I find it a little nuts with the complaints that the straight romance options for men aren't good enough. Look at the male romance options we are getting-three humans and a moon elf(vampire) Female options include not only Shadowheart-who is obviously designed to be as broadly appealing as possible and has by far the most content out of al the companions so far, but also far greater variety in options-A Githyanki, a Drow, A Tiefling and a Halfling/Gnome/whatever Helia is. No vanilla humans here! Male Romance options don't have a 'short race' option at all, and Tieflings and Drow are hugely popular (Tielfings may have surpassed drow in popularity, but there's a reason why D&D rpgs keep having drow romance options in them) And a Githyanki is just such a bold and unique choice for a romance option in a game.
Heck, if anything the male origin romance options are the ones that are underwhelming. 3 humans and Sparkles the Daywalker. We have come a long way from Anomen in BG II, but still-compare.
Variety isn't the point of discussion here. It's the eye-candy factor. The dreaded "male-gaze" that needs to be stamped out while the female gaze is celebrated and encouraged - see the abundance of Halsin pictures just in this forum, is leading to female companions that, while having variety, are in varieties of ugliness. The male companions, on the other hand, while largely similar in build and race, somehow all fall within the general profile of desirable men looks-wise.
The male companions are higher on the eye candy factor than the females. In fact, someone even found it hilarious that this is the case, so let's not be intellectual dishonest by claiming that having varying degrees of ugliness is somehow easier on the eyes than men that conform largely to conventional notions of male beauty. Can we at least be honest about this?
