I don't think we established anything of the sort, Christopher. You're mistaking your opinion for fact again.
No, I'm not, because I researched the facts first (including how to spell
Chic Cooper's name). I explained my reasoning in my earlier post, and I acknowledged where I was making assumptions.
As we do not know which state Riverdale is in, we cannot say for sure that a relationship between Joaquin and Kevin would be statutory rape.
It's not about Joaquin and Kevin -- you're getting ahead of yourself there. It's about the bizarre notion that Joaquin would be Chic Cooper for some reason. There's no basis at all for that assumption. All indications in the show are that Joaquin is a contemporary of the other characters, a fellow teenager. There's nothing onscreen to suggest he's older. Whoever first came up with this weird "Betty's secret brother is Joaquin" notion probably overlooked the part that the brother would have to be significantly older than Betty, and once that was pointed out, they just used the supposed uncertainty over Joaquin's age as cover for clinging to the idea rather than just admitting it didn't make sense.
In fact, precedent with Miss Grundy suggested it wasn't the age gap that was the issue so much as the fact she was his teacher and had him commit perjury.
In the show, they dodged the issue, yes, but in fandom and the press, there was a lot of negative reaction to the Archie/Grundy storyline, which is probably why the producers abandoned it so quickly. It was a bad idea and they learned from their mistake. So it would be unlikely that they'd repeat a plot angle that went over so badly with the audience the first time around. Especially when it would play into some really ugly homophobic stereotypes if they did it here.
All we know is its a maple syrup producing state, so likely Northern. And Delaware, a state with a thriving maple syrup production industry (a little hyperbole) has the age exemotion law I mentioned above.
You know... if the only way to justify a relationship in a TV show is to find loopholes in age-of-consent laws, that in itself should tell you that it's probably not a good idea to depict it in the first place. And I think the producers know that by now.
Realy, if you want to ship Joaquin/Kevin, what's wrong with Joaquin just being Joaquin? What does aging him up, or giving a connection to the Cooper family, add to him as a character or to his romance with Kevin? This whole idea seems totally arbitrary to me. It's as if someone wondering who Betty's brother might be just went through a list of the existing male characters and picked Joaquin by the process of elimination. But I think that's overlooking the fact that serialized TV shows tend to bring in new characters each season, rather than just reshuffling the existing ones. Especially in the case of a comics adaptation like this, where there's a whole panoply of existing characters yet to be brought into the action. We already know that Hiram Lodge will become an on-camera presence next year, and there's no reason to think he's the only new character they'll introduce. To me, the season-finale revelation about Betty's brother felt like a setup for something new like that -- akin to
The Flash's name drops about DeVoe, its villain for next season, or
Supergirl's cliffhanger about Reign. Berlanti shows do this sort of thing all the time. I won't be surprised if we hear casting news about Chic as a new cast member sometime before the season premiere, or maybe sometime during the season if they hold him back as a midseason reveal.
