[kingofthemapleforest]

[kingofthemapleforest]

(Wow I hadn't realized that most of the urls on my blog were broken.)

[kottkrig]

People liking your personal OCs is still such a crazy feeling, I've been doing this for years and ppl asking about them still fills my entire heart with warmth and idk how to handle it

You enjoy this fictional guy I made up for fun?? Whose only content is random artwork or writing made by me and a handful of other artists at most? They have no show/book/game with a large fandom, it's just one person with an art blog?? I love u

[kingofthemapleforest]

(It's always fun to go over Coffee's actual physical strength since he's pretty much all strength with little control over other abilities he has. He could just carry a car to a different parking spot if they parked in his.)

[kingofthemapleforest]

(The for you page got me so confused. I thought tumblr actually just unfollowed me from reality and left me in the algorithm dimension.)

[kingofthemapleforest]

Coffee Ground has been many things in his life. Never once has he been considered nor has he considered himself as a main character in any story. He is without a grand goal, no greater purpose. At least that's what he thinks. What he hasn't realized is that eventually the unnatural strength he's been stock piling will have reason. He went without company for his travels for the past few months now. Trying to find what they call the Spring maelstrom. A sister to the Autumn veil which was designed to hide special locations, or at least prevent any from getting to them. Now he was at a tavern nearest to the location he expected it to be in Mistral, so after spending some time there, he decided to finally start asking some questions to the person next to him. "Have you or anyone else you know seen or heard of an area that continuously rains? Not a cloud in sight, but it's such a fucking torrential downpour that the ground is no different from water itself."

[kingofthemapleforest]

Searching for a goal.

Your name is Coffee Ground. You would normally think your name is a complete joke, but your entire family is named after and around Coffee. Anyways, that's not the point of this. Despite everything you've done in your still relatively short life at 24 years old, it still feels like you've done nothing at all. Ex-Immortal, King of the autumn veil, war criminal, delved into madness, and now come to fully harness your true physical strength. Yet all of it was meaningless without a goal in life, a true purpose.

"I need to stop monologuing to myself. I was supposed to be past that by now, but it seems not." You didn't have the time to go reminiscing of time gone past anyways. Whatever type of grimm you were fighting was big, could fly, and made a nevermore feel small. However, your strength was abnormal for your size. With a few crunches of your axe into the main bone of one of the grimms wings, you would finish the job by prying apart the 2 sections with your bare hands, a feat that shouldn't be possible as you tore feet of bone from feet of bone.

Now came the hard part of this ordeal. Before the plunge would become too much, you slammed your axe down into the creatures back, finding its spine with enough force to send fractures through the rest of its spine.

No man should be able to survive a fall of over 5000 feet, even while holding onto the back of a creature of this size, but to you this was the normal now. The release of immortality came with the boon of being able to use the true capabilities of this body of grandeur might. You and the Grimm fell through a forest followed by the thunderous cracking and snaps of felled trees.

You huffed a few times as you picked yourself back up, skin scrabed, face covered with some mud. "Look buddy. Let's just finish this up. You're not long for this world, and I really didn't like falling that far." A clenched fist would quiet the crying monster as you hammered its jaw shut with a single hit, the neck of it barely keeping from breaking. "Come on. I get your head makes me look tiny, but you can't be that durable."

An idea came on, something to make putting it down a bit easier. You hefted the remains of one of the trees to point towards the bottom of the grimms wyvern like jaw. If you are the hammer, than this tree shall be the nail. The forest would once more be disturbed by the gunshot like noise as the tree did its job, piercing its way through its skull.

"... Now where am I? We fell for quite a while, and flew for longer... I hate this. I know those 2 would probably make fun of me for not just knowing north from south. Fuck it." You retrieved your axe and chose a direction to follow. "I don't even remember why I killed that thing... No I do I'm just stupid. That psycho Doctor and his equally psycho assistant wanted me to do this job, while they worked on others. Maybe I'll find something to do when I find a town."

