Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

63,527 total conversations in 189 threads


Locked Locked
[Riff-Raff] regarding pokeporn

Last posted Apr 05, 2016 at 04:27AM EDT. Added Apr 03, 2016 at 10:47AM EDT
36 posts from 22 users

since you guys are pokeporn experts i figured i'd ask

has every pokeporn combo been used up? for simplicity's sake let's keep the pokeporn pairing to just two pokemon and not the combinations in poke-orgies of three or more, nor sexually explicit images of a single pokemon also no trainers.

probably not for all pokemon that they have now but what about the original 150? i mean pikachu has probably been in drawn in a sexual encounter with at least most other pokemon, he's pretty popular. the 3 starters probably get around too, but i don't know if there is any offbeat pairings of two less popular pokemon.

if my math is correct for the first gen of pokemon there should be 11,175 unique pokeporn pairings. this includes two pokemon of the same species. paheal claims to have 108860 pokeporn images so hypothetically they could all be there. the whole set…

so if any adventurous memers would like to figure out which pairings exist and which ones don't that would be greatly appreciated and also please send me all the links you find so i can be grossed out by them haha. the rest of us can discuss when all the pokepairings will be used up and we will finally reach peak pokeporn.

Last edited Apr 03, 2016 at 11:19AM EDT

Where would one even find Pokemon porn?

Thats requires 648 drawings PER POKEMON. im not really sure where you would find 648 drawings of Muk getting plowed in the goo hole.

Plus we should maybe wait for the new game to come out and regroup so we don't have to start the count over again.

TheLastMethBender wrote:

Where would one even find Pokemon porn?

Thats requires 648 drawings PER POKEMON. im not really sure where you would find 648 drawings of Muk getting plowed in the goo hole.

Plus we should maybe wait for the new game to come out and regroup so we don't have to start the count over again.

where did you get the number 648 from? i figured it'd just be 150 per pokemon

muk x bulbasaur would count for bulbasaur and muk.

actually, there might be even less images necessary i'll break out my stats book and try again

EDIT: i'm stupid only 11,175 images are needed for the full set

Last edited Apr 03, 2016 at 11:18AM EDT

Captain Blubber wrote:

where did you get the number 648 from? i figured it'd just be 150 per pokemon

muk x bulbasaur would count for bulbasaur and muk.

actually, there might be even less images necessary i'll break out my stats book and try again

EDIT: i'm stupid only 11,175 images are needed for the full set

Nononono it don't work like that, were going all out with this shit now. All 649 Pokemon I wanna know now, for some reason. Its unimaginable but knowing how big the internet is its not impossible.

So you're right it would count two pokemon at the same time for one image kind of like a spreadsheet but im talking about the number of images a single pokemon would have to be apart of in total. There are currently 649 pokemon. So thats 648 fucks per one breed assuming they don't fuck themselves. But seeing how there is some cross over Im lost on the math on the total images needed to complete.

Fucking subbing to this thread

Are you operating with the series breeding system in mind? Because that would invalidate many pairings. Many Pokemon are sexually incompatible species.

But if you don't care about that, go nuts.

ballstothewall wrote:

Are you operating with the series breeding system in mind? Because that would invalidate many pairings. Many Pokemon are sexually incompatible species.

But if you don't care about that, go nuts.

"sexually incompatible pokemon"

what are you, some kind of bigot? #samepokelove

Last edited Apr 03, 2016 at 12:19PM EDT

ballstothewall wrote:

Are you operating with the series breeding system in mind? Because that would invalidate many pairings. Many Pokemon are sexually incompatible species.

But if you don't care about that, go nuts.

Who said incompatibility was an issue? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

to be fair about the "also no trainers" thing most of the time the r34 of the main characters of the pokemon games are cringier than r34 of the actual pokemon since most of the trainers are 10-15 years old (keep in mind im saying this after i ended up gaining a sincere hatred of furry porn)

(that wasnt a joke but more of an honest opinion)

If you wanted to have Pokeporn of all pokemon with one of every pokemon one time, you would need 419904 pictures. For the original 151, you would need only 22801.

So Paheal has both not done enough and done more than plenty.

Pokeporn #5 popularity rankings (purely a guess):

1. Pikachu
2. Gardevoir
3. Buneary
4. Ninetales
5. Machamp

Last edited Apr 03, 2016 at 04:02PM EDT

Freakenstein wrote:

If you wanted to have Pokeporn of all pokemon with one of every pokemon one time, you would need 419904 pictures. For the original 151, you would need only 22801.

So Paheal has both not done enough and done more than plenty.

