You talk about it as though it were the easiest thing in the world. Clearly, you have not inhabited my brain for any period of time.
Hypothesis: If we throw out the concept that it’s supposed to make Hasbro lots of money, what we’re left with is “My Little Pony” as a setting for personal play and exploration (the “My” in “My Little Pony”). It’s true that prior to this iteration, it had mostly appealed to young girls, but with the current expression being as dynamic as it currently is, it also provides a space which appeals to some adult minds for the very same purpose: play and exploration.
The fact that the play in the adult mind can venture into sexual realms is a problem, but it is also missing the point to address on its own: it is but a specific example of how current human societies mostly fail to adequately reconcile our two strong feelings about sexuality: “yes, please” from the id-like entity, but “ew, gross, no” from the superego-like entity.
Every human being who lives to adulthood will, almost without exception, have to struggle with this duality for most of his or her lifetime. Some humans even become cognitively aware of the contrast.
I suppose I’m digressing.
I can’t speak for others, but for me, the problem with turning the ponies into humans had more to do with the following:
- “Equestria Girls” had the appearance of being a clone of the financially-successful non-Hasbro toy line “Monster High”, so the spectre of Hasbro’s bottom line appeared to haunt my vision of the idea; and
- I don’t actually like the appearance of hominids. Everything is so much more interesting with them being occasionally-bipedal equids.
My question is, how does one person’s playing (which, as I expressed earlier, is kind of the point of My Little Pony) negatively impact your daughters? And are you sure that the negative impact is actually unto them, rather than unto you?
