>>53080332None of that implies anything. It doesn't imply relationships, it's simply just written word in the pokedex, which as noted by Masuda may even be ignored if it gets in the way of how they want to portray Pokémon.
Pokémon as intended represent the critters Tajiri interacted with in his childhood while also doubling as good pets in the vain of cats and dogs, something he mentioned and made clear in his 2018 biography but also as early as 1995.
As Takeshi Shudo wrote, the anime staff, which in the planning stages would have likely involved Pokémon creators, decided to think of Pokémon as being like critter from the real world. Shudo in his blog even introduces Pokémon this way, as group of critters inspired by familiar objects and creatures. This is even the viewpoint given to us in the 2012 guide which explicitly tells us Pokémon replace the critters from the real world, and note that it never mentions monsters except not to call Pokémon that.
The series itself is even starting to reject the label monster for Pokémon and SV has dialogue to dissociate the label from Pokémon. Given that the series constructs domesticated Pokémon to be like dogs and cats, both in the way they're treated and how the act, and given that they also want people to view Pokémon as cute little critters and not monsters no one should act shocked when there's a push back against sexualization of what are essentially innocent creatures that occupy the sphere of being a pet and also being natural creatures. That perception lies in the way the series has chosen to construct Pokémon.
