How do you feel about inter-species…

[bmcclure7]

On 1/26/2025 at 5:54 PM, AquaRegia said:

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?

1. To the best of my knowledge interracial sex was never considered icky just a betrayal of your racial heritage. Mentally I could be wrong, but I don’t know of primary sources that describe it as sepacifically, icky or sick. Immoral sure, but as I’ve already stated, we are not discussing morality. 
 

2. Interracial sex and into species sex are completely different things. And I don’t know why you feel the need to compare them together. 
 

3. People and human are different things I can recognize the buggers as people, but I don’t recognize them as human. They’re large hive mind insects, and I have no desire to have sex with them.  
 

4. I don’t believe that something has to be human in order for me to identify with them. I identify with my dog sometimes and he is far from human. I identify with the buggers and they are in some ways less human than my dog. 

 

5. That movie bombed for many reasons not the least was floating the idea of a romance between an ape and a human. If you look up any review for the movie you’ll find plenty of people that said that this strongly made them feel uncomfortable.

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

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!

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.

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.

1. 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.

I don’t see the connection between sick and morality. I would feel sick if I saw someone eat rust for example I do not consider it particularly moral or immoral to eat rust. The feeling of sick is purely biological reaction true can be triggered sometimes by perceived immorality, but there is not a direct connection.

2. 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.

You seem to be confused with stating a biological fact with making some sort of moral claim . Just because something is the norm doesn’t it is moral or immoral.
I am not at this time, trying to make any moral claim more merely a biological one. Notice I did not say that it was particularly good that humans as a hole will not want to have sex with an ape only that it was inevitable that this would be the norm ( I do think it would be immoral to have sex with an ape even intelligent one, but this is not what I was saying in my post and and my moral view on this would be unaffected, even if the reverse were true, and it was the norm to instead have sex with apes) 

[AquaRegia he/him]

I admit that I interpreted this entire topic through the lens of real-world social context, which may have been irrelevant and/or unfair.  Sanderson has stated on multiple occasions that his stories are, in fact, intended to explore real-life human social choices, so I hope you can understand my position... however, the OP did explicitly try to rule out race and gender discrimination from the discussion from the beginning.  I should have respected that.  It's also true that what I saw as an implicit moral argument may not have been intended as such by the OP.  I'm sorry for any discomfort or hurt feelings my strong words may have caused.  That is definitely not in keeping with the spirit of the 17th Shard.

@bmcclure7, none of your points are unreasonable.  I lost sight of the fact that the topic title is "How do you feel...", and all of us are undeniably entitled to our feelings.  I let my strong feelings about certain things overrule my ability to accept that other people can feel differently.  I apologize.

I don't think it will be useful for me to continue participating in this topic.  More importantly, I'll be leaving tomorrow for a vacation (somewhere WARMER, thank the gods) and probably won't be around much for the next month, anyway.

Peace, fellow Sharders!

[bmcclure7]

32 minutes ago, AquaRegia said:

I admit that I interpreted this entire topic through the lens of real-world social context, which may have been irrelevant and/or unfair.  Sanderson has stated on multiple occasions that his stories are, in fact, intended to explore real-life human social choices, so I hope you can understand my position... however, the OP did explicitly try to rule out race and gender discrimination from the discussion from the beginning.  I should have respected that.  It's also true that what I saw as an implicit moral argument may not have been intended as such by the OP.  I'm sorry for any discomfort or hurt feelings my strong words may have caused.  That is definitely not in keeping with the spirit of the 17th Shard.

@bmcclure7, none of your points are unreasonable.  I lost sight of the fact that the topic title is "How do you feel...", and all of us are undeniably entitled to our feelings.  I let my strong feelings about certain things overrule my ability to accept that other people can feel differently.  I apologize.

I don't think it will be useful for me to continue participating in this topic.  More importantly, I'll be leaving tomorrow for a vacation (somewhere WARMER, thank the gods) and probably won't be around much for the next month, anyway.

Peace, fellow Sharders!

Peace have great vacation 

[BinarySecond]

What was the quote supposed to be? I cannot see it.

[AonEne he/him]

On 1/28/2025 at 2:05 AM, BinarySecond said:

What was the quote supposed to be? I cannot see it.

The quote box in bmcclure7's post led to this message, which I'm guessing was an accident both based on them not replying to that message and the quote box being weird and glitchy. I've deleted the quote box. 

I'll also throw out a reminder while I'm here that we ask people not to double post in a short time on the forums - reviving something old with a good purpose is different, but if it's the same day it's better to edit your message to add what you want instead. 

[SomePog]

On 1/28/2025 at 3:39 AM, bmcclure7 said:

2. Interracial sex and into species sex are completely different things. And I don’t know why you feel the need to compare them together.

I think it was because OP was trying to relate with the closest thing humans have to interspecies, although this only applies socially in the past, he makes a fair point in a lot of countries inter-race relations were heavily looked down upon, this mainly came from colonizing countries like America and Britain, this originated from the idea of white supremacy, back then Coloured people were seen as "lesser" and "not human" and obviously that was a stupid argument I in no way support that however it is similar to the arguments made here, obviously it is a bit more accurate as singers actually aren't human.
 

