Why in hell in the 1980s and early 1990s, there was an entire genre of movie of "kid fucks older woman"?
Like how in fuck did this genre get past censors?

>>212438886 (OP)
It is based that is why.

>>212438886 (OP)
As the first anon stated, it's based.

>>212438886 (OP)
I guess it was before people pretended to be angry over stuff that made them horny.

>>212438886 (OP)

>>212438886 (OP)
Basically, the movie industry used to be filled with pervert. The thing about perverts is that they make good art. Now the movie industry is filled with normies and normies do not make good art. Normies make trashy slop.

So, if you want movies to go back to being good, the public will have to learn to develop a certain level of artistic tolerance for perverted topics such as /ss/.

>>212438933
>whole movie teasing it
>nothing happens
yup, it be SHITTE

Because it's fucking hot.

>>212438886 (OP)
>op’s barely disguised fetish

>>212438886 (OP)
>>212438933
Sylvia Kristel and Eva Green resemble each other a lot and they both made SS kino
Coincidence?

>>212438962
>used to be

>>212439006
If the movie industry was still filled with perverts we would have much better movies in cinemas today than Marvel 458: The Return of Capeshit or Star Wars 336: Eat My Shit, You Fat Hog.

>>212438886 (OP)
So when my teacher asked why I'm tired, sleepy and not paying attention I tell her what movie I watched at night and make her smile

>>212438964
The whole point of the movie is basically this meme.
She loved her husband enough to bring him back to life, but at the consequence of having to eventually give him away to another woman.

>>212438962
>used to be filled with pervert
>used to

>>212438962
My friend's cat got permabanned for webm from one /ss/ comedy, even 4chink becoom redditified

>>212439047
>If the movie industry was still filled with perverts we would have much better movies in cinemas today than Marvel 458
This is a really idiotic statement, plenty of shitty B movies all over the place. Keep your mouth shut.

>>212439004
The year before, Eva Green made a movie where she is a pervy school teacher that creeps on an underage girl.
Strange.

>>212439053
...so?

Capeshit killed real movies. And even if they started making them now rightoids would screech about degeneracy, Jews, Weimar and similar nonsense.
Most of them watch only Marvel slop so they don't know anything about movies released in 1960s-1990s.

>>212439105
Can't self-insert in that kind of film so I have no interest.

>>212439053
A society grows great when women raise cocks on which they shall never sit.

>>212439125
Solution is simple.
Fuck off from our entertainment industry and let normal peopel make movies again, leftard invader

>>212438933
>when she's bent over in the sweatpants
yeaaaa

>>212439233
>invader
>film started as a left wing artform

>>212439233
What are your favorite films? If you have any taste at all, I can already guarantee that they were not made by "normal people". Normal people do not make good films because normal people are boring and good films aren't boring.

>>212439233
this really got em boilin quick

>>212439288
Because it's obnoxiously braindead of you to whine about leftists in a medium that has been dominated by left-leaning artists since its very inception and in which most of its master practitioners were some variety of left-wing (or at least subversive). Even Goebbels admitted that Eisenstein was a genius and Battleship Potemkin was a masterpiece. Why are you in denial?

>>212439257
the means of production was owned and operated by the community as a whole and profits shared among them rather than by a private company?

>>212439105
What did the Scott family mean by this?

>>212438962
Nope. Before it was filled with perverts but their perversions were aligned with normal people. Sex with hot babes with big tits? Hell yeah.
They were also well read and had life experience besides writing.

Now they are still perverts, but their perversions are repulsive to normal people. Gayshit? Troons? Uggos? Fuck off retards!
And they are uncreative, homogenized, diversified and have no life experience. And their literacy is basically informed by reading social media posts. And obviously their personality is their twitter politics nobody irl agrees with.

>>212439334
I'm that not anon, you're seething unironically in a thread about revenge of the nerds.

