Why are certain pokémon so lewd? Isn't this game for kids?

>>32481547
(you)

File: crop.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>32481547
Banette is lewd

plantpenetrator Banette a best.

There are only a few pokemon I would call inherently lewd. The rest, my assessment is if an artist can successfully make it sexy, then it will be paraded everywhere as if everyone thought it was always sexy. Otherwise, it's all a matter of preference. I have one or two pokemon I think can be sexy, but I'm apparently the only one.

>>32481596

This

>>32481600

> I have one or two pokemon I think can be sexy, but I'm apparently the only one

Do tell

>>32481600
Spill the beans.

Raichu and Venusaur.

I like em big, what can I say

>>32481644
And Venusaur requires a Bulbasaur or Ivysaur shaped head to even make it possible, though I've seen a few good attempts with the actual head. Or at least I think so. *to the archives*

File: 9889935b060af09585042c82e5ee4edb.jpg (212KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 540x720px

A few Closeted furries and monstergirl lovers. They know what they're doingm

>>32481658
Fug, it's at least a Bulba head in principle all the times I know. Never mind.

>>32481644
I'll give you Venusaur but you're speaking bullshit about Raichu. It's pretty popular, even if obviously not as much as Pikachu.

>>32481737
Original Raichu and not Alolachu. I should also clarify that for both of these, it's females. Venusaur is still rare, but it's almost totally males. Rairai has far more, but again, nearly all males. (curse you, Roy)

>>32481600

In my honest opinion, I'd regard a pokemon who artists barely put the effort on sexualizing it a actual lewd mon. If the artists feel the need to plaster breasts and other feminine-looking traits to a mon to the point it radically changes them, then it's definitely not a lewd mon.