On 1/28/2025 at 3:39 AM, bmcclure7 said:

3. People and human are different things I can recognize the buggers as people, but I don’t recognize them as human. They’re large hive mind insects, and I have no desire to have sex with them.  

Singers are not a Hivemind, They are human sized (with rare exceptions like Direform, even Warform is just a taller form) and they arent insects, they are never akin to insects, you can make the argument for being similar to cremlings but that is just a poor assessment when theres other crab like species on Roshar that are much similar, Singers are marble skinned humans with shells along their body, its poor form to use clearly wrong words like this to counter an argument. Its fair that you find the shells or skin colouring off putting or such but you dont use that as a point you compare them to things that aren't related to Singers.
 

On 1/28/2025 at 3:39 AM, bmcclure7 said:

4. I don’t believe that something has to be human in order for me to identify with them. I identify with my dog sometimes and he is far from human. I identify with the buggers and they are in some ways less human than my dog. 

Im interested to see how you think a dog is more human than a singer, I can give a few points;
Dog: No language, No opposable thumbs, not bipedal, Simple emotional intelligence, Cant use tools
Singers: Language, Opposable thumbs, Bipedal, High emotional Intelligence, Uses and crafts tools
Again like the above point this is using radical terminology to try and make your argument even when its illogical, which is poor form as i said.
 

On 1/28/2025 at 3:39 AM, bmcclure7 said:

5. That movie bombed for many reasons not the least was floating the idea of a romance between an ape and a human. If you look up any review for the movie you’ll find plenty of people that said that this strongly made them feel uncomfortable.

I agree that the idea of a monkey human relationship is weird in my eyes however unlike with Singers this comes from historical Bias, i grew up watching "funny monkey videos" Watching monkeys do animalistic things so i cant correlate the humanized monkeys in the movies as a sentient being, One of the overarching points of early stormlight is how sophisticated the Singers are, how they arent psuedo animals and tribals but a people desperate for survival, so moot point. (Also Planet of the Apes grossed 362.2 Million dollars, in the top 10 of highest grossing movies of 2001, so again your kinda just lying)
 

On 1/28/2025 at 3:39 AM, bmcclure7 said:

1. 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.

I don’t see the connection between sick and morality. I would feel sick if I saw someone eat rust for example I do not consider it particularly moral or immoral to eat rust. The feeling of sick is purely biological reaction true can be triggered sometimes by perceived immorality, but there is not a direct connection.

I dont think its reasonable to relate eating rust to kissing a sapient non-human, you are right that you can feel sick without feeling morally wronged, however the idea of feeling sick seeing a human kiss a non-human general stems from morality, As I stated above, I dislike the idea of a human ape romance in Planet of the Apes due to the pre established conceptions in my head that Apes are animals and therefore cannot consent, logically i dont see a problem with it but morally im uncomfortable with it, Logically I dont think you can make an argument against it, using the quote from John Lock: "Your Liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins" A person has the right to do however they wish up until it harms you, and i believe its a fair point to say that if you dislike something its not within reason to ban that for other people, so the area for debate comes from morality, and In my opinion the people who find the idea uncomfortable stems from their ability to humanize the Singers.
 

On 1/28/2025 at 3:39 AM, bmcclure7 said:

2. 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.

You seem to be confused with stating a biological fact with making some sort of moral claim . Just because something is the norm doesn’t it is moral or immoral.
I am not at this time, trying to make any moral claim more merely a biological one. Notice I did not say that it was particularly good that humans as a hole will not want to have sex with an ape only that it was inevitable that this would be the norm ( I do think it would be immoral to have sex with an ape even intelligent one, but this is not what I was saying in my post and and my moral view on this would be unaffected, even if the reverse were true, and it was the norm to instead have sex with apes) 

I dont believe there is any biological claim against Human singer relations, if anything Biology helps to reinforce normalization of this, Humans and Singers can procreate, these children can then procreate, as seen in Horneaters and Herdazians, In science this is called Hybradization, however with one distinct counter, Herdazians and Horneaters aren't sterile, This means that Humans and Singers are under the same species, by modern science definition. 


BUT as said before, this is about how we feel and I say it in this reply, no one has a right to demand a change in your opinion, Im just doing this for fun because I enjoy debating, Have a good day everyone

Edited February 10, 2025 by SomePog

[Nitpicking]

9 hours ago, SomePog said:

Singers are not a Hivemind, They are human sized (with rare exceptions like Direform, even Warform is just a taller form) and they arent insects, they are never akin to insects, you can make the argument for being similar to cremlings but that is just a poor assessment when theres other crab like species on Roshar that are much similar, Singers are marble skinned humans with shells along their body, its poor form to use clearly wrong words like this to counter an argument. Its fair that you find the shells or skin colouring off putting or such but you dont use that as a point you compare them to things that aren't related to Singers.

