- Dec 12, 2015
- 179
- 37
Sure but a toddler is so far removed. You're drawing a false equivalence. They looked ambiguous enough to be fit in any upper range JS age, which can then be extrapolated to be in line for being pubescent, which holds true for reality. As for the rest of your point I don't know what relevance it has or why you brought it up. Like I mentioned, you just sparked me being curious there. It is not that deep. Cheers!I mean, you can draw a toddler ejaculating, it wouldn't make him "pubescent" in a practical sense. In general, most humans reach pubescence at 11-13, and in that game the boys looked like they weren't even 10, yet. In the new game, they look like boys in the midst of their puberty already, which I personally am fine with.
The same logic applies to lolies and pedophilia, which is medically defined as a preference for prepubescent children. In general, normal humans can't be attracted to prepubescent children as they lack secondary sexual traits, the same can't be said about teenagers that already hit puberty for a while. Though most men would swear that they aren't into "underage girls", in reality, according to multiple studies and common sense, some girls as young as 12 y.o. can be considered physically attractive to the vast majority of the male adult population, which isn't even considered as a deviation by psychiatry.
Last edited:
