>>36742457Ah, sorry on the gimped attention it got this gen, anon. That's probably why. I suspect for all the whining on popularity brought up like
>>36742459 just did, said popularity'd go down REAL fast if they tried to hype it up majorly. A lot of fans would be put off by such an overtly feminine pokemon, not to mention the creepiness of human hair and eyelashes with human accessories even more obvious than the other two's (owl hoodie? Meh, stylized plumage. Fire belt? Meh, not focused around the head like the other two and typical 'fire accessory' of the fire starter for this gen).
>>36742469lol seething
>>36742471Pokemon is and will always have little boys and manchildren as its target demographic first and foremost before little girls and mentally unstable women, however much it'll make stuff for them. Manly pokemon are badass, and I'm sure on any 'realism' front you can justify females of the species having obvious hair or whiskers or whatnot as well since many species'll have such things across both genders. Meanwhile, look how distant fanart of male Primarina designs get. Also what
>>36742476 said in meta terms.
