Why I Think Silver Deserves To Be In The Fourth Sonic Movie

I appreciate your response and that you seem to be understanding what I was attempting to communicate.

I also understand your concerns. Unfortunately, it's true, society as a whole tends to place the burden of sexual responsibility on women. And while change definitely isn't going to happen immediately, I think it showcases that it only further proves the need of why we need go fix that as soon/beat as we can.

I just don't think allowing women to terminate pregnancies is the best way to go about it---especially since our society doesn't condemn sexually irresponsible and/or irrehensible men the way it should. To me, it seems like another way of the world telling women, "Don't address it or talk about it." I apologize if that seems insensitive, but I just don't see that getting men to be better people in the long run if it only enables the behavior they're not getting punished or criticized for. Of course these types of men are gonna be in favor of a procedure that allows them to be freed of their sexual consequences.

I do not agree with abortion, but I DEFINITELY don't like how the pro-life/conservative party handles it either. We could definitely be doing a LOT more. I hate to sound like I'm trying to be 'one of the good ones' because I'm pro life purely because of my religion. But yeah, I don't like how it's done.

Of course women aren't going to assume some of us genuinely have good intentions when society proves otherwise on a consistent basis and this is part of the reason why I'm sometimes reluctant to call myself pro-life (despite me not agreeing with abortion and thinking it's wrong) because I know which subsect has been speaking the loudest, and I apologize for that.

Not that I think it's my fault that jackoffs are being jackoffs, but I hope you understand my point. I've seen horrible people on both sides of this topic and it bugs me to hell.

As much as I don't agree with it, I don't think abortion to be banned immediately since it's clear that if pro-lifers want to get any sort of progression, we're gonna have to gain the trust of women instead of just spewing the same rhetoric. I'm not hopeful that any true change will be implemented anytime soon, but a girl can hope I guess. I understand it's not enough though. 🤷‍♀️

I personally consider abortion to be anti-feminist due to the fact it allows men to not be held responsible for their irresponsible actions of sleeping with a woman they have no intention of loving or providing for. It allows men to treat women like commodities with no consequence.

Being an artist nowadays is so scary on the internet. Imagine working hard and spending HOURS on your art and then posting/sharing them to the internet only for some unknown entity to call it "AI" as a baseless accusation without actual proofs to back it up. Only for some inconsiderate jerks to steal your art, use it to train AI, use that very AI to create 'art', and then claim it's their 'work'.

If you make a minor and totally reasonable mistake in your art (mostly when it comes to anatomy especially because anatomy is a pretty hard field to grip on in art)? It's AI.

If your art is actually nice and up to your standards? It's AI because it's 'too perfect'.

Not to mention that as if AI 'art' alone isn't enough to fuck with artists, something called AI speed paint exists now so AI 'artists' can back their 'work' up with an 'actual speed paint'.

I feel so terrible for artists that have to go through this kind of bs when they post or share their art online. For artists that have to quit because jerks are either stealing their art for their AI or because people just point and make accusations without evidence nowadays. For artists that are afraid to share their hard work online because of these issues.

I understand spreading awareness about AI 'art' and being cautious, but some people do be calling everything AI at this point.

This is like the third post of mine you've reblogged and commented on. I don't know why you bother responding to me either.

If I truly upset you that much, you can block me. There's nothing forcing you to be on my account. I'm clearly not as mature as you since you apparently have much more knowledge than me, so why are you arguing with someone who clearly is too dumb or horrible to care about something as far as you're concerned?

Please, for your own peace of mind, stop responding if my existence genuinely bothers you that much.

I hope you have a good day though :/

Something I think anti-abortionists (including myself) need to understand is that when you (rightfully) call out the fact that abortion is murder---or at the very least wrong, you're gonna get push back.

You're asking these women to confront a reality that's gonna force them to rethink every aspect of their life and how they see themselves as person.

Imagine if all your life you were told this thing was fine/okay to do, and that it's empowering for you to do it, only for you to find out you were actually committing evil in the process.

I doubt many people would be willing to face that reality because no one really wants to think of themselves as an evil person (lest they be a legit psychopath). Most people don't like confronting uncomfortable truths about things regardless of how necessary it might be because it's human nature to want to run from things that don't feel good to know.