You missed a reference. @bmcclure7 said:

Quote

3. People and human are different things I can recognize the buggers as people, but I don’t recognize them as human. They’re large hive mind insects, and I have no desire to have sex with them.  

The buggers are an alien race in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game and its many sequels and universe-sharing stories. They really are something like giant hive-mind insects.

[CognitiveShadow he/him]

On 1/9/2025 at 2:47 PM, christianrapper said:

Full Cosmere spoilers: How do you guys feel about inter-species dating? This is NOT about gay relationships so please don’t comment about that. I am definitely not about to get into that. I don’t know how I feel about humans dating listeners. No, that’s not racist. Humans dating other sapient species isn’t relatable to anything in the real world. It’s not like you dating an Asian, black person, white person, or anyone else outside of whatever race you are. It would be like you dating a sapient ape. Now just imagine yourself dating a sapient ape for a quick second. You can’t tell me that didn’t make you feel sick. How would you feel about dating someone like a listener. I am not talking about you as some omniscient reader who knows everyone’s thoughts and feelings. I mean the you now with your current hangups and that can only go by the way that characters look. I am not going to lie. If preventing a godlike being from waging war on humanity depended on me dating a sapient ape or shelled being then you guys better prepare for war because that’s not happening. Heck, if preventing a war depended on me marrying a Thaylen, you guys might be in trouble. Imagine Wax. He was dating a shape shifter and didn’t even know it. Dating in the Cosmere could definitely be tricky. You can find yourself unknowingly dating a spren or something and not even know it.

First - humans kind of are sapient apes. Second, a sapient ape would not be an ape, it would be a hairy person and that's a pretty common thing to see in the world. Hell, maybe that's someone's type and I don't judge lol

This was also addressed in the book when Drehy talked with Renarin about Rlain. Renarin points out that Rlain is a Singer, and Drehy gives a very important message: Humans, Singers, Spren, they're all people.

Given Koravellium and Tanavast's relationship, we can add dragons to the mix there. And given Wayne and Melaan, we can throw Kandra into the mix as well.

There is no reason to limit people of all kinds that clearly have equal ability to function and make choices of their own free will from mutually choosing to love each other and be together. 

[bmcclure7]

19 hours ago, SomePog said:

I think it was because OP was trying to relate with the closest thing humans have to interspecies, although this only applies socially in the past, he makes a fair point in a lot of countries inter-race relations were heavily looked down upon, this mainly came from colonizing countries like America and Britain, this originated from the idea of white supremacy, back then Coloured people were seen as "lesser" and "not human" and obviously that was a stupid argument I in no way support that however it is similar to the arguments made here, obviously it is a bit more accurate as singers actually aren't human.
 

Singers are not a Hivemind, They are human sized (with rare exceptions like Direform, even Warform is just a taller form) and they arent insects, they are never akin to insects, you can make the argument for being similar to cremlings but that is just a poor assessment when theres other crab like species on Roshar that are much similar, Singers are marble skinned humans with shells along their body, its poor form to use clearly wrong words like this to counter an argument. Its fair that you find the shells or skin colouring off putting or such but you dont use that as a point you compare them to things that aren't related to Singers.
 

Im interested to see how you think a dog is more human than a singer, I can give a few points;
Dog: No language, No opposable thumbs, not bipedal, Simple emotional intelligence, Cant use tools
Singers: Language, Opposable thumbs, Bipedal, High emotional Intelligence, Uses and crafts tools
Again like the above point this is using radical terminology to try and make your argument even when its illogical, which is poor form as i said.
 

I agree that the idea of a monkey human relationship is weird in my eyes however unlike with Singers this comes from historical Bias, i grew up watching "funny monkey videos" Watching monkeys do animalistic things so i cant correlate the humanized monkeys in the movies as a sentient being, One of the overarching points of early stormlight is how sophisticated the Singers are, how they arent psuedo animals and tribals but a people desperate for survival, so moot point. (Also Planet of the Apes grossed 362.2 Million dollars, in the top 10 of highest grossing movies of 2001, so again your kinda just lying)
 

I dont think its reasonable to relate eating rust to kissing a sapient non-human, you are right that you can feel sick without feeling morally wronged, however the idea of feeling sick seeing a human kiss a non-human general stems from morality, As I stated above, I dislike the idea of a human ape romance in Planet of the Apes due to the pre established conceptions in my head that Apes are animals and therefore cannot consent, logically i dont see a problem with it but morally im uncomfortable with it, Logically I dont think you can make an argument against it, using the quote from John Lock: "Your Liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins" A person has the right to do however they wish up until it harms you, and i believe its a fair point to say that if you dislike something its not within reason to ban that for other people, so the area for debate comes from morality, and In my opinion the people who find the idea uncomfortable stems from their ability to humanize the Singers.
 

