Board Thread:Character Discussion/@comment-34563899-20180218220444/@comment-91424-20180219184102

Aine1989 wrote: Who cares if we don't know exactly how old Neal was? We know he was much older than Emma. Even if he was biologically 18 (which is next to impossible) we know he was over 300 years old. I refer back to TVD/Twilight. A 300 year old adult taking advantage of a child is the same as a 23 year old taking advantage of a child.

If you care to read my rebuttal, there is nothing "obvious" about Hook's statement, and you have to ignore everythign from that scene, the next scene and his character in general to make your statement slightly plausible. What I want to know if why you are determined to twist canon to make a character you dislike a rapist while ignoring a case of rape.

I'm not going to enter into the statutory rape discussion, but Neal is actually 200 old, not 300. Neal is a bit younger than Hook (Hook was already an adult when Neal/Bae was a young teenager) and Hook is 200. We know this from the following dialogue from "Family Business":

Hook: "Believe it or not, I was once a child." Emma: "Yeah, like a million years ago." Hook: "It was more like 200."

And from the following dialogue from "Murder Most Foul":

David: "Yes, you have my blessing." Hook: "Thank you." David: "I didn't realize you were so old-fashioned." Hook: "Well, I am over 200 years old, mate."