Daily Reminder That 'they're Hot' And 'they'd Be Hot Together' Are Perfectly Valid, Complete Reasons

Daily reminder that 'they're hot' and 'they'd be hot together' are perfectly valid, complete reasons to ship two characters and you do not need a checklist of stipulations and statements in order to justify why you're shipping two characters.

It literally doesn't matter who they are or what relationship they have. You can like them just because you find them attractive. Just like 'no' is a full sentence, 'they're hot' is a full sentence. That's the beauty of fiction; by its own nature it doesn't have to subscribe to the intricacies of reality.

Jeff Davis and Tyler Posey's jealousy, bitterness and obsessive hate boner for Sterek is SO big that they literally burned Derek (rape victim and survivor of the Hale fire) alive and gave Derek's son to Scott (the toxic scumbag who told Derek that his family deserved to die and who violated Derek's bodily autonomy and consent for his own gain throughout the whole series)

I think if anything Jeff Davis lives vicariously through Scott McCall and envisions himself as the Scott that would've been, which is why he got so frustrated when his plan to turn Derek Hale into the villain failed. Stiles was supposed to be the irrelevant comedy relief sidekick, too, and it had the same outcome.

As for Sterek; while its certainly the biggest example of how any ship that overcame Scallison was trashed, its not exactly a lone case. Scisaac was another example, and Stalia/Stydia as third and fourth. Essentially any ship that went against Jeff's endgame plan was simultaneously butchered and baited. Queer ships especially were the target of this because Jeff was marketing Teen Wolf at straight, young women an straight, young men and was of the misguided illusion that queer ships would turn off his target audience.

There's an entire list of people with a more logical, reasonable and believable claim to Eli than Scott. But alas the apparent only way Jeff could've given Scallison the ultimate happy family endgame was to brutally kill the one character who did actually deserve to be a loving, present parent, and give his child to them.

Which ultimately means any movie sequel or spin-off series is going to be about Scott and Allison and their difficult adjustment to the modern world and to raising a child. Gag.

(Also its very apparent that Paramount+ funded this is a desperate attempt to rake in new subscribers and money off the back of Teen Wolf, so if you really want to make sure the Teen Wolf legacy dies with this movie, cancel your subscription. Even if only for a few months.)

Dylan O'Brien singlehandedly made the Teen Wolf Movie flop by rejecting it. I C O N

We stan a man who stays in his lane, moisturized, hydrated and thriving ✨

Blog Rules

General Interactions

While this blog does not have an overall DNI, it is important to note that I, the creator, do not condone asks, replies, reblogs, comments, and all other interactions with racist, homophobic, violent or other negative intentions. All such interactions will be to the best of my ability removed, blocked and reported. Discussions about these in a fandom capacity are encouraged, however, wherein the intent is to draw light to the prevalence of them in fandom space or to challenge them.

Anonymous asks are enabled but will be disabled if frequently abused. Hiding behind anonymous protections for the purposes of harassment, threats, cowardice and escaping consequences of your own statements will not be tolerated and will result in the anonymous feature being revoked.

Asks, replies or discussion prompts sent in with the sole aim of being aggressive, targeting someone, harassing someone, inciting a dogpile on someone and so forth will, as above, be removed, refused, blocked and reported. This is up to the sole discretion of I, the creator.

Limitations and Restrictions

While this blog is open to people of all ages, please note that discussions revolving around topics such as sex, sexuality, LGBT+ themes, violence, death, gore and other topics will be present.

This will not include roleplaying of, creative writing of or discussions made with intent to arouse or generate sexual response. The above topics are discussed only in an analytical, critical-thinking manner.

As such, all users consuming the content of this blog are encouraged to self-reflect and self-evaluate and determine of their own volition if they are mentally sound and aware enough to be present. Users are encouraged to consult the blog's tag navigation list and pre-emptively block any tags and topics that they are not ready for or that will trigger them.

I am not responsible for you failing to curate your online space, failing to take measures to protect yourself from exposure to unwanted content or failing to take autonomy for your own actions.

I will give you the resources to do all of the above; warning statements, clear-cut tagging systems, ect. The rest is on you.

TEEN WOLF MOVIE SPOILERS.

No actually it does leave me speechless that Jeff Davis actually decided the perfect ending for a traumatised victim of rape and torture with a paralysing fear of fire was to burn alive sacrificing himself for characters who quite frankly haven't and wouldn't do that for him.

I mean besides the fact that the show dictates the Nogitsune can't be killed, only trapped, if anything it would've made the most sense for it to be Allison, Parrish or Scott who died. Allison because the Nogitsune brought her back and she realistically shouldn't be alive anyway and that 'full circle' makes more sense than Derek's supposed 'full circle.' Scott because he's a True Alpha and supposedly oh-so-powerful and meaningful and always doing The Most for everyone. Parrish because he's, again, dead, a Hellhound and the one doing the killing. Logically him burning up with the Nogitsune makes the most sense out of the three.

Jeff Davis killed Derek Hale solely for the purpose of killing Derek Hale and don't let him pretend otherwise.

Authors of so-called "bad" characters do not owe you continuous justification, apologies, explanation or written-in denouncing of the character's actions and views. They simply do not.

They likewise do not have to very specifically limit their writing or tailor their writing in order to satisfy your demands of denouncing, "fixing" or understanding of the character's actions and views as "bad."

They don't have to include the specific plot of the character changing or facing consequences or grovelling for forgiveness. They don't have to include paragraphs of author notes saying they don't, in reality, condone the character's actions or views.

They. Just. Don't.

Stop demanding it. Someone can write about horrific serial killer on a murder spree and they don't have to specifically always write the killer getting their comeuppance. They can just actually write about a serial killer killing people. And no, it doesn't mean they enjoy, support or fantasise about said things.

If you can watch movies and read books and understand that it doesn't mean you support aspects of it, then why demand that people who are, in reality, doing no different to what the writers and directors of the movie you just watched have done, apologise or denounce or limit themselves to certain permittable criteria? You yourself don't go watch a murder mystery and announce to the whole movie theatre that you buying this ticket and watching this movie doesn't equate to supporting murder.

Why should authors?

(The answer: they don't. And they never will.)