Thread:Cheeseskates/@comment-5782071-20171125043735/@comment-5956954-20171125060430

"I've seen pleeenty of assumptions on this wiki even if I can't name them off the top of my head."

Why did you not remove them, especially if they are disputable? "As for evidence: Jasper unsafely fuses (intercourse - and yes, I know fusion doesn't specifically equal sex, but different fusions are different relationships) with a Corrupted ("infected") Gem, and as such contracts Corruption, which spreads through her body like a disease.

From the art book: "Instead of catching victory, Jasper contracts the beast's corruption, which spreads through her body like a disease.""

The evidence is fair, but what is provided here is not introducing anything "else [that] hints at such a thing" and turns the dotpoint into something thoroughly supported rather than just supported by an analogy that is awfully cryptic when you conclude with "STIs". It doesn't sound accurate to me. Perhaps I can figure out a rewrite cutting out STIs. "The scene itself coupled with that sentence from the art book, both primary sources, should be enough to warrant the addition. Keep in mind my addition explicitly said "suggests it could be an allegory." Even though I believed it was, I never wrote it definitively."

The issue is it either has to be thoroughly supported or definitive since it otherwise promotes interpretation and different point of views by the reader when what is wanted is hard-hitting facts and universally-accepted commentary. Because of this, it would not matter if you put down that the evidence "suggests." It's still a suggestion that does not sound exactly right (in my opinion) with its wording.

Sorry that I took a while to respond. It's because the trivia has potential, but I am just thinking of a way to integrate it better. I am not convinced it even suggests STIs because the abbreviation itself implies something "sexual" happened, such a message likely being way too inappropriate for a kids show since if it was to be considered this way, it implies rape and dehumanization (to the point it is aggressive bestiality where the "beast's corruption" is its own revenge for abuse), which does not make sense in the context of the scene or the show.

What I might suggest is instead of talking about how the scene and artbook talk about how the corruption is contracted and spread like a disease, I would rather talk about how the scene and events prior depict the consequences of narcissism and one-eyed goals embracing the comprehension of incompatibility and blindness to empathy, which can be a thing for people who have been in multiple failed relationships. That or Iudexkoo's suggestion. Whichever you want: the simple and quick way or a thorough description that may come out slowly. I'll figure out a rewrite myself unless you can yourself.