Talk:Offline/Jerk off to release some frustration

So, I am trying to reason out the ages of the characters here. Justice is old enough to be "considered an adult" for the purposes of having to help out in the camp and is noted as being a teenager. It is never actually specified that I recall as to whether he is in middle or high school. This means he could be as young as 13. He has also bathed naked with his sister when he was younger. It is usually 6 or 7 that a kid gets considered old enough to bathe on their own, and it is around 2 or 3 that you start giving a kid a bath in a bathtub. So, the age gap between him and his sister is 5 years max. Emma also acts in a way that is more typical of a 5-6 year old, but it is possible she is immature for her age, and second children, girls especially, are often doted on more by the parents which causes them to be less mature while in the single digit age ranges and it has been demonstrated that the parents are trying to rip themselves away from helicopter parenting and are babying Emma in particular quite a bit.

So, Emma being 8, Justice being 13, and Nicole being 12 maybe is the set that fits the evidence seen in behaviors in context the best from what I can tell. Most of this is set on the way Emma behaves. There is no hard age set based on Justice or Nicole's behavior, and they easily could go as old as 15 and 14 (but no older due to clear signs of impulsiveness and immaturity in the way they treat sex,) the ages 13 and 12 are set purely to match to the 5 year age gap restriction created by the fact Justice bathed with Emma at some point in the past. Emma however acts in a manner that is more typical of a 6 year old but some immature 8 year olds may very well act the same way. This is, of course, assuming this family is typical in their norms of bathing their children. Jemini (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2018 (CET)

I didn't want to set any of that in stone with this story. I don't mind some ambiguity and sometimes it's better to let the reader fill in the gaps for themselves. But more to the point I've been trying to write this more as an actual story and throwing in specific details that the characters probably wouldn't be as concerned with felt out of place. In any case, I'll at least try to be as consistent as possible with my ambiguity. :) Villenia (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2018 (CET)

Ambiguity inherently leads to theorists, especially if there are consistent references sprinkled in. Also, as the "Game Theory" channel on Youtube has proven, death of the author (the disregarding of the author's stance on the matter) is in full effect once the theorists get going. (Unless the author decides they want to completely screw with it by inserting something completely outside the rest of the information that makes the theory no longer work, in which case another working theory takes the old theory's place and that new theory also has death of the author in effect.) Jemini (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2018 (CET)