Instead of promoting bestiality, how about it's promoting equality no matter what you look like?
Is Skyrim promoting bestiality?
- Thread starter pulse2
- Start date
Bugger. I'm not passing by that way any time soon. ¬_¬SirBryghtside said:In a cupboard in Bethesda, MarylandKaizokuouHasu said:
Think they'll publish it if we ask nicely?
The whole problem with bestiality is that it's not an intelligent being and can't consent (also, sexing unintelligent living things is just icky to most people).
These are not animals in Skyrim. For the love of god, they speak fucking English (or whatever fantasy language label the Elder Scrolls slaps on English (probably "Common", or "Standard", or "Basic", or some other bland, generic name)).
These are not animals in Skyrim. For the love of god, they speak fucking English (or whatever fantasy language label the Elder Scrolls slaps on English (probably "Common", or "Standard", or "Basic", or some other bland, generic name)).
Unequivocally, NO. Certainly not in any meaningful sense. There are two reasons bestiality is wrong: 1. The animal cannot truly consent, since our ability to communicate with animals is limited. 2. The animals are not smart enough to know about better.
The reason this is totally okay in Skyrim, is that the lizard and cat people are just that . . people . . they are sentient, can make their own decisions, can say no, can say yes. We've never had any problem with sci-fi inter-species sex. In deep space 9 Judzeia (a Tril) and Warf (I don't have to tell you he's Klingon) get it on, and she even gets pregnant. Nothing wrong with that?
The issue is sentience.
The reason this is totally okay in Skyrim, is that the lizard and cat people are just that . . people . . they are sentient, can make their own decisions, can say no, can say yes. We've never had any problem with sci-fi inter-species sex. In deep space 9 Judzeia (a Tril) and Warf (I don't have to tell you he's Klingon) get it on, and she even gets pregnant. Nothing wrong with that?
The issue is sentience.
THIS is awesome, thank you. Very akin to my feeling on how many people had their knickers in a twist over Duke Nukem's "capture the babe" mode. "So, killing hordes of faceless enemies is okay, but slapping a stripper on the ass is going too far?" (And, having been a stripper who's had her ass slapped, I can keenly say video games had nothing to do with influencing those guys' behaviour.) It often seems to me poeple get their priorities a bit out of whack on issues like these, yes?Hagi said:
Last I checked reptiles don't have the right parts for sex with mammalian creatures so that pairing shouldn't work unless Argonians somehow got the equipment. I think in the lore Kadjit are closely related to elves and orcs so it more like bumping uglies with a primitive human species like a homo erectus.
Pretty much yeah...TheDarkestDerp said:
I mean I get that it's a bit confusing at times.
It used to be real easy. You look, act and dress one way and everyone who looks, acts or dresses differently you kill on sight. Which is of course perfectly acceptable behaviour, survival of the fittest and all that. Vital skills to teach our children, no doubt.
Then there's some games that are getting all morally ambiguous. You can't just kill everyone who looks differently on sight any more, no you actually have to talk to them! Can you imagine that? Talking? Imagine if our children's first reaction was to talk? God... the horrors!
And then there's games like this that are totally crossing the line. Not only can you talk to these... 'people' but there's also the option to love and marry them? I understand that's just going too far for some people, you need some serious moral fibre not to be corrupted by such notions. Can you imagine this world if not only did we talk to everyone but there was also occasional love? I shudder to think of it.
Well the Argonians and the Kajit aren't "Animals" the same way a dog or a pig is an animal. They are sentient and civilized and have the ability to give consent. I see nothing wrong with it morally, but I still usually play as humanoids and my character would most likely marry a nice Nord girl.
Implies it was rather dirty though, doesn't it.LuckyClover95 said:Aha those books! Made me laugh so much... I remember something about how cleaning the masters sword would take all night because it was so longJedamethis said:Lusty Argonian Maid anyone? I'm going to get me one of them.
I'm going to be an handsome Argonian rogue, so it's all good for me.
THISHagi said:
OT: I personally am not going to be setting up any furry/scaley relationships, but if someone else wants to, let them have at it. It's their choice.
Now if you had to marry some argonian prince/cess as part of the story, then I would have a problem.
Of course not. What a ridiculous thought. Khajiiti and Argonians are sapient people. Not the same species, but they're not animals. It's like saying the aliens in Mass Effect aren't people and fucking them is bestiality. No, actually it's even worse since Khajiiti and Argonians come from the same world as humans and elves.
No, it is not. The main issue I know of with bestiality is that it is a form of animal cruelty. That is to say, if a guy screws a dog, there is no way of determining whether or not the dog was consenting because nobody speaks dog, and the dog can't tell anyone that is was consented after the deed is done because nobody speaks dog.
In the case of Skyrim, the "beast" races are just as sentient and reasonable as any of the races of man or mer. No animal cruelty, no problem.
In the case of Skyrim, the "beast" races are just as sentient