>>212439257
>Things that never happened
>we were always at war with eastasia
leftards never created anything, only subverted stuff made by normal people

>>212439275
Quirky retards are only interesting to other quirky retards. That's why they come in bubbles.

My favourite films can't be reduced to an handful of picks. I like many shits for different reasons. And those "leftists" that made them would be called far right and nazi by you invader

>>212439334
As usual you stretch the label ('leftists' in this case) to encompass everything that's convenient for you.

Fucking source me already.

>>212438886 (OP)
What movie?

>>212439517
>>212439546
I can't take anyone seriously who would dismiss Charlie Chaplin or Orson Welles or Sergei Eisenstein or Vittorio De Sica as "leftards invaders". They defined and pioneered the medium more than practically anyone and, yes, they were all vocally left-wing (Sica and Eisenstein were open communists, Welles was an FDR-style social democrat, and Chaplin was a virulent anti-fascist who frequently voiced sympathy for the USSR.)

>thread about /ss/ kino
>muh left and right
Just fuck off faggots

>>212439687
>they were all vocally left-wing
You would call them nazi and far right now, and they would hate you and our ideology

>>212439347
>profits shared among them rather than by a private company?

>>212438886 (OP)
Shut the fuck up, you pathetic piece of shit.

>>212438962
>used to be

>>212438886 (OP)
this is way more common nowadays

>>212439125
The whole anti-woke movement isn't even that political, it's just complaining that the quality of propaganda has dropped

>>212438933
Where was Mommy Eva when I was a wee little lad?

>>212440640
With another wee little lad

>>212438886 (OP)
Prudes like (You) deserve a bullet to the head

It was and still is feminists controlling everything is the reason why everything is shit. Now men are pathetic eunuchs who can't express themselves in fear of 'scaring the hoes'. Even the Jews don't have this much power of people.

>>212441830
This post gives me the ick...

>>212440640
Dumbass. It must be hell to lose your virginity and innocence that young to some cunt who can't control herself.

>>212441879
>It must be hell to lose your virginity and innocence that young to some cunt who can't control herself.
Actually it would feel really, really good.

The Cold War was over and everyone was like YAY WE CAN FUCK CHILDREN NOW

movie is called private lessons btw

>>212439105
Literally what Simone de Beauvoir used to do, it's a French woman thing

>>212439233
Leftists have always made kino though
Eisenstein, Goddard, Cy Endfield, Fritz Lang, etc.

>>212438886 (OP)
you frigid faggot

>>212441919
I loved my first Masturbation by myself but in 2 months after that I lost my mind craving that dopamine. My grades fell, my eyesight worsened and my innocence disappeared. It was like a time rift and I crossed over to the other side. It sucked all my energy. That was just for a wank. Thinking about my milf teacher at the time.

I can't even imagine how much I would have crashed out if I experienced actual SEX at that age. Especially with a woman.

Pedophiles need to be cruficied you dumb edgy cunt.

>>212438886 (OP)
Gender swap for equality please

>>212439125
>YOU CANT KEEP DOING NOTHING AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT
guess I’ll continue to not watch your gay faggot shit

>>212438886 (OP)
Age gap relationships didn't used to be so massively controversial. Anyone remember that WW2 film with Kate Winslet where she's fucking a teenage boy in Nazi Germany?

>>212438886 (OP)

20th century = Nonce City.

>>212439618
Private lessons

>>212438886 (OP)
There’s a clip of Lauren holly from picket fences where she seduces a kid that’s popular on the socials right now

>older female fucks younger male
“Fiiiiine, I guess we’ll make it a crime…”

>older male fucks younger female
“OMG IT’S ANOTHER SICK FUCK!!!11”

…why?

>>212438962
I’M SORRY HARVEY

>>212442421
Yeah when boomers were growing up, it was completely normal for like a 13 year old to marry a 22 year old, especially in rural areas.
This carried over a lot into movies.
People didn't really become super precious about "age gap" until the 1990s. As an 1980s kid, most of my friends parents are like seperated by 10-20 years in age.

