I never mentioned your association, yet you seem obsessed with defending against an imagined attack on it.
That's on you.
Stop inventing things to feel "attacked" by.
I specifically wrote that you'd missed a key aspect of your context.
You making those associations with being called Daddy, is absolutely fine.
But they do not apply to Liz & MC.
Your reasoning was fine, for why you hold that association.
It just doesn't apply to the scenario.
Liz & MC are not the "parents" of a child.
There is no "baby growing" with them.
There is no "in front of the children" where they are concerned.
Hence your context is flawed, fundamentally.
And here's the crux you maintain MC and you as separate entities and I guess read this as a biography. I self insert when I'm reading these I am MC... I don't have much interest in the sexual exploits of some dude named Thomas.
So my context is the only context that matters, to me, and fundamentally can't be flawed.
At no point in this did I feel victimized or attacked, I did feel incredibly frustrated at the clear lack of understanding we seemed to be having.
Having already stated that I self insert, and yet having you continue to argue some objectivist Thomas is a fully realized person with their own motivations, is what was getting me frustrated. As I'd clearly said, almost immediately, that that was not how I read the story.
From there despite your claims otherwise "that's fair... Fundamentally wrong" sure reads like a good old bout of you enjoy this differently so it's badwrongfun.
I agree that if Thomas were a fully realized character with his own thoughts and motivations my associations would probably not make sense for him.
But since he's basically just the sleeve for my impulses and desires when I'm reading my associations are the ones that matter to me.
Obviously your mileage may vary with your useage.
