How do you feel about inter-species…

[Ookla she/her]

On 1/19/2025 at 6:22 AM, Nitpicking said:

 

This wasn't just in Dawnshard. Why do you think Rushu was interrogating the Sibling about being neither male nor female in WaT?

I honestly hadn't thought about that... Makes a lot of sense, though.

[Y F-N she/her]

It's important to note that everyone has different things that make them go "I like this person, I want to date them". For some people, those requirements are "nothing. I don't want to date anyone." Those people are perfectly valid. For others, the person needs to be aesthetically pleasing to them. That's not shallow or anything, it's just how humans work-- but again, only some humans. The ones who don't work like that are valid as well. For some, the ability to-- let's say "mate", as Pattern puts it-- is a requirement. For others, it's not, and in fact some people find that type of intimacy to be something they do not want in a relationship (for a fictional example, look to Jasnah).

Similarly, I imagine cross-species relationships would be another one of these. Some humans would find it repulsive, like the OP in this discussion. But others would be perfectly fine with it, as long as their romantic partner understands them. Clearly, Renarin and Rlain are of the latter group. I suspect I might be as well, though I have enough other barriers to entry in what I find to be a plausible romantic relationship for myself that it can be hard to tell.

[Returned he/him]

It's an interesting conundrum. One of the big goals of representation is to show different types of people in the world as characters in media. But it's not unusual that some traits are real for those characters but not relevant to the broader story, so it's hard for them to come up smoothly and clearly.

The traits aren't supposed to be strange, but explicitly highlighting them already marks them out as different and suggests that they are important, which fits awkwardly against unmarked categories. No one wonders about Colot's sexuality and it never comes up at all, but if he offhandedly mentioned a date with a woman the night before no one would think anything of it. If he were to mention a date with a man the night before there is a group of readers who would think it's making a statement of some kind since, as an offhand comment that doesn't drive the plot he didn't "need" to say it or reveal that about himself, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of Stormlight characters don't reveal anything about themselves in this dimension.

The only way for readers to know the trait exists for a character is to suggest it without saying it outright (perhaps like Rushu, which is miss-able by readers), to say so out of text (like Renarin before WaT), to make a point of indicating it in-text even though it isn't significant for the plot (like Sarkuin in WaT), or to make a plotline which features it (like Renarin in WaT). I generally suspect that people who are shocked by such a detail would be shocked in either of the latter cases and are likely to miss it completely in the former two, though maybe that's uncharitable.

[Mattel]

On 1/18/2025 at 9:49 PM, Treamayne said:

I'm curious about on which data you base this comment?

I was surprised by it and so naturally assumed that other people were as well. That was a terrible assumption on my part and put words and ideas into other people based purely off of my own feelings. That is on me, and I am sorry.

On 1/18/2025 at 10:24 PM, Argenti said:

I was going to say this. He explicitly told us 4ish years ago, and it's been hinted at since oathbringer.

The genreal fan base might not have known it, but it would be incredibly inaccurate to pretend the Shard hasn't know how gay Renarin is for years.

I mean, should I have to look at everything the author has ever said to fully understand a story? Should I not be able to figure out and know these things just by reading the books? But I didn't. That might be on me, but I simply wish there had been some fore-shadowing or something. 

On 1/19/2025 at 6:22 AM, Nitpicking said:

For once, I wasn't nitpicking. I'm wondering why you would be more comfortable with a genderless or ambiguously gendered person being with a male partner than female.

This wasn't just in Dawnshard. Why do you think Rushu was interrogating the Sibling about being neither male nor female in WaT?

I am totally willing to talk about my feelings about gender and sexuality on a different forum, since this is dedicated to inter-species and there is a thread already set up talking about Renarin and Rlain on the Storm light only forum, but let's just say that due to my personal feelings, I feel most comfortable with a female being with a male (if people specifically ask for my thoughts I will share them but I don't think I will unless asked). But I recognize that this doesn't address Rushu, since she technically isn't either (depending on who you ask). When Rushu was first introduced, she was described as a "female ardent" with long lashes, and the pronoun "she" was used at first for a long time, I think that only changed in Dawnshard or WaT. I know that all ardents are bald, and that it fits well into the world and religion that Sanderson has created, but I have almost never seen a bald woman and it is something just in general hard to picture. So generally whenever I am reading about an ardent in the story, I am not actively picturing in my mind: This is someone who lives a life-style that tries to diminish the differences between genders, like women having long hair and body shapes. I am not fully used to having to specifically pay attention to what gender is applied to who, because from every book I have ever read so far, once you introduce a character as a female, then they are a female and that doesn't change. I think when I was reading WaT I did notice near the beginning (actually I think in that scene you talked about) that the pronoun "they/them" was applied to Rushu. I kind of did a double take because grammatically it didn't make sense for the book to be referring to several people, which for a very long time now is how "they/them" has always been applied. I think I looked at it more closely and realized that Rushu was non-binary, and then just moved on. I also didn't see it as that weird for an ardent to ask a Spren what gender they are and how that works. It just didn't seem like something I needed to look too closely at.

And yes, I do believe this is nitpicking what I said. I simply wish that Sanderson had included some mention of an inter-species relationship into his writing sooner, so that it didn't feel like a last minute thrown in idea when two such relationships show up in WaT and are both key moments. Part of me may wish he had done something sooner so that I could prepare for the idea, but I also wish it simply because I believe the series would be better off for it. Raboniel totally could have talked about inter-species relationships occuring in the past when she was talking about how she doesn't believe Storm light and voidlight can mix. It would have fit in well. It would have prepped the story for those two storylines that happen in WaT.

59 minutes ago, Returned said:

The traits aren't supposed to be strange, but explicitly highlighting them already marks them out as different and suggests that they are important, which fits awkwardly against unmarked categories. No one wonders about Colot's sexuality and it never comes up at all, but if he offhandedly mentioned a date with a woman the night before no one would think anything of it. If he were to mention a date with a man the night before there is a group of readers who would think it's making a statement of some kind since, as an offhand comment that doesn't drive the plot he didn't "need" to say it or reveal that about himself, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of Stormlight characters don't reveal anything about themselves in this dimension.

This..... I will be honest, this is hard for me to read. Because this makes me feel like such a hypocrite. I only have two justifications, one being my personal beliefs about such things, and the other being that it is a sudden change in society the ability to have such freedom with gender and sexuality. Even if people think that it is something that shouldn't be made  a big deal about, you can't deny that this is recent. It is new and different. 

 

I just want to finish by saying that I want to be kind and loving in how I handle these situations (talking about stuff like this, etc.) but also honest, and if being honest also means I am rude and unkind, then I am the direct problem and not anyone else. If I accidentally offend someone I am not purposefully seeking to do so and you should let me know if I am stepping too far. 

[Returned he/him]

On 1/20/2025 at 1:26 PM, Mattel said:

This..... I will be honest, this is hard for me to read. Because this makes me feel like such a hypocrite. I only have two justifications, one being my personal beliefs about such things, and the other being that it is a sudden change in society the ability to have such freedom with gender and sexuality. Even if people think that it is something that shouldn't be made  a big deal about, you can't deny that this is recent. It is new and different. 

It wasn't my intention to make you feel bad. What I was trying to say is that things like this often stick out by design-- when the author wants to highlight a certain trait for purposes of representation and inclusion but without writing a story that is specifically about that trait you get something that is hard to miss, and variably well-integrated into the story.

The grand, sweeping format of Cosmere stories (and especially Stormlight) has made some character development uneven. We'll get more Renarin stuff in subsequent books and we might then see some smoother or more gradually developed characteristics about him. So far we only know a little, if only because relatively few pages have been dedicated to him and his POV, which might make it feel more jarring for some: making his sexual orientation unmissable to readers was kind of bluntly delivered, had little buildup (as with nearly all things Renarin so far), and makes up a lot of his known characteristics because relatively little has been shown so far.

I, personally, was a bit disappointed that so much of Renarin's character so far is defined his relationship with Rlain. That makes him more of an object of the story than a subject, and given his relevance to events in WaT that felt a bit underwhelming to me. I expect that to even out with books from the back half and I may even change my perspective on WaT once those releases start coming. But if someone feels shock around the in-text revelation of Renarin's sexuality I suspect that that shock would have been present whenever that revelation happened, even if it were in the first lines of text describing the character. And if there is such a shock for many readers I think that it only underlines the purpose in making such traits explicit: once it's not so shocking there won't be as much point in highlighting it that way.

[AquaRegia he/him]

Honestly.  I can't believe this topic grew to six storming pages, and some people were STILL fighting.

If you read The Lord of the Rings (published in 1954), and you had no problem with Aragorn marrying Arwen, you can't claim you have problems accepting an interspecies relationship.

If you watched Star Trek (1966-1969), and you were OK with Jim Kirk macking on the green-alien-woman-of-the-week, not to mention Spock being the canonical child of a Vulcan father and a human mother, you had no trouble accepting interspecies relationships.  (Bonus points for Laliari and Fred Kwan in Galaxy Quest!)

If you played D&D (1977-present), and didn't object when someone played a half-elf or half-orc character, you clearly had no issues with interspecies relationships.

If you read comic books, and saw nothing wrong with Lois Lane dating Superman (which started in 1938), YOU HAD NO TROUBLE ACCEPTING AN INTERSPECIES RELATIONSHIP.