>>212439170
I'm sure that sounded very deep and profound in your head.

>>212443180
Jews. Always Jews. Jizzlane was the ring leader. Epstein was the fall guy. Jews Jew other Jews sometimes.

>>212443244
No it wasn't you dork

>>212443284
Yes it was lol.
>In the 1960s, The legal minimum age for marriage in many places was 14 for males and 12 for females.
Priscilla married Elvis when she was 14 and he was 24.
When I was in high school in the late 1990s-early 2000s, all the "hot clique" girls were dating college students in their 20s, they were 14-16.

coom

>>212442135
You would call those "leftists" nazi and far right now.
Leftards never created anything.

>>212438947
When in my late 20s a co-worker nearing 60 recommended Harold and Maude with a certain emphasis. And even as I took the hint, I found the courtesy of it flattering as the offer.

Any movies with the opposite that don't paint the man as a bad guy?

>>212438933
get in the bed anon

>>212438886 (OP)
If they're not ugly hags using coercion and force, I don't understand your contempt for it. I don't think you could even find one of these movies where the older woman is ugly and past their prime. That would fall into a whole other genre, some very serious, dark, crime-drama. But these are fun, uplifting, romance movies with a titillating taboo angle made to appeal to primarily a male audience who keenly recall their youth. This kind of film isn't made anymore due to the ongoing War on Men.

>>212439517
> they cum in bubbles
Go on…

>>212439687
>Welles was an FDR-style social democrat
He literally praised Tito on Yugoslavian TV. He was further left than he led on during the days of the Red Scare.

>>212444091
> I don't think you could even find one of these movies where the older woman is ugly and past their prime.

>>212438886 (OP)
When I was 8 I remember I wanted to fuck my 4th grade teacher. Ms Baker, petite blonde who always wore summer dresses. Barely knew what sex was but I knew I wanted to do "something" with her.

>>212443133
That was a dream sequence, it didn't happen in the show's "reality."

>>212444719
Just before anyone takes your rebuttal seriously, they have no sexual relations. So I remain unrebutted.

for me, it's The Reader and the first Narnia movie

>>212445012

>>212443099
>What happened to him, should happen to you
Holy fuck lmao.

>>212438933
What movie is this?

>>212438947
Correct. It's seems like all the live action porn out there is about mother/son incest and all the cartoon porn is about women fucking little boys. We're a high level of sexually repressed culturally but what people are looking at in private is saying a lot about what they really like.

>>212445165
boku no pico

>>212445231
Actual answer plz

>>212445278
boku no filename

>>212445434
Come onnnnnn dude
stop being gay

>>212445474
Womb (2010) with Eva Green.
Next time you can check the filename or just google the actress and read movie descriptions to see what fits.
Here's my "teach a man to fish" moment of the day.

>>212445054
Really? I could have sworn there's a scene where they wake up in bed together.

>>212445518
Good little bitch.

>>212445790
Don't try to pull the "I was only pretending to be retarded". I've been here since 2007, I know when I'm being a teacher to the special ed kid.

There's a ton of pedoshit all around in 70s/80s/90s media. Naive America was blind to it at the time.

>>212438886 (OP)
>Why in hell in the 1980s and early 1990s, there was an entire genre of movie of "kid fucks older woman"?
Name 15

Women weren't held to the same standard as men nor should they have been.

>>212445872
Out of 10!

>>212438886 (OP)

Blue Velvet is hot.

>>212445183
It’s part of a lost cultural memory where older women taught younger men how to please women, and said men would grow up to utterly mindbreak a young girl with cataclysmic orgasms and pair bond for life.