Pokeporn #5 popularity rankings (purely a guess):

1. Pikachu
2. Gardevoir
3. Buneary
4. Ninetales
5. Machamp

>Lucario not in top 5

Nice meme.

Captain Blubber wrote:

"sexually incompatible pokemon"

what are you, some kind of bigot? #samepokelove

I was talking about egg groups i.e. literally biological compatibility. Similar to how Mr Hands died after being fucked by a horse.

How would you feel if your Pikachu had its life force stolen by a Chandelure post-coitus?

Last edited Apr 03, 2016 at 04:38PM EDT
I haven't done any research on what pr0n combinations have or have not been made, but I've at least found the general way to determine the minimum number of pictures needed if we assume that there are two 'mons per picture (the answer is different depending on whether or not we want to include pictures with two 'mons of the same species, or just pictures featuring two different species).

It's useful to think of this using vertices from graph theory. For instance, consider the picture below:



This graph illustrates a situation where we are only considering the possible combinations for two species of Pokémon, with the line connecting the vertices (the two circles) representing the number of possible combinations. Since there is only one line, there is one way to pair these two Pokémon.
Now let's consider the case where there are three Pokémon:



Clearly there are three ways to combine these Pokémon.
There are 6 ways to combine 4 Pokémon:



And there are 10 ways to combine 5 Pokémon:



Consider the relation C_n=(n^2-n)/2, where C_n is the number of two-mon combinations of n Pokémon, where same-species combinations are excluded. You'll notice that all of the above cases follow this formula. However, we cannot simply show that the formula is true for some values of n and then conclude that it is true for all values; we need to prove that the formula is valid for all n in Z^+. We can do this by using mathematical induction.

We now want to use induction to prove the proposition C_n=(n^2-n)/2. Let's call this proposition P(n). The first step in the proof is to show that P(n) is valid for some initial value of n, e.g. 1 or 2. As shown above, P(2) is valid (and it can also be shown that P(1) is valid if we consider the amount of same-species-excluding combinations of one Pokémon to be zero), so this part of the proof is already done.

The next step is to prove that if P(k) is true for some k in Z^ + , then this implies that P(k + 1) must also be true. In other words, we wish to prove that if C_k=(k^2-k)/2 for some positive integer k, then C_{k+1}=((k+1)^2-(k+1))/2=(k^2+k)/2.
Proof: Suppose we have a graph with k vertices. Since we are assuming that P(k) is true, the number of line segments needed to connect every vertex to each of the other vertices of the graph is C_k=(k^2-k)/2. Now suppose we add another vertex to the graph; we will call this vertex ω. The number of vertices is now (k+1). What is the new number of lines needed to connect every vertex (including ω) to each of all the other vertices? Well, suppose that we connect all of the vertices EXCEPT ω to each other. The number of lines needed to do this is (k^2-k)/2. Now all we need to do is to connect ω to each of the other vertices. Since ω is being connected to k other vertices, we need k lines to do this. Hence, the number of lines needed to connect all (k+1) vertices is (k^2-k)/2+k=(k^2-k)/2+2k/2=(k^2-k+2k)/2=(k^2+k)/2. Note that this is what we were trying to prove, so we've now shown that if P(k) is true then P(k+1) is true as well.

Since we've now proven that {P(k) is true}⇒{P(k+1) is true}, and we've shown that P(1) and P(2) are true, P(n) is true for all positive integers n.

Now we've found that the number of possible same-species-excluding combinations of n Pokémon is (n^2-n)/2. However, this will not be the case if we include same-species combinations, e.g. a Pikachu getting fucked by another Pikachu. In this case, the number of possible combinations will be (C_n) + n=(n^2-n)/2+n=(n^2+n)/2.
The proof is trivial and is left as an exercise to the reader.

Now, how many pornographic images do we need to cover every possible combination of two Pokémon? To make it even more fun, let's do the math for every generation.

Generation 1 (151 Pokémon): Including same-species combinations: (151^2+151)/2=11476. Excluding same-species combinations: (151^2-151)/2=11325
Gen 2 (251): Including same-species combinations: (251^2+251)/2=31626. Excluding same-species combinations: (251^2-251)/2=31375.
Gen 3 (386): Including: (386^2+386)/2=74691. Excluding: (386^2-386)/2=74305.
Gen 4 (493): Including: (493^2+493)/2=121771. Excluding: (493^2-493)/2=121278.
Gen 5 (649): Including: (649^2+649)/2=210925. Excluding: (649^2-649)/2=210276.
Gen 6 (721): Including: (721^2+721)/2=260281. Excluding: (721^2-721)/2=259560.

