>>57167542I'm not sure what to tell you anon, that's a pretty standard abstraction employed by Gamefreak—out of the necessity of being a children's franchise—to conceal the unthinkable carnal sins that were committed daily in that sort of time period. It's not a stretch to say that a woman leaving her house and walking to the store on her own would more than likely end up getting raped, and possibly sold off into a life of captivity and erotic servitude. It's just how things were—odds were that if you didn't cross paths with an arrogant young master you'd get ambushed by a group of mountain bandits, or maybe stumble upon a pack of sex-starved houndooms, or become the sex shrine goddess of a remote village of emaciated old men. That was the reality for these people; is it not our duty as writers to accurately portray their unfiltered human experience? Should we not feel obligated to narrated these events without omission, and the heavy-handed censorship of the dark truth? We should not take the easy route and use these placeholders Gamefreak has put in place, hastily applied make-up on a wound far too ugly to conceal, but instead transform them into weightier, more rooted in reality. You would not argue the walking distance between cities in mainline pokemon games is LITERALLY in the seconds and the minutes, so you would agree that things shown to us in the overworld as players aren't indicative of the actual reality of the hard, solidly-defined pokemon world. These could range from anything like time required to travel, the true expenses of a journey, or even dialogue and the lore and culture of the world. Is it really such a stretch to imagine our protagonist could have a fifteen-year-old sex slave chained to his bedroom bed that he feeds gruel to and has sex with every day, and still be considered a good person of virtue, at least for the standards of the time?