Imagine if you found out that you were actually committing murder this whole time? Would you be so easily willing to accept that truth? Of course a bunch of these women are going to show major resistance because they don't want to believe what they're doing is horrible because by extension, it would mean they're a horrible person and they would have to wrestle with their self worth and regret because that's what it would translate to for them. No one wants to deal with that.

I'm not saying this erases it, nor do I believe all women who've had abortions are genuinely evil. But really take the time to look from their perspective here. Is it really any wonder that there's so much resistance/division on this topic?

Hotel Transylvania is Toxic - [A look into the Dracula Family]

[Spoiler Warning — Duh. I also have the article posted on Medium if you wanna check that out]

So we all know the movie, “Hotel Transylvania” right? For those who don’t, to sum it up, it’s a movie series about this hotel that’s for monsters so that monsters can hide from humans. The owner of this hotel is none other than the culturally known classic Dracula himself — and turns out he has a daughter named Mavis. Her mother died shortly after she was born due to human’s hatred for vampires during that time period. However, I feel like the story tends to be deeply problematic in terms of how the characters treat each other (specifically the Dracula family).

First and foremost, let’s get one thing out of the way: Dracula is a horrible father in these movies.

Legit, I can’t tell which movie he’s worse in. The only movie where I think he’s not entirely problematic is the third one where they go on vacation. And even then, he completely ditches his grandson to date Erica and lies to Mavis (but even that situation was a bit complicated if you watched the movie).

Excluding that, he’s straight-up horrible. Don’t believe me? What did he do in the first movie?

In the first film, Mavis states she wants to travel since she’s now 118 (which signifies her newfound autonomy in the monster realm the same way 18 is the new adult age for humans — gee, imagine having to wait that long?). However, Dracula, remembering his past trauma with humans, is terrified of her leaving because he doesn’t want her hurt. Obviously, this sounds like a caring father, right? But here’s the major issue.

Eventually, Dracula says that Mavis can test the waters by visiting a nearby human village. This obviously excites Mavis considering that she’s quite literally never left the hotel throughout those 118 years (if I was her, I’d also wanna go outside, hot dang).

Mavis flies over to the village. But the most bleeped up part about the whole thing is during that scene where she’s inside the village, it’s shown that Dracula actively set up the village and hired other monsters to pretend to be humans as a way to scare his daughter into leaving — making them seem like they’ll attack her.

Let’s restate that. Dracula — Mavis’ father — hires other monsters to cosplay humans — and scares her into leaving so she goes back to the hotel.

The guy traumatizes his own child into staying with him so that way she doesn’t leave. Deep down–despite Dracula possibly having the good intention of wanting to protect her from humans who hate monsters — only wants to keep his daughter to himself because he’s become dependent on her for his happiness since the death of her mother (Dracula’s late wife). Yes, Mavis does confront him about this after finding out about it (and during her 118th birthday party no less), but it’s still so slimy that Dracula would manipulate and traumatize his daughter just so he could keep her to himself due to his own outdated perception of humans.

I understand that Dracula also avoided humans up until Johnny showed due to his own experience and trauma, but the fact he even went that far just to have Mavis isolated in the hotel with him is all kinds of wrong. It’s one thing to disagree with something that you think is dangerous for your child, and it’s a complete ‘nother to straight up manipulate and traumatize them just so YOU can keep them where you want them.

You think that’s bad? Oh, you haven’t heard the half of it.

In the second movie, Mavis and her human husband Johnny (who she met in the first movie) have a child named Dennis. Throughout the film, Dracula has a creepy fixation on the vampiric aspects of Dennis rather than completely accepting his grandchild for who/what he is. Almost every chance he got, he tried to teach Dennis to be a vampire or try to trigger his vampiric growth. Sure, you could try to paint it as Dracula trying to connect with Dennis or helping him discover more aspects of himself. But he constantly gets progressively more and more shady about it.

It starts off small with Dracula trying to teach Dennis how to turn into a bat late at night while he sleeps. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still icky to wake up a child from their needed rest, but just bare with me here. Then when Dennis got his tooth knocked out during the werewolf children’s birthday party, Dracula — instead of showing concern for Dennis’ wellbeing–acted happy about it, hoping it meant that a vampire fang was growing in despite there being no correlation between the two whatsoever. Even if Dennis would somehow grow a fang as a new tooth, the fact he cared more about his grandson’s vampirisim than whether or not he was okay is incredibly offputting (for lack of a better word).

