>>51640581Except none of that is ever shown. I've stressed enough that the series will ignore those aspects if it gets in the way they want to portray Pokémon. Takeshi Shudo even wrote about that and how it was one of those subjects they had to ignore. At best it's implied like in New Pokémon Snap.
What people see instead is Pokémon behaving sweet and kind, they have very much an animal innocence to them. The way they construct interactions between the Pokémon and player very much mirrors that of real domesticated dogs and people notice that. It's no small coincidence and it's all intentional. In the words of Satoshi Tajiri Pokémon are "like cats and dogs" as he so unapologetically states. Verily so in 1995 he wrote in a book that Pokémon are "kaiju-like pets", the 1996 zukon states Pokémon make better pets than cats and dogs.
It's as Takeshi Shudo said, Pokémon are creatures made for children and everything in this franchise is built to push this view. Pokémon are constructed to be very familiar to us while still being distant and fantastical. For most this manifest as natural creatures and pets which is an angle the series heavily pushes. Verily indeed unlike v-pets like Tomagotchi Pokémon are meant to be living creatures and not virtual ones. While Tomagotchi focuses on the pet raising aspect Pokémon, when it can, focuses on the aspect of being a pet and interacting with one. Hence while one doesn't feed or take care of their Pokémon for needs they interact with them in an affectionate and playful manner like playing ball or fetch, or petting them and feeding them treats or watching them behave little cute innocent critters chasing after a ball. Pokémon goes for the feeling of having a pet rather than the feeling of raising one.
This is context which Pokémon emerge from and not this icky, inane garbage you people keep pushing. Pokémon, and people in general, are not obligated to accept your inanity and heed your sensibilities.