I dont believe there is any biological claim against Human singer relations, if anything Biology helps to reinforce normalization of this, Humans and Singers can procreate, these children can then procreate, as seen in Horneaters and Herdazians, In science this is called Hybradization, however with one distinct counter, Herdazians and Horneaters aren't sterile, This means that Humans and Singers are under the same species, by modern science definition. 


BUT as said before, this is about how we feel and I say it in this reply, no one has a right to demand a change in your opinion, Im just doing this for fun because I enjoy debating, Have a good day everyone

I’m actually fine a with human singer relationships as I pointed out to my earlier post singers are mostly human. They look human with just odd skin. Biologically, we know that they have to be similar enough to humans to interbreed with them. However, this is not doesn’t necessarily apply to every species in the cosmere or infection in general. 

 

18 minutes ago, CognitiveShadow said:

First - humans kind of are sapient apes. Second, a sapient ape would not be an ape, it would be a hairy person and that's a pretty common thing to see in the world. Hell, maybe that's someone's type and I don't judge lol

This was also addressed in the book when Drehy talked with Renarin about Rlain. Renarin points out that Rlain is a Singer, and Drehy gives a very important message: Humans, Singers, Spren, they're all people.

Given Koravellium and Tanavast's relationship, we can add dragons to the mix there. And given Wayne and Melaan, we can throw Kandra into the mix as well.

There is no reason to limit people of all kinds that clearly have equal ability to function and make choices of their own free will from mutually choosing to love each other and be together. 

1. Apes is a large category. Yes, humans are apes but not all apes are human or even close to human. An ape is not a just hairy human. You would recognize one even without hair. 
 

2. Apes are distinct genetically from each other, and from humans an intelligent ape would not be a human.

3. The genetic difference between humans and apes is significant as demonstrated by the fact that human and apes still produce at offspring at all. In many ways, singers are more human than apes are. 
 

4. I could think of a lot of possible reasons, but that’s not what this discussion is about. We’re going off topic.  No one’s debating that singers are aren’t human or that it somehow immoral for the two to interbreed. 

Edited February 10, 2025 by bmcclure7

[CognitiveShadow he/him]

2 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

1. Apes is a large category. Yes, humans are apes but not all apes are human or even close to human. An ape is not a just hairy human. You would recognize one even without hair. 
 

2. Apes are distinct genetically from each other, and from humans an intelligent ape would not be a human.

3. The genetic difference between humans and apes is significant as demonstrated by the fact that human and apes still produce at offspring at all. In many ways, singers are more human than apes are. 

My point with the ape stuff is not to say anything about the genetics. My hair comment is intended to refer to all of the physical/genetic differences, so what I'm saying is that I don't care about the genetics. I care about mental capacity, sapience & intelligence, and the ability to give consent and respect someone else's consent. If an ape somehow has all of those things, then who cares about the genetic differences (aside from the idea that their genetics would probabaly need to be altered in order for them to have those other capabilities in full)?

The ability to have children is a question for the author to answer, but we know that humans and singers definitely can produce offspring because there are hybrid breeds in Roshar. Even they could not have offspring, I wouldn't consider that anything but a natural consequence of their genetic differences. Something for the individuals to consider and decide if that impacts whether they want to be together or not, but not something that determines if they should or should not be allowed to.

9 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

4. I could think of a lot of possible reasons, but that’s not what this discussion is about. We’re going off topic.  No one’s debating that singers are aren’t human or that it somehow immoral for the two to interbreed. 

There's actually a lot of people saying they shouldn't. Saying that it gives you the 'ick' is (for me) the equivalent of calling something immoral.

[bmcclure7]

1 minute ago, CognitiveShadow said:

My point with the ape stuff is not to say anything about the genetics. My hair comment is intended to refer to all of the physical/genetic differences, so what I'm saying is that I don't care about the genetics. I care about mental capacity, sapience & intelligence, and the ability to give consent and respect someone else's consent. If an ape somehow has all of those things, then who cares about the genetic differences (aside from the idea that their genetics would probabaly need to be altered in order for them to have those other capabilities in full)?

The ability to have children is a question for the author to answer, but we know that humans and singers definitely can produce offspring because there are hybrid breeds in Roshar. Even they could not have offspring, I wouldn't consider that anything but a natural consequence of their genetic differences. Something for the individuals to consider and decide if that impacts whether they want to be together or not, but not something that determines if they should or should not be allowed to.

There's actually a lot of people saying they shouldn't. Saying that it gives you the 'ick' is (for me) the equivalent of calling something immoral.

1. I don’t see why you would think that I’m sure there are a lot of gay men out there who would say that the thought of having sex with women gives him the ick are you suggesting that gay men are morally against having sex with women?

 

2. Genetic differences correspond to physical differences the more genetically different. Something is more physically different. It is the less and less humans will want to have sex with it. Yes, I’m sure you can find some people who say that they only care about intelligence and sapience. (I don’t know why you would think that these are the only two factors that matter but OK) I’m sure many of those people however, I would still get the ick if a intelligent, talking baboon tried to hit on them. 
 