And then when Mavis trusts her father to look after Dennis while she and Johnny visit his family in California (a plan formulated by Johnny and Dracula), he completely dismisses her wishes and takes him on a trip, hoping to get him to become a vampire while she’s away. He even visits his former vampire camp and throws him off of a high ledge since apparently, he learned to fly by “being thrown and figuring it out.” Yes, he saves Dennis before he hits the ground, but the fact that he’s so willing to throw his toddler grandson off a tower in hopes of him becoming a vampire is deeply concerning — if not immoral and dangerous.

And it makes no sense for him to do this either. Even if it was how Dracula personally learned how to fly, we see in the first movie that there’s a flashback where Dracula teaches a young Mavis to fly in a completely different way. She’s in the comfort of her own home, is wearing a helmet, and Dracula is placed underneath her to catch her should she fall. So it’s definitely not how he taught Mavis. Why would it be any different for Dennis if his method of teaching Mavis was much more considerate and softer? At that point, Dracula may as well have only done that for some sadistic reason. There’s still major favoritism with Mavis going on and I wouldn’t be surprised if Dracula did that out of malice for the fact that Dennis is half-human.

Even when Mavis returns to the hotel and chews Dracula out for it, he still keeps up his antics by attempting to ‘scare the fangs’ out of Dennis by having Dracula’s father, Vlad, possess the mascot playing Dennis’ favorite TV character, Cakey (who most likely mimics or is a parody to Cookie Monster from Sesame Street) and making him act scary. Yes, Dracula ends up stopping it — but the fact that he even agreed to it and dragged Johnny into his mess (don’t worry, I’ll address Johnny later on) is diabolical. He once again attempted to traumatize someone he supposedly loved to gain control. And what is his motive for doing all of this? To control Mavis.

See, in the movie, Mavis states that she wishes to move out of the hotel and go to California since she reasonably believes that it’d be safer for Dennis. Therefore, if Dennis were to be a vampire (and he does become one by the end of the film), Mavis would be okay with allowing him to stay at the hotel. But throughout the film, it makes it seem like Mavis’ desire to move out is unreasonable or a bad thing when she was most likely the only voice of reason throughout that entire movie (but even she’s not without her flaws and I’ll address that as well). Though when you truly think about it, Mavis simply wants to do what’s best for her child and is constantly gaslit in the second movie about it.

Because of the fact that Dennis is half-human half-vampire, he’s obviously going to be weaker than his monster counterparts. Even if not, Dennis is five years old — thus very young — and it was proven he was not even at an actual good strength capacity to survive the chaotic nature of the hotel to begin with. For crying out loud, Dennis got his tooth knocked out during a werewolf party. And considering Dracula’s less-than-concerned reaction to that, it’s no wonder Mavis didn’t want Dennis to be raised in that environment.

Granted, she may have been incorrect about his ability to become a vampire and sure, she might be ‘overprotective’ (a notion I very much disagree with) but at the end of it all, she just wants her child to be safe since she doesn’t know how weak or powerful he could be. In fact, she actually wanted Dennis to be human because she believed it would've given him more opportunities in life than she did. So if anything, Mavis is the only one in the second movie who was ever truly considerate of the well-being of her son for the right reasons — even if supposedly her views were slightly flawed. But, it still doesn’t justify all the stuff that Dracula and Johnny did to Dennis previously.

Dracula was so hell-bent on getting Dennis to be a vampire because it meant that Mavis would stay in the hotel. Even after Mavis gets married and has a kid of her own, her father is still trying to control her. Dracula still refuses to allow Mavis any sort of autonomy over her life and how she wishes to do things.

And Johnny (her husband) is absolutely not in the clear here either because one of the only reasons why he agreed to help Dracula in his manipulative endeavors is because he liked Transylvania so much that he didn’t want to leave.

I’ll say it again.

He liked Transylvania so much that he didn’t want to leave.

Johnny is not even thinking about the safety of his own child and is focused on his own wants. I get that Johnny’s whole character dynamic is that he’s something of a dummy, but there’s a difference between being a dummy and being so outright selfish to the point where you place your own wants above the needs of your child. Heck, the whole reason why Mavis and Johnny were on that trip to California to begin with was because Johnny and Dracula both agreed to trick Mavis into leaving so that way Dracula could keep trying to turn Dennis into a vampire. The one time that Mavis finally has some time with herself and her husband is all because her husband and father are manipulating her.

