MovieChat Forums > LadyBug > Replies
LadyBug's Replies
In NJ, 16 is the legal age of consent. But I got the impression they were in California, I don't remember why I thought it.
Also, people weren't so quick to ruin a man's life over consensual sex if the girl was old enough to know what she was doing back then.
In the case of the movie, maybe they were both 16 when she was born, or she was 16 and he was 17.
Carrie probably made it happen. My guess is she just wanted to end it all.
Was he the one who hated kids? And when he was a kid he hated himself?
Which is the whole point. She had no money of her own, or she would have been able to buy a replacement suit on her own.
How is that "ridiculous?"
Cindy was not able to go and buy a new suit on her own. She would have to use one of her mother's credit cards to do so. Remember, she was offering to work for a replacement suit because she did not have any money of her own?
And yet a lot of women (at least here in the US) think they are such a great catch. I read in interview with the real woman this movie was based on. She aid something about her ex like "best of all, he wasn't an American man!" Really?
Funny. She wanted American men to go get her daughter.
At the end, pictures showed Rose doing the things she spoke about, like riding the horse "like a man" and other things. She probably would have enjoyed an "adventure" life for a while.
Was the money Cal had put in the coat still there? If so, they would have lived on that until it ran out.
But eventually she would have wanted to settle and get married, have kids, etc.
That's when they would have split.
But I see her wishing him luck, no bad feelings.
Then going on with her life.
Cindy didn't have money. She got it all from her mother. The credit cards belonged to her mother. And her mother would probably notice that charge on one of her cards, for that suit.
I am white but not a liberal. My family only goes back to the early 1900s in this country.
Tell me why I am "supposed to" feel "guilt" over slavery.
Or why someone is responsible for what their ancestors who they never met did.
Does that mean the children/grandchildren of the people who a trucker nearly to death during the Rodney king riots are responsible for what they did?
Or any descendant of a criminal is responsible for what their criminal ancestors did? Even if they never met them?