Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 12:47 am (UTC)(link)
most of us don't get frozen for 70+ years.

exactly. then why are you trying to bring real life equivalencies into it?

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 12:56 am (UTC)(link)
why are you? it's not like he knew sharon growing up. not like he saw her as a kid or anything. sure, someone's aunt's ex flame getting hot and heavy with the younger niece could be gross in some contexts, but in this context, where they're all essentially strangers, pulling 'but family' into it is just a lame attempt to make it gross for a reason it's not.

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 12:58 am (UTC)(link)
or

we could think it's gross in a meta way?

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 12:59 am (UTC)(link)
why? it's not incest.

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 05:45 am (UTC)(link)
there are more kinds of gross than incest, you troglodite

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 06:13 am (UTC)(link)
god damn u mad

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 06:27 am (UTC)(link)
liking someone that's related and separated by a few generations is less gross when he's actually the same age as both of them at the times he knows them. it'd be gross if he was old man steve and asking sharon to tuck in his hemorrhoids.

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 02:11 pm (UTC)(link)
oh so if the woman has the weirdness it's okay, but as soon as the man gets weird it becomes "problematic"

fuck off to the tumblrpit from whence you came

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 02:30 pm (UTC)(link)
what the actual fuck are you even talking about?

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 02:38 pm (UTC)(link)
um

no?

they're talking about ages, not men vs. women. go to bed, milo.

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 01:00 am (UTC)(link)
so? that has nothing to do with the list presented. stop moving the goal posts. 'eww, she's family to his ex', 'eww, she grew up with him', 'eww, i just don't like it'.

don't like it. you don't need to make up bullshit reasons why. 'i just don't like it' suffices. the reason this became a thing is because the excuses made were just that, lousy excuses. just admit you don't like it because it's a shitty ship and move on with your life.

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 01:01 am (UTC)(link)
those are my reasons for just not liking it?

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 01:06 am (UTC)(link)
ok.

Re: CA:CW SPOILERS

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 01:14 am (UTC)(link)
then you're an over-sensitive tittybaby

da

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 04:42 am (UTC)(link)
maybe, but that doesn't mean their reasons are any less valid?

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 06:17 am (UTC)(link)
yes.

stupid reasons are never valid.

da

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 02:02 pm (UTC)(link)
neither is this creepy "romance" you're fapping to

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 02:11 pm (UTC)(link)
hdu anon they don't even ship sharon/steve!!!111 they'll just die for the ship.

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 02:17 pm (UTC)(link)
they're like those titanic lovers who rant about how the government should raise the ship up to the surface

because they're both stanning for something at the bottom of the ocean

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2016-05-07 02:37 pm (UTC)(link)
yes, making fun of people who clutch their pearls and scream "ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING!!!" over shit that's barely even worth calling "a little weird" is so overinvested. such stanning.

man, stucky stans are idiots.