Anonymous1: ...Yeah, no. I don't think any other fandom goes this much out of the way to create multitudes of pointless variations of established characters. Most of the time I can deal with them but it's still ain't right.
Roflcakes: Setting a standard for a cartoon character? What, by arguing that the character in question's personality not be completely destroyed by showing them depicted in situations that don't fit their established personality? Yeah, fuck the characterization completely! Rainbow is a willing sex slave, Fluttershy is a brutal dominatrix and Rarity loves rubbing her own shit into her coat.
dat-engi: I like how the message is "don't set standards" and the pic shows 5 examples of the most standardized and stereotyped interpretation between all the MLP characters.
Anonymous3: If you were to have their personalities 100% accurate to the established canon, none would endorse engaging in any sexual-related activities. And Rule 34 wouldn't happen at all.
So I think there aren't any standard here really. One's headcanon will not be (completely) the same as another's headcanon. The true "standard" would be the show itself. Everything else is just fanon.
Anonymous5(3): @bAv-R34: The ponies' personalities in Rule 34 can be as close as possible to canon, but they are not canon.
You don't see them talking about sex in the show, right?
Anonymous7(3): @PinkBallons: Well, we don't even know if she likes eating sandwiches or not. Different people have different viewpoints in how she deals with sandwiches.
PinkBallons: @Anonymous: Correct, making none of them wrong or right. That does not, however, mean that we can't make educated guesses as to which type of sandwiches she would like based on canon. Making outrageous claims based on nothing then saying they are right simply because you think them is just silly.
As far as "none would endorse engaging in any sexual-related activities" goes: Lauren Faust said that they do mate like regular ponies do, but of course that would never be talked about in canon.
Anonymous9: @PinkBallons: "they do mate like regular ponies do,..."
Well duh how else do they reproduce. The twins in Baby cakes didn't just "magically appear"...well in that ep they did but that is besides the point. The show should have some allusion as to Mrs. Cake being pregnant, but that is besides the point. My point is the show isn't going with the "stork brings new foals" theory as such they have to do some sort of fucking.
jubilation_t_cornpone: But that still doesn't mean that they have sex that is NOT for reproduction. Ask Lauren if they would ever fuck someone they weren't married to.
- Reply
But in all seriousness, OP is a faggot.
- Reply
- Reply
So I think there aren't any standard here really. One's headcanon will not be (completely) the same as another's headcanon. The true "standard" would be the show itself. Everything else is just fanon.
- Reply
- Reply
unattractive and unsuccessful African you just went full retard.
You don't see them talking about sex in the show, right?
- Reply
Does that mean she shoves it up her ass?
- Reply
As far as "none would endorse engaging in any sexual-related activities" goes: Lauren Faust said that they do mate like regular ponies do, but of course that would never be talked about in canon.
Well duh how else do they reproduce. The twins in Baby cakes didn't just "magically appear"...well in that ep they did but that is besides the point. The show should have some allusion as to Mrs. Cake being pregnant, but that is besides the point. My point is the show isn't going with the "stork brings new foals" theory as such they have to do some sort of fucking.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
>>778650
>>922032
Forgot the artist's name of the middle one so can't find it, the rest is pretty much not porn and it's not here.