>>55882762that's proof of human on pokemon sex.
that's not proof of it being normalized. if anything it's proof of the opposite.
sinnoh myth, if true, points to it being normalized, but at the same time, it's describing a point before there was even a split between the two.
THAT SAID
machamp cafe canonically exists. and we've seen lustful behavior from both lana and bianca
towards hyper-muscular human-shaped pokemon, which means pokephilia is societally acceptable to express to at least some degree.
We've also seen quite a number of examples of pokemon that fall in love with humans, typically their trainer, weirdly enough also just like the former example mainly females. We've never seen reciprocation, but they trainers don't seem to care about dissuading their often overly-physical adoration either.
In both cases, the reaction of others, as well as their own behavior implies this is considered perverse behavior, even bizarrely perverse, but it's not considered starkly morally wrong or illegal.
So we can conclude that lusting after pokemon and lusting after humans (at least for women of both, sometimes genders have different societal rules) is on par with like, masochism or pet play. Decidedly kinky, will definitely get you some strange looks, but tolerated as long as it stays relatively nonexplicit while in public.
I guess it's like if other hominids like denisovians and neandrathals were still around and somebody said they wanted to fuck one. 'Like, I mean, it's not technically the same species, and it's kind of a subhuman savage, and god you've got some weird taste, but if that's what you're into...'
Or maybe closer, the women who say they want to fuck werewolves et al? Pokemon are basically yokai after all, the pre-pokeball era term they use for them in japanese PLA is literally just Demon Beast. Comparing them to western cryptids and mythological monsters is not a major stretch.
Yeah, that's probably the 1:1. They're monsterfuckers, if monsters were real.
