Please let's try not and get too contentious here...

46. Is there a popular piece of headcanon that other writers use that you dislike?
Homeless orphan Scootlaoo is the biggest one. Ponyville's a small town and there is no way a kid could live on the streets unnoticed for years . Once noticed there's no way the situation would be ignored - not in Equestria. And certainly not by decent ponies like Applejack and Rarity.

Post-2014 addendum: Another one that caught on over time is the notion that all of the ponies have surnames, i.e. that Rainbow's last name is Dash and Twilight's last name is Sparkle. Which has lead to fanfic authors saying that Rarity's last name is Belle and Twilight's brother is Shining Armor Sparkle. This despite the fact that we've seen both of them formally introduced in the kinds of social settings where giving their full name would be expected.

7038833
Yeah - orphan is plausible, no guardians is not. Or at least, that was what I thought... but canon is always full of surprises, I guess.

And also agree that naming is complicated - but that's a different thread.

That batponies exist.

7038965
But - you just posted a big batpony headcanon...

I've absolutely detested any kind of headcanon that depicts Celestia as a tyrant or Pinkie Pie as a serial killer.

7039028
Well even though both of them are kind of mysterious, neither is very likely outside of an alternate universe.

7039041 Many of them were more popular in the early fandom, pyscho killer Pinkie really took off after "Cupcakes" and I'm actually glad "Rainbow Dash Presents" pointed out how it would be impossible for Pinkie to do what she does without anypony finding out,

I absolutely hate it when writers write pony characters as pony shaped humans. They are not human. They do not act human. They do not think human. When writers write ponies doing something that animals in this world don't do for the sole reason that it is a societal norm to the writer, then that thing is probably something a pony would not do. Ponies are not monogamous. Ponies do not have any concept of heteronormativity.

7039570
I'm all for remembering the differences, but I think you're pulling too hard in the other direction here. Ponies were designed with a mix of human and animal traits for appeal and relatability. We saw Rarity's fantasy wedding to a prince in the third episode, which was partly written by Faust herself. The last point is arguable only because the show is cautious in addressing such matters, but at least the vast majority of relationships we see are mare-stallion - and all are exclusive one-to-ones.

7039016
Yeah, and no one follows my headcanon on bat ponies. They all do stupid stuff like have them be wooby, misunderstood vampire ponies. They use words made up by YA fiction writers to describe them because they don't know any better. Bat ponies really cheese me off in numerous ways. >:|

7039650
Mostly, because you have a perfectly good idea for them that no-one uses?

7039655
More that people use them in ways that don't tell interesting stories.

7039667
Hmm... have you seen Halira's take on them?

7039676
Not familiar with that writer.

7039682
Well, she's probably the first one to make me wish night ponies existed in my Equestria.

7039585
MLP was written so that nothing was considered detrimental to (western) children. It is shown in the same way, and we know this because we never see genitals despite the fact that all of these ponies are walking around nude. That is simply a convention of the style, and does not imply that they are all actually sexless. What we see from the show is the western convention of society because it is not in a position to show otherwise, but to assume that means that Equestria actually has the western societal conventions is an obvious contradiction. What we are seeing then is an interpretation of a world and not a one-for-one video feed from that world.

7039705
While I don't disagree in theory, once you start going beyond what's onscreen, let alone dismissing it, you're on a lot shakier ground. What is the "obvious contradiction" that makes you think Equestria doesn't, as all evidence in the show presents, favour monogamous opposite-sex marriage as the primary form of family structure?

7039719
The contradiction is fact that we see sexless horse, but know that cannot be true. That must be an interpretation, so the first thing that has to be accepted is that the show in an interpretation of the events in the world of Equestria and not direct video footage of those events. Therefore, using what is seen from the show as evidence of what is NOT in the world of Equestria is a contradiction.

7039788
It's a pretty big leap from "we can't see their genitals" to "they don't marry, even though the show tells us again and again that they do". Heck, we can't see the hairs on their coats either, but we know they're there.

