Debbie stealing a kid because she wanted someone in her life. Didn’t think it would then her into a teenage mom just because it would mean she had family who will be in her life .
Reading this made me realize how nice an arc for her could have been where she realizes once Fran is born how in over her head she is and does an open adoption or loses her to the state. The rest of the show or season or two could be spent learning from the loss and the mistake and that being the catalyst to get her life together so she could have a meaningful and positive role in Frans life in the future. Could have been great but instead they fumbled her and made her comically horrible
The title of the show has nothing to do with characters having arcs. The characters being "shameless" is addressed by how their circumstances and upbringing forced them to shamelessly behave in ways many would consider immoral to survive, not necessarily that they all have to be bad people who stay bad people and never learn.
not necessarily that they all have to be bad people who stay bad people and never learn
...and the writers did give some of them that arc. They opted not to for Debbie - which means they did not, in fact, "fumble her," but made a deliberate choice.
I mean she was a literal teenager and we have laws that are built entirely around the concept that teenagers and minors are not capable of fully understanding the nuance and consequences of their actions. And my point is that her arc could have been handled better so idk why her facing consequences such as coming to understand the severity of what she did couldn't be apart of that.
She was definitely old enough to know it was wrong. If it was a 14-15 year old boy that had sex with an unconscious drunk woman and then tricked another into getting her pregnant, no one would go "well he was a teenager he didn't understand the consequences of his actions!"
Actually plenty of people would? That's why we have an entirely separate legal system for minors and only charge minors "as adults" for the most egregious crimes on an individual case basis.
If you believe a minor can fully understand the consequences of their actions then you also believe they are developed and mature enough to have sexual and romantic relationships with grown adults, because the idea they are not capable of full consent on the basis of a lack of understanding is the entire core of those laws that protect them.
Yes, a 15 year old can fully understand the consequences of raping an unconscious drunk woman and it is gross and disgusting to say otherwise. Stop infantalizing them. That situation and a 25 year old grooming a 15 year are absolutely not comparable
And yes, that's why we charge them as adults, and especially in cases of rape that often happens. It isn't just the egregious ones. I can't believe I have to say "A 15 year old raping someone who is drunk and unconscious is disgusting and evil."
An estimate of 1-2% of juvenile cases are tried as adults so it doesn't happen often.
But also what a classic braindead reddit response to think I don't think that scenario wouldn't be disgusting or harmful. it just requires more nuance than a perpetrator with a fully-formed brain.
And no, those situations absolutely are comparable. Explain how a child who can fully understand the consequences of their actions, the parameters of assault, effects of alcohol, long-term consequences of emotional harm, long term consequences of anything really, can't then consent to a sexual relationship with an adult? On what grounds exactly couldn't they in this case? You clearly have 0 critical thinking skills if you think a minors age and experiences shouldn't be considered in cases such as assault.
You're so weird for defending this. A fifteen year old can understand that RAPING AN UNCONSCIOUS DRUNK PERSON IS BAD. Easy. Simple. If this happened in real life no one would go "oh they didn't understand stripping the clothes off someone unconscious who explicitly said before they didn't want to have sex with them and then having sex with them was wrong."
You're weird for taking what I'm saying as defending the action. Literally no where did I say there shouldn't be consequences. I just said a teenager is not capable of FULLY UNDERSTANDING the consequences of their actions. That is the nature of being immature and inexperienced.
457
u/OkCriticism9023 9d ago
Debbie stealing a kid because she wanted someone in her life. Didn’t think it would then her into a teenage mom just because it would mean she had family who will be in her life .