Once more, you were on your way meandering through life with no vision of the future, nothing to drive you. Maybe it's as you thought and you were always meant to be a side character while others got the full spotlight as they walked their paths. Maybe you just need to be pointed in the right direction.

[kingofthemapleforest]

Characters Chromia and Coffee  drawn by https://twitter.com/_adrian_alejo/media

[kingofthemapleforest]

[morlock-holmes]

I can’t get over this “kink at pride is bad because it’s inherently sexual” thing.

I’m just repeating myself but people now are really so young that they don’t remember the 90s?

The time when people who saw two men holding hands in the park and kissing each other goodbye would say,

“Look, I don’t care what people get up to in the bedroom, but when they’re parading their disgusting bedroom habits in front of the non-consenting public with these gross sexual displays where impressionable children might see it, anybody reasonable ought to agree that we need to draw a line.”

It is so fucking weird to see that same argument coming out of the mouths of people who are pro-gay.

[thespectacularspider-girl]

1.  Kink doesn’t belong at Pride because kink is a completely separate axis to sexual orientation.  LGBT people are not inherently kinky, there are straight people who engage in kink.  I say this as someone who is part of both communities, they should not be conflated.

2.  If you’re at all concerned, one of kink’s core principles is about consent.  Not just the consent of the two engaging in the scene but everyone in the scene.  This is why public acts of BDSM, petplay, etc, gets frowned upon by the community.  Because by taking it public you are including the public in the scene without their explicit consent.

3.  Conflating a bigoted+hypocritical statement of “homosexuals kissing is bad but straight kissing is fine” with “kink, regardless of the sexuality of the people involved should not be public” is a minefield you’re not prepared to walk through.  If we want to be treated like everyone else, then that means we have the same expectation to keep kink out of the public eye like straight people.

The fact that you conflated ‘kissing’ and ‘kink’ while skipping over that kink is not accepted publicly by/with straight people either seems to imply that kink is as intrinsic to the LGBT experience as a simple show of affection.  Which is fucked up on your part.

4.  If you’re claiming the 90′s, I was there too.  And you seem to be intentionally excluding the omnipresent, aggressive message that “The gays are deviants, degenerates and sex crazed”, which existed well into the 90′s and was in part used to blame the LGBT community for the spread of AIDS and was often used to attack the demand for the right to marry.

So why are you jumping off that slippery slope and trying, repeatedly I might add, to conflate Pride and the LGBT with kink?  Why, precisely, are you trying so hard to prove all those assholes right?

Because that’s what kink at Pride does, it reinforces those stereotypes that people like me hoped were dead and gone.

5.  Over the last 6 years LGBT acceptance has been going DOWN.  LGBT tolerance is at an all time low with young adults and teens.  A near 15% difference in tolerance is a MASSIVE step backwards and maybe we shouldn’t be embracing old, damaging stereotypes that fucks with our social image.

It’s fucking funny that you cite the 90′s like you were there, yet don’t seem to realize that ‘kink at Pride’ explicitly goes against the fucking ideals of the LGBT in the 90′s and 00′s, which was that we want to be like everyone else.

Everyone else is expected to keep their kinks to themselves.  We’re no different.

Don’t come to me talking about the 90′s when you not only ignored a major hurdle to our acceptance for the time AND you spit in the face of the chief goal of the movement for decades.

Edit:  To clarify point #1, I’m gay and heavily invested in kink.  I’ve been involved with both communities extensively.

[morlock-holmes]

Okay, this is fucking crazy to me, because again, it is literally, “I don’t care what you get up to in the bedroom, but when you parade your kink out in public, it becomes my business”

The argument is that a man kissing a man is obviously exactly the same as a man kissing a woman, but wearing a dog collar or a leather mask in public is totally different from wearing a bikini or a speedo and everyone knows this, it’s so obvious that nobody could even question it, only perverts or deliberately obtuse people could disagree to the point where nobody even needs to make a case.

In the 90s, you’d have a lot of people telling you that you’re nuts if you think same sex kissing is somehow the same as mixed sex kissing, and that everyone knows that except radicals like you ignore it.

