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.
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.
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
and often voluntarly... have you seen the movie "dog soldiers" ? was the woman that lured the soldiers into the ottage a werewolf in human form or a human?
even more, especially fantasy are about rolling with it and causing as much damage as possible..
