>>49008592It's not a fetish thing. I have said many times that there's not a fetish element to any of this, just simply putting this whole inanity into context. Did I go too far there? Possibly, but when it comes to the insanity this board produces sometimes you have to go in hard.
I don't hold the same bias some of you people have. I can easily tell *what* a Pokemon is meant to be closer to than what some of you wish, or think, they are. I simply put it into perspective how Pokemon behave or how the people running the franchise choose to portray Pokemon as. To me the special pleading done here falls on deaf ears, I'm not about to entertain the inanity some of you people put out. Verily once you take a closer look and break it down these fantasies start to look silly. Consider that Pokemon aren't even considered people within their own setting, and even in the anime all they say is their name and display low level anthropomorphic behavior among the pet like imagery the anime also likes to use. The games your Pokemon interacts with you like it's your pet dog, it doesn't talk to you but makes noises or makes motions to signal how it's feeling. Other interactions are also very pet-like which I have stressed over and over. You look at SMT and the demons there talk and are treated like people, the demons even talk to one another, they're not just making their cries and wandering aimlessly.
It's pretty clear and Oak made this clear to us more than 20 years ago. There's no fetish being shown here but rather opening up what Pokemon *are* rather than what you people wish they were. No amount of special pleading or headcanons is going to change that, and it's something most people can subtlety pick up on even if they can't pinpoint exactly why they think of it like that.
>>49009427Good thing I've never said that. Do note that the word *fictional* is used in the OP.
