quesosoup

LMAO 😭😭

Of course, anything I can do to make this more clear for everyone! Thank you for all your compliments, you're great and I wish you all the best as well! I just saw the recommended list, these people are too funny 😭😭😭

For those still questioning the legality of this series, yes, it is legal for it to be aired and produced in Thailand. However, I see that some people are mistakenly assuming that age of consent laws are the only laws that matter when it comes to a minor being involved in an 18+ series like this one, claiming that it is legal in most of the world. In fact, it is not. Below is a list of several countries where airing this series would be illegal, along with the specific laws in those countries that prohibit it:

1. United States:
Law: Under the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) and the PROTECT Act, even simulated sexual content involving minors can be illegal. These laws prohibit any visual depiction that "appears to be" a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, regardless of whether the minor is real or the content is simulated. This includes virtual or digitally altered images.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/child-pornography).

2. United Kingdom:
Law: The Sexual Offences Act 2003 and Protection of Children Act 1978 also cover simulated sexual content involving minors. The UK broadly defines child pornography to include any representation or simulation of a child engaged in sexual activities.

Source: Crown Prosecution Service, Guidelines on Child Sexual Abuse (https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/child-sexual-abuse-guidelines-prosecuting-cases-child-sexual-abuse).

3. Australia:
Law: The Criminal Code Act 1995 in Australia does not differentiate between real and simulated content when it comes to minors. Any depiction of a minor engaged in sexual activities, even if simulated, is considered illegal.

Source: Australian Government, Commonwealth Criminal Code (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00179).

4. Germany:
Law: German law under section 184b of the Strafgesetzbuch (German Criminal Code) prohibits the production and distribution of child pornography, including simulated content. The law targets any portrayal of minors in sexual contexts, whether real or digitally created.

Source: German Law Archive, German Criminal Code (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1472).

5. France:
Law: France’s Penal Code prohibits any representation of minors in a sexual context, whether real or simulated. This includes both physical and digital depictions.

Source: French Government, Legislation on Child Protection (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGISCTA000006165778/).

6. Netherlands:
Law: Dutch law, under article 240b of the Wetboek van Strafrecht (Dutch Penal Code), criminalizes both real and simulated child pornography. The legal definition includes any form of depiction that sexualizes minors.

Source: Government of the Netherlands, Penal Code (https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/).

7. Japan:
Law: Japan’s Act on Punishment of Activities Relating to Child Prostitution and Child Pornography includes both real and simulated depictions of minors in sexual contexts within its prohibitions.

Source: Japanese Government, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography Law (https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/).

This is what I found after just a 10 minute search. In all the countries listed, the depiction of minors in sexual content is illegal, whether the content is real or simulated. There are more countries with similar laws, but this list demonstrates enough that age of consent laws are not the only regulations that must be followed. The purpose of these laws is to prevent the exploitation or sexualization of minors, regardless of the medium or method used to create the content. Therefore, producing or distributing such content, even if it is simulated, would still be against the law in these jurisdictions. When releasing a series internationally, such as this Thai series, it must comply with the laws of the countries where it is intended to be distributed.

Here's a link that contains an interview with the directors: https://youtu.be/T0gvqRKZmFA?si=UqJ2O9QCSLQ6GdEM

Here's the link to the trailer as well that shows a few sexual scenes: https://youtu.be/AocTFUh9ISg?si=V5mmpsYOmxUZRzSr

They don't mention the uncut version of the series from what I remember, but I believe the first episode of the uncut version has already been released. Uncut versions of BLs are known to contain additional sexual content that wasn't present in the original version, and they also usually require payment if you're watching it through a streaming service. Though, since it is illegal for this to air in multiple countries in the western hemisphere, the only way to watch it as an international viewer is through a pirating site, or a VPN, though I don't really know how VPNs work so don't quote me on that. This is only allowed due to the age of consent law in Thailand, and that Mac's parents provided documented legal consent for him to act on this series, since he is below the age of the majority.

