>>51881633That first point view is subjective, galladeanon. Plus I would argue traits don't really matter vs perception and reception and we can easily find examples to show how arbritarty these labels are.
The matter of the reception and perception to Pokémon does matter in the way things materialize and we can actually see patterns emerge from these viewpoints. First it matters because the way the series constructs Pokémon and the way they want them to be perceived as is extremely important, and it has to be said that it's intentional by the admission of the parties involved in the series so this means that these viewpoints are going to greatly shape up how people see things. Indeed I often see people asking if it's bestiality because the series is effective in pushing the angle of Pokémon as *fictional* natural creatures.
Second it's a view that can actually be seen when you step back and see the wider picture. This is why rather than using subjective labels I like to use the term *appeal*, and we can see there's a clear pattern in sexual appeal towards Pokémon. An example being the lack of sexualizition towards object-like Pokémon or even the plant-like Pokémon despite their feminine designs. Even if Tsareena has *general* appeal it doesn't necessarily translate to Pokémon appeal and that's because of the demographics involved, Tsareena sports a low amount of NSFW despite being 11th and 4th in the big smash or pass polls. When it comes to NSFW material the furry subculture dominates this field so when you have a very sexualized Pokémon, meaning it has high appeal towards certain demographics, and the reception to these creatures the series builds up people are going to connect the two based off the source material and the material is spawns and where it's coming from. It's actually an interesting subject despite the concept being dumb.