You’re seriously trying to tell me that Johnny, this selfish incompetent man-child, is Mavis’ zing/soulmate? You’re trying to tell me that Johnny is her one and only love? Because I’m pretty sure if he was, he’d also understand and be willing to discuss the problems with his wife, rather than manipulate her behind her back and essentially betray her trust.

We could call it a ‘lapse’ in judgment all we want, but at the end of the day, what decent father agrees to the traumatization of his own child just for his own personal gain? What Dracula did to Mavis, Johnny is doing to Dennis in a similar format. It’s disgusting.

Sure, the movie has Dennis become a vampire by the end of the movie, but let’s be honest. The only reason why the movie would’ve had to go that direction is because otherwise, the conflict between Mavis versus Johnny & Dracula would’ve never truly been resolved. She still would’ve rightfully been super angry with them for endangering her child to suit their own selfish desires. But when Dennis did become a vampire, there was no longer a point for her to be angry since it then would’ve been better for him to stay at the hotel. Though let’s be clear, Dennis being a vampire doesn’t negate everything that Johnny and Dracula did to her.

Throughout the whole second movie, Mavis is gaslit, manipulated, and her boundaries are constantly being dismissed by her husband and her father.

I know it seems like I’m mainly sympathizing with Mavis here (and that’s because I sorta am) but there’s one thing Mavis does in the second movie that grinds my gears as well.

Why. The heck. Did she invite. Her anti-human grandad. To see her son? In the movie, she says, “He’s never seen Dennis.” But in the grand scheme of things, why did SHE expect a vampire centuries older than her father to be more accepting of humans over her actual father who still has trouble with being unbiased towards them? It makes NO sense. I’m glad she at LEAST acknowledges it in the movie when she says, “I don’t know why I ever invited you,” but it still makes no freaking sense and the only explanation I can think of as to why is because she didn’t want Vlad or Dennis to interrogate her about it later.

In the fourth movie, after Dracula gets married to a human woman named Erica (who was the daughter of a van Hellsing of all people), Dracula realizes that Johnny and Mavis will eventually inherit the hotel. However, Dracula has a problem with the fact that Johnny (a human) would be inheriting the hotel.

So even after all this time, meeting Johnny, letting Johnny marry Mavis, having a half-human grandson, letting the human side of his family visit him (who were all very accepting of the monsters by the way), and even marrying a human woman, he still is discriminatory against them. So this goes to show that deep down, Dracula is just an obstinate racist (well, speciest) who refuses to change his mind unless it suits the situation he’s in. He’ll say, “Doesn’t matter–vampire, unicorn, no matter what.” But he doesn’t actually believe it. Actions speak louder than words. That’s also why in the second movie, Dracula was adamant about calling Dennis “Denisovich’’ which is his vampire name — it subtly removes humanity from Dennis’ identity.

Throughout the movie series excluding perhaps the third one, Dracula consistently shows himself as a manipulative human-hating control freak. Yes, I get that Dracula has had bad experiences with humans, but he’s also had way too many experiences thus far to believe that humans are the same as they were in the 1800s regarding their view on monsters.

This whole family (aside from Johnny’s parents and the children) is so toxic. Sure, Johnny’s parents aren’t perfect, but they were more than willing to let Dennis stay with them and make accommodations to make Mavis and Dennis feel comfortable (even if the said execution was less tasteful than Mavis would’ve originally wanted).

I know I'm gonna ruffle a lot of feathers when I say this, but I think this is something people don't really touch on when it comes to the topic of female modesty (at least not too often).

A big criticism I have when it comes to the topic of female modesty (especially in some ‘Christian’ spaces) is that most who speak on it often approach it from the lens of “Immodesty makes men lust.” And regardless of how true that is, lots of women roll their eyes when they hear it because lots of us have experienced harassment (and a lot of women even sexual abuse) from men REGARDLESS of WHAT we are wearing.

Whether or not the message of “dress this way and men won’t harass you” was your personal intention or not, that is unfortunately the message that has been pushed on a LOT of women from the time we could first walk by OTHER people.

Sure, clothes have an effect on how people perceive us, I’m not gonna pretend it doesn’t. You obviously can’t walk into your office job wearing a low cut halter top and booty shorts—you have to dress for the environment you’re in (durr).

