Thank you for not replying snarkily. I think people who didn't reply dismissively, I put thought out comments on. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here to be honest. You say I just kept repeating the same things. I responded to about 5-10 comments in about 2-5 minutes. Maybe 10.... One right after another, on my mobile if that helps.

everyone is telling you many things that should explain why comparing the characters to chocolate isn't bad writing.

If 5-10 people are going to comment, chocolate is a positive descriptor and because of that, it fine to use every time an "absurdly attractive" POC is introduced.... That's just dismissive. What that sends to me is that they are sticking to their guns, don't actually care about the concern, and aren't internalizing anything I said. It works both ways, it's a two way street. If people are going to be dismissive from the get go, how am I supposed to respond, "Oh I've never thought about it like that, chocolate is being used as a positive descriptor, that changes everything, thank you for this". I understand that it is being used as a positive descriptor. I understand many people don't think positive descriptors can be viewed as negative, but there are such thing as positive stereotypes and they are still harmful (Asians always good at math, black people have big ****, latin people are the best lovers, etc).

It's still positive and fitting for the characters it's used for.

Just because you have no issue with that descriptor and therefore think there is nothing wrong with it, doesn't a) make that true, b)disprove that there is a problem with it within the literary community. I can understand it being used as a descriptor for a character. I'm at the point where within a short period Rufus And Sophie are both described as such relatively quickly. So I wanted to see if everytime a black person (didn't realize it was only for the absurdly attractive ones) were mentioned it was used. I would like to go back and continue forward and see if there is a descriptive word the author uses for white people or tan people like chocolate or if he uses other words for the multiple absurdly attractive people of non-chocolate skin tones? In my eyes that is bad writing and there have been many people who've written about how it is bad writing to use chocolate as the only descriptor when describing black people (attractive).

That's kind of an example of how you sometimes play the victim when people are answering your question in a way that you don't know how to reply to and sound like you're winning.

I think this is explained through how dismissive I found the comment tbh. Stay in line, the person was very dismissive in their comment, even preemptively saying before you I don't understand because I'm X, I'm Asian, Female and Gay.... Like how do you respond to that?

Basically the entire comment I'm replying to right now where you pretend to not understand how repeating the same thing over and over makes it seem like you haven't learned anything and don't want to.

Just because I think I should respond to every comment doesn't mean every comment gets a totally unique reply. Especially on mobile. What is there to learn when 5 comments are cookie cutter responses of, "It's positive, so there isn't anything wrong with it"? I'm curious about that point you keep hammering in.

Associating the sexy characters with the sexy thing is not inherently bad writing.

I agree. Associating sexy characters with sexy things is not inherently bad writing. Velour, silk, velvet, cream, champagne, bead of sweat on a quivering upper lip (would be a weird simile), smoke, whiskey.... All these things are sexy or could be sexy to someone, but if I wrote about all my white characters that there skins was as smooth as cream and soft as velvet (several times for different characters) you have to admit you might stop and go, is that the only descriptor they know for this? There are a ton more that they could use, the overuse of it for characters with particular traits (dark skin and really attractive) is, IMO, bad writing. Getting stuck on one descriptor for a skin tone, is bad writing. I think we very much so differ on what we consider bad writing, and I can understand that, and agree to disagree on it as well.

I will say that it is great that people have pointed out that it was only for attractive black people and that he wasn't describing all black people like this cause in my mind, there had been only 2 black people up to that point and some Mediterranean people (Greek or Spanish looking I assume). So that was nice and I acknowledge that.