[AlmightyGir]

I feel it's important to point out: Homosapiens and Neanderthals are now proven to have bred with each other, and produce fertile offspring: https://news.berkeley.edu/2024/12/12/a-new-timeline-for-neanderthal-interbreeding-with-modern-humans/#:~:text=The analysis%2C which involved present,of about 47%2C000 years ago.

That's two different species, interbreeding.

We also have examples in the animal world of species who are close enough to each other genetically to be able to breed (lions and tigers are a good example), but I don't think they produce fertile offspring.

Either of these things is enough, if you want science and not morality, to say there's nothing wrong with the various species in the cosmere interbreeding.

[Nitpicking]

2 hours ago, AlmightyGir said:

I feel it's important to point out: Homosapiens and Neanderthals are now proven to have bred with each other, and produce fertile offspring: https://news.berkeley.edu/2024/12/12/a-new-timeline-for-neanderthal-interbreeding-with-modern-humans/#:~:text=The analysis%2C which involved present,of about 47%2C000 years ago.

That's two different species, interbreeding.

We also have examples in the animal world of species who are close enough to each other genetically to be able to breed (lions and tigers are a good example), but I don't think they produce fertile offspring.

I am of the school zoology majors who think H. sapiens is a single species that includes subspecies neanderthalensis and sapiens. The majority of biologists disagree with me, FWIW, but it's a defensible position.

Ligers (lion x tigress) and tiglons (tiger x lioness) do tend to be sterile. The more famous example of almost-cross-compatible species would be horses and donkeys, giving rise to mules (stallion x jenny) and hinnies (jackass x mare).

[RedBlue]

2 hours ago, CognitiveShadow said:

Saying that it gives you the 'ick' is (for me) the equivalent of calling something immoral.

I think that, for many people (me included) on this thread, ‘icky’ is very different from ‘immoral.’

When something gives me the ‘ick,’ that’s me having a simple disgust reaction against the thing. Generally that can be chalked up to straightforward biological reasons. I don’t choose what gives me the ‘ick,’ and if others don’t feel the same way, it’s not my problem as long as I don’t have to deal with the icky thing. 

When I consider something to be immoral, that’s a more complicated emotional reaction that is often combined with a judgement call. These can usually be chalked up to social reasons (ie, society would not function if we allow the immoral thing, which is why we have an instinctive reaction against it). There is often a great deal of thinking involved in deciding whether a thing is immoral, how immoral it is, and whether or not it is my problem.

For example: poop is icky, but poop is not immoral. Theft is (in most circumstances) immoral, but it is not icky.

I have an ‘ick’ reaction to the idea of dating lots of characters who have romances in the books, including many human ones. Dalinar, for example. That doesn’t mean I think Navani is wrong or bad, and it doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy reading about their romance. I do enjoy their romance. It only means I wouldn’t date Dalinar myself. Because … y’know … ick.

[CognitiveShadow he/him]

22 minutes ago, RedBlue said:

I have an ‘ick’ reaction to the idea of dating lots of characters who have romances in the books, including many human ones. Dalinar, for example. That doesn’t mean I think Navani is wrong or bad, and it doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy reading about their romance. I do enjoy their romance. It only means I wouldn’t date Dalinar myself. Because … y’know … ick.

It’s fine to have the ick from a character because of who they are.

It’s understandable to have the ick against a group of people that are technically a different species

It’s not cool to declare that no one should be allowed to have romantic relationships in either of the above cases because you have the ick though.
 

That’s where it’s a problem for me - when someone pushes their ick onto other people and says it shouldn’t happen. And that’s the vibe I got from OP… plus I picked up on some veiled anti-lgbtq / interracial vibes with some of the positions taken here which is also not cool (I realize OP tried to call these out specifically as not connected with their arguments, but the vibes are still there and I have a hard time seeing someone get the “ick” with Renarin and Rlain without thinking they might have the “ick” for other reasons).

3 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

1. I don’t see why you would think that I’m sure there are a lot of gay men out there who would say that the thought of having sex with women gives him the ick are you suggesting that gay men are morally against having sex with women?

This is a preposterous take on what I was saying. Obviously that’s not what I meant. See my above statements if you didn’t understand my intent earlier. The issue comes about when someone has the ick and decides that no one else should do that thing.

3 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

2. Genetic differences correspond to physical differences the more genetically different. Something is more physically different. It is the less and less humans will want to have sex with it. Yes, I’m sure you can find some people who say that they only care about intelligence and sapience. (I don’t know why you would think that these are the only two factors that matter but OK) I’m sure many of those people however, I would still get the ick if a intelligent, talking baboon tried to hit on them. 

Another preposterous and overly literal reading of my comments. Understand that I know the complexities involved in a romantic relationship and all of the nuance and detail that gets taken into consideration when selecting romantic partners. I’m speaking only to the problematic areas that I could see having moral or ethical implications, which would impact how one *should or should not* feel about a given situation.