Also “the point of Pride is obviously to convince people that gays aren’t perverts because if they were perverts it would be okay to oppress them” is… More contentious than you might think.

Also, legit and seriously, what the hell is “kink”?

A couple came into our restaurant, a nice steakhouse, and the guy was wearing a leather harness over a kind of fur coat. That shit was obviously bondage gear, but like, who fucking cares?

That what we’re talking about here?

[thespectacularspider-girl]

It’s different because there’s an inherent hypocrisy in demanding ‘the gays’ not kiss when straight people can kiss just fine.  It is not hypocrisy, not the same thing, as expecting EVERYONE to keep their kink in the bedroom.

The entire point, which you seemed to have missed, either intentionally or out of sheer stupidity, is that the goal of the movement was to be treated like everyone else.  If a straight couple kissing in public was fine, then so should gay couples kissing.

What you are saying is that you want special exemptions for Pride, which makes us not like everyone else.  What the fuck is this bigotry of low expectations?  To not hold us up to the same fucking standard as straight people?

I also like how you didn’t address nearly every one of my points because we both know you couldn’t because I’m infinitely more knowledgeable than you in the matter of kink, consent, public opinion on the LGBT and the pressing issues of the LGBT in the 90′s.

It’s unbelievable to me that you ask “what the hell is kink?” when your entire post is about defending kink at Pride.  Why the fuck are you opening your mouth hole to air opinions you have ZERO understanding of? 

Also  “the point of Pride is obviously to convince people that gays aren’t perverts because if they were perverts it would be okay to oppress them” is not what I said you absolute cunt.

The idea is that we demonstrate that we’re just like everyone else and want to be treated like everyone else.  It doesn’t matter if your kinky or not, because just like straight people it should be something you do in private.

What absolutely low fucking standards and opinions you must have of the LGBT to make that stand.

Shut the fuck up.  This rhetoric makes it harder for closeted individuals like myself to even be taken seriously because we don’t live in “tolerance city”.  So the people around us see this shit and it just reinforces the opinions that we’re all degenerates.

Literally everything you posted tells me you don’t give a fuck about the LGBT in places where they might not be accepted.  And that you think that the LGBT can’t stand up to the fucking standards set for straight people.

Stop trying to conflate “love is love” with kink, a sexual activity and subculture you clearly have less than zero understanding of.  You blithering, Dunning-Krueger spewing shithead.

Edit:

And if you dare come at me with “I never said love is love in this exchange” I’m referring to the fact that you repeatedly bring up gay couples kissing.  Because if you actually paid attention in the 90′s, that IS the “love is love” argument that was being made.

The entire point of “love is love” was that straight or same sex love is the same and should be held to the same standard.  The idea that if straight couples can be married, we should be too, and if a straight couple gets visiting rights, we do too, and if a straight couple can kiss in public, we should too.  Because love is love.

And the you had the gall to compare that, the biggest fight in the 90′s for us, to be seen as “the same” and conflating it with kink, something that is NOT intrinsic to the LGBT and is NOT discriminated against unfairly based on sexual orientation, is disgusting.

I don’t say this very often.  But this shit is downright fucking homophobia wrapped up in a pretty bow and acting like it’s acceptance.  Fuck off.  I’m done with you.

[cookingwithroxy]

Man, it’s kinda nice to watch Spidey go off on Morlock like this.

[silverscreenx]

The argument is that a man kissing a man is obviously exactly the same as a man kissing a woman, but wearing a dog collar or a leather mask in public is totally different from wearing a bikini or a speedo and everyone knows this, it’s so obvious that nobody could even question it, only perverts or deliberately obtuse people could disagree to the point where nobody even needs to make a case.

I don’t understand this paragraph. Is Morlock saying that’s the argument of his opposition and mocking it?

Because it is totally different. For one, BDSM gear is inherently sexual, everywhere, and for two, bikinis and swim wear are usually reserved for beachside places. Y'know, places where it’s appropriate to wear it. You don’t go to the beach and not expect people to go swimming.