>>212439433

Ridley needed more fap material.

post more hot webms ffs

>>212445660
Ah you're right. Wikipedia synposis didn't appear to mention it. That's really beyond the pale, nasty, and kinda unrealistic, because that granny wouldn't be feeling sexual desire. It's one of those exceptions, perhaps the only exception with these kinds of movies. I mean, it's not really part of this particular genre. It isn't meant to titillate male audiences.

>>212446138
Post-menopausal women are capable of sexual desire, natural lubrication, etc.

>>212446138
>Wikipedia synposis

You people make it really hard to keep believing people here have ever actually watched a movie.

why are threads like this allowed? should be banned

>>212446323
>it's a possibility tho
Extremely unlikely at that character's age. She looks like a mummy. Get real please.

>>212446353
I have no interest in watching that particular movie. Why is this outrageous to you

>>212446373
Nope, not unlikely at all. Not sure where you’re getting these ideas except for maybe not wanting to think about your grandmothers being horny.

>>212446409
Mostly just how you’ll talk about it with such confidence, despite having zero knowledge of it beyond what some jeet put on a wiki.

It’s also a classic. So you’re also betraying near total ignorance of film.

>>212446409
If you're not going to watch the movie then maybe you shouldn't fucking speak as an authority on its contents

>>212446500
>It’s also a classic.
You've got your panties all in a twist because I don't care for a movie you like, pretending as if that's abhorrent, or shocking that I decide to read a plot synopsis. It comes off somewhat unhinged. You granny fucker.

>>212446366
>>>r/movies might be more to your taste.

>>212446710
Well I already admitted the anon was correct, that they had relations in the movie. I found and watched scene to confirm. No reason to be remain agitated.

>>212447098
why should pedophilic threads be allowed?

>>212438933
Imagine how many fetishes he developed during that movie...

what does /ss/ stand for

>>212447516
shit standing

>>212445054
Did you even watch the fucking movie? I mean, they don't show them actually railing, but they wake up naked in bed together so it's definitely implied.

>>212446409
>Why is this outrageous to you
because you're making allegations about what did and did not happen in a movie that you haven't even watched. In lieu of actually knowing anything, you read a wikipedia synopsis and, like a complete retard, thought that was good enough to continue the conversation.
You do have the option to just shut the fuck up when you don't know something.

Brazil produced many films with this theme.

>>212447516
Do not google it. You'll be on a list

>>212447174
reminder to everyone that posts made by retards like this anon are scraped and added to the AI meat grinder just like everything else. Confidently incorrect dipshits are peppered throughout Chat GPT responses.

>>212447516
it was the nazi secret police

>>212447948
You visited 4chan, you are already on the list.

>>212438886 (OP)
I've been told, (because I wasnt alive back then), that back in the day, 70's, 80's and even 90's it was kinda common to have kids and teens naked on movies as almost nobody sexualized them so there wasnt that much of moral outrage with it
and then Pretty Baby changed it because people simped too much over Brooke Shields
I honestly dont get it. I've lived near the beach for most of my life and during the 90's parents let the children run around naked: nobody bats an eye, which makes sense, but now you have 5 year old girls wearing "bras", which makes me believe that corruption is in the eye of the beholder.

>>212438933
You mean the ones he got or inflicted on the female viewership?

>>212443338
>When I was in high school in the late 1990s-early 2000s, all the "hot clique" girls were dating college students in their 20s, they were 14-16.
This still happens, however, people rarely talk about it even if those dudes turn out to be the ones doing most of the female killing, because they're not ugly neets you can demonize easily.

>>212448098
I think much of it changed since cameras are everywhere now plus online sites looking to proliferate it. Those physical places where everyone just wants to relax and have fun would be a huge attraction for unsavory types looking to film everything and possibly hurt people.

>>212444719
You never watched this movie, did you?

>>212447516
straight shota I believe

>>212447780
So what. The notion was so gross, the actress so old, that I didn't expect the movie to confirm relations, and plus the wiki lied by omission. Yet here you are continuing to berate me to no end, despite the fact that I admitted I was wrong in claiming there was no such scene. Your attitude is uncalled for.

