>>51704590I said if people perceive that what is the issue? Of course that most likely won't happen but the subjects at hand don't even appear human anyways, they're fictional constructs with their own look. On top of that there's plenty of furry perceived characters which are essentially human minus a few traits. Mythological creatures, fictional ones and even fictional species like synths and proteans, which are mechanical in appearance, may be seen that way in no small part due to association with the label and perception. You.and your friend have a narrow view in which only your interpretation is correct which is wrong. I hope to show that with data in hand that view point does not manifest itself in the way you hoped to.
>>51703863> how it is an animal and what animal it is and 2) how it has been anthropomorphized It's a Pokémon, the people who work and created the series have stated this which in turn influences how people perceive Pokémon. There, no need to say anything else since these are fictional creatures. And it's already anthropomorphized since it's base design since it's fictional. There, the perception of a Pokémon as an animal isn't in any way misguided since that's essentially what the people working on the series have said, people who worked on the series and something which people who created the series strongly hinted at. Anything else and you are coping my friend.
And I'm not separating anything, just showing how flexible terms can be but most importantly how perception is very important. This is why in my post I said appeal and showed data which shows that appeal to furries is very important when it comes to Pokémon as well as showing which Pokémon get sexualized for a reason. This is why I showed that Tsareena scores high in smashability but lacks any pornographic presences, said can be said about Roserade, Lilligant and even Meloetta.
