Food for thought:

Kris loves their brother more than anyone, so it makes sense that a representation of Kris's soul would look similar to Asriel.

On that note, Kris, Susie, and Asgore all remark that Ralsei only looks superficially similar to Asriel. I believe this is an indication that Kris is starting to view Ralsei as a unique and valuable friend, rather than a substitute. This is naturally reflected in their soul, which means that Ralsei is going to continue looking less like Asriel Lite and more like his own person.

Trans Ralsei would be a fun way to demonstrate this, especially considering Asriel is implied to be more on the masculine side (what with the pizza-scented deodorant and all.) Galsei says "not only am I not a boy, I'm also not that SPECIFIC boy."

Ralsei himself tells Kris that the Soul embodies their willpower and compassion. Ralsei is the most compassionate party member in the first chapter, and he has demonstrated more and more willpower with each subsequent chapter.

It's obvious that Kris is NOT supposed to be walking around without a soul. It makes them weak and sickly. Therefore, we can infer that they must have had a soul of their own before the events of the game proper. At some point, they removed their previous soul and replaced it with us, the player. So, their original soul must still exist SOMEWHERE.

Ralsei knows an awful lot about the game's interface, and, more specifically, how the interface is meant to be navigated by a soul. Granted, Susie says in Ch 5 that she is also capable of seeing the menu options, but Ralsei clearly understands them on a deeper level.

On that note, Ralsei is obviously aware that Kris is being puppeteered by the player. That's why he's always sending us away to have a private discussion with Kris. I would go so far as to say that Ralsei knows the Soul does not belong to Kris at all, which is information that he would only know if he and Kris had a pre-existing relationship of some kind.

The heart? On his cloak??? Hello?????

Like it's bad when a "tattoo is undulating" (as opposed to... "drawn in a wave like pattern on the skin"?), or when hair is "wet wheat from a late Summer field" (as opposed to "sort of brownish light yellow that dries lighter, but is not actual wheat stalks growing on someone's head but kind of reminiscent of the color and texture"?), or when when ice cream tastes like midnight at the fair" (as opposed to "ice cream flavour bringing back memories of undefined ice cream flavours that are individually popular but always tied to a memory of late evening at the fair ground and probably smelling vaguely like popcorn and sugar"?).

"Undulating" is a word that refers to the movement of an object, not just its shape. A tattoo would only be "undulating" if the underlying muscles moved in a wave-like fashion. (I find that difficult to imagine, personally, because muscles are solid objects that don't move the way water does.) Yes, metaphors are not meant to be taken literally, but any comparison you make must be grounded in reality. Words have specific definitions for a reason.

Similarly, while I don't object to the "(food) tastes like (experience)" structure on principle, the example you used is a weak one. There are more elegant ways to evoke the excitement and nostalgia of a childhood memory than by crudely mashing together two completely different sensory experiences.

"The ice cream was as sweet as his first kiss at the county fair" would make sense; kisses are sweet and they involve the mouth, there's an element of nostalgia, etc.

Alternatively, if you want to play up the childlike excitement of being in a fun place with food, you could say something like "when she visited the dessert buffet, she wandered from table to table like a kid at the fair." Same whimsical vibe, but it doesn't make the reader waste time imagining how "fairground-flavored ice cream" would taste.

"pedophile" is a word that has more than one meaning. people use the word "pedophile" colloquially to describe offenders and non-offenders alike. there is no "correct" definition of pedophilia because it is a word that has multiple similar, but discrete meanings.

the distinction between "pedophile" and "person with pedophilic disorder" is not a useful one, because it relies on the assumption that pedophilia (and paraphilia more broadly) is a coherent medical diagnosis that exists independent of its sociocultural context, which is vapid. sexual desire is a product of your upbringing, environment, and lifestyle choices; it is not a biological fact.

pedophiles are adults, and all adults have power over children. furthermore, pedophiles have an incentive to abuse their power that other adults do not have. pedophilia is not the sole incentive for child sexual abuse, but it is frankly asinine to pretend that it isn't an incentive for abuse at all.

there is no such thing as a thought crime because there is no such thing as mind-reading. once you post it to your blog, especially if your blog is visible to children, you have officially turned your thought into an action that can cause material harm.

a lot of ISFF's defenders have flattened this argument to "TMEs harassing a trans woman for having a bad opinion" or, alternatively, "TMEs harassing a trans woman for saying that people struggling with unwanted sexual urges deserve compassion." neither estimation is accurate.

a "bad opinion" would be someone arguing that littering is okay. i strongly disagree, but the stakes are extremely low, so the most i would do is write a pithy response and then move on.

trying to create a community where pedophiles are encouraged to openly and proudly identify as such, especially when the community includes trans girls (who are more likely than any other children to seek out relationships online!) is not a "bad opinion." it's an action that can cause material harm.

some folks on here have taken what i call the Charlie Kirk Approach by responding to any and all criticism with "i guess people aren't allowed to have OPINIONS anymore 🙄" as though all opinions exist in a vacuum. it is, frankly, some libertarian bullshit.

if ISFF could just write one single post saying "I think pedophiles deserve compassion IF THEY ACTIVELY SEEK HELP AND DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM MINORS" then I would be more than happy to forgive and forget. but she keeps doubling down, and so people like me feel compelled to continue posting about her in order to mitigate some of the damage she's causing.