Last edited Apr 04, 2016 at 09:33AM EDT

Okay, so we're going with 2 partners and only gen I pokemon? Which would probably be considered (151 btw), then that's simple:

It's 151+150+149+148+…1=11476
Calculation:"http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sumof+the+numbers+1+to+151&x=0&y=0"

Why? Simple. Bulbasaur has 151 pairings, since Bulbasaur x Bulbasaur is a unique pairing. Ivysaur has 150, because we already partnered it with Bulbasaur. We continue onto mew, which has one remaining unique partner, itself. Add them up and you get 11476.

As a comparison, there are 1,523,714 images hosted on Rule 34.ph•••.net.

Now, if you include all canon Pokemon as of Gen VI, not including variations, fusions, mega-evolutions, battleable non-pokemon, glitch Pokemon, etc, there are 721.
So, for the current Pokemon, the number of partnerships goes up to 260281.)

Continued in next post because I need to do a bit of research first.

This is part 2. These are some annotated notes I was going to write up into a more legible format, but due to the mental trauma I've sustained and the fact I've wasted too much time on this already, you'll need to deal with it. Sorry.)

List of probably unpopular pokemon on Rule 34, with resulting number of images:

Kakuna
55

Pidgeotto
37

Spearow
20

Zubat
87

Oddish
84

Paras
20

Persian
123

Psyduck
127

Poliwag
21

Slowbro
44

Magneton
24

Farfetch'd
54

Doduo
12

Seel
17

Electrode
49

Exeggcute
25

Starmie
65

Pokemon
108925

Since we'd be forced to use small fractions, let's use ratios instead.

Every Pokemon must have at least 151 pictures, for 151 pairings.
151:1→151/1=151
Also,
(1:100→ 100, 1:200→200)
So if 1:x then target x is less than or equal 151

Lowest→Doduo=12
12:108925→9077.083333…

9077>151, but by how much?

9077.083…/151=60.113134…..
A factor of 60.

Pokemon tag top correlations:

A lot of humans but
(4574+3837+3152+3059+2153+1946+1940)/108925=0.1896…
(Actually likely overestimate, since this counts some humans multiple times, even though not all humans included, which are likely relatively small compared to "extra counts".)
Roughly a factor of 5, so a factor of 12 (60/5=12) unaccounted for.

New Pokemon dominate pairings with old Pokemon? Maybe images aren't actually sexual? Maybe only Doduo on its own?

Direct look required, unfortunately.

Doduo:

2/12 "Legitimate pairings" (overcompensation, since there were several humans accounted for previously)

Factor of 6

12/6=2

Remaining factor of 2.

What about distribution on actual furry sites?
108925/1523714>7.1486%

Not huge but significant portion. Already a lot of overcompensation. Not much to suggest Doduo would be more than at least twice as popular on furry sites.

Conclusion:
For the original 151, you will probably find A LOT of unexpected pairings, even if you start off "prepared." Still likely not every single pair though, considering how unpopular some Pokemon are.

(Remember, only 2/151 pairings for Doduo, on rule 34. Only roughly 1.3245% of what's required. Assuming 10 other furry sites, each would have to have 14.9, on average, "new" pairings each. I don't see that happening. Feel free to check yourself and correct me.)

If you go with all 721, it's definitely not going to happen, but there will still be plenty to horrify you.

Generation 1 (151 Pokémon): Including same-species combinations: (151^2+151)/2=11476. Excluding same-species combinations: (151^2-151)/2=11325
Gen 2 (251): Including same-species combinations: (251^2+251)/2=31626. Excluding same-species combinations: (251^2-251)/2=31375.
Gen 3 (386): Including: (386^2+386)/2=74691. Excluding: (386^2-386)/2=74305.
Gen 4 (493): Including: (493^2+493)/2=121771. Excluding: (493^2-493)/2=121278.
Gen 5 (649): Including: (649^2+649)/2=210925. Excluding: (649^2-649)/2=210276.
Gen 6 (721): Including: (721^2+721)/2=260281. Excluding: (721^2-721)/2=259560.

There are a couple of important points you faggots are clearly forgetting:

- Genderless Pokemon: Various Pokemon, mostly legendaries, don't have a gender. Can you have R34 if they don't have a dong?
- Man-made Pokemon. Are Pokemon like Mewtwo save from the no-human rule? If humans didn't want to satisfy their gross sexual urges, these Pokemon would've never come into existence. If humans are forbidden, these Pokemon should be left out of the equation.
- Gender related evolutions: Vespiqueen for example can only evolve from a female Combee. Are we aiming for breeding (different genders) or do we allow lesbians?
- Nidoran♀ and Nidoran♂, two different evolution chains for what starts as a Pokemon with the same name yet entirely decided by gender.
- Phione and Manaphy: Phione can only be born when you fuck a Manaphy, but you can never get another Manaphy.
- Mother. Fucking. Ditto. This guy is the alpha and the omega, he cannot breed with himself but at the same time with every other Pokemon as long as they aren't legendaries (save Manaphy). You could technically double the amount of pairings just for Ditto.
- "But what if they fuck just the Ditto?" Ditto is genderless, numbnuts; see point 1.

