>>117825044Can we stop pretending like age is a meaningful factor for cartoon characters 95% of the time? Unless they're literal babies, or unless the story is directly about their age, they won't act how people their age would normally act. They'll act how the story needs them to act, be it unrealistically mature or unrealistically childish (or both). For all narrative intents and purposes, Dan could be whatever age above 18. Since you brough Hub up, let's take a look at horse show. Bronies love to flex the fact that every main character is in their 20s or so, with a stable job. So, like, at least these fictional pastel colored ponies are not kids, so it's okay to fantasize abotu fucking them. But of course these characters are occasionally be going to be completely immature and ike literal children, because that's what the show needs them to act like so that later they can learn a lesson. So what does it even matter? In cartoons like this, characters exist in a sort of an age vacuum where it doesn't really matter whether they're 10, 25 or 38.
