Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32347396-20171103040616/@comment-25396609-20171104020408

SomeoneYouUsedToKnow wrote: Phantomlink959 wrote: It's not pedophilic unless Ozpin gets involved willingly, which he's unlikely to do.

Otherwise it's not all that different from being forced to listen to your neighbors getting it on and having to put up with it. Except you can't feel everything said neighbors are feeling, or hearing anything they're thinking while at it. The analogy fails because of that.

And saying "it's not (pseudo-)pedophilic unless Ozpin gets involved willingly" is ignoring the issue. Ozpin and Oscar are effectively 1, his thoughts are Ozpin's, his feelings are Ozpin's, and even if they are 2 now, like you know, they'll truly become 1 later, and if Rose Garden becomes a thing, that Later = Eventually.

And in the end, you get Ozpin with a tan, because the only thing separating Oscar and Ozpin right now is that Oscar is more nervous, and only because he's just a 14 year old boy at the time. Even their memories are 1 now. They've been as far back as Vol.4.

Oscar is a 14 year old boy, but Ozpin is literally ages old, and remembers all, or at least most, of his past lives. Oscar and Ozpin are 1, even if Ruby dated Oscar now, eventually it will become Ruby dating Ozpin with a tan.

Hence, why the ship is Pseudo-pedophilical. Emphasis in Pseudo, which you happily omit each and every time.

I don't care about "eventually" that bridge can be crossed when they reach it. As I have stated in the past, it would be a GOOD thing from a character and story telling perspective. There's an entire world of options unlocked for both of their character arcs by having to find a way to deal with something like that.

And no, Ozpin;'s thoughts are not Oscar's, Oscar's are not his. If they were they wouldn't need to hold conversations, the information Oscar needed to know would just pop into his head without Oz needing to explain it. Ozpin will not become dominant, it will still be Oscar; but with the knowledge of generations; or it will be a new combination of the two which is neither of them but also both. (like the fusions in Steven Universe, come to think of it.)

I leave the "pseudo" off because you are acting like it is outright no-holds-barred pedophilia right out of the gate.

(Also, btw, pedophilical isn't a word. The word is just pedophilic. This isn't an argument the mixup is just bugging me.)