7039819
A few minutes before you wrote this reply, you made a reply to My Reply on Question 16 that starts off with "I'm not saying that marriage wouldn't exist in Equestria," so for you to misquote me here, right after reading evidence to the contrary, is to say the least, frustrating.

*crack* *crack* *crack*
Alright, here I go.

• Evil Chrysalis
• Evil Discord
• The Changeling hivemind
• Celestia as an omnipotent being with all the personality as a piece of cardboard, and all the degrees thereof.
• Luna being in any way subordinate to Celestia
• Nightmare Moon being caused by possession or the boogeypony or something rather than just, Luna getting jealous and losing it.
• Ponies having post-industrial technology

7039896
My apologies. What I mean to say is, it appears to be the predominant form of family relationship, with no hint towards any kind of casual promiscuity. (Of course, there wouldn't be, given the audience - but we don't see many single parents either.)

7039933
One of the things that I said in Q50 is that I believe Equestrians don't get pregnant unless they want to get pregnant. They are for starters a race that has evolved to the point of being able to use magic, so you could stop there and say they magically don't get pregnant, but I think their bodies are even more evolved so that they really do not get pregnant unless they open themselves (male and female both) to becoming pregnant. This is not far fetched as rabbits (real ones) can reabsorb fetuses if conditions are not favorable for offspring. Regardless of which explanation you want to take, evolutionary or magical, unwanted pregnancy can't exist in Equestrian ponies.

7040060
That's certainly an area canon doesn't shed light on one way or another, so you can headcanon it how you like. However, even if that is the case, some other force seems to have led Equestrian society to favour monogamy.

7040169

However, even if that is the case, some other force seems to have led Equestrian society to favour monogamy.

In order for that statement to be true, there must be a way of measuring monogamous relationships to polygamous relationships within Equestria, however we have already established that the MLP cartoon is an interpreted vision of events in the world that is censored based on what is acceptable for conservative western culture. Conservative western culture does not like polygamy, so what we see in the cartoon are a few married ponies and we do not know how many polygamous relationships exist. However, the fact that there are married ponies does not imply that those ponies who are married are monogamous.

Question 28 of this series is, "Is Mr.Cake the father of the Cake twins or not?" That question would not be asked if there was not sufficient doubt that he is not. His reaction in the show both the tone of his voice and animation imply that he is lying about his explanation of the Cake twins being his. The relationship he gives for Pumpkin being a pegasus, that "Cupcake's great aunt's second cousin twice removed", is if you look at it close enough means that there is no bloodline relationship to that pony and Cupcake. This was a joke intended for adult viewers of the show to understand but not for children. My answer to Q28 is that Celestia impregnated Ms.Cake and the two of them agreed to keep the father a secret, because Equestria would not have any social taboos about the state of the parents, so Mr. Cake is covering for the biological father either to save face about his own sterility or protect the identity of the father. I simply don't believe that ponies of one type naturally give birth to other types of ponies, and since they are a unicorn and a pegasus, I think Celestia must have been the father and this is her joke on them.

What we may be able to conclude is that marriages are contracts that the married couple wish to make and raise at least one foal together, because every married couple we have seen in the show has had at least one foal at this point. This doubles back onto my previous conclusions that Mr and Ms Cake are sterile and adopted Pinkie Pie after discovering their condition.

At some point you said that Equestrian ponies are a mix of human and animal traits. Even to that end I must remind you that humans and earth horses are biologically non-monogamous - neither have a built in instinct that sways them in the slightest from attempting to impregnate additional females. Jerry Springer's career was built on this fact. Earth horse are specifically polyamorous where herds often comprise of one adult stallion and several mares. Males of both human and earth horses feel no undeniable urge to raise and protect their offspring, but Equestrian males do. I would go so far as to say that Equestrian ponies have a biological trait that, is not present in all ponies but when it is present, makes the pony, male and female, want to have offspring and raise that offspring to the best of their abilities. Sometimes those abilities are lacking and I talked about that on the topic of the Mane Six's parents.

