This seems incredibly disingenuous to suggest these are comparable. Aileh was an arrogant romantic virgin with only PC content from implementation onward; it isn't even close to a stretch for her to end up with family content, which is the average conclusion to romance.
There are exactly two romances in the game that end with full family scenes with interactable children that's I'm aware of.
That's why I said "family content" and not "pregnancy". Aileh getting pregnancy content would not be considered out of the way. Aileh and her kid getting the Kinu treatment is a direction for her character that is not at all suggested by her initial content.
Not that this was a bad thing; my whole point is that new content being introduced to characters isn't necesarily a bad thing.
Brint -> Brienne is controlled by player action, not a result of OOC action by the NPC, and results in separate characters. Simultaneously arguing that Brint/Brienne content split is an issue, but waifubait characters randomly gaining poly content/a route isn't, is a bizarre position.
It's a really, really easy position to defend. One is an active detriment to the future content a character gets, one isn't. Brienne takes content from Brint and will continue to do so in the future. Atugia having a sex scene with another person...doesn't do anything. We're not talking about a "route" even, which you could argue will affect future content; we're talking isolated sex scenes with no hint of a follow up.
If your position is that devs shouldn't introduce elements to a character that are not suggested by the characters initial content, you should be equally down on all instances of this.
I won't bat an eye when Cait receives her 50th NPCxNPC scene, but if she swore an oath of monogamy next patch I'd raise an eyebrow. People don't like when characters act inconsistently with their previous actions and personality; it makes the author's hand on the scale glaring. It is very clearly an issue of inconsistent portrayals, not just personal preferences.
Caits preferences are explicit. That makes sense. Saying, say, Atugia isn't down for X thing when she's made zero show of a preference one way or the other is not at all the same thing.
What Daken said was true, not mean. You shift the goalposts+strawman often, which isn't arguing in good faith; it results in pointless discussion. Arguing is cool, I don't want the forum to be a circlejerk, but bad faith arguing and barely reading posts before replying gets old.
I've said the same thing since the beginning, and made the same points. If you think the discussion is pointless, then that's fine, but I don't really need anyone to weigh in on my motivations.
If there's a point to make, make it; if you don't want to talk about something, I respect that. But accusing someone of "bad faith" arguments tends to simply be a way to discredit someone without actually engaging.
