>>34839478>>34839553>>34839582The thing that disgusts me most about such pictures is this: If you have to give a Pokemon or whatever human features, then you're not truly attracted to it. Like, my favorite Pokemon I can say I have a near-sexual attraction to it because the looks just push my buttons in the right way. The perfect combination of curves and angles, the way it moves, sits, eats, or whatever. When I see an image of one, I'll probably at some point rub my dick to it in privacy. I'm not gonna say what my favorite Pokemon is to avoid derailing the topic.
But I find Mawile "cute" as I'm sure many others do. It's definitely got attractive qualities already. If you really like it so much that you feel the need to draw it in a sexual context, wouldn't you just leave it alone, design-wise? Adding breasts and making it bipedal or humanoid ruins it. You've created a monster out of desperate, confused lust. Either the artist/requester is some kind of pre-teen who hasn't come to grips with his sexuality and finds the Pokemon sexy, but can't wrap his head around fapping to something without breasts, or he's trying to sexualize fictional animals because liberals and feminism has brainwashed him not to sexualize women, so he turns other things into women. Or it was created for a laugh, but honestly I don't think that was.
This is some poser shit and the artist/requester should an hero for not being true to himself. If you're attracted to the Pokemon, jerk off to Pokemon. If you're attracted to women, jerk off to women. It's possible to find something aesthetically pleasing to a high degree and not want to masturbate to it, but if you cross that threshold, just masturbate to the original object and not a sick bastardization of it.