Monogamy in humans is not biological. Here in the US, monogamy as a societal norm is dying out quickly because the force that drove the illusion of monogamy was abrahamic religions pushing their beliefs onto others. Now that they are dying off, we are starting to see a more accurate representation of human beings' reactions to polyamory which is - nothing. Whatever is the societal norm is usually normal for people in that society. When humans aren't told they have to be monogamous, they aren't, and this is what I meant when I said that ponies would not simply be a copy of whatever a writer thinks is normal for that writer's society. Ponies aren't human, and pony society is not human society.

7040384
You seriously find all marriages being open more likely than each of the three tribes all having the potential to sire or bear each other? Heck, in your verse, the tribe is mostly related to the pony's soul anyway.

And the monogamous norm is hardly dead, just more serial than it once was. Relationships more complex than a pair have correspondingly greater number of failure points, and I do think ponies are akin to humans in that they prefer both sex and children to occur within the context of a romantic relationship.

Pony society may not be human society, but I feel it's closer to a sibling or close cousin than the distant relative you make of it sometimes.

7040539
I think you are once again confusing pony words for concepts in English. Let us say that every time you hear the word “marriage” or “wedding” in MLP, the word they are actually saying in their native language is, “anshasulara” and the definition of that word is, translated from Equestrian which assume default female pronoun: “A contract and ceremony of love where two ponies have become so filled with the joy of life that they wish to bring into the world a foal and give onto that foal needs of the body, mind, and soul to nurture her so to grow in love, a living representation of their love as a gift to the world as to themselves as to their foal.”

Now, as for one type of pony bearing another type of pony, I really don’t know. I think how tragic it would be for a pegasus giving birth in the clouds only to result in sky road pizza. Even if said pegasus is giving birth on the ground and has anything but a pegasus foal, then that family is now grounded. If genetics worked similarly so that both parents could be pegasi and carry unexpected non-pegasi genes then their whole life just got screwed up. Same thing for unicorns born of earthponies. A family of earthponies could not help a unicorn reach his or her potential. In the part about food, I talked about how each type of pony eats differently. Earthponies eat heartily and probably spicy because their magic is mostly passive (We know Pinkie Pie does both), but the other two types have more delicate stomachs.

I think about S1E1 and the introduction of a zillion earthponies who were all the Apple family, do the non-earthponies just get shunted off to families of their type? If yes, the family suffers a tragic loss, if not, then the pony suffers a tragic life. A pegasus spazzing out over his overly reserved unicorn parents never doing anything, A unicorn afraid to leave his room because family so much rougher than he can handle, An earthpony always feeling guilty because her very life caused her parents to leave their home in the clouds – No, the more I think about it, it’s just sad and cruel. Evolution is not kind and Discord used to be a lot crueler, so maybe there was a time when each could bear any of the other types, but perhaps then it was Starswirl’s amniomorphic spell which isolated the parents to giving birth to the same type. Regardless of whether or not that was the case in the past, throughout the show, we have only seen the one example of parents giving birth to foals that were not the same type as their parents, and that I believed happened by unnatural means.

7040593
The world isn't always a fair place where everything works out. I think you might be trying too hard to make Equestria into one. (And it would be strange if Celestia then deliberately consigned a unicorn and a pegasus to earthpony parents, no?)

And yes, their idea of marriage could be completely different to the modern Western one - but the more different, the more of what's onscreen we have to write off. Because what we see is a society whose assumption of romance, love and marriage matches that of it's primary viewing audience. Now, sexual mores are somewhat more flexible, in that the show doesn't touch on such matters directly, but the shape of romance, marriage and parenting has implications for them.

7040603

The world isn't always a fair place where everything works out. I think you might be trying too hard to make Equestria into one.

The ponies of Equestria have had several times longer than human history to reach the peace in which they live. Without anything to stop hate, civilizations have fallen over and over again. Technological advancements and efforts toward inner peace have been lost. Although human history can be traced back nearly six thousand years, living human culture cannot. If humanity had a powerful immortal to stop hate in it’s tracks, then this world would be closer to how Equestria is, and I have always held that the purpose of MLP is to teach one to reach for a higher state of inner peace.

(And it would be strange if Celestia then deliberately consigned a unicorn and a pegasus to earthpony parents, no?)

