>>43880699Autism inbound, sorry in advance
I also don't do half of what I do for my pets (or Pokemon, in this case) as I do for my friends, though
A Pokemon's care is 100% on the trainer, from training to health to shelter to food to mental stimulation, and as you said they're willingly, and knowingly in that arrangement
To pretend they're not pets is, in my opinion, simply shying away from your responsibility as their trainer
I think viewing the term pet as demeaning is simply personifying Pokemon to the point where they're just humans in different bodies; their version of intelligence, and their demeanor, does not necessarily have to reflect a human's (which isn't to say they're less than human, merely different)
Just like how humans normally desire agency & independence, and thus being a pet is beneath them, I don't think it's unreasonable to see Pokemon as creatures that desire trainers or to be owned, and thus being a pet is simply a different form of the symbiotic relationship of friendship/companionship
I guess it boils down to that I don't think increased sapience needs to correlate with an increased desire for independence, and if anything can deepen the meaningfulness behind the pet/owner dynamic, rather than become a demeaning dynamic
What makes you think they prefer being treated as equals, though? The Pokemon in the game, by and large, seem to be happy being subservient to their trainers
Not to be aggressive: I'm genuinely curious and this aspect of Pokemon has always been fun for me to think about
