8 2655

CH9P7
Posted on 22 June 2021 by rustyhearts

And thus the male characters' purpose has been fulfilled.
Bye bye~

For real I sorta regretted the dress design choice for Nicholas, lmao! It was very annoying to draw.

Thank you for all the lovely comments you've been leaving btw, it's always exciting to wake up to them!

8 thoughts on “CH9P7”

  1. rebecca

    Oh good this means Riley should be able to keep muddles, right? Right??? ?

    3

    1. rustyhearts

      ♀️♀️♀️♀️♀️♀️

      2

  2. Rez

    ‘We lived here since before we started dating’ – I see what you did there ?

    4

    1. rustyhearts

      πŸ˜‰ couldn’t help myself

      1

  3. Fae

    Putting a male toddler in a dress and leaving him unattended. Welcome to batshit insane parenting

    2
    4

    1. rustyhearts

      Why does his sex matter in regards to wearing a dress?


      He wasn’t put into the dress, he’s wearing it over his everyday clothes to play dress up. His dads are just supporting his desire to play (that’s why both Nicholas and Tāne are both wearing hairclips too.)


      It wasn’t intended to show the two dads as careless. Tāne is the work-from-home parent, and Nicholas got out doing something he wasn’t supposed to. Easy mistake

      10

  4. Crpty

    I know I keep saying i love things in your comic but that’s cause you put in a lot to love ok!!!!!
    I love that one of the few not creepy guys you have in this comic is 1. same sex attracted 2. a father who supports his sons love of dresses and hair clips 3. is, as the kids say, A Short King.
    I also will headcanon that either him or his husband worked as a bouncer at that gay bar Jaden mentioned a few chapters ago because, well, parallels πŸ˜‰

    7

  5. Curious&Furious

    Every time I’m rereading and see that comment about a male toddler in a dress being batshit parenting, I get more annoyed by it. The dress wouldn’t even have been mentioned if he was a little girl!
    Tyler is wearing full pants and a shirt under the dress; if he were a little girl, there would be nothing under the top of the dress and only underwear on her bottom half. Little girls being unable to run or jump or play without their panties showing is fine, but a little boy wearing 2 outfits stacked on top of eachother is batshit?
    Why, because it’s *supposed* to happen to girls? (the quote about “if it’s humiliating for a man to do, it’s also humiliating for a women, but we’re just used to seeing women humiliated” comes to mind)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*

*