There is one big difference that sets apart Renarin and Rlain from all these other examples; one critical detail of THIS relationship that might inspire someone to assert "You can’t tell me that didn’t make you feel sick."  I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide what that crucial difference is. (Hint: it ain't carapace.)

It is certainly true that ONE thing about this topic made me feel sick.  Another exercise for the reader.

Edited January 22, 2025 by AquaRegia
typo

[bmcclure7]

1 hour ago, AquaRegia said:

Honestly.  I can't believe this topic grew to six storming pages, and some people were STILL fighting.

If you read The Lord of the Rings (published in 1954), and you had no problem with Aragorn marrying Arwen, you can't claim you have problems accepting an interspecies relationship.

If you watched Star Trek (1966-1969), and you were OK with Jim Kirk macking on the green-alien-woman-of-the-week, not to mention Spock being the canonical child of a Vulcan father and a human mother, you had no trouble accepting interspecies relationships.  (Bonus points for Laliari and Fred Kwan in Galaxy Quest!)

If you played D&D (1977-present), and didn't object when someone played a half-elf or half-orc character, you clearly had no issues with interspecies relationships.

If you read comic books, and saw nothing wrong with Lois Lane dating Superman (which started in 1938), YOU HAD NO TROUBLE ACCEPTING AN INTERSPECIES RELATIONSHIP.

There is one big difference that sets apart Renarin and Rlain from all these other examples; one critical detail of THIS relationship that might inspire someone to assert "You can’t tell me that didn’t make you feel sick."  I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide what that crucial difference is. (Hint: it ain't carapace.)

It is certainly true that ONE thing about this topic made me feel sick.  Another exercise for the reader.

Superman and elves and startreck aliens are mostly humans. Just because you are fine with them don’t mean that you are ok with a human and troll or human and a baboon. You can’t just generalize all interspecies relationships under one unbrella 

[AquaRegia he/him]

33 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

You can’t just generalize all interspecies relationships under one unbrella 

In fact, I can.  I just did.  More importantly, Brandon Sanderson did.  One of the main themes of Brandon's work is that all the sapient species in the Cosmere - human, dragon, sho del, kandra, spren, singer, aimian, sleepless, etc, etc, are PEOPLE.  He has given us canonical evidence of sexual and/or romantic relationships between humans and 1) dragons 2) singers 3) aimians 4) kandra 5) spren (debatable, but we've been talking about it here for years) 6) cognitive shadows, 7) whatever Hoid is, probably some others I forgot or missed, and I won't be surprised to learn about many more in the future.

You're free to not like it, but that doesn't stop it from being true.

You are also free to indulge your own preferences; draw lines wherever you wish... for YOU.  I have my own preferences; elves and vulcans are HOT, orcs and thermians, not so much.  But just because you might arbitrarily consider a romantic relationship between some of these to be acceptable but rule out others does not entitle you to make that judgement for ANYONE ELSE.  Kind of like every other fictional universe... and also the real one.

One umbrella.  Simple.

[SomePog]

I feel like a big portion of outrage against this comes from two main points
- Alien aspects of Singers
- The changing of forms

With the Alien aspect debate, as shown before with the CANNON imagery of singers they are extremely humanoid, the term crab people while common is a community thing the relation between singers and crabs ends at shell, they dont have claws or mandibles or eye stalks, they dont lay eggs nor breath underwater, the face is never plated and for the most part they arent spiky to a major extent, only Direform and Warform really show this spiky-ness and for warform its only ridged at certain points.

The argument that "Warform is icky and gross" is redundant because its a warriors form, I personally wouldn't be attracted to someone wearing full plate mail either, but thats the point, different Singers are comfortable in different forms, Rlain persists in Warform because hes a soldier, Venli stays in Envoyform because shes comfortable with it. Thats the different, once Roshar is peaceful (If is probably more accurate) I could see most if not all Singers abandoning Warform obviously some would like it as a base form but thats the equivalent of Military dude bros and they dont pull much in the real world so it fits. Forms like Artform, Workform and Nimbleform are probably going to become a precedent for most Singers which makes sense and these forms are started to have less prominent shell being both smoother and sleeker which immediately bumps up the closeness to humans.

About the form changing its stated in WoR by Eshonai how the forms change inclination but don't completely lobotomize a singer, a Warform is capable of compassion and fear, a Workform is capable of anger, less inclined yes but that's in some shape human, everyone's different but their core personality remains so sure one day your partner might leave in workform and come back in artform all I can really imagine changing is them picking up a new hobby, they aren't gonna quit their job and leave you to pursue their grand dreams. So far from what we've seen Mateform is probably the most changing of the forms which makes sense because this happens to people aswell, sure not as extreme but thats just another thing to get used to.