Did it ever occur to you that as good and well-intentioned as they may be that Mr. and Ms. Cake are sterile for a reason? What then if I told you that Mr and Ms Cake enjoyed the fantasy of caring for another but had in them an inability to accept the choices of their children because they had preconceived notion about their children’s future? What if I told you their ability to care for Pinkie Pie came so naturally because somewhere underneath they don’t see her as their child and because of that, treat her in some ways better then they will treat their own? And what if I told you that Celestia knew this of them because of her power and chose to grant their wish in a way that will make them aware of their own flaws without hurting their foals who must, by the nature of their birth, leave before that part of their parents become an issue, and that this same realization in the Cakes would drive Pinkie Pie to be more independent despite her broken past? I don’t think the writers would have thought this far ahead to be honest, but I consider Celestia a representation of Goddess and because of that, I never consider anything she does as flippant.

And yes, their idea of marriage could be completely different to the modern Western one - but the more different, the more of what's onscreen we have to write off. Because what we see is a society whose assumption of romance, love and marriage matches that of it's primary viewing audience.

You are begging the question. You are, text book example, begging the question. Listen, I really hate to green text, but everything you have said can be summed up as, “Because the show was made for a western audience, we don’t see anything that overtly contradicts western values and because everything we see matches western values enough so, it’s obvious that Equstrians have western values.” ← This, this thing that you have concluded, is a circular logical fallacy.

7040657
Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it. Certainly, they've had a long and stable society and rulership. However, that doesn't particularly relate to their own biology making it easy for them as you suggest. Indeed, if their culture has been advanced towards the utopian over time then their inescapable natures as physical creatures is one of the few remaining sources of problems and challenges. So why give them easy mode?

Your ideas about the Cakes are interesting, but once again speak to the idea of a fair world (only those unsuited as parents are infertile) and only exist to justify the unlikely idea of Celestia impregnating them in the first place.

And certainly there may be unseen aspects of love and sex in Equestria, including polygamy and open relationships - but assuming them the norm and the portrayed forms abberations or incomplete seems to speak to some other fallacy I can't quite name.

7040666
I am not saying that Equestria would be fair because it just happened that way but because it has been manufactured to be fair after a very long time of evolving in that direction. I often take the route that Celestia only got involved in trying to push ponies toward being better after the night that was meant to last forever.

7040728
Yes, and that can explain a very fair society. But is Celestia also the one who made it so ponies are only fertile by mutual consent, or are always born into a matched family?

7040802
If you take a pot of water and shake it back and forth in one direction, the water inside will slosh in random directions for a while but eventually begin to order itself and flow around in organized circles as if you had been spinning it the whole time, but did you choose to make the water spin in circles or did the water resolve to spin in circles as a reaction to constant stimulation?

The answer is that whether or not this is what was chosen, this is what happened because of the conditions that were in place. During the time of Discord, ponies probably got pregnant unexpectedly, after Discord they had estrus cycles like mammals now. As magic became stronger, they would have used magic to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and this would have lead to the evolution of controlled fertility.

Spirits being born to a matched family is also an evolution of the spirit. During the time of Discord, spirits would have landed in any body of any species, but as time went on, patterns would have arisen in each species. Spirits would want to move toward the patterns that matched their own, so they evolved to do so.

During the time between chaos and choice, it seems likely that there would have been at least one time when Celestia saw the desperate desires of someone unable to move on his or her own and move that spirit for him or her. It also seems likely that she would have curved fertility in some ponies for the sake of someone involved. The answer to all of the questions is that this is the way ponies were evolving on their own, so Celestia's involvement in individuals' lives didn't change what was going to happen to the evolution of the species.

7040852
Ah - spiritual evolution along with the physical? I think I kind of get it... but I also think it insulates them from many human-relatable experiences, which weakens their position as moral examples.

7040887
Please explain. An example would be appreciated.

7041017
Among the audience, both target and older, there are those who were born unexpectedly and unwantedly, or in a form that doesn't suit them. Some of the older audience may even have sired or born such unintended children. To say ponies have no such things... well it might gladden some, but others would feel like ponies can't have much to do with them then.