>>212448231
That makes sense. Back in the day girls were more open to send nudes overall because the concept of "revenge porn" hadnt come up yet and they didnt immediately expect you to upload everything.
Some fags legitimately ruin everything.

>>212448474
> I didn't expect
> the wiki lied by omission
So your argument was basically "I can't imagine they had sex so they didn't. My wild assumption is confirmed by the fact that a synopsis didn't specifically mention that detail".
Do you know what a synopsis is? They give you broad strokes of the plot. Despite the characters sleeping together, it wasn't a major plot point and didn't really need to be mentioned.
The problem isn't that you were wrong. The problem is that you think reading a synopsis will give you the same understanding of a film as actually watching it and, if that summary doesn't happen to mention a detail that proves your baseless statements incorrect, that it is somehow a failing on the part of the synopsis (and not your donkey-brained policy of confidently making statements about films you haven't bothered to watch.)

>>212446927
Calling you a moron when you’re trying to discuss something with only a Wikipedia synopsis level understanding of it is just stating facts, moron.

>>212448098
It’s more that pretty baby crossed the line between nudity and sex and overtly about a 12 year old girl being erotic.

>>212440361
Nah this is just older women on younger men fantasy for wine aunts. Back then it were women on literal boys.

kino incoming

>>212439457
if they actually were perverts it might be mildly compelling based on their “passion” for whatever the perversion. But they’re all dulled by ssris, antipsychotics, adhd medication, and get meds, so that’s why everyone is an ugly, lumpy mess who bitches and shows no real emotion or has any vaguely compelling moments. incompetence and total hormonal oblivion.
seriously, consider for a moment if a homo pervert would actually cast the old ugly slop actors hired to play those virtue signal gay couples. no, they would be attractive and appeal to someone (besides masochistic liberals who love being disgusted and pretending it’s beautiful)

>>212443244
>As an 1980s kid, most of my friends parents are like seperated by 10-20 years in age.
Are you from a Mormon commune or something?
I work in pensions and process a lot of deaths and spouse benefits. Most of which are people born in the 40s, 50s, and early 60s.
I'd say less than 5% have an age gap of 10 years or more. The vast majority have a wife around ~2-7 years younger than the husband.

>>212443284
>dork

>>212444719
Harold and Maude was a parody of the other films in this thread though.

>>212445165
>>212445278
>>212445474
Read the filename, dumb nigger.

>>212446138
>Wikipedia synposis didn't appear to mention it
god damn. TikTok and AI have really fried this generation into being a bunch of bumbling retards, huh?

>>212450191
Got a source for that?

>>212438886 (OP)
Well you see anon. Hollywood is a evil cult that brainwashes people and then uses that as a means to run the government and make sure people can't run it. The romans used a similar method with homosexuality with their soldiers. Youre slaves in their eyes.

>>212449648
i seriously dont understand how you can look at this picture and not think to yourself
>dude, i look like a man, and not even a man, but an extremly mentally ill man that would be found in a home for the retarded
are they so deep down their delusions that they actually think they look like a woman? Do they know theyre not a woman, but think of the sunk cost fallacy and get even deeper into their shit?
Either way, disgusting. I dont understand why we are the only species on the planet with this kinda shit. And its even crazier that the broad population of western civilization has no problem with this shit and even celebrates it.