A warform singer is capable of giving affection, they can and will, we see this in Rlain and in the Direform from the past, yes they will be less inclined that other forms but that is just like people, some people and their levels of affection change week to week or even day to day.

[bmcclure7]

3 hours ago, AquaRegia said:

In fact, I can.  I just did.  More importantly, Brandon Sanderson did.  One of the main themes of Brandon's work is that all the sapient species in the Cosmere - human, dragon, sho del, kandra, spren, singer, aimian, sleepless, etc, etc, are PEOPLE.  He has given us canonical evidence of sexual and/or romantic relationships between humans and 1) dragons 2) singers 3) aimians 4) kandra 5) spren (debatable, but we've been talking about it here for years) 6) cognitive shadows, 7) whatever Hoid is, probably some others I forgot or missed, and I won't be surprised to learn about many more in the future.

You're free to not like it, but that doesn't stop it from being true.

You are also free to indulge your own preferences; draw lines wherever you wish... for YOU.  I have my own preferences; elves and vulcans are HOT, orcs and thermians, not so much.  But just because you might arbitrarily consider a romantic relationship between some of these to be acceptable but rule out others does not entitle you to make that judgement for ANYONE ELSE.  Kind of like every other fictional universe... and also the real one.

One umbrella.  Simple.

1. Let me rephrase you cannot group them all under one umbrella and makes sense if like you have someone decide to instead spew nonsense then yes you say that they are all under one umbrella

2. We’re not talking just about Brandon Sanderson anymore. Lord of the rings and DC comics were not produced by Brandon Sanderson.

3. Recognizing someone as people and having sex with that person or very different things.  A gay man can recognize woman as people and still get the ick if someone tried to come on him. 
 

4. Buy your own admission you don’t find orcs hot. Am I to assume that you don’t recognize orcs people?

5. Just because Brandon Sanderson favors mostly humanoid intelligence doesn’t mean that’s the same for every single author everywhere. And even he has sleepless. I doubt we’ll ever see a romantic pairing with them.

 

6. He is not seen arbitrary about sexual attraction. There are biological reasons why some things give you ick and others don’t. 

Edited January 22, 2025 by bmcclure7

[alder24]

11 hours ago, AquaRegia said:

Honestly.  I can't believe this topic grew to six storming pages, and some people were STILL fighting.

True. Someone on Scadrial thought that those not so smart, blue, 13 feet skinless brutes with their bloodied body torn by countless wounds, who can't stop growing are hot and nobody said anything about it on the forum. Yet, here we are, six pages in and still counting...

[BinarySecond]

29 minutes ago, alder24 said:

True. Someone on Scadrial thought that those not so smart, blue, 13 feet skinless brutes with their bloodied body torn by countless wounds, who can't stop growing are hot and nobody said anything about it on the forum. Yet, here we are, six pages in and still counting...

Koloss, the forgotten ship material.

On reflection the Koloss appear to be the most direct human-non-human entity given their original creation.

Post Harmony they're just swole by default chilling in the roughs.

Edited January 22, 2025 by BinarySecond
MOAR

[Argenti he/him]

7 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

3. Recognizing someone as people and having sex with that person or very different things.  A gay man can recognize woman as people and still get the ick if someone tried to come on him. 

A gay man can also notice a women is attractive and think "If I wasn't gay, I'd date them." He can understand the rational behind someone wanting to date a women, but doesn't want to himself.

[AquaRegia he/him]

On 1/20/2025 at 1:21 PM, Returned said:

No one wonders about Colot's sexuality and it never comes up at all, but if he offhandedly mentioned a date with a woman the night before no one would think anything of it. If he were to mention a date with a man the night before there is a group of readers who would think it's making a statement of some kind

YES.  Thank you for wording this so clearly.  We (all, I include myself) have a natural tendency to assume everyone else is "like us" until shown otherwise.  I feel it's important to resist the shock reflex we sometimes have when we find out someone is different.  You didn't know before, now you do.... it's OK.  Different isn't BAD.  See below.

On 1/20/2025 at 2:26 PM, Mattel said:

I simply wish that Sanderson had included some mention of an inter-species relationship into his writing sooner, so that it didn't feel like a last minute thrown in idea

I appreciate your journey, and your honest efforts to be kind.  I will also try to be as kind as I can.  Lessie and Wax were shown as a couple in Alloy of Law, which was published in 2011.  Later, Wayne and MeLaan were pretty explicit in BoM.  The Way of Kings came out in 2010; people immediately began speculating about Horneaters and Herdazians (human+singer) and Natanans (human+aimian).  I don't recall exactly when we found out about Tanavast and Koravellium being lovers, but it was at least a few books ago.

