Bull (TV Series) Teacher's Pet (2017) User Reviews

And this is one problem when....

[kemority · 28 March 2020]

Teenagers, regardless of when, are granted legal adult/age of consent status.

If you're unable to make good, life-altering choices at 17, then why are you able to do something like..... enlist in the military less than a later at 18? Vote? Get married? Are you telling me a 17 year-old, the day before their 18th birthday, is still "too immature"... yet if they wait 24 hours then *poof* they're magically good now? If you can justify that then I'd love to rent the unicorn you have stowed away in your Pot of Gold for my next Uber ride.

But hey, let's not forget you aren't considered a "real" adult until you're 21, since that's the legal drinking age.

Age laws here in America are simply a joke.

A pretty good exit for this episode

[akicork · 9/10 · 10 March 2020]

Given the social barbs aimed, it was good to see a bit of balance pushed in to the argument. I have friends where the wife is eleven years older than her husband, and I am twenty-one years older than my my wife. What is the problem? There is a difficulty in the ten-to-twenty age period when people can misinterpret their feelings (no, they can misinterpret their feelings at any time) and end up realising that their feelings are gone. And at any time in the following decades they can reinterpret their relationship as one to continue, or one to finish.

Disappointing

[urbus · 2/10 · 6 February 2021]

That a show like bull jumps on the train of this kind of prudery and morall singularity is very disappointing. Considering the character of bull it seams very unlikely that he would even get involved in a case like this in the first place. A 17 year old boy and a 24 year old girl have a relationship. So what? It's within the legal boundaries of NY and all we see in the first place is as well within a normal relationship. She answers questions he es asked? She motivates him to focus on arts? Wow. In almost any relationship there might be a more dominant part. And yes, it's a problem that she is/was his teacher. But this is a disciplinary aspect of her job. And nothing a court should be discussing. And even less something a TV series should be judging.

Hollywood Fantasy and Hypocrasy

[chumphries-09050 · 5/10 · 3 April 2022]

Since Hollywood always likes to insult southerners I couldn't help but call out the utter BS when they tried to suggest Texas has loose marriage laws. Just looked up the marriage laws for all the states and between California and Texas, guess who was more strict. TEXAS! In California with parental consent there is no minimum age. In Texas, "You must be 18 years of age to marry on your own. If you're between 16 and 18, you must have parental consent or a court order granting permission to marry. If you're younger than 16, you must have a court order granting permission to marry." In the episode they suggest a 14 year old can get married in Texas, totally false! Sad thing is that so many people buy the BS hollywood produces. Yes there will be those who say it's fiction and that's true. Problem is the BS gets absorbed and translated to facts by too many. Do the world a favor and stop the BS on these issues and stop trying to portray all Southerners as backwoods, neophyte, Neanderthals. Reality is hollywood projects a lot of their own failings on everyone else.

Just awful

[stevejjudd · 1/10 · 15 May 2019]

The whole premise of this episode, and the conclusion.. just who came up with this and what were they thinking. Whoever you are please, stop and reevaluate your decisions in life.

No, just no

[hn-136-439636 · 1/10 · 17 March 2022]

As someone who lives in a country (in Europe) where the legal age for sex is 15, this episode was pretty bad. I Mean Come on we are takling about a 17 and a 24 year old. I personally have a Hard time seeing why this is so bad that someone can go to jail! I Mean the whole argument about a teen at that age not being old enough to make a decision like that - Come on! At that age a lot of people are choosing which education they are going to have and what job they will be in for the rest of their life and so on.

If you wanted me too be on the same team as Bull in this episode it would have had to be a much bigger age gap and so on. I do however agree that it of course is a big problem that she was his teacher - but I think the fact that she was fiered cover all that needed to be done here. I was debating if i should just pass this episode from the moment it startede until its end... frustrating to not think the team you are suposed to agree with should win... sigh.

I did however find it okay that they do not end up together in the end - i would have just wished that this had not been taken to court. The realationship in this case would proberly have ended anyway on its own.

I had hoped for better from this show and Bull.

[niceguy-737-812940 · 2/10 · 7 April 2023]

When the episode started out, and they revealed that Jordan being 17 made it legal, I figured this would be an episode where Bull flips the script and changed to defending the teacher. So disappointing that they still ended up on the side attacking the ones who did nothing morally wrong, really. So then I'm hoping they lose this one, but the show is called "Bull", because he wins, so I doubt this will go the right way (I'm still watching, but reviews sound like I'm right, this will come out wrong).

The laws and rules referenced in this episode are about preventing authority figures from using their power to manipulate to people beneath them. Jordan was in no way forced or manipulated. He was a willing participant. He consented. In situations like this, the usual response is that a minor cannot legally consent (except that they establish he's not legally a minor), but consenting, being a willing participant, should still be a VERY important factor! How about honouring the SPIRIT of the law and stop focusing on the LETTER of the law? A birthday isn't a magical event, he's depicted as 17 and 3 months old, is he supposed to suddenly become instantly capable in 9 months? Nothing to worry about anymore, but requiring COURT INTERVENTION now? As it is, the school rules against fraternization means she was fired, seems a bit heavy-handed and overly interfering, but I guess there needs to be SOMETHING to prevent possible favouritism (better grades than he earned, advanced notice of tests, etc), but such heavy-handedness should be more than sufficient, these court proceedings are ridiculous.

So disappointing to see TAC on the wrong, prudish, side of this fight. Larger age gaps later in life are perfectly normal and acceptable. 7 years? In 3 years nobody would blink twice (at 20 and 27). 10 is quite common. They're just a year early, really.