Are you taking all these factors into consideration when calculating with same-species included.

Last edited Apr 04, 2016 at 12:28PM EDT

i don't get why you pokepuritans are so hung up on the idea of sticking to the canon. in the realm of art these limitations are easily overcome, you can slap a cock or/and tits onto any pokemon no problem. there is no need to worry about eggs or whatever, because they are just pictures. the nidoran point is an interesting one and it does change the numbers a bit because they are different pokemon in appearance although not in species. also homosexual pokerelations should be allowed because, it's 2016 guys, let's get real there are gay pokemon.

i would also like to thank roy for his great research into doduo pornography

Last edited Apr 04, 2016 at 01:29PM EDT

Well, technically in order to answer the question all you'd need to do is find one pairing that doesn't exist, which is pretty easily accomplished by a quick google search for something like Cryogonal x Kangaskhan (Assuming here, if someone actually wants to search this be my guest).

So to answer the question, no, not every pairing has been done. But a great many have.

Also regarding statistics, the number of pairings for any number of pokemon is just
n+(n-1)…(n-(n-1))
Where n is the number of pokemon. If you like factorials, you can also do
(n!)/((n-2)!(2))
Which excludes same-species.

There are a couple of important points you faggots are clearly forgetting:
- Genderless Pokemon: Various Pokemon, mostly legendaries, don’t have a gender. Can you have R34 if they don’t have a dong?

>Doesn't think porn without penises exists
>calls other people faggots

But honestly, I bet that the fact that a pokemon is technically genderless has stopped exactly 0 porn artists from doing their thing.

Last edited Apr 04, 2016 at 03:21PM EDT

Tchefuncte Bonaparte wrote:

There are a couple of important points you faggots are clearly forgetting:
- Genderless Pokemon: Various Pokemon, mostly legendaries, don’t have a gender. Can you have R34 if they don’t have a dong?

>Doesn't think porn without penises exists
>calls other people faggots

But honestly, I bet that the fact that a pokemon is technically genderless has stopped exactly 0 porn artists from doing their thing.

I once saw someone say "why is it that every r34 image of Eevee or Lucario has them as a female when the gender ratio is male: 87.5% and female: 12.5%" so r34 artists arent stopped by any in-game logic.
plus for the legendary thing they can always just say "its in the universe from the Pokemon Mystery Dungeon series where the legendaries have genders" (which only works sometimes)

Last edited Apr 04, 2016 at 06:18PM EDT

Tchefuncte Bonaparte wrote:

There are a couple of important points you faggots are clearly forgetting:
- Genderless Pokemon: Various Pokemon, mostly legendaries, don’t have a gender. Can you have R34 if they don’t have a dong?

>Doesn't think porn without penises exists
>calls other people faggots

But honestly, I bet that the fact that a pokemon is technically genderless has stopped exactly 0 porn artists from doing their thing.

Captain Blubber wrote:

i don't get why you pokepuritans are so hung up on the idea of sticking to the canon. in the realm of art these limitations are easily overcome, you can slap a cock or/and tits onto any pokemon no problem. there is no need to worry about eggs or whatever, because they are just pictures. the nidoran point is an interesting one and it does change the numbers a bit because they are different pokemon in appearance although not in species. also homosexual pokerelations should be allowed because, it's 2016 guys, let's get real there are gay pokemon.

i would also like to thank roy for his great research into doduo pornography

You're welcome. I'll send you a bill for the brain bleach later.

Captain Blubber wrote:

i don't get why you pokepuritans are so hung up on the idea of sticking to the canon. in the realm of art these limitations are easily overcome, you can slap a cock or/and tits onto any pokemon no problem. there is no need to worry about eggs or whatever, because they are just pictures. the nidoran point is an interesting one and it does change the numbers a bit because they are different pokemon in appearance although not in species. also homosexual pokerelations should be allowed because, it's 2016 guys, let's get real there are gay pokemon.

i would also like to thank roy for his great research into doduo pornography

Arceus made Adam & Eve not Abra & Eevee.

Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

This thread was locked by an administrator.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Word Up! You must login or signup first!