>>513716951
>you'll end up banning the actual art with disturbing themes.
Noggin joggin big time. Make the evidence illegal.
>>513718087
Pokemon was honestly fucking INSANE for using a formula like that to keep kids' attention. Just slap a rotating cast of girls as eye candy next to the protag and you'll keep their eyes glued to the screen. Wire your company's branding to their fucking genitals.
>that's not what that was
Yeah? Why did the pokegirls become sex symbols, why do they dominate booru tags, and why do adult porn stars cosplay as Misty? They sexually imprinted on your ass. The pokegirls were there to keep you fucking gawking at the screen and I think it's only through raw exposure that we don't see how blatant it is. One third of the Pokemon anime is "HEY LOOK PRETTY GIRL" and they even rotated them to keep it fresh. Half of Advance's animation budget went into May's boobs. Dawn's skirt is deliberately drawn so you want to peek but can't. Parents were complaining about Misty's tomboy getup being too sexy as far back as the 90's, but she's so iconic now it doesn't even register. The pokegirls were PURE eye candy targeting their desired audience of boys.
>>513718857
> they just hate beauty. That's why it's fine to do whatever as long as the characters are ugly enough. I don't have that "cute aggression" meme pic handy or I'd post it.
This might LEGIT be it. I genuinely feel that there must be a spiritual and psychosocial component to this.
>They must've had to look real hard for it too because steam doesn't usually allow that to begin with
That's the thing. Lolisho occupied a sweet spot of being legal but the sort of thing only degens would know where to look for/ubiquitous but not talked-about. For this to be happening so concertedly and publicly and in a way that seems to have a planned narrative, it must be that they're LOOKING to do it.
The real telltale sign would be if obvious industry plants start talking about the subject.