[cookingwithroxy]

Yes, he is. Because often we DO have issues with people walking around in bikinis or speedos in the middle of cities, which is the context he is deliberately overlooking.

We might accept a bikini on a billboard, (even tho quite a few people object to that, in fact, and make no bones about it.) or lingerie in advertisements, but it’s also very much of a note that these are not PEOPLE, and even if they are trying to be titillating, they’re not actually REAL. They’re images, not bodies.

This is a fact Morlock is deliberately avoiding.

[morlock-holmes]

So like, I’ve asked like nine different times and only gotten one answer, but:

If the problem is nudity and sexual behavior why are we focusing specifically on kink?

The answer I got was “because only kinky people want to walk around nude outside or wear sexy clothes at pride”

A statement that hasn’t been further elaborated and which I highly, highly doubt.

[theevenprime]

A day collar is obviously different from a bindi or a gold band or engagement ring or picture locket or fraternity pin or Claddagh because the sexual relationship that those people have is icky, whereas the sexual relationship that we folks have is wholesome.

Jesus, @morlock-holmes , what’s so hard to understand about this? We’re just saying that certain people are unclean by dint of their sexual identity, and while we begrudgingly allow them the constitutional right to do what they want privately with the windows drawn, they must in no way signify that identity or relationship to the rest of us decent normal folks. You know, the True Meaning of Pride.

[silverscreenx]

So you just said “Fuck consent!”, right?

[theevenprime]

I do not require the consent of the public to wear a wedding band. I do not require the consent of the public to make out on a park bench. I do not require the consent of the public to lead a leg wrap. I do not require the consent of the public to tweet things like, “I CANT BELIEVE I GET TO SIT ON THIS FACE,” as Belinda Garcia said of the UbiForward E3 presenter a few days ago, to amusement instead of scandal.

The same applies to day collars in everyday life, and signifiers of a D/S relationship, like ordering for your partner at a restaurant.

I do not require the consent of the public to be topless in topless spaces, like beaches, saunas, or the Mardi Gras parade. Pride has, my entire life, been a space for unequivocal, unapologetic celebration of sexuality. I find the dry-humping and PDA as distasteful as most, don’t get me wrong. But this is the place for it, and standing beside your collared submissive and publicly swatting their ass isn’t more sexual or more objectionable or more subject to the public’s consent than making out with your ringed wife. Are these both foreplay, in some circumstances? Yes. Is this one of those circumstances? No. Should sex require the consent of the public? Sure. Are you drawing a hypocritical and inconsistent boundary between what counts as sex for one group vs. another based on your own comfort with the relationships in question? Well, it sure looks that way from the outside.

[silverscreenx]

Well, congratulatilns. Your life is a lie. Pride has been marketed as a family event since the 80s. And you DO need consent to perform sexualacts on front of people.

You can go topless there, becaude that’s spaces whrre it’s acceptable to do. Except Mardi Gras. But there it mostly happens at night and away from non-participants, so it’s at least a bit better.

And if you do wanna make an event about sexuality and celebrating it, you need to actively work to keep non-participants and especially minors out.

[isaacsapphire]

Lols pride was a family event in the 80s. In the 80s, the parents of gays and lesbians put their own careers and social lives to march in support of their adult children.

My homophobic father doesn’t consent to seeing gay people, so back in the closet!

He especially doesn’t like gay people kissing, so none of that! And he’s really worried about “how do I expect this to my kids?” if they see a shirtless leather daddy and a twink wearing leather briefs and a harness.

So that’s who Pride is for now, homophobic dad, Absolut, Raytheon, and some nice married gays who would never Expose Children to their Lifestyle and don’t actually fuck?

[shieldfoss]

@people who don’t want kink at pride: I do not consent to knowing you breathe, so stop. Or accept that there are things you can do that you don’t need other people to consent to, and fuck off.

[silverscreenx]

I 100% believe you would rape someone, based on the disregsrd you show about consent here.

Yes, you do need consent to have sex and perform sexual acts in front of me.

[the-dao-of-the-discourse]

Look, if you really think it’s a perverted sexual thing to have someone on a leash, why aren’t you upset about all the straight people doing it with their kids?

