>>52213358Well the gist is that the series doesn't construct Pokémon to be perceived as monsters in the sense of the context of their universe. They're monsters in the sense that they're fantastical fictional creatures but they're very much conceptualized to be seen as fictional animals creatures which they made very clear in the 2012 guide. Takeshi Shudo, the man who wrote the anime, constantly refers to Pokémon as animal creatures and he only calls them monsters once in a very specific context.
The perception of Pokémon from the general public is built upon this context which is reflected in the reception to Pokémon. The complaining about such designs, and "jobmons" too, is a byproduct of this. Reception to this context is a whole different interest topic on its own right.
Generally I agree with you but it should be mentioned that according to Tajiri's biography Ken Sugimori originally designed Pokémon with real animals in mind, it wasn't until Tajiri hired three other artists that the pool of Pokémon designs was expanded on. But I agree with the personal problem bit, and to me I have no issues either, I accept Pokémon for what they are and their fantastical nature. Indeed even in the real world "humanoid" animals exist in the form of other great apes which at times in the past had been confused for humans. Neat fact, the newest entries for Oranguru make it the most human-like Pokémon in canon since it's mentioned that people confused it for a human which is a neat callback to the real world.