>>212449033
>So your argument was basically "I can't imagine they had sex so they didn't. My wild assumption is confirmed by the fact that a synopsis didn't specifically mention that detail".
>you think reading a synopsis will give you the same understanding of a film as actually watching it
I never said any of that. I vehemently do not think that way. You're putting words in my mouth and making wild assumptions about my views pertaining to understanding, experiencing stories. I thought the wiki would provide me with understanding in regards to something *specific* about the movie, a simple confirmation, but it was not mentioned. Wiki movie synopsis often do mention such scenes, especially for a movie like this. Neglecting to even mention it is flat-out strange, on this I won't budge. I consider that a failing on their part. According to you, however, it's unimportant that the two had sexual relations? Then I wonder why they filmed the scene, if it wasn't important. Anyway, to reiterate, I admitted my mistake, immediately upon finding the clip, but you go on to weave a narrative on how I must be chronically failing in my faculties, from believing I fully understand and experience movies from reading just a synopsis... but I do not believe this. If I want to understand a movie, I take the step of watching it. You are seemingly desperate to argue, to severely reprimand random anons for things. you. imagine. in. your. head. about. them, to feed your ego. It's uncalled for.

>>212450928
People are assuming you’re a moron because you admitted entering a discussion with nothing but a Wikipedia synopsis as the entirety of your knowledge, and attempted to blame it for your lack of knowledge.

Which can’t even be called an assumption at this point.

>>212450928
> I made statements about a movie I know nothing about
> I consider that a failing on their part
You're choosing to die on this hill when the lesson should really be that you should not comment on things you don't know anything about. There was no reason for you to chime in if you didn't know. The conversation did not benefit from your hasty wikipedia skimming.

>>212451495
>> I made statements about a movie I know nothing about
>> I consider that a failing on their part
Try addressing any of my points instead of making up more bullshit I didn't say. The misconstruing never ends. I consider it a failing on their part that they made no mention it. I was mistaken in assuming the two characters didn't fuck. I assumed that before looking at the wiki synopsis. The wiki synopsis didn't make me assume that begin with, however, I can still insist they made a mistake by not mentioning it. Before chiming in, I checked out the synopsis to obtain *some* knowledge, because I assumed they'd surely make mention of it. Ultimately you're upset that I had reasonable expectations of a film synopsis to confirm what others said about it, and that I looked up the synopsis. I was looking for simple confirmation. That's not deserving of any ire. But I can't stop you from being upset over nothing so you can feed your ego.

>>212452329
>instead of making up more bullshit I didn't say
It's a synopsis, ya donkey. You should know all about those

>>212452329
>Ultimately you're upset that I had reasonable expectations of a film synopsis to confirm what others said about it
again, you fail to understand what multiple anons have tried to convey. The problem isn't that you were wrong. The problem isn't that the characters fucking wasn't included in the synopsis. The problem was that you decided to chime in AT ALL about a film that you haven't watched. You should either ask questions like "did these characters actually fuck in this film?" or just shut the fuck up and not say anything at all.
The fact that you can't understand this indicates a unique blend of narcissism and stupidity.

>>212438886 (OP)
Any good ones where an older woman is just making out with a younger boy?

NOOOOO DONT HAVE SEX WITH ME ATTRACTIVE MATURE WOMAN I AM ONLY A HORNY BOY. CUMMING INTO YOUR NON FERTILE PUSY WILL RUIN MY LIFE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>212452550
>The problem was that you decided to chime in AT ALL about a film that you haven't watched.
Well that's bullshit. Chiming in, depends on what's being talked about. When it's over one specific thing that one would reasonably assume is in a wiki synopsis, nothing egregious about that. You demand that I must instead, trust only the word of random anons, as if they're never wrong, but I think we all know that's bullshit as well. You're such a belligerent, nasty, asshole I wouldn't trust a word you say. And I will continue to chime in, because you're a bitch and I'm gonna do it out of spite, hoping that you're out there, getting upset at all my chime-ins.

>>212452902
Wikipedia didn’t tell you to chime in on a film you know nothing about. Your defective brain did.

>>212442514
21st century = Out of control nonce hysteria/moral derangement

>>212438886 (OP)
Society just doesn't care about young boys getting raped. Sad shit.

>>212452902

>>212452902
The film is 1 1/2 hrs. It's been 5 hours since your first chime in. What did you think of it?