It’s really not hard to go through the equivalences here:

Straight people get to shove lingerie ads in the face of drivers and young children on a daily basis? Okay, then clearly a leather thong isn’t across the line.

Straight people get to wear a big shiny ring to signify their Monogamy kink? I get to wear a collar to signify my submissive kink.

Straight people get to drag their kids and pets around on leashes? Well then let’s deal with the child rapists and bestiality before we get concerned about doing it with consenting adults, for fuck’s sake.

And if you insist it’s “sexuality” and “requires consent” ONLY when gay/queer/kinky people do it, well… have you considered that you’re a bit of a bigoted cunt and should go fuck yourself? 🙂

[silverscreenx]

None of the things you mentioned are exclusive to straight people or gay people. Kink isn’t gay. Gay isn’t kink. Kink is something anyone can do regardless of sexuality. And I’d like to see less in public.

Gay people wear wedding rings. They also buy and wear lingerie. Both gay and straight people wirk in advertisements.

WHO SAID I DON’T WANT THOSE CHILD LEASHES GONE? Who said I wouldn’t wanna see a less sexualized society?

This is such a brainless take, trying to frame everything, every possible human action as something overtly sexual that this isn’t even a false equivalence anymore. I’d say this is just straight up bigotry.

Once again, another genius sees someone get a cookie and is freaking out they can’t wolf down the entire jar.

[the-dao-of-the-discourse]

LOL, yeah, because we like chocolate chip instead of vanilla cookies, we’re now gluttonous monsters. But you’re not the one who has issues thinking of kink as degenerate and sinful, of course not. You just instantly leap to metaphors where we’re horrible.

Nice job with the uh, lesse, ZERO arguments against my analogies. It really rams home that you’re absolutely aware that the stuff kinky people do is absolutely equivalent to the shit straight people get up to, yet for some reason you spend all your time yelling at the kinky/gay people.

Adorable that you can’t understand how homophobic you’re being. Like, have you ever spent 5 minutes actually thinking about your stance? Can you even conceive of the idea that hey, you’re the bigot here?

[silverscreenx]

No, because you see relatively normal amounts of public displays of affection and fashion advertisements and believe that’s enough reason to fuck in the street. Violating people’s consent. Potentially exposing children to sex.

I didn’t mention many of your arguments, because they aren’t arguments.

Keeping children on leashes is horrible and no grounds to actually do worse. A lingerie advert isn’t a porno.

You are the only one here equating kink to gay people, you creep. As if every gay person had a harness in their wardrobe.

[shaftking]

They’re really trying so hard to remove things from their context to make a point that was never a good one to begin with.

There is a difference between a child leash which is made to keep the child from running off and getting hurt or potentially being kidnapped (even if it is a questionable method of doing so) and someone wearing gear in public that is made to be used in a sexual context while they are on a leash and are getting sexual gratification from doing so.

And I find it extremely suspicious someone would try to equate something that has no sexual connotations whatsoever that involves children with inherently sexual actions. It really doesn’t make you guys look any less like pedophiles than you already do.

[thenuanceddebater]

So, the issue with this statement is as follows: What creates a sexual connotation, and whose sexual connotation matters? Is a sexual connotation created in the mind of the audience because people are convinced that you’re getting-off on whatever it is that you’re doing? Or is the connotation of the people involved and how they perceive the activity to be more important? And why? I don’t think that anyone opposing kink at Pride has provided satisfactory answers to those questions. In fact, they seem to be rather unwilling to engage with them instead claiming that the answers are “obvious” and that “everyone knows” the answers. However, when actually pressed the position goes from “screwing in public shouldn’t be allowed” to “BDSM gear and presentation is inherently sexual!” and back again. It… doesn’t read as good-faith arguing.

However, let’s take the idea that it’s sexual if someone gets-off on it as a base. I think that’s totally fair. People can get-off on kissing or PG-13 PDA. Should that be banned as well? What about the fact that Orthodox Jews or religious Muslims could be walking-by and see it , and might be just as uncomfortable as you are with the idea of someone (not a child) on a leash. Should that change anything?