So yeah, there are plenty of factors for  one to consider before making a decision. I took OPs question under the assumption that the people involved in said relationship *already want to be in the relationship together*. If that’s the case, then they’ve clearly demonstrated the ability to give consent and acknowledge the other party’s consent. If the people involved are sexually interested, then I assume they already have an attraction to each other as well. If someone is attracted to a baboon (I don’t get it but whatever) and that baboon is someone fully sapient and able to give the same level of consent and interest as an adult human being, then I don’t care what those beings do or don’t do in their bedroom as long as everyone is healthy and safe.

is that clear enough? 

[bmcclure7]

4 hours ago, CognitiveShadow said:

It’s fine to have the ick from a character because of who they are.

It’s understandable to have the ick against a group of people that are technically a different species

It’s not cool to declare that no one should be allowed to have romantic relationships in either of the above cases because you have the ick though.
 

That’s where it’s a problem for me - when someone pushes their ick onto other people and says it shouldn’t happen. And that’s the vibe I got from OP… plus I picked up on some veiled anti-lgbtq / interracial vibes with some of the positions taken here which is also not cool (I realize OP tried to call these out specifically as not connected with their arguments, but the vibes are still there and I have a hard time seeing someone get the “ick” with Renarin and Rlain without thinking they might have the “ick” for other reasons).

This is a preposterous take on what I was saying. Obviously that’s not what I meant. See my above statements if you didn’t understand my intent earlier. The issue comes about when someone has the ick and decides that no one else should do that thing.

Another preposterous and overly literal reading of my comments. Understand that I know the complexities involved in a romantic relationship and all of the nuance and detail that gets taken into consideration when selecting romantic partners. I’m speaking only to the problematic areas that I could see having moral or ethical implications, which would impact how one *should or should not* feel about a given situation.

So yeah, there are plenty of factors for  one to consider before making a decision. I took OPs question under the assumption that the people involved in said relationship *already want to be in the relationship together*. If that’s the case, then they’ve clearly demonstrated the ability to give consent and acknowledge the other party’s consent. If the people involved are sexually interested, then I assume they already have an attraction to each other as well. If someone is attracted to a baboon (I don’t get it but whatever) and that baboon is someone fully sapient and able to give the same level of consent and interest as an adult human being, then I don’t care what those beings do or don’t do in their bedroom as long as everyone is healthy and safe.

is that clear enough? 

 

“This is a preposterous take on what I was saying. Obviously that’s not what I meant. See my above statements if you didn’t understand my intent earlier. The issue comes about when someone has the ick and decides that no one else should do that thing.”

2. No one said anything about everyone having to have the ick about something. Or that the ick justification or unjust for making moral judgments.  You’re reading into our words this isn’t about morality

2. No one saying that there is not moral implications of people’s choices when it comes to sexual partners, of course in fact, I would guarantee that everyone here agrees on some level that the choice of sexual partners is moral choice. But that’s not what we’re discussing.

On 2/9/2025 at 9:19 PM, SomePog said:

I think it was because OP was trying to relate with the closest thing humans have to interspecies, although this only applies socially in the past, he makes a fair point in a lot of countries inter-race relations were heavily looked down upon, this mainly came from colonizing countries like America and Britain, this originated from the idea of white supremacy, back then Coloured people were seen as "lesser" and "not human" and obviously that was a stupid argument I in no way support that however it is similar to the arguments made here, obviously it is a bit more accurate as singers actually aren't human.
 

Singers are not a Hivemind, They are human sized (with rare exceptions like Direform, even Warform is just a taller form) and they arent insects, they are never akin to insects, you can make the argument for being similar to cremlings but that is just a poor assessment when theres other crab like species on Roshar that are much similar, Singers are marble skinned humans with shells along their body, its poor form to use clearly wrong words like this to counter an argument. Its fair that you find the shells or skin colouring off putting or such but you dont use that as a point you compare them to things that aren't related to Singers.
 

Im interested to see how you think a dog is more human than a singer, I can give a few points;
Dog: No language, No opposable thumbs, not bipedal, Simple emotional intelligence, Cant use tools
Singers: Language, Opposable thumbs, Bipedal, High emotional Intelligence, Uses and crafts tools
Again like the above point this is using radical terminology to try and make your argument even when its illogical, which is poor form as i said.
 

I agree that the idea of a monkey human relationship is weird in my eyes however unlike with Singers this comes from historical Bias, i grew up watching "funny monkey videos" Watching monkeys do animalistic things so i cant correlate the humanized monkeys in the movies as a sentient being, One of the overarching points of early stormlight is how sophisticated the Singers are, how they arent psuedo animals and tribals but a people desperate for survival, so moot point. (Also Planet of the Apes grossed 362.2 Million dollars, in the top 10 of highest grossing movies of 2001, so again your kinda just lying)
 

I dont think its reasonable to relate eating rust to kissing a sapient non-human, you are right that you can feel sick without feeling morally wronged, however the idea of feeling sick seeing a human kiss a non-human general stems from morality, As I stated above, I dislike the idea of a human ape romance in Planet of the Apes due to the pre established conceptions in my head that Apes are animals and therefore cannot consent, logically i dont see a problem with it but morally im uncomfortable with it, Logically I dont think you can make an argument against it, using the quote from John Lock: "Your Liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins" A person has the right to do however they wish up until it harms you, and i believe its a fair point to say that if you dislike something its not within reason to ban that for other people, so the area for debate comes from morality, and In my opinion the people who find the idea uncomfortable stems from their ability to humanize the Singers.
 