But clothes definitely have not stopped people from doing what they want to do to us at the end of the day. I think the main reason why lots of women roll their eyes when the topic of modesty comes up is because we’re being told the solution to a problem that we know for a fact has not actually worked.

If people kept telling you that wearing a helmet prevents serial killers from targeting you, but serial killers kept targeting you anyway, would you be more convinced to wear a helmet? No, because wearing a helmet didn’t change anything.

Lots of women realize this reality and so I think that’s why a lot of women dress with the mindset of “I’m gonna wear whatever the heck I want because it clearly doesn’t matter what I wear or don’t wear—men are still gonna behave the same.”

I’ve gotten harassed by a male ‘friend’ who bullied me in highschool and snuck around to obtain my phone number (without my permission) so that way he could flirt with me despite me telling him to stop (pretty tame all things considered). And all throughout high school, I wore nothing except big hoodies, jeans, and sometimes sweatpants.

Modesty is important, I agree. But stop promising women that it provides GRAND changes in how men will treat them. So many women have experience that proves it really doesn’t. Because it’s not about the clothes and never will be about the clothes, it’s about the character of the men we interact with. So if the only way a man can respect a woman is if she covers herself head to toe like a box, I don’t know if I can consider him a respectable person.

Sure, modesty can help people respect you more---but stop telling women that it ELIMINATES mistreatment from men---because it doesn't. And to tell something that isn't true is a lie.

You are a genius, this makes so much sense.

This is no longer a headcanon now. It IS canon. Because as you said, there's literally no other way to explain otherwise why she was able to be an avenger.

My Beef with Wanda Maximoff - An MCU Rant

Sorry not sorry, I will ride the Wanda-ain't-shiitake train till the wheels are worn out. I do not care what her fangirls say. And if you're legitimately going to be so overly offended just from me disliking a FICTIONAL character, I highly suggest you click off, make some tea, and watch a Ghibli movie.

How many times does it need to be said? Just because someone suffers from some form of (small or big) trauma, IT DOESN’T GIVE THEM A PASS TO DO EVIL SH—

I really REALLY sincerely hope there's lore or bits I'm missing here (and if so, PLEASE tell me because I WANT to be wrong so BAD). But from what I know and remember, I feel as though I have every right to be disgusted with who Wanda is as a person.

It frustrates me so much how this carmine-colored narcissist will whine about people being scared of her, but she does stuff only a scary person WOULD do.

Purposefully setting the Hulk off so you could use him as a wrecking ball on innocent civilians in Johannesburg during Age of Ultron? Seems scary as heck.

Literally warping the universe itself to hunt and kill a teenager who did nothing to you during Multiverse of Madness? Seems scary as heck.

Brainwashing an ENTIRE town JUST so you can live in delusion about your man not being dead during Wandavision? Seems DOUBLE scary as heck.

Don't even try to defend what she did in Age of Ultron. Even if she supposedly didn't INTEND to have civilians killed, she sure as HECK didn't seem all too sorry that it happened. She wasn't ‘regretful’ that she did it. She was only ‘regretful' when Bruce confronted her on it. She has the nerve (the utter AUDACITY) to hate Tony Stark for the same CRAP that she does (if not worse, which let's be honest—it’s worse).

At least Tony Stark DIED out of an effort to save everyone, whereas Wanda usually tends to only help others when it benefits HER.

Wanda is nothing more than a Multiversal brat with a god-complex and no one can tell me otherwise. If something does not go 100% her way, she completely acts out and throws a reality-warping tantrum.

“Oh, but she tried to fix everything in Wandavision!”

Yeah, only after finding out she was BRAINWASHING people!

How the FREAK do you reality warp an ENTIRE town (especially at the large radius she used her magic) and expect NO one to be under mind control? Would you NOT try to fly around the premises to see if ANYONE else was there?

Once again, even if this was an example where she didn't INTEND for it to happen, then that proves another great flaw that she has.

Wanda hardly (if ever) thinks through her actions. And then when her actions bite her in the butt, she has the nerve to be surprised. Wanda almost never (and I'm being generous here) considers how her actions harm or affect others until it turns around and affects HER.

She did not deserve Vision, he was too good of a man for her, sorry not sorry.

Just the stuff she did BEFORE Multiverse of Madness ALONE is enough to not like her.