Yeah it's pretty good! Surprisingly, despite it being heavily censored since it was produced in China, they still somehow managed to bypass China's ban on bl by including two kiss scenes lmao (though they were kinda censored as well 💔). Girlboss move tbh

In my opinion, the original Chinese one was very well acted and directed, but I personally didn't really enjoy it because I don't think they navigated the toxicity of their relationship responsibly. Not to imply that a toxic relationship is automatically bad when it's written, but I believe there were better ways they could've gone about it.

Stay With Me, however, was nice in my opinion. They kept the general plot and character concepts the same, just with a lack of the toxicity that was in the original story. The acting was pretty good as well. I liked the soundtrack too 😋

Aside from everything, Stay With Me is far better than any of the other adaptations of the original novel tbh.

Exactly. Some people argue that "the parents wouldn’t allow Mac to act in this if they thought that it was inappropriate," but the reality is that parents exploit their children in the entertainment industry all the time. Examples include Britney Spears, Macaulay Culkin, Drew Barrymore, Judy Garland, Corey Feldman, Lindsay Lohan, LeAnn Rimes, and many others. Unfortunately, child exploitation is not uncommon in this industry, whether it’s by parents, managers, or companies. Given what we know about this company, the director, and the content of this series, it’s entirely reasonable to suspect that something similar might be happening here.

A lot of people are more concerned about the casting choice of a minor for the role of Poppy than they are with the show itself, since this series has a lot of sexual content that someone of Mac's age arguably should not be acting in, especially since he is paired with a 27 year old.

I understand and agree that the actor likely has a strong support system of family, colleagues, and fans who care plenty about him. However, raising concerns about this situation isn’t meant to undermine that support or disrespect the actor. It's about addressing the broader industry practices that can lead to exploitation, regardless of the support an actor may have.

This isn't about calling anyone "money hungry" or "immoral." It's about critically looking at the decisions made by the company and directors, who have a responsibility to protect all actors, especially minors. Pointing out potential issues doesn’t disregard the care others have for him; it’s about advocating for the safest and healthiest environment possible for young actors.

Since you've looked through the comments, you've likely seen the same pieces of evidence that those with concerns about this series are pointing out. But to make my perspective, and that of many others, clear, I'll reiterate some key points. First, this company has a history of hiring minors for 18+ roles. Specifically for this series, Yuan, one of the directors, mentioned in an interview that they were deliberately looking for minors to play these characters. While it could be argued that this is because the characters are minors, it's important to remember that these are fictional characters in an 18+ show with highly explicit content. It would arguably be more appropriate to cast adult actors for such roles. Furthermore, the director stated that this adaptation will retain all the explicit content of the original, and possibly more, as they plan to adapt the entire novel, including chapters that were not covered in the original televised version. These sexual scenes will also be included in an uncut version of the series, which will, surprise surprise, be behind a paywall.

If there is strong evidence proving that Mac isn't at all being exploited, I’m open to hearing it. But until then, it’s senseless to argue against those with valid concerns when you could be explaining why there’s nothing wrong with casting a minor in an 18+ role. Your point would likely be more effective if you made logical arguments instead of shaming those who are concerned for the actor’s safety.

Regarding how this show will unfold, one of the directors mentioned that it will include much of the 18+ content from the original Addicted series, and even mentioned that it might be 'even more spicy.' What exactly he means by that, I'll leave to your interpretation. The 18+ scenes, from what I can gather, will be included in an uncut version of the series, which will be behind a paywall. This suggests to me that the company isn't just trying to stay true to the original, but might also be attempting to exploit minors by involving them in simulated sexual content. In an interview, one of the directors revealed that from the very beginning, they were specifically looking for teenagers to play these roles. Given their history of frequently casting minors in 18+ roles, I find this intent concerning.

