>>51216572Pokémon are constructed in a way where they evoke the concept of what an animal is, or as I like to call it 'natural wildlife. This is easily spelled out in that leaked product guide from x/y who makes it firmly clear especially in the wording they use. In fact once you look at the restrictions they put on Pokemon when others handle the franchise they start to make a lot more sense when viewed from certain lens. Talking Pokémon is an example I often use because this is talked about in the guide, and from their wording make it clear they're talking about how they themselves handle the subject. To be clear here talking is extremely limited to Pokémon except, and this is their words, "special circumstances" which they make clear often involve special storylines. They give out exceptions but this is where I want to highlight something. Meowth doesn't talk in the games which is central to his character in the anime, in Yellow and LGPE he does his in-game cry instead of talking. But this is I think what people overlook, Meowth *taught* himself how to talk in the anime. In the games Rotom talks only because technology allows him to, Kalyrex Epiphanes and Arkeos Soter are legendaries and Zoroak was using illusions. That means they did away with the concept of a Pokémon teaching themselves to talk outside of special contests such a the ones outlined above. Other rules such as being adamant about Pokémon not wearing clothes start to make sense if Pokémon are meant to be natural *magical* creatures.
This manifest in how people perceive Pokémon. An academic I follow that writes about Pokémon on the side stated that he couldn't understand the smash or pass craze for Pokémon because he perceived Pokémon as animals and to him sex with animals is gross. I think this perception helps explain some of the data we have on the "smashability" of Pokémon. But as my example shows there are genuine thoughts of Pokémon as zoophilia regardless of the Pokémon.
