Allow me to riff a bit on the pretty interesting question: "why is there social stigma against cute images":

I think it is either seen as an infantile trait to decorate for example your apartment with neotenys objects if you are not a young girl or a grandmom - or seen as a cold or unsophisticated capture of the anima in nature.

In the adult it becomes either a vulgar aesthetic just as decorating with posters from a porn magazine, a non-ironic poster from an action movie, or even worse seen as some kind of semi pervese pathology of an adult mind that lacks the maturity post important developmental rite-de-passages that still exists in all societies that aren't extremely cushioned both economically and technologically.

In other words seen as a weakness, not because you have to become a strong-man, or right-wing or some other primal or ideological fantasy but because it signals the absurdity of the post-tribal, post-farming society. The level of anthropomorphization and adult adoration of "cuteness" would make most people from more than 100 years ago or people of today living closer to earth roll their eyes because it's a sign of the incredible riches and otherworldly level of infantilisation only afforded those at the top of the world pyramid.

This is why there is often a direct proportionality between a countries riches and how much you see indoor pets for example, or how much you see non-symbolic representations of animals devoid of any mythological significance only to appear as "cute mammals" without deeper meaning ie. a human perversion of nature.

Looking at images of "just a cute cat" then becomes stigmatised just as hardcore porn is taboo while "sophisticated classic erotic paintings" are not, because they are not seen as zoo-like or are decontextualised in a human centric and "exploitative" manner.

So obvious "cuteness" is just "too much" from most sophisticated aesthetics point of view because advanced societies maturation processes all have discipline, restraint and sophistication, ie. some esotericism as fundamental building blocks.

A cute image on the wall is then seen as "lower class" or "lower education" because it lacks the sophistication, cultural context and at the same time becomes vulgar just as the decontextualised "quote posters" you also often see in homes without these sensibilities. Instead of showcasing the literature that leads to the insight you just show the quote, or instead of cultivating the "Metta" like qualities of motherliness or charitability through travel or charity or some other serious endeavour rooted in reality you just surround yourself with "cute" things, - or sexy things or big-strong-man things that elicit the most basic skinner box like responses from pics of "boob", "tiny mouse", "big explosion" instead of indulging in more "subtle" and sophisticated arts, literature and iconography.

Also interesting is the fact that industrial farming is "unholy" in the same way as "cute-porn". Because it ultimately lacks the respect of the inherent spirit and sacredness that pre abrahamic religions saw in all living creatures both plants and animals.

A respect for the cyclical nature of everything or the family where each entity has it's own god-like importance completely interconnected with local ecosystem.

"capturing spirits" as some contemporary tribespeople think photographies do is a good modern translation of this concept - and why it would be seen as masturbatory or solipsistic to just look at at creature to illicit a calming response in your brain.