it’s funny but until i watched that video of the adventure time writer saying that marceline and pb couldn’t explicitly date in the show or the comics because “that sort of thing is illegal in some countries,” i hadn’t consciously realized that this is why queer representation is so piecemeal in mainstream media. because if dumbledore had been out and proud in harry potter, the publishers literally wouldn’t have been legally allowed to sell their books in some countries and they would have lost millions of dollars. and that’s to say nothing of any potential north american boycotts - like, j.k. rowling literally would not have been legally permitted to publish her books.
and it’s kind of an obvious realization but, like. there it is. the single biggest thing keeping queer representation from at-risk queer children is the fear that some multi-national publishing company or movie studio might lose money.
funny how every company is super willing to hand out branded rainbow flags at pride for a chance to make a quick buck off the queer community but when the possibility of forfeiting some profit in the name of protecting and encouraging that community comes up they’re suddenly not so interested.
on a textual level, a female character can dress however she wants and shouldn’t be slut-shamed and hated for what she prefers to wear.
on a metatextual level, she might still have been designed with an intention to provide fanservice.
this means that criticising a design, as opposed to a character, is neither misogyny nor slut-shaming. being displeased about the way a character has been designed is not synonymous with hating her.
have i made myself clear?
people who yell/get annoyed/laugh at people who have issues understanding/reading sarcasm are the worst