Likewise, there is no point in really talking about ponies and romance at all if they lack the desire for exclusivity that defines our relationships. (Except, I suppose, to try and persuade us that such a desire is in fact undesirable and counterproductive - but I don't think you'll find much agreement there.) Note that this is a bit different depending on whether you postulate polygamy or open relationships.

7041030

the desire for exclusivity that defines our relationships.

To whom is “our” referring in your sentence?

7041271
The great majority of Western society, and many other human societies as well. In other words, the audience that will be watching the show and reading fan fics.

7041030

Among the audience, both target and older, there are those who were born unexpectedly and unwantedly, or in a form that doesn't suit them. Some of the older audience may even have sired or born such unintended children. To say ponies have no such things... well it might gladden some, but others would feel like ponies can't have much to do with them then.

As someone who has been wronged by the failures of society, I can tell you that all of society’s attempts to cover up wrongs wounds not only those who have already been damaged by pretending these things are non-issues, but also allows the cycle of wrong doing to continue through ignorance.

However, the vast majority of human children born at this point in time are unplanned, unwanted, and only kept out of a sense of social obligation. This is particularly true for the US, and was included in a particularly dark joke in Bojack Horseman when young Bojack asks his mother if he is being punished for smoking or stealing. She replies, “I’m punishing you for existing.” Beyond the everyday horror story, many children even being unplanned and unwanted are raised functional enough and becoming aware of the fact that they were not planned does not damage them beyond whatever else is going on in their lives.

In short, what you think would cause damage by spreading the truth can’t hurt more than the truth already hurts, but for MLP, I look at the relationships between parent and child and I don’t see evidence of foals unwanted by their parents directly or indirectly, so in conjunction with all of the other things discussed before, this would point to a biological evolution of control over fertility. *Shrugs* I guess they could all be magically blocked on a case by case basis, but then the object into which that spell was cast, would be omnipresent among ponies, and we don’t see them wearing anything most of the time, and such a thing wouldn’t be edited out when no relatable counterpart is present in the real, so again, it is most likely a biological evolution.

Likewise, there is no point in really talking about ponies and romance at all if they lack the desire for exclusivity that defines [The great majority of Western society]’s relationships. (Except, I suppose, to try and persuade us that such a desire is in fact undesirable and counterproductive - but I don't think you'll find much agreement there.) Note that this is a bit different depending on whether you postulate polygamy or open relationships.

You have a delusional outlook of western society. I am not clear what defines a “romantic” relationship, to be honest, however… I live in a conservative state, but when I was in highschool, my sister witnessed one of her friends girlfriend giving a handjob to him and his friend in the backseat. A few years later, Tiny who was twice my age at the time and also lived in the area, told me his wife wasn’t interested in sex like he was so she encouraged him to have sex with whomever. Recently, someone who lived where I am and also Texas, married. Less than five years later, the wife got a girlfriend, the husband got a boyfriend, and now they live together in a bisexual quad. These are people for whom I have had no romantic interest, because if I did, it might skew the findings. As for people with whom I have been sexually involved, we all have a firm belief in non-exclusivity, because sex is separate from friendship, it would be wrong to try to impose onto someone with whom one is involved in friendship or sex to believe that it implies exclusivity to the other.

I have never personally encountered someone who said or believed “you can’t be friends with that person because we are having sex”. Some people foolishly attribute meaning to sex where there isn’t any, and you are making yourself out to be one of them. There is no force of nature that compels humans to act or feel responsibility or even a heightened sense of connection to another person after sexing. Culturally, fools are led to believe that. My sister, being a fool, magically believed that sex and whatever “romance” is would be like a magic fairytale that would suddenly make her partner want to be only with her and live up to all of the other foolish ideals that romance movies brainwash girls into believing. Well, six men, three kids, a wedding, a seven year lawsuit, three years of therapy, bankruptcy, and a drug addition later, she’s finally realizing that society wants a lot of things to be the reality when in fact they are the fantasy.

