a Thai production.

Lastly, if there are truly abuse on set, then you should target that problem, the abusing itself, not actor's age. Abusing can happen and shouldn't be tolerated regardless gender or age.

False excuse.
There is a job opportunity and actor himself want to take it. You mean to prevent him from doing what he legally want. There is no "protecting" here.

Also, you're delusional.
The series here are about two high school student characters, no grown men here. It's you who like to ship real-life actors that would look at it and dream up about the actor who is mostly straight and may potentially has a girlfriend to be in relationship with a guy.

You don't use your country's rules and your way of living to force Thai people to live by it.
They are Thai people create a Thai series in Thailand. Please, respect others' laws and ethic.

A wall cannot give reasons and facts. I did.
It's you who relied on your personal assumption and cannot give feasible reasons.

Whether you will watch it or not, your choice. Just don't say it's wrong or call its audience names. That would be slander.

It's you who miss the parts that:
- Their ages were legal the moment the movie was made. Whether it's wrong or not would need to be judged by the laws at that time, not by today's laws when they raised the age up.
- That is "current laws" in US, or is it Europe? The TV series here is in Thai, and Thai current laws says it's legal.
- The actor and actress of Romeo and Juliet sued the film makers for filming scenes without their knowledge and haven't been agreed upon beforehand, not because of their ages.
Read the whole article instead of one line.

Consent is not the topic here.
The topic here is that whether using actor of 16 is wrong or immoral. Since he is already at age that's legal and can give consent, then it's not wrong. It's about "age".
Only when after the series was aired, the actor voices up that there are scenes that was taken without his agreement, then it's about "consent". If so, the film makers would be sued because lack of consent, not actor's age. However, whether the actor has agreed or not isn't what was talked about here (re-read the comments from the top, please). So it's just about "age".

If a 16-year-old can lock lips and make out with an elder man/woman in the middle of a park for all to see without needing input from anyone else, then doing it on scene is no worse than that, as long as they agree to it.

"Age of consent does not apply to the entertainment industry having minors film intimate scenes. These are two separate scenarios."
YOU, personally, say so. The rules and the laws doesn't align with you. I repeat again: Baseless.

Firstly, I already pointed out that this is no porno.

Secondly, AoO is relevant here and is the suitable defense, because it's the written law and the base people rely on to decide where someone has done wrong or not.
On the other hand, your requirement of 18 is pulled out of nowhere and has nothing to back it up. What did you base on to decide the actors must be at least 18? Is it what "you think", or "your neighbor thinks", or "one of my teachers thinks", or "a stranger think"? Baseless.

Sprayberry is the proof that the labour laws you mentioned doesn't apply, as well as actors can already act with matured contents.

The link you gave, it's about "consent", not "age". Actually, that article further prove that the ages of 15 and 16 (the ages of actor and actress in1968 Romeo and Juliet) are already legal, and okay to shot intimate scenes (even in nude). That movie even got famous. With the attention it got, if it was wrong or immoral, the producer would have been punished for that reason already. It's not.
The problem presented in that article is consent. And consent applies to everybody, even adults. However, consent is not the topic here.

This is no pornography, and yet you wanna apply pornography law, while treating AoC as irrelevant.
Be logical, please.
And there are 16-year-old actors in North America. Dylan Sprayberry, at 16, joins the cast of TV series Teen Wolf in which there are kissing girls (actresses older than 18), gore, assassins with murder attempts.

"just like wiping your baby's butt while changing their diapers isn't considered sexual abuse, while the very same kind of action in a different context very well would be."
I understand and I agree.
However, the context here is that it depicts two characters in a romantic relationship which there are intimate gestures involved. In fan-service, it may be just professionalism but that is still what it depicts, between two real-life persons off-scene, no longer two characters on scene.

I will repeat what I said: "The American way of the age of consent of 18 is not the only way of living in the world".
You said "the age of consent DOES NOT mean that its automatically okay for a 15 year old to shoot explicit content there are stricter regulations for that but it doesn't mean its ethically okay", then I ask you to stop for moment and ask yourself which base and which reason and which ethic you rely on to decide whether it's ethically okay or not. And whose base/reason/ethic was that? Is that a universal ethical rule that every country and every person, Thai people in particular, must abide by?
And if you still not being able to understand, then here are some food for thought: Chinese government outlaws series/drama featuring LGBTQ+ contents then should this drama be made and aired? Some South-Western Asia countries rule that homosexual behaviors are crime and punishable by death then should that rule must be made here in this series too?

Context and intention are important in some case, yes. However, no matter of the context or intention, an underage cannot give consent, so neither their acting partners nor directors nor fan-service organizers can lawfully ask them to do sexual related behaviors. Please, don't encourage unlawful actions.

However, we shouldn't focus on what isn't the case here. The case here is that both actors are above age of consent. They can have s@x to each other and non can say them wrong, let alone just kissing or touching. And the audience of the show (age 15+) are already lawfully capable of doing the same.

And what required age is "older" enough on television? 20? 30? 40? I suspect you said "18". By what standard do you decide that, where is the hard written rule of age 18 or whatever age you said? What is the base for your claim? Give me a logical reason, please, not "you say/think it so".
They use older actors for younger roles in the cases those roles are below age of consent which can give them lawsuit otherwise. However, it is not the case here.

Thai laws says that 15 year-old are allowed to engage in sexual behavior, not just romantic. You say Thai ethic and ways of living are immoral with "how immoral this is", yet there wasn't any reason presented for why it's immoral, it's only so because you said it so.
Your way is moral and Thai is immoral: Racism.

Most countries in the world consider the age of consent are from 14 to 21. By your "mid-to-late 20s" definition then nearly all countries in the world are wrong, and you shouldn't watch anything featuring romantic relationship with actors below 30 in it.
One can have their own standard, but don't call others names for not following it. Sadly, that's what some commenters are doing.