Likewise, someone can be told to wear a certain outfit that is not kinky in the slightest and get-off on that. That is an inherently sexual act that they are doing. How do we regulate it if the audience doesn’t know it’s sexual?

What about if someone is wearing fetish clothing for a non-sexual purpose? Not all kink is inherently sexual all the time. That’s not true for everyone, but there are some people who like being on a leash not because it turns them on, but just because it demonstrates their station or makes them feel possessed/owned and safe. The participants themselves aren’t feeling any sexual arousal, but the audience might assume that they are. Does the feeling of a prudish audience outweigh the feelings of the participants in this case?

When you start trying to dictate the mores of an event whose purpose is to challenge the mores of society (or at the very least initially was to challenge those mores back when LGBT+ love was not acceptable in any of its permutations), you are going to get questions as to why the norms and mores you want to subscribe to are superior/the best. If you can’t answer those questions, then you’re not really convincing anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.

That’s what @morlock-holmes and others are trying to say. That there’s no particular reason why what society does or says is acceptable is the best choice for something like Pride. And furthermore, that just because society says something is or is not acceptable does not mean that Pride should be beholden to that standard.

It’s less of a question about perverts wanting to be perverted in public and more of a question of why, in an event that was inherently transgressive against societal norms, we should now suddenly start to care about said norms and remove the transgressive elements. Not addressing that point just means that you’re missing the point of the discussion.

[kob131]

No actually, they have. It’s inherent in every argument I’ve seen. Even here.

They don’t want kink at pride because kinks are NOT connected to being LGBT. Pride has a specific purpose for being anti-status quo because it was made to make the statement “being LGBT is not wrobg”. In fact, consider that any kink is voluntary thus a choice, would that not imply the same as being LGBT which plays into the old excuse of ‘they CHOOSE to be queer so it’s okay to discriminate!’ I have actually seen people use this connection to say that.

This isn’t hard to understand.

[fallentitan98]

This is such a stupid argument. No kinks at Pride. That’s it. We should all agree that’s a no shit idea.

Straight people aren’t walking around in BDSM gear. If they do it’s fucking WEIRD and not okay. Same if a gay couple walk around in BDSM gear, it’s fucking weird and not okay. This is why public nudity isn’t allowed. This is why fucking in public is illegal. God damned heathens, keep kink out Pride.

Also @the-dao-of-the-discourse what the absolute fuck, I’m reporting your ass. You are disgusting. You know damn well there’s a difference between a fucking leash and something used to keep kids same and from running off. You know damn well one is sexual and the other isn’t. God damn sicko.

[the-dao-of-the-discourse]

If your stance is “being on a leash is intrinsically pet play, and therefore sexual” (which is the real actual stance of the person I was arguing with), then I think the comparison is perfectly valid.

If you think that taking people around on leashes can obviously be non-sexual because we do it to kids then… why the fuck are you sexualizing it when I do it? Is this, like, YOUR kink? Because it’s not a sexual thing for me, and it has never been.

And if we’re clear that it’s okay when it’s not sexual, and it’s not sexual when I do it, then… well we’re at a reasonable agreement that it’s therefore obviously OK to do at pride, now aren’t we?

(P.S. Congratulations on once again totally failing to address why it’s okay for us to shove lingerie ads in front of kids, but a leather thong is just Going Too Far. It’s almost like your reaction is pure emotional disgust and doesn’t actually ground out in anything even vaguely resembling a coherent argument 😇)

[fallentitan98]

Coherent argument? Bitch you didn’t even read what I said! This isn’t an argument, you’re just closing your eye and covering your ears going “La la la la la la I can’t hear you I’m right you’re wrong!” You very clearly didn’t read what I wrote, why even reboot if you’re just ignoring my post?

The comparison isn’t valid at all! You seriously think a kids harness, used to keep children from running off is the SAME as a nearly naked man on all fours wearing bondage being walked like a dog in public without others consent and infront of kids and the PUBLIC? Fuck you, you god damn pedophile!

This ain’t an argument, this is me being right and you being fucked in the head!

I never said shoving lingerie ads in front of kids is okay, I have said nothing about that! But the fact that you think that somehow justifies wearing nothing but a thong shows you’re not sane!

[kingofthemapleforest]

This is gonna be a first piping in on something like this. Those lingerie ads only show up on adult channels on tv, or show up on the internet if your search history makes it a common theme. Kids are only getting exposed to those sorts of commercials either when they accidentally go to the wrong channel if they’re allowed free use of the remote, or their parents decide their child is young enough to stop watching children’s shows. Plus, the general community views kinks as sexual acts, because they are, so Dao-of-the-discourse just because your one single point of “Well, I don’t find it sexual, so then it’s not sexual.” isn’t a fact. There is a high bar difference between sexual intimacy and intimacy and the acts that pertain to them are very very different.

[xray32p]

@ mutuals

[lux-astralis]

a few reminders because i’m tired and angry

fandom is a hobby, not a form of activism

adult women aren’t inherently creepy for being in fandom and having hobbies apart from raising babies and doing taxes

the vast majority of people pushing back against the worrying trend of instigating harassment over fictional characters and relationships aren’t incest supporters or pedophiles, actually

liking a m/f ship doesn’t make someone a dirty heterosexual invading your space

preferring gay ships doesn’t make you ‘’woke’’ and good

no one owes you a disclaimer that they are a good person who recognizes that their favorite fictional villain’s actions are evil and that they don’t condone those actions irl

liking a fictional villain is in no way comparable to advocating abuse/murder/genocide/etc and you’re a fucking idiot if you believe that

just because a woman is attracted to a fictional villain doesn’t mean she’s promoting toxic relationships or going to end up in a toxic relationship. assuming women can’t tell fiction and reality apart stinks of internalized misogyny 

some rando’s a/b/o fanfics have none of the level of influence that popular tv shows and movies spreading propaganda have

no one owes you a detailed description of their traumas and mental health problems

abusive relationships are not the same as enemies to lovers ships

y’all need to chill the fuck out over people, relationships, actions and events that don’t actually exist and learn how to enjoy and discuss them like normal people

fandom is a hobby, not a form of activism

feel free to add more

[naughtyandnicerpmemes]

Reblog this if you roleplay or are willing to roleplay on Discord

[kingofthemapleforest]

((I’m still mostly active on Discord, and that’s where I can more easily talk about the stupidly high amount of characters I have. Frederick is an inside joke, not my actual name btw. Just send me a message here if you’re adding me)) Frederick#7198

[firstgrave]

this is the funniest thread of tweets I’ve ever seen in my entire life

[fallentitan98]

Wow I think I hate it

[kingofthemapleforest]

I love that first one. American female average height is 5′6. The 2 shortest female average heights is 4′11, in Guatemala and Indonesia. I have met a woman from Guatemala who was under 4′11

[kingofthemapleforest]

(Just stockpiling non shaded drawings of mine to just mass practice shading one day. One day)

[kingofthemapleforest]

(Still a bit amazing how there are people that want certain characters to be redeemed and all that jazz, without looking at what those characters have done. Their shitty past doesn’t always mean they’re going to be a villain, and just because they’re a villain because of a shitty past doesn’t mean they deserve to be redeemed.  If a character has taken or destroyed lives in their own selfish reasons over and over again, there is no redemption. Unless the character is being tricked, or is of a younger group and again easily tricked or any of that sort, or forced to follow a certain ideal, why would they be redeemed? A full grown, fully functioning adult with their own greed and beliefs that due to their past they deserve better than their fellow person who’s past they don’t know? That they can just go around hurting whoever they want because they had a shitty past? They have made the conscious decision to ruin peoples lives for their own reasons. Essentially, redemption arcs aren’t for every character, because some aren’t meant to be saved, some don’t want to be, and some you shouldn’t even attempt to. You can like a villain and want them to die and get exactly what they deserve just as much.)