yet you pick and choose what's convenient to your argument ignoring the paragraphs about a monster girl's abilities...
people agreed with hitler, did that make him right?
so erevi's daughter is a monster girl as she shares traits with a monster, in that case a demon
her vidow veil ontrigues me, is she mourning Roderick or is that just her disguise?
When we're debating the meaning of a word or phrase it does. That's literally how etymology works. Terrific changed meanings. Most people use the term the same way I do. It's why the all the definitions I found mention appearance because that's the main thing. We aren't debating ideology and pseudoscience like Hitler. We're debating a term that's usually not even used outside of anime girls.
If you want to consider her that the fine. I don't think she looks monstrous enough for me. And would like to agree to disagree and not spend another moment on this stupid argument that should have ended two days ago.
If you want to think that fine. I think she needs something extra. Again, agree to disagree
"Historically, media has depicted monstrous women as villains, or if not, then less monstrous than males of equivalent ability."
there are also her innate abilities and nergal's blessing that changed her from a half-elf to a succubus
This is exactly what I just said. This is describing their role in the story. It's not saying that it's an ability monster girls have.
Then this part is just saying monster girls look less monstrous than males of the same species in most cases. Example, Frankenstein's monster vs his bride.
it is enough when said deeption is said monster girl's inate ability..
She has an almost nun-like vibe IMO so mabey it's a disguise? She also could be morning Roderick which would be interesting.
It doesn't say anything about deception being their ability. Read what it actually says
I dont know who is she. Like you said, should be Cath
it's just a noblewoman's cloack, her dress has a nice cleavage
it will certainly be an interesting encounter
"Historically, media has depicted monstrous women as villains, or if not, then less monstrous than males of equivalent ability
So, you're arguing that they have less ability? Notice that this doesn't mention anything about deception. Like I said earlier it's saying that they look less monstrous than males of the same type. It's not saying they have abilities. You're trying to combine two different sentences with two different meanings to try to make your argument.
you say that monster girls have visual traits in common with monsters, I'm simply referencing what makes a onster...from the monster article :They may or may not have supernatural powers, but are usually capable of killing or causing some form of destruction, threatening the social or moral order of the human world in the process.
If you acknowledge that it's about visual traits, why are you mentioning ability? You're still trying to tie into the idea that it's a monster who is a girl instead of a monstrous girl.
because to share visual traits with a monster saidmonster girl must be the female equivalent of a monster
wrong..as all those characteristics are animal and not monsrous