Neither horses nor human beings are not monogamous animals. Refusing to believe that creates unwanted children and other problems. Upholding the human cultural lie that they are is causing problems because it conflicts with actual human nature. I have given my reasons why Equestrians would be open to casual sex and casual relationships, I have explained that it is removed because of cultural reasons, and with the above I have pointed out why those cultural reasons are wrong.

Earlier, you said, “but assuming them the norm and the portrayed forms abberations or incomplete seems to speak to some other fallacy” and the reason why you said that is because you were exposed to the lie that monogamy is the natural human state before encountering evidence for or against it, so you have accepted that as fact before considering the question, however, it is very clear to me that human society does not match human nature. It is my belief that Equestrian culture, having existed much longer than human culture, would mirror their nature better than humans at this time.

7041491
Certainly we seem to have disagreements about the nature of our society - but you'll excuse me if I don't automatically accept that it's my outlook that's delusional rather than you who has been embittered by the wrongs you've suffered.

I do believe that at the very least most children in the Western world, planned or unplanned, are genuinely loved and wanted by their parents. (Of course there is a sizeable minority of exceptions, but that's exactly why ponies all having loving, suitable parents rings false.) So when I see pony children being loved by their parents, then that seems like just a somewhat rose-tinted take on the truth of human parent-child relations. It doesn't require any special biological mechanism, just a preference for featuring happy families.

(And a contraceptive could take many forms, as it does among humans - medicine, spells, or an item used only during the act like a condom. Since I don't think of ponies as having sex as casually as you do, they could keep them at home rather than having to always wear them - not that we would see them if they were worn on the private parts.)

Shifting into sex - there certainly are many cases of multi-polar and open relationships among humans, and I suspect among ponies as well. But I do think that most people would be aggrieved at their partner copulating with others even if they do so themselves - and there are more forms of intimacy then just the physical, either.

Ultimately, I can't prove that humans should generally be monogamous, nor can I stop you from projecting your utopian views onto Equestria. For what its' worth, though, I'm pretty sure the original Faustian conception of ponies was that they were at least as monogamous as Western humans. (I do think the cast's parents all being happily married same-tribe opposite-sex pairs was too much, though.)

7042156

Certainly we seem to have disagreements about the nature of our society - but you'll excuse me if I don't automatically accept that it's my outlook that's delusional rather than you who has been embittered by the wrongs you've suffered.

First you said that my conclusions were not based on any real evidence, now you are saying they are based too much on my own experience. You are moving the target to invalidate my points, and that is childish. LifeScience was the first result when I queried “science are humans monogamous”. It defines monogamy, then explains that humans are not biologically monogamous. What I find interesting is this number from IFS:

before Western imperialism, 83 percent of indigenous societies were polygynous, 16 percent monogamous, and 1 percent polyandrous (where women have multiple husbands).

I did not see these numbers until writing this post, however it lines up to create an outcome similar to what I was suggesting with marriage as a child raising contract for Equestrian society. If you care more about knowing the scientific truth than being right about your initial opinions, then you can research this on your own.

I do believe that at the very least most children in the Western world, planned or unplanned, are genuinely loved and wanted by their parents. (Of course there is a sizeable minority of exceptions, but that's exactly why ponies all having loving, suitable parents rings false.) So when I see pony children being loved by their parents, then that seems like just a somewhat rose-tinted take on the truth of human parent-child relations. It doesn't require any special biological mechanism, just a preference for featuring happy families.

If you have read my answers about the Mane Six’s parents, then I have explicitly stated that all of them were bad parents, not bad ponies, but bad parents. You keep saying that I have a utopian view of Equestria, and I do, but that doesn’t mean that everything will and must be perfect every time. Having a utopian society doesn’t make utopian individuals, and even for the ones who are doing their best, bad things happen even with the best of intentions. We are not shown what has happened, we only see the effect, and even then we only see the effect to the extent that we are allowed to see the effect for the censorship that has been placed onto the world, the Emerald Spectacles effect.

In real life, most people are always blaming someone or something else for everything for their own actions and inactions. The reason that Equestria is a utopian society with imperfect individuals is to help people (the viewers) understand what they should do as individuals when something bad happens that returns to a state of harmony and not take actions that help further chaos.