I understand some people feeling like interspecies relationships are a "sudden" thing in WaT, but I don't think it's a fair criticism.  Also, it's not necessarily "bad writing" for the reader to find something surprising, any more than it's "bad" to be surprised about someone in real life.

15 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

Just because you are fine with them don’t mean that you are ok with a human and troll

12 hours ago, SomePog said:

The argument that "Warform is icky and gross" is redundant because its a warriors form, I personally wouldn't be attracted to someone wearing full plate mail

Statements like these seem to me to rest upon a single idea: that if a particular sexual or romantic behavior isn’t what I might want, then it must be wrong somehow.  This idea needs to be smashed.  It is not only fundamentally and demonstrably incorrect, it’s actively hurtful in real life.  I believe that Mr. Sanderson and I agree on this; it certainly seems to be a core theme of his work.

You don't get to tell me what I'm OK with.  And I don't get to tell you, or anyone else.  You are right that some things make me go "ick"... but I don't get to project my "ick" onto anyone else, and I sure don't have any moral authority to forbid anyone doing something on the basis of my "ick".  That's exactly the point.

I think Brandon is, through his writing, trying to gently help us all grow up and awaken to the fact that people can be who they choose, and love who they choose, how and why they choose, regardless of whether it's what we might choose.  We don't get to choose for them.

[Mattel]

9 minutes ago, AquaRegia said:

I appreciate your journey, and your honest efforts to be kind.  I will also try to be as kind as I can.  Lessie and Wax were shown as a couple in Alloy of Law, which was published in 2011.  Later, Wayne and MeLaan were pretty explicit in BoM.  The Way of Kings came out in 2010; people immediately began speculating about Horneaters and Herdazians (human+singer) and Natanans (human+aimian).  I don't recall exactly when we found out about Tanavast and Koravellium being lovers, but it was at least a few books ago.

I understand some people feeling like interspecies relationships are a "sudden" thing in WaT, but I don't think it's a fair criticism.  Also, it's not necessarily "bad writing" for the reader to find something surprising, any more than it's "bad" to be surprised about someone in real life.

FIY: I haven't read the second arc of Mistborn. I know I am on the Cosmere spoilers forum, so I don't blame you for saying this, but know that I haven't read that, and again as I have said before, do I need to read even more of an author to understand one book series? So while you may be raising a good argument, it is sadly lost on me. I also don't really remember anything in the books that alluded to the inter-species facts about Herdazians and Natanans and Horneaters, though I do realize that they aren't just theories. I did not know that Cultivation was a dragon until I read WaT, so again, I didn't pick up on that during my many reads through this series. If they were in the novellas, again, I haven't read those yet. 

I love the surprises that Sanderson puts into his books. The best stories are the ones that you either have no clue where the story is going, you think you know but are completely wrong, or you know what is going to happen and you are totally fine with it and want it to happen. Honestly inter-species didn't bother me that much, though I will admit I was... Okay yes I was surprised when that dire-form kissed Dalinar. But considering the situation I don't think it was the fact of the relationship, but just a random, what, eight foot creature? just kissing a main character pretending to be another main character. I wasn't super surprised by Renarin and Rlain being a thing because of their different species, I was surprised because of the fact that it was a guy with a guy. Again, I didn't see it coming, and such things when I read them make me feel a tad uncomfortable. But I have talked privately with a sharder and also with y'all and realized there was warning that I should have picked up on and so it's more my fault than anything/anyone elses that I was surprised by either.

Something that I do want to say that I don't believe has been mentioned yet is this: personally I don't think that there will ever be the possibility for an inter-species relationship with a creature that has the same intelligence that we humans have. I don't believe aliens exist, or I don't think we will find intelligent life. I would not be surprised if we find like space algae such as Astrophage in Project Hail Mary, but I don't think that aliens, AI, animals, or anything else will ever be like us. But I think that people probably have already realized this and we are mostly talking about how do we feel about it in literature. But I just wanted to put that out there.

[AonEne he/him]

On 1/20/2025 at 12:26 PM, Mattel said:

I think when I was reading WaT I did notice near the beginning (actually I think in that scene you talked about) that the pronoun "they/them" was applied to Rushu. I kind of did a double take because grammatically it didn't make sense for the book to be referring to several people, which for a very long time now is how "they/them" has always been applied. I think I looked at it more closely and realized that Rushu was non-binary, and then just moved on. 

I don't believe they/them was used for Rushu in the book - you might be thinking of they/them being used for the Sibling, or possibly on Rushu's Coppermind page (an edit that was made after getting a Word of Brandon on the subject)? I'll also throw out there that singular they/them isn't really new to the English language, it's been used when a single person's gender is not known or specified for a long time too. 

