>>51755989Not once have I stated Pokémon are creatures without intelligence. No, my points are that Pokémon are constructed to be a certain way and to be perceived a certain way. To make this point I often point out imagery or even statements from the very same people who run, and even created, the series.
To this is doesn't really matter how intelligent or not a Pokémon is because that's not a factor in the way they are portrayed. Verily so Pokémon intelligence hinges on what the writer at hand want to give them but generally Pokémon all share the same level of intelligence. What is important is to note things the series does and how it's all intentional. I often bring up that talking is extremely rare in the series as a whole and it is something noted in the 2012 product guide where they mention outside of very few exceptions it's something that's done in special circumstances.
Verily indeed when you dig deeper into the sources it becomes very clear that Pokémon are truly these cute, innocent critters and this perception people have of them *isn't* wrong. For example Satoshi Tajiri telling Ken Sugimori that he should think of Pokémon being like cats and dogs, and this is one of the main ways they construct Pokémon in both the anime and games, or Ken Sugimori statment of Pokémon being friendly beasts and as to why initially he based of Pokémon designs mainly off real animals. Other outside factors such as Takeshi Shudo, former headwriter of the original anime, saying that it was decided among the staff, and likely Tajiri as well, that Pokémon and human relations would mirror those of animals and humans in the real world. TPC statements regarding the treatment of Pokémon in Detrctive Pikachu, cuteness is king, also build up on this.
In short it is wrong, and people do perceive this as well, to seuxalize these very innocent and friendly creatures. They're constructed to be fantastical critters, not people for you lot to ogle over.