(And a contraceptive could take many forms, as it does among humans - medicine, spells, or an item used only during the act like a condom. Since I don't think of ponies as having sex as casually as you do, they could keep them at home rather than having to always wear them - not that we would see them if they were worn on the private parts.)

Ponies don’t have private parts; they are all very much public. Societies that don’t wear clothes are more likely to have open sex and sex in the open. The idea that every stallion is always secretly wearing a +1 Cockring of Unpregnation makes me giggle, but like I said before, evolution quickly leads the need for this thing to be internal rather than external. Since Equestrians have had time and magic, they are going to shape themselves to whatever serves best.

But I do think that most people would be aggrieved at their partner copulating with others even if they do so themselves

What you are saying is that humans are usually self-centered hypocrites… I am attempted to agree with you outright, but even though hypocrisy and unrestrained selfishness are the base state for human beings, it is the hope of most that individuals grow past this stage. The cartoon of MLP was designed to help viewers understand and value others with equal importance as themselves, thus dissolving the underlying cause of similar hypocrisies.

7042415
Polygyny isn't free love though - and females taking multiple partners seems much rarer from those figures. Human males may prefer multiple partners, but they probably also prefer to impregnate and move on without any obligation - pure biology is selfish that way.

Hmm... so ponies are all born into families that should be suitable, but the Mane 6 all had bad parents anyway? That seems like a strange mix of utopianism and cynicism. I don't see much of a problem with Twilight's at least, not Applejack's unless you can hold death against them.

In real life, most people are always blaming someone or something else for everything for their own actions and inactions. The reason that Equestria is a utopian society with imperfect individuals is to help people (the viewers) understand what they should do as individuals when something bad happens that returns to a state of harmony and not take actions that help further chaos.

Hmm... I feel this is a key to your headcanon, yet even though it sounds simple, I don't quite understand it.

Ponies don’t have private parts; they are all very much public. Societies that don’t wear clothes are more likely to have open sex and sex in the open.

But given that we never see such, it helps the filter to posit that ponies are usually an exception to this. (And just because it's not hidden - and a guy's' will be retracted most of the time while a girl's will be under her tail - doesn't mean you're supposed to look. One thing I do know is that societies with little actual privacy often had strict rules about that.)

And I do not think you can improve people to that level without abolishing jealousy, which is an emotion ponies are seen to possess on many occasions.

Hmm... I feel this is a key to your headcanon, yet even though it sounds simple, I don't quite understand it.

It is the key. Without understand it, there is no point discussing any of this further.

7042501
For starters.. how do you get a Utopian society with imperfect individuals? Its' the question that's plagued mankind for a long time...

7042509
The Short Version.

I'm not a fan of the inconsistent representation of technology, but I think that's less a head-canon problem and more of a canon-canon problem. Hm. Let's see, what else? Since it's been mentioned in the comments so far: I really can't deal with psycho-Pinkie. Or psycho-Dash, since apparently, that has been a thing at some point as well?

Oh, another big one. I don't get Fallout Equestria. Like... it's such an extremely popular crossover, and it holds absolutely zero appeal for me. And it's not about technology this time. I think I actually dislike it for the same reason I have difficulties warming up to G5. After everything Twilight has achieved, after the whole world seems to warm up to the idea of jolly cooperation, just how the heck did everything go so terribly, terribly wrong? It just feels like it nullifies all the hard work and effort that was put in. Makes it mean less, maybe even nothing. And I don't like that. I'm sure there are somewhat reasonable explanations as to how these things came to be. Wouldn't be the first time a villain plopped out of nowhere and threatened to end the world. Maybe one finally got through. That would have been bound to happen eventually, I suppose. But I just... I don't like it. (And luckily, that's what this thread is about, so I'm not even rambling off-track this time. Whoop whoop!)

7689749
To be fair, in Season 1 they hadn't achieved as much yet.

7689814
Confusion. Are we talking about G5? Or G4 tech-stuff?

7689832
Fallout Equestria, actually.