I dont believe there is any biological claim against Human singer relations, if anything Biology helps to reinforce normalization of this, Humans and Singers can procreate, these children can then procreate, as seen in Horneaters and Herdazians, In science this is called Hybradization, however with one distinct counter, Herdazians and Horneaters aren't sterile, This means that Humans and Singers are under the same species, by modern science definition. 


BUT as said before, this is about how we feel and I say it in this reply, no one has a right to demand a change in your opinion, Im just doing this for fun because I enjoy debating, Have a good day everyone

1. I need to read all my comments as I’ve already stated. I considered the singers to just be funny looking humans pretty much. There are other species yes but so similar to humans that doesn’t really matter. I and most people would have no problem dating a singer. I am most people would be reluctant to date a bugger. Not so much because of the hive mind but because they’re more insect than anything else.

2. My point there wasn’t so much to express this taste in human singer relationships. But to point out that there is a limit to. Our ability to sexify other species. And that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that a particular species has deviated too far from the norm of human to be sexual to you. 
 

 

Edited February 11, 2025 by bmcclure7

[SomePog]

13 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

I and most people would have no problem dating a singer. I am most people would be reluctant to date a bugger. Not so much because of the hive mind but because they’re more insect than anything else.

Yea someone said above, my mistake, I haven't read Enders Game yet and just assumed you meant Bugger in the context of English Slang lol.

To be fair I think for the average Joe schmoe your opinion is right, but theres a whole lotta people with a whole lotta different ideas of what is Sexually appealing, Dont want to be graphic but there is a wide range of "Tasteful" art of many non humanoid things, so it does kinda boil down to the person

[elihaun]

On 1/9/2025 at 3:15 PM, christianrapper said:

 

That Rlain/Renarin relationship is disgusting to me. Let’s not get into the same sex thing. I can’t imagine kissing a sapient shelled creature. Just imagine if apes were sapient and we have always known that. Now imagine yourself kissing a sapient ape. You can’t say that doesn’t make your skin crawl. That “love is love” phrase isn’t applicable to dating outside of your species. There are other practical problems with that also. There are things like introducing new diseases to the human population and other things like can you two even reproduce. 

So, the parshmen (not singers, but pre-everstorm parsh), had basic low-level intelligence.  So, if you go the OTHER way from 'shelled', it would be like us having a relationship with a dolphin.  They are supposed to be pretty intelligent for an animal, and the parshmen were considered just a step above animals.  you don't just ignore your whole life of lived experience just because last year you learned dolphins have scientist and were using us for free fish.

[AlmightyGir]

19 hours ago, Nitpicking said:

I am of the school zoology majors who think H. sapiens is a single species that includes subspecies neanderthalensis and sapiens. The majority of biologists disagree with me, FWIW, but it's a defensible position.

Ligers (lion x tigress) and tiglons (tiger x lioness) do tend to be sterile. The more famous example of almost-cross-compatible species would be horses and donkeys, giving rise to mules (stallion x jenny) and hinnies (jackass x mare).

Yeah I'm not a zoologist, but I do find our biological history very interesting. I just thought it was worth mentioning this in the context of the current discussion, as people seem to be trying to worm their arguments away from moral philosophy and into the realm of "science" as a way to prove their points, but they have no footing on either platform.

Preference is one thing, and honestly it's fine. If someone doesn't like the idea of it, that's up to them, I'm not going to hold anyone against that. Just be honest about it. This entire thread reeks of dishonest discourse from so many people (this is a generalisation, I'm not pointing it at you, I'm quoting you because you made an interesting point).

[Aliroz-The-Confused]

Inter-species dating?!!  I don't even approve of dating within the same species!  The romances in the Cosmere are gross and icky and have kissing and stuff!

[bdoble97]

I don't think it starts off as hey I'm going to date another species I think it  starteds off as the iindividuals become  friends  a human with a Singer and then thing either stay as friends or grow. When you start to have feeling for some one tour hart is never is thinking what race or in this case species. 

Also I feel like the singers in thier nonwar form aren't completely covered in shells. So the idea of a Singer could be attractive I have seen artists rendering of female singers and some artists have made them attractive looking. 

Another thought I have,  I have always loved the idea of a next leavle of evolution human/singer children. What could that look like and what would the new species ability be.   I would love to see art of a half human half singer. 

I my self have also loved the idea of Kaladin and Syl being together and seeing what there children would/could be. I also love a good love story. 