On 1/20/2025 at 12:26 PM, Mattel said:

This..... I will be honest, this is hard for me to read. Because this makes me feel like such a hypocrite. I only have two justifications, one being my personal beliefs about such things, and the other being that it is a sudden change in society the ability to have such freedom with gender and sexuality. Even if people think that it is something that shouldn't be made  a big deal about, you can't deny that this is recent. It is new and different. 

I just want to finish by saying that I want to be kind and loving in how I handle these situations (talking about stuff like this, etc.) but also honest, and if being honest also means I am rude and unkind, then I am the direct problem and not anyone else. If I accidentally offend someone I am not purposefully seeking to do so and you should let me know if I am stepping too far. 

Another thing I want to point out is that it only seems new. Gay, trans, and otherwise queer people have existed throughout history, being called various things and treated various ways in various cultures. The numbers of people openly being who they are have risen, and it's easier to notice now because of that, but we were always there. 

I appreciate that you're trying to listen and be kind in conversations like this! 

11 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

He is not seen arbitrary about sexual attraction. There are biological reasons why some things give you ick and others don’t. 

I don't find this argument convincing. Many humans share an attraction to the actions which produce children, but it's not the overpowering biological imperative some seem to think it is. I'm attracted to plenty of things which are outright dangerous and do absolutely nothing to make a baby happen. I get the ick from some things which would directly contribute to making a baby happen. People are weird. 

Edit: oh, something I forgot to add as I was on my way out the door - I should have extended the "let's not with the ape comparisons" to primates in general. Baboons and trolls are generally not depicted as having human levels of intelligence or sapience, distinctly unlike singers. In addition to being a loaded comparison, it just doesn't make much sense in this context? No one is suggesting getting it on with beings that can't consent. 

[SomePog]

4 hours ago, AquaRegia said:

Statements like these seem to me to rest upon a single idea: that if a particular sexual or romantic behavior isn’t what I might want, then it must be wrong somehow.  This idea needs to be smashed.  It is not only fundamentally and demonstrably incorrect, it’s actively hurtful in real life.  I believe that Mr. Sanderson and I agree on this; it certainly seems to be a core theme of his work.

You don't get to tell me what I'm OK with.  And I don't get to tell you, or anyone else.  You are right that some things make me go "ick"... but I don't get to project my "ick" onto anyone else, and I sure don't have any moral authority to forbid anyone doing something on the basis of my "ick".  That's exactly the point.

I think Brandon is, through his writing, trying to gently help us all grow up and awaken to the fact that people can be who they choose, and love who they choose, how and why they choose, regardless of whether it's what we might choose.  We don't get to choose for them.

Exactly? Thats why I said "I personally" This entire post is about "How do YOU feel about it" So I was giving my opinion with logic. I was using it not as a "You must feel this way" but to point out that its a fairly redundant argument using warform because that is their in general least attractive form. Sorry for any confusion as that was not my intention but I thought I was fairly clear in my post that it was about individuals points, In the end you are completely right and I agree, it doesn't matter what other people think its what you think, but this post is about our feelings on it so I decided to give my two cents lol.

Very quick edit: Direform is probably even less attractive cus of the spikes lol

Edited January 22, 2025 by SomePog
Direform owie

[AquaRegia he/him]

1 hour ago, SomePog said:

this post is about our feelings on it so I decided to give my two cents lol.

Totally fair, I'm sorry for including you in the "trying to decide for everyone" group.  My apologies.

[Treamayne]

2 hours ago, SomePog said:

Very quick edit: Direform is probably even less attractive cus of the spikes

Just a point to add to the discussion - Ch 121 shows that BAM did not allow Singers to choose their form (that's why Listeners only knew Dullform and Mateform without divine intervention). It's likely that Shmone was in a form other than Direform when her relationship with Garith started, then was forced into Direform sometime before the events of Ch 87.

[bmcclure7]

17 hours ago, Argenti said:

A gay man can also notice a women is attractive and think "If I wasn't gay, I'd date them." He can understand the rational behind someone wanting to date a women, but doesn't want to himself.

Fair but that’s because ultimately a gay man and a straight woman are of the same species and has been demonstrated genetically that regardless of your orientation, you can recognize an attractive member of both the same and opposite sex. This would also hold true for similar species like singers, however not necessarily for more distant species, for example the buggers from Enders game 

14 hours ago, AquaRegia said:

YES.  Thank you for wording this so clearly.  We (all, I include myself) have a natural tendency to assume everyone else is "like us" until shown otherwise.  I feel it's important to resist the shock reflex we sometimes have when we find out someone is different.  You didn't know before, now you do.... it's OK.  Different isn't BAD.  See below.

