Board Thread:Character Discussion/@comment-28162607-20170103120839/@comment-1916997-20170105003749

Aine1989 wrote: CoolDudeAl wrote: Aine1989 wrote: CoolDudeAl wrote: Here's my two cents: the math is weird because writers usually aren't very good at math. Even J.K. Rowling initally messed up the math in Chamber of Secrets with Nearly Headless Nick and his deathday (it was corrected in later editions). So forget the actual ages, the intention is that Emma was 17 when Henry was concived and 18 when she gave birth. But that is not the big problem here, the big problem is you are acting like Neal is some 40 year old man who was heir to a crime family or something. Neal is like a 21 year old orphan, who has to resort to crime and the like, because he has no real identification, due to coming from a different world. The actual age is impossible to say, because he was 14 in London in 18XX, but then when to Neverland for 100+ years, and didn't age. But it doesn't matter, we know he was in his early 20's, and we know that the male brain doesn't fully mature until like 28. Basically, it is unfair to say that Neal was some really mature adult, and Emma was a naive little girl, when they both had about the same level of maturity. Are you seriously trying to play a "men are just immature" card to try to make a relationship between a child and adult ok? As I have stated (twice) basic maths puts Emma at 16 when she was with Neal.

Emma was a little girl, who was starved for love her whole life and Neal was an adult.

And may I point out that he did not have to resort to crime? He had a job which he then compromised because "the manager was asking to get took". Your making it like a 16 year old girl is some naive child, I went to high school, those girls knew exactly what they were doing. And they were girls who had a stable home life. Emma, having to fend for herself, would be much older brainwise. Also, I like how you completely ignore my (and everyone else's point) about how Neal was not that much older, and how he spend 100+ years as a 14 year old boy. If you don't like Neal, that's fine, but you don't need to try and justify it by making Neal like he is worse than the 10+ actual villains on the show, who commit everything from murder, to rape, to theft, to kidnapping, to god knows what else. In the grand scheme of things, whatever crimes Neal commited, don't even rank in the top ten of terrible things done by characters on this show. I mean Emma's current love interest is literally a pirate. Think about that. Well technically, Neal did commit statuatory rape and theft.

23 is much more mature than 16 (which, while it is not a naive age it's not mature enough to think about sex with an older man or starting a new life with your boyfriend). I love how you ignore every single time I point out that there is a huge maturity difference (and power imbalance) between Neal and Emma at that stage. People have pointed this out already, but Neal didn't statuatory rape Emma, as they were in a state where 17 is the legal age to have sex (which Emma was, your just going to have to believe us when we say the writers suck at math). As for the theft part, yes Neal commited theft, as did Emma, Snow, Robin, and about 100 other characters on this show. As for the maturity difference, that is all subjective. I know 16 year olds that are more mature than 30 year olds. Not everyone matures at the same rate. You are percieving that difference and the power imbalance, but the show did not frame it that way at all. This isn't to say Emma and Neal were the perfect couple, and that every 17 year old girl should go and get pregnant, but the point of the show is to show something that could really happen, and girls do get pregnant at 17 (and younger). Basically, both Emma and Neal were young and stupid. If Neal was so mature, as you claim, he wouldn't have let some random guy convince him to leave Emma and to go to jail. Everything is relative.