Thank you, by the way, for respectfully sharing your opinion. I do try to listen to opposing views, but it’s difficult when people make ignorant or bizarre arguments or are outright rude when someone is simply expressing their concerns. I don't understand how some can argue that Mac is mature enough to grasp the situation when they themselves aren't mature enough to refrain from insulting a stranger online for having a different opinion.

Thank you for sharing your views. My reason for asking these questions is that some individuals are using the law to justify casting a minor in the role of Poppy, as though the law itself is inherently ethical and can never be criticized.

I understand that ethical values differ from person to person. However, I have yet to see anyone genuinely argue that this situation isn't unethical or that exploitation couldn't at all be occurring here. Exploitation of minors in the entertainment industry has always been an issue globally, whether it's by parents, managers, companies, etc. This particular company has a history of casting minors in 18+ roles, and dismissing their concerning choice to cast a minor alongside a 27 year old simply by citing the age of consent in Thailand is ignorant. Even if we rely on legal arguments, it’s important to note that anyone under 18 in Thailand is still considered a minor. The only reason he was able to participate in this show is due to documented parental consent. He clearly isn't an adult, so what is he?

My main point is that while everyone is entitled to their own perspective, it doesn't make sense to dismiss others' valid concerns with arguments that don't address the core issue. I believe some people may feel the need to defend this series because they want to enjoy it. It's perfectly fine to enjoy the show itself, but it’s not right to dismiss others' legitimate concerns simply because you don't share them or care for them. This isn't directed at you specifically; I’m not sure where you stand, but I wanted to clarify my point and the concerns others have raised.

Since this is a bl and everyone is talking about laws here, can someone give me their views on if it is right that China has banned bls? Or if it's right that gay marriage is illegal in multiple countries, especially in the continent of Asia? What about if it's right that gun laws in America are becoming loose to the point that anyone without a license can also own one? Let me know what you guys think.

This isn’t about picking a fight; it’s about expressing genuine concern over the casting choice. Whether the legal age of adulthood is 18 or 20 (most sources say 18), it doesn’t change the fact that he’s still very young. You implied that his acting experience makes this less concerning, which is why I brought up his age.

I’m not trying to take responsibility for anyone’s actions, but it’s troubling that some people dismiss concerns about casting a minor alongside someone who's pushing 30 for an 18+ role. Just because it’s legal under Thai law doesn’t mean it’s ethical. Laws set minimum standards, but ethical responsibility often requires more. This isn’t "pointless hate"; it’s a legitimate discussion about the ethics of their casting decision.

It’s especially worrisome considering that this company has a history of hiring minors for 18+ roles. Even if those around him, like his manager or parents, haven’t objected, that doesn’t make it okay. It’s not unheard of for celebrities to be exploited by their parents or the companies they work for when they were minors, so public concern is entirely justified. The public has a right in questioning practices that may exploit young actors, especially when their well-being is at stake. And while it’s true that it’s Thailand’s responsibility to change its laws if necessary, ethical concerns are not limited by borders. In today’s media, and on a platform like this—designed for sharing opinions from people all over the globe—people from all cultures and regions have the right to question practices that might harm individuals, regardless of where it happens.

If you’re not concerned about that, fine. Though I, and many others, are. Enjoy the show if you like, but there's no need to defend it when there are clear ethical issues at play.

Better yet, since this is a more convenient option, how's about you go to your local police station and make the same arguments you're making here over there? Let me know what they said girly

The fact that your only response to a factual argument was a sarcastic remark speaks volumes on your way of thinking lmao, goodday 💀💀

And id do it anyways, they are pedophiles for purposely hiring minors constantly for 18+ roles. Me being faceless on this site isn't going to make a difference on my view lol.

That is not how the law works. A minor cannot legally have sexual relations with a grown adult, no matter if the minor is above the age of consent in Thailand. Please look up how the law works before deciding to use it as an argument.

No fr that's so creepy... why try to reason with pedos I guess

They're loud and proud fetishizing children kissing grown ass men ig lol