I appreciate your journey, and your honest efforts to be kind.  I will also try to be as kind as I can.  Lessie and Wax were shown as a couple in Alloy of Law, which was published in 2011.  Later, Wayne and MeLaan were pretty explicit in BoM.  The Way of Kings came out in 2010; people immediately began speculating about Horneaters and Herdazians (human+singer) and Natanans (human+aimian).  I don't recall exactly when we found out about Tanavast and Koravellium being lovers, but it was at least a few books ago.

I understand some people feeling like interspecies relationships are a "sudden" thing in WaT, but I don't think it's a fair criticism.  Also, it's not necessarily "bad writing" for the reader to find something surprising, any more than it's "bad" to be surprised about someone in real life.

Statements like these seem to me to rest upon a single idea: that if a particular sexual or romantic behavior isn’t what I might want, then it must be wrong somehow.  This idea needs to be smashed.  It is not only fundamentally and demonstrably incorrect, it’s actively hurtful in real life.  I believe that Mr. Sanderson and I agree on this; it certainly seems to be a core theme of his work.

You don't get to tell me what I'm OK with.  And I don't get to tell you, or anyone else.  You are right that some things make me go "ick"... but I don't get to project my "ick" onto anyone else, and I sure don't have any moral authority to forbid anyone doing something on the basis of my "ick".  That's exactly the point.

I think Brandon is, through his writing, trying to gently help us all grow up and awaken to the fact that people can be who they choose, and love who they choose, how and why they choose, regardless of whether it's what we might choose.  We don't get to choose for them.

We’re not batting morality here this is merely a discussion of whether or not will be comfortable with interspecies sex, and under what circumstance. If you wish to discuss sexual morality, I’m fine with doing so but this is not what this discussion is about. 
 

All I will say Further on the subject is, yes just because  something sexual gives you the ick doesn’t necessarily mean that it is immoral

However, neither does it mean that it is not immoral either.  And neither doesn’t mean that this reaction is arbitrary.

14 hours ago, AonEne said:

I don't believe they/them was used for Rushu in the book - you might be thinking of they/them being used for the Sibling, or possibly on Rushu's Coppermind page (an edit that was made after getting a Word of Brandon on the subject)? I'll also throw out there that singular they/them isn't really new to the English language, it's been used when a single person's gender is not known or specified for a long time too. 

Another thing I want to point out is that it only seems new. Gay, trans, and otherwise queer people have existed throughout history, being called various things and treated various ways in various cultures. The numbers of people openly being who they are have risen, and it's easier to notice now because of that, but we were always there. 

I appreciate that you're trying to listen and be kind in conversations like this! 

I don't find this argument convincing. Many humans share an attraction to the actions which produce children, but it's not the overpowering biological imperative some seem to think it is. I'm attracted to plenty of things which are outright dangerous and do absolutely nothing to make a baby happen. I get the ick from some things which would directly contribute to making a baby happen. People are weird. 

Edit: oh, something I forgot to add as I was on my way out the door - I should have extended the "let's not with the ape comparisons" to primates in general. Baboons and trolls are generally not depicted as having human levels of intelligence or sapience, distinctly unlike singers. In addition to being a loaded comparison, it just doesn't make much sense in this context? No one is suggesting getting it on with beings that can't consent. 

1. The fact that sexual attraction tends towards reproduction is proof that it is not arbitrary. Yes I admit that biology is not the only factor in sexuality or sexual attraction. But I never said it wasn’t only that sexual attraction is not arbitrary. It’s not random even the parts of it that aren’t biological are often shaped by society the media and other environmental sources. 
 

Even if baboons were intelligent most humans would be reluctant to sleep with them. Yes I’m sure you can find some human somewhere who be willing to at least try sleeping with an intelligent baboon. But it would never be the norm for clear biological reasons.

Edited January 23, 2025 by bmcclure7

[AquaRegia he/him]

7 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

We’re not batting morality here this is merely a discussion of whether or not will be comfortable with interspecies sex, and under what circumstance. If you wish to discuss sexual morality, I’m fine with doing so but this is not what this discussion is about. 

I don't see how one can argue this in good faith.  The topic started with the OP saying "You can’t tell me that didn’t make you feel sick."  This is clearly an appeal to some hoped-for universal human morality, in which some acts are morally right, and others are (to all "right" thinking people) obviously morally wrong.  We're not talking about illness or food poisoning... under what banner other than morality would someone else's sexual behavior make you feel sick?

This is literally the very argument you give in your next statement!

7 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

However, neither does it mean that it is not immoral

7 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

it would never be the norm for clear biological reasons.

