Mandalorian discussion[SPOILERS]

Perhaps it boils down to certain points of view.

The thing is that the [frog] lady disrobing in front of the protag isn't weird though.
This exact scene is a consistently used one in various stories.
Just remove the word [frog] from the narrative.
^ This is why it seems as though someone was writing sneakily.

They're seemingly putting themes into the show that aren't generally acceptable from family oriented crowds. (From what I've observed. I'm certainly not of that group, personally. )
By passing the hot-topic subjects onto different characters, they can trick audiences into settling for things they usually stand against.
[To give you a better example of what I'm talking about... ' 'A gun company ' ' wanted to boost their sales, so they appealed to mothers. This line of thinking was that; if mothers are tolerant of guns - their entire families will be.]

People likely aren't going to get upset about a ' 'Frog' ' -Lady disrobing, because they don't see it as; "A lady undressing in front of the main character." They're too distracted by the emphasis on the fact that she's a frog - before she's a woman. 

Another nod in the direction of sneaky writing, is the word Skank being placed into casual conversation. (Again, from an outsider's perspective, family oriented people seem very distraught when cussing gets used... At all.) They snuck this word into a phrase that uses a bunch of sci-fi jargon. (I have no gripes with this, but I can still actively observe this and be aware.)

Lastly, the depiction of the death of underaged lifeforms. The [Frog] eggs that were being eaten was kind of a pass- because they may not be fertilized. The details regarding the [Frog] eggs seem to be that those ones still require to be fertilized??? But there was very little room for doubt when Baby Yoda straight up walked over to a spider egg, cracked it open, and ate the contents - a young space-spider-baby-thing. (So gross...) There are already jokes on the internet swirling around about how Baby Yoda is killing more young-things than Anakin killed young-lings. It is sneakily writing in the theme of killing innocents, by both A) Using an innocent-seeming life-form to perpetuate violence against other young lifeforms and B) Using alien characters to divert the seriousness away from the direct theme; Juveniles dying.

I don't particularly take issues with nudity/cussing/basic laws of nature, but when I'm thinking critically of something; I challenge what I typically think, with the ideas and opinions of others in mind.

I talk about Mandalorian spoilers on Discord where I can warn people from spoilers and stop them looking if they haven't seen the episodes yet

I don't think AHQ is a place to talk about a current TV series 

Episode 2 was a little bit disappointing for me to be honest 

There was really nothing sexual about the frog. Seriously. Nothing. It’s a frog. 
I suppose that you can say that Baby Yoda is used to perpetuate the theme of killing children, but really, what it was doing was eating. That is pretty much it. I wouldn’t place its intelligence on a scale where it can purposefully kill things for the sake of it. It is what it’s name suggests: a child. A baby, who, much like other babies, is dictated by hunger. So, in a way, this is really just a predator/prey relationship. 
But your thoughts are well though out and logical. 

@ToddyRocket1: [...] "-on Discord where I can warn people from spoilers.
Episode 2 was a little bit disappointing for me to be honest "

The topic's title indicates that this thread may contain [Spoilers] so I'm not concerned.

Since you're here anyways;

Truly. Kind of felt like a filler episode. Which parts of (Season Two Episode Two) of the Mando were especially lacking for you, 'Rocket?

Commander_Ney0: [...] "I wouldn’t place its intelligence on a scale where it can purposefully kill things for the sake of it. It is what it’s name suggests: a child. "

Hmm. There's no doubt the child is learning.

• We saw that B.Yoda understood the implications of what would happen to The Mandalorian if the Mud Horn managed to charge him. The child intervened to protect the Mando by using the force to lift the Mud Horn.
• B.Yoda has seen would-be peers disgusted when he ate a live frog - in doing so, he spat the frog out.
https://youtu.be/2mzr1WF6wGQ
( So B.Yoda is in the process of learning that ' 'death via live ingestion' ' can be prevented.)
• B.Yoda knows to hide when violence occurs - this indicates a desire for self preservation. S/He understood that the Mando was going to be critically injured if an Angry Mudhorn ran him over. This means S/he can take the knowledge pertaining to themselves and apply it to others. (EX; I may be injured, so others may be injured - injury can be prevented. <- Indication of some understanding. )

Simply because the child's (mental) age is a variable doesn't mean B.Yoda's incapable of practicing deception.
(Somewhat related/unrelated: Those strong with the Force can sense and understand things on a different level than those without Force sensitivity, no?) It would seem that B.Yoda has a slight awareness of Death - Or at the very least... Injury.

Commander_Ney0: [...] "So, in a way, this is really just a predator/prey relationship."
Fair point.
The Mando isn't depicted feeding the child often, so I assume they're probably starving most of the time. B.Yoda's making do with what they have to, if anything.
Self defense (of the adults partaking) and survival necessities (of the child) nullify the argument I was attempting to make regarding this aspect.
. . .