[Treamayne]

3 hours ago, bdoble97 said:

Another thought I have,  I have always loved the idea of a next leavle of evolution human/singer children. What could that look like and what would the new species ability be.   I would love to see art of a half human half singer. 

Herdazians and Horneaters are both races descended from Singer/Human interbreeding.

WoBs:

Spoiler

HorseCannon

I didn't realize Horneaters had parshmen blood, didn't even realize that was possible. How closely are humans and parshmen related, do they have a common ancestor? Or is one an artificially created version of the other?

Brandon Sanderson

There was intermixing long ago. Horneaters and Herdazians are both a result. (Signs of this are the stone carapace on Herdazian fingernails and the Horneater extra jaw pieces--in the back of the mouth--for breaking shells.)

Humans and parshmen don't have a common ancestor. And as a side note, both of these strains of humanoids predate the ascension of Honor, Cultivation, and Odium.

General Reddit 2015 (Nov. 16, 2015)

 

[Sandra she/her]

On 1/9/2025 at 8:47 PM, christianrapper said:

Full Cosmere spoilers: How do you guys feel about inter-species dating? This is NOT about gay relationships so please don’t comment about that. I am definitely not about to get into that. I don’t know how I feel about humans dating listeners. No, that’s not racist. Humans dating other sapient species isn’t relatable to anything in the real world. It’s not like you dating an Asian, black person, white person, or anyone else outside of whatever race you are. It would be like you dating a sapient ape. Now just imagine yourself dating a sapient ape for a quick second. You can’t tell me that didn’t make you feel sick. How would you feel about dating someone like a listener. I am not talking about you as some omniscient reader who knows everyone’s thoughts and feelings. I mean the you now with your current hangups and that can only go by the way that characters look. I am not going to lie. If preventing a godlike being from waging war on humanity depended on me dating a sapient ape or shelled being then you guys better prepare for war because that’s not happening. Heck, if preventing a war depended on me marrying a Thaylen, you guys might be in trouble. Imagine Wax. He was dating a shape shifter and didn’t even know it. Dating in the Cosmere could definitely be tricky. You can find yourself unknowingly dating a spren or something and not even know it.

I would date listeners. They are quite human look-wise and have the same intellect as humans do (I don't get your comparison to apes, they can't even talk). Kandra on the other hand... would be very different and would definitely give me the shudders... I hate the idea of shape-shifters, ugh

[bmcclure7]

13 hours ago, Sandra said:

I would date listeners. They are quite human look-wise and have the same intellect as humans do (I don't get your comparison to apes, they can't even talk). Kandra on the other hand... would be very different and would definitely give me the shudders... I hate the idea of shape-shifters, ugh

I would to Im not comparing them to apes im contrasting them.  Between you and me though i would definitely date a Kandra so long as we agree no animal stuff and I didn’t have to see her eat anything 

On 2/11/2025 at 1:21 AM, SomePog said:

Yea someone said above, my mistake, I haven't read Enders Game yet and just assumed you meant Bugger in the context of English Slang lol.

To be fair I think for the average Joe schmoe your opinion is right, but theres a whole lotta people with a whole lotta different ideas of what is Sexually appealing, Dont want to be graphic but there is a wide range of "Tasteful" art of many non humanoid things, so it does kinda boil down to the person

I have no doubt you are correct 

Edited February 12, 2025 by bmcclure7

[Mattel]

On 2/11/2025 at 3:29 PM, bdoble97 said:

I my self have also loved the idea of Kaladin and Syl being together and seeing what there children would/could be. I also love a good love story. 

Oh dear. NO. NOOOOOO.

So A.) Syl lacks a physical body with enough tangibility to even... Blegh personally this train of thought gives me the "ick." They would have to be in Shadesmar. Also I think this would totally go against everything that Sanderson just started working on with Syl and Kaladin's relationship. Syl needs to learn how to live for herself and not for Kaladin. Them being in a relationship would defile that, I think. Also I feel like how their relationship right now is, is beautiful. I love a major writer including themes of: love does not need to be romantic. The Greeks had four words for it, romantic, platonic, duty, friendship, essentially. I know this won't matter to some people but the first time the word love shows up in the Bible is describing the relationship between father and son in Genesis. There is more to love than romance, and there is more to marriage than sex.

As I read the part of Kaladin and Syl dancing together, I simply felt happy. It was beautiful and so intimate without requiring romance. Sanderson hit on something amazing there. It was two characters who know each other on a very deep level dancing together and enjoying each others presence. 

Also I think it is literally impossible for them to have children, simply because of their natures. Syl is technically a force of nature/an ideology. Kaladin is physical and created. Technically because the only difference is their intelligence level, it's like saying what would a Rainspren and human's offspring look like? This is a question I don't think we are intended to ask, nor is it something with an actual plausible answer that we will be given in a book.

I don't have issues with inter-species relationships within literature, but this is a relationship that I personally think should not be allowed. This might upset people but it is me being honest: I think some relationships should not happen. Personally to me this is one that should not happen, that of Kaladin and Syl.