Appeal to the norm is a common logical fallacy.  https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Normality  The attempt to equate "normal" with "good" (or "abnormal" with "bad") is a typical attempt to support some hoped-for morality.

On 1/22/2025 at 8:44 AM, BinarySecond said:

Koloss, the forgotten ship material.

The pre-Catacendre koloss are an interesting case which slipped my mind.  We know they are “human” in the sense that they are made from human souls.  Are they sentient?  After WoA I’d have said no, but Vin’s interactions with Human in HoA make it less clear.  They seem, like the slaveform singers, to be in a state of magically-induced semidisability, unable to fully experience their sentience, plus, there's the fact that a Mistborn can take mental control of them...?  Seems very unlikely for them to participate in an ethical relationship.

Post-Catacendre, however, the existence of Tarson and other "koloss-blooded" people certainly indicates interspecies mixing and, presumably, ethical romantic relationships.

[BinarySecond]

On 1/23/2025 at 6:09 PM, AquaRegia said:

Post-Catacendre, however, the existence of Tarson and other "koloss-blooded" people certainly indicates interspecies mixing and, presumably, ethical romantic relationships.

Coppermind indicates that Post Catacendre Koloss are just a regular humanoid species so I guess it's just like the Singers.

[Mattel]

On 1/23/2025 at 11:09 AM, AquaRegia said:

The topic started with the OP saying "You can’t tell me that didn’t make you feel sick."  This is clearly an appeal to some hoped-for universal human morality, in which some acts are morally right, and others are (to all "right" thinking people) obviously morally wrong.

I'm curious: could you expand more on this? I don't really understand what you are saying or what it implies and would like some clarification.

[AquaRegia he/him]

Thanks for asking.  I'm happy to try.

First of all, I feel it's important to point out (as others correctly have) that in real life, Homo Sapiens is, at present, the only known sentient species.   The only kind of "dating" we've ever had to consider is between people.  Good so far?

I firmly believe that in the vast majority of fiction, nonhuman characters are intended by the writers to be seen as "people", at least on some level.  I'd argue it's impossible for a human audience to empathize or relate to a character that's completely nonhuman in every way.  There may be examples of this, but they are the exception.  In the Cosmere specifically, I'm 100% certain that kandra, singers, dragons, etc. are absolutely intended by Sanderson to be PEOPLE.  If you think this is a point that's debatable, I'd love to hear your arguments.

Morality, in its simplest form, is an attempt to label specific things "right" or "wrong".  Many people derive their morality from religious teachings or other external authority, and strongly believe that certain acts are inherently "right" or "wrong" because god says so.  Such feelings about the morality of sexual acts are especially pervasive... but they are neither consistent nor universal, nor, in many cases, are they particularly rational.

Many human cultures have had taboos against specific sexual behaviors; I live in the U.S., I'll draw from the history I know best.  For much of U.S. history, sex between black people and white people was considered "perversion" (in other words, "morally wrong" or "sick"); in 1960, interracial marriage was still forbidden by law in 31 U.S. states.  As recently as 2015, states had laws forbidding sex between people of the same gender.  Many here still believe same-sex marriage is "immoral", and it's common to hear such people use the word "sick" to describe their feelings about such relationships.  There is only one reason I can think of for an individual to describe someone else's consensual sexual or romantic behavior as "sick": that individual holds that behavior to be immoral. 

This is the backdrop against which I view the initial post in this topic.  Despite the OP's insistence that it's not about race or gender, every reader is invited to agree that a human-singer romance makes them "feel sick".  We are further encouraged to imagine "dating a sapient ape" to support the idea that this is something we should find to be "sick".  (I guess the OP never saw Planet of the Apes, in which Charlton Heston does indeed kiss a sapient orangutan - a scene which was clearly intended to be touching, not sick-making.) The OP seemed to assume, at least initially, that a majority of readers would share their morality and agree with the sick-feeling and the implied immorality, and was surprised and confused when basically no one did.

I admit I might be wrong about the OP making a moral judgement... but it sure seems to fit everything they said.  Again, why else would loving behavior between two people make anyone feel sick?

Edited January 27, 2025 by AquaRegia

[Treamayne]

2 hours ago, AquaRegia said:

why else would loving behavior between two people make anyone feel sick?

Not that this is what the OP was refering to - I concur with your analysis thereof, barring additional data.
However, there are many things that may cause a nauseated reaction in people that have nothing to do with moral equivalence. There are entire shows based on the concept (e. g. Fear Factor).

For example (Content warning):

Spoiler

One of my LGBT friends and coworkers at a movie theater in the 90s experienced physical nauseated reactions to visuals or discussion of female genitalia. We discovered this first-hand when he was running the booth during a showing of "Showgirls."

Just a point to aid in discussion.