-----------------------------------------------------------------
That still leaves us with the other situation though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

. . . Recap . . .
Dvveebo: [...] "The thing is that the [frog] lady disrobing in front of the protag isn't weird though. This exact scene is a consistently used one in various stories. Just remove the word [frog] from the narrative. People likely aren't going to get upset about a ' 'Frog' ' -Lady disrobing, because they don't see it as; A lady undressing in front of the main character. They're too distracted by the emphasis on the fact that she's a frog - before she's a woman. "
Commander_Ney0: [...] "There was really nothing sexual about the frog. It’s a frog. "

See... Not only are you proving a part of my point, but you're taking it further by trying to gloss over the fact that the character is female at all. Even going so far as to refer to her as an "It."
As such, you're seemingly giving the [nudity of a female character being depicted] - a pass.
(Which is what I expect most people to do. Which is what I imagine the writers were assuming would happen as well. Hence why I assume; sneaky writing. )

What you decide to permit as unimportant may actually be more so than you can know.
Are you aware of the Furry Fandom? How many people are? Many Americans I've observed who think poorly of the fandom can recall being disturbed by their ' 'Furry friends' ' from High School. Because Furries had been exposed to [Animal-based anthropomorphic characters] depicted in [potentially inappropriate] materials earlier in their lives (such events that they determined to be enjoyable) - they made social expressions of swapping Anthropomorphic Materials among friends depicting things akin to the disrobed Frog Lady. (If not worse... )

The deviation from species doesn't inherently stop all individuals from perceiving the material for what it is. (An intellectual removing their clothing in front of another.) Implications of an inappropriate theme for some audiences.

What sets the Frog Lady apart from a strictly a frog is that she has humanesque characteristics which qualifies her as an Anthro Character.

I can't see what the big deal is.

Chewbacca has been running around nearly naked since '77 and no one has had a problem with it.

@Dvveebo If the writers were intentionally putting this in there, what is the point? Very few will notice, and fewer will care. Why would the authors put this in the episode if they weren’t going to make an obvious point about it? Also, I don’t think poorly of Furries. People can like what they are into, and I don’t care because it is their lifestyle and doesn’t involve me in any way. 

Considering your point on the Child being a monster, I do not believe that it knows that those creatures will turn into sentient creatures. The eggs themselves are unfertilized, so they are much more like chicken eggs that someone can buy than actual creatures. Baby Yoda does not understand that with time, the eggs will turn into functioning creatures. It only understood that the rhino thing would kill Mando because it was a direct, foreseeable and immediate consequence. If you showed a child of a similar intelligence as Baby Yoda the eggs, I doubt they would think that they were anything but colorful balls, not something with the potential of complex, aware life. 

Kanrei13: [...] "Chewbacca has been running around nearly naked since '77 and no one has had a problem with it."

Most wookies do run around in such a fashion.

Wookies' thick fur is both warm, somewhat protective, and concealing - to the point that they don't require Sweaters, etc. (Death by) Overheating would become a primary concern if they chose to cover themselves in the same way that species with (exposed/hairless) skin would. I'm sure other problems would occur (such as painful issues with zippers and velcro...) that would make clothing less favorable to the Wookie species - hypothetically...

The above demonstrates that Wookies lack of clothing is tolerated more, based on applicable real-world logic. And by the same logic, the [Frog] Lady requires her clothing much in the same way that a human female would.

((I'm sure somewhere out there, less audible / less noticed people might have had gripes with how Wookies (or more specifically Poor-Medal-less-Chewy) have/has been depicted but we should discuss more specifically concepts and situations pertaining to the happenings revolving around The Mandalorian. ))

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RE: [Frog] Lady.

Commander_Ney0: [...] "If the writers were intentionally putting this in there, *what is the point?* Very few will notice and fewer will care."

I agree; What's the point of The [Frog] Lady having the Tech skills required to bypass a dangerous mechanical lifeform, but apply none of those skills to help repairing the ship, while only demanding that the MANdo do all the required work to get what she wants? (If B.Y can be contained in a pouch on the Mando, and the egg canister can be contained on the [Frog] Lady, then why didn't the two adults work together to restore the ship faster, with this solution in mind?)
What's the point of writing and portraying seemingly, skilled, (hairless) female characters simply as nude (potential desirables) instead of depicted as useful?

Very few members of an audience ever notice the passionate intricacies that are included in materials. Many people cannot point out the level of detail in a Mandalorian court - but a creator may have painstakingly gone out of their way to place concepts which deepen the lore, etc simply by being in a shot.

Perhaps it is just that Creatives want to share something they made and there are limitations imposed as to what they can express so they have to do so in more intricate ways that are more tolerable.

Commander_Ney0: [...] "Why would the authors put this in the episode if they weren’t going to make an obvious point about it?"
Points in Star Wars tend to change their meaning and sometimes aren't obvious at all. Somethings that people wonder about may never be fully elaborated upon, as some creatives prefer including ' 'Mystery Boxes' ' for fans interpretations to run wild with.