Let's not even get into the fact she never ACTUALLY apologized to Bruce Banner for everything she put him through. All she said at most when he confronted her is, “I know you're angry…”

Oh wow, REALLY? I couldn't POSSIBLY understand why Banner would EVER be angry at you for essentially brain-raping him (going into his mind and memories without his CONSENT) and using his worst fears against him to trigger Hulk so you could use him like a personal killing machine, further lessening the very few support systems he already HAD. She should feel grateful Banner didn't immediately throw her through a wall upon seeing her.

“But she became an avenger and helped them in Endgame!”

I could not give less of a DOOKIE about the fact she did that. Wanda fighting Thanos was literally the ONLY option she possibly had if she didn't wanna turn into dust along with the other half of the population. Sure, she also did it because she was forced to kill her boo BECAUSE of Thanos, but let's be honest—she would've had to fight him regardless. Her handing Thanos’ butt to him (while a very cool scene) doesn't prove JACK about her character.

The fact she ever BECAME an avenger after effectively traumatizing the MAJORITY of them is mind-boggling to me.

“Oh, I'm sorry I weaponized all of your traumas against you for my own personal gain because I wanted to work with a genocidal robot, can I join you guys?”

“Sure, Wanda! Come into the team and we'll pretend like you didn't do a darn thing!”

(The fact this isn't even ALL that she's done is absurd, I can still keep going—)

Don't even get me STARTED on Multiverse of Madness. And before anyone tries to say, “She did it so she could have a reality with her children!”

BRO, HER KIDS WEREN'T EVEN FREAKING REAL—

Wanda Freaking Maximoff wanted to murder a TEENAGER all for some children that were not even ACTUAL people. And when she did have them, didn't she make them FIGHT against the military in Wandavision or am I mistaken (which I VERY MUCH hope I am because what the he---)?

I do not care whatsoever what her reason is or what trauma she went through. Attempted murder of a minor (ESPECIALLY in this case, a minor who didn't even do anything) is inexcusable to me.

There is no way in frog fingers you guys are ACTUALLY trying to justify and/or downplay a grown ADULT trying to murder a CHILD (because that's what America was—a CHILD).

(Her and Miguel O'Hara would get along GREAT, when's the collab--)

And by then, she had ALREADY brutally murdered a whole bunch of people and probably corrupted the multiverse even FURTHER than she already had.

It wasn't until an ALTERNATE version of her (who ACTUALLY had her kids) told her to sit the [BLEEP] down (I'm paraphrasing here, but you get my drift).

Wanda is NOT a victim. Is she a good villain? Yes. But this witch isn't a victim. Not anymore at least. She doesn't apologize for her actions. She doesn't take responsibility. She doesn't reflect on what she does.

And even when she DOES finally do ANY of those things in ANY capacity, the damage is already done. In fact, it's not JUST done, it's also BURNT inside the oven causing smoke to go everywhere.

There is no rhyme or reason you could pull out that will convince me to be anything short of angry with this character and I'm so tired of her fans trying to defend her just because she was a lab rat and lost her man.

Once again, it's not bad to like a character that does awful stuff. But please, for sanity sake, STOP acting like they're a lost little angel BECAUSE you like them. I know they say "hurt people hurt people" but that still doesn't justify doing bad stuff just because bad things happened to YOU.

Welcome to my blog!

If you're here because I said something you didn't like, or because you want to spew hateful messages in my inbox, please do something more productive with your time.

Any hate speech and threats will be deleted, blocked, and if it is bad enough--I will report it.

Example:

If my existence truly gets you that upset, you have my full permission to block me. I do not care. I'll do what I want with my blog.

I'll apologize for miscommunication. I'll apologize for being unclear in my speech or opinions. But I will not apologize for using my freedom of speech to state them.

You're allowed to think I'm a villain. You're allowed to hate me. You can even call me the devil. I can't change how you look at me nor do I think it's worth the effort to try. But I am under no obligation to tolerate blatant threats that I know for a fact no sane human being would say to another stranger in real life.

y’all ever remember something extremely embarrassing and just feel horrible about it

Black Cat is NOT better than MJ - An Insomniac Rant

Listen, I'll definitely make a post about how crappy a love interest Insomniac's version of MJ is for Peter Parker (and when made, I'll link it in THIS post). But there ain't no way in dog drool I am EVER going to say that Black Cat is better love interest for him. If anything, a part of me would like to argue she's a bit worse.

"Oh, I only like her/ship them as a joke---" Congratulations, you can leave the post because I'm obviously not talking about you :)

Maybe I'm off my rocker, but what about this DC Catwoman copycat screams wifey-material to you guys? Felicia has manipulated, lied to, and used Peter for her own advantage time after time with seemingly no remorse. And even if she supposedly did for one millisecond, she sure as heck doesn't atone for it. And even when she apologized for tricking him into helping her, it sure sounded un-genuine.

Whether she truly had a son or not (though considering Felicia's history of being a pathological liar, I wouldn't put it past her), she used that narrative to trick Peter into a sense of false security, only to then trap him in a room after she got what she wanted.

And let's say that Felicia having a son WAS true. Guess what? THAT'S EVEN WORSE!

Because NOW instead of it just being a slimy scheme to get him vulnerable, she's lying to him by omission. Regardless of what her so-called intentions could be, she's still manipulating him which is an absolute no-bueno for ANY type of relationship (romantic or not).

You guys seriously need to stop glossing over how flawed these characters are just because you're attracted to them.

Y'all will complain up and down about how Peter's constantly broke but then want him to hook up with a chick that'd just steal his money without a blink? Make it make sense.

Once again, MJ is DEFINITELY not a good girlfriend for him either, but are we really going to pick a literal criminal as a love interest JUST because she's pretty?

“Oh, but Felicia has a similar lifestyle to Spider-Man!” Uh…no the freak she does NOT.

Spider-Man fights crime. Felicia COMMITS crimes.

Do they have chemistry? Yes, way more than an actual chemistry lab. But Felicia would absolutely NOT be a good long-term partner for Peter—he deserves way better than her.

At this point, if Peter having a love interest MUST (utterly MUST) be a prerequisite, I'd genuinely prefer he at least (at the freaking LEAST) get with Sable or Watanabe (before she became Wraith, that is—don’t even get me started on that mess) because at least those two try to have SOME (not good but some) sense of decent morality.

“Oh but look at her, she's bad–” You don't need to project the fact you're a masochist on everyone else.

If you're the kinda person who likes being manipulated and taken advantage of by people you find hot, that's your problem you need to get fixed in therapy.

But here's what annoys me the most about this whole thing: I know for a FACT that if MJ was the more attractive one and that FELICIA was mid-looking, you guys would then be SCREAMING for her to be with Peter instead of Felicia.

Really think about it. Without Felicia's looks, what kind of person is she? Is she really someone worth being with? Don't worry, I have the answer: NO-

Felicia is in NO way a better love interest for Peter and I'm tired of people acting like she is just because she looks like an Instagram cosplayer.

“Felicia's always been this way in the comics and stuff—”

As if that makes it any better. If anything, all that's doing is giving me MORE proof as to why she's not a good person for him WHATSOEVER.

If the genders were reversed, you'd all be grossed out by Felicia, let's not even lie. If Felicia was a guy doing all of this to a female version of Peter, you'd all be calling him a creep and trying to cancel him on Twitter -_-

I understand your point as well 👍

Something I think anti-abortionists (including myself) need to understand is that when you (rightfully) call out the fact that abortion is murder---or at the very least wrong, you're gonna get push back.

You're asking these women to confront a reality that's gonna force them to rethink every aspect of their life and how they see themselves as person.

Imagine if all your life you were told this thing was fine/okay to do, and that it's empowering for you to do it, only for you to find out you were actually committing evil in the process.

I doubt many people would be willing to face that reality because no one really wants to think of themselves as an evil person (lest they be a legit psychopath). Most people don't like confronting uncomfortable truths about things regardless of how necessary it might be because it's human nature to want to run from things that don't feel good to know.

Imagine if you found out that you were actually committing murder this whole time? Would you be so easily willing to accept that truth? Of course a bunch of these women are going to show major resistance because they don't want to believe what they're doing is horrible because by extension, it would mean they're a horrible person and they would have to wrestle with their self worth and regret because that's what it would translate to for them. No one wants to deal with that.

I'm not saying this erases it, nor do I believe all women who've had abortions are genuinely evil. But really take the time to look from their perspective here. Is it really any wonder that there's so much resistance/division on this topic?