Talk:So Sorry/@comment-27141090-20181113153000/@comment-3120028-20200218044041

The intent behind the original creation of a character is irrelevant if the character doesn't embody that intent & the game doesn't reference it in anyway. The fetish is inflation. There's no inflation in Undertale. Get over it.

There are very strong signs that someone working on The Powerpuff Girls (the original, not the reboot which is indefensible) was attracted to the girls considering how often they were naked & how often objects were put in their clothes. Does that mean the entire show should never have existed even though none of those moments were sexual? Well, none of those moments until the show became garbage near the end & got genuinely creepy.

You seem to be a fan of Steven Universe, a show where fusion is often compared to sex & kids have fused with adults but you draw the line at So Sorry even though nothing sexual happened with So Sorry & your excuse is that the artist drew some stuff online even though the creator of Steven Universe used to draw porn of Ed, Edd, & Eddy characters, all of whom are severely underage.

Basically, it should be fine that the creator of a character is attracted to said character until they do something stupid like making an episode where a giant slug is put in a kindergartener's dress in a sexual looking position while she cries in a way that's way too extreme for what's supposed to be happening but exactly the right amount of extreme if you take it as a metaphor that never should've been in a kids' cartoon. I'm referring to The Powerpuff Girls again.

The reason I use that show as an example is because it shows both the right & wrong ways to use a character you're attracted to in a nonsexual work. The girls bathing is fine because it has plot relevance & isn't sexual. The girls losing a fight because they left out of embarrassment after their clothes melted is fine because it's funny & not sexual. The slug scene isn't fine for obvious reasons. Nothing about that scene is fine.

Ideally, no one should be aware of the creator's fetish unless they learn of it outside the work, they surmize it from moments that aren't inherently sexual & don't really prove anything, or the work itself is fetishistic so it's not out of place.

Besides, it's not like furries victimized anyone by being furries. The subjects of their affection are fictional & it wouldn't matter if they existed anyway as long as they weren't fetishizing existing individuals. You can be attracted to someone & still not do anything to them. It's called being a decent person. Everyone except asexuals is attracted to someone or something. That doesn't mean we're all gonna go ahead & do whatever our fetishes dictate with no regard for morality.