>>50225266All this discussion. I'm just going to do what OP intended.
>>50225761Nah. In my mind, Pokemon are as intelligent as humans and can consent. So everything you say is basically gibberish.
>>50226091Unlike the above, this is an actual argument. Not a great one, but one that clearly did have more thought put into than "my headcanon says this so you are wrong." But for this argument... that also depends on the trainer, Pokemon have shown themselves to be able to run away, to make their own decisions, and to be able to attack bad trainers, even if they don't often do it. They clearly have some agancy. And if I was a trainer, I would MAKE SURE that they did. So in the end, your ideas about Pokephilia are simply wrong, at least for me, and for many others. You LIKE the idea of them being owner and pet, which is why you argue for it, but most do not like that idea at all, and simply do not think of them the way you do. But you do very much seem to like wasting your breath trying to convince others of things you never will convince them of.
Do you know the definition of insanity?
