i'd like to preface this by saying that i am in no way advocating for the sexualisation of women in media, however i would like to raise the point that we need more nuance in our discussions when we talk about it.

oftentimes when we see these kinds of portrayasl of women, the most common responses tend to either be to immediately condemn, defend or dismiss it as 'goonerbait' for example. however these approaches remove any element of critical engagement or nuance from the wider discussion of why they were presented in that way and what message were they trying to evoke.

What was the intention behind its inclusion? What effect was reached with the execution? What is the history/stance behind the person/company that made these decisions? what could've influenced this? all these things need to be analysed before coming to a conclusion.

that isn't to say that you cannot condemn, defend or dismiss these depictions when you see them, however these conclusions must be reached after at least some level of consideration.

though there is also a clear line between the intention of its inclusion and the way they executed it. both these things need to be taken into consideration when critiquing media. just because there may have been an impactful intention behind why they chose to portray these people like that also doesn't dismiss them from further critique if the way they executed it could bring harm or be misconstrued.

i'm not here to start a debate, okay? i'm just wondering. is it that hard to write "just" to the point that some people really need to shorten it AGAIN to "js"?

this is also applies to "ts". i understand it as "this shit", but idk about it now. is it a shorted version of "this" too?

but can we please get a character creator demo for The Veilguard??

All these news articles talking about it and hyping up the hair just has me like...