>>43491009>You know, because it's a children's game?Duh? That's why I wrote:
>but nothing taboo would be brought up in the games or anime because of the audienceThe whole anime world is the least fleshed-out or plausible out of the three canons, I'd say. Honestly, I think that's just a reflection of how little Game Freak has even thought about the real-world elements of the franchise. They don't know what's in a Pokéball, whether eating Pokémon is ok, can't seem to agree if people and Pokémon were once the same, etc. In the end, there's no consistency, which makes head canons and fanfics really easy and prevalent.
>>43491056> in terms of reality/general universe.Hmm, hard to say because there's no one cohesive universe. I'd like to imagine it'd depend on the Pokémon, but could one really find it morally reprehensible if the Pokémon is demonstrably sentient, has consciousness, self awareness, knowledge, language, social behavior and understanding of nonverbal gestures, etc.? Even if they appeared like what we call an "animal" (implication: non-human), animals don't exist in their world, so non-sentient, non-plant/microorganism creatures just don't exist. There's no standard of "beastiality" like we might have. That said, I'd totally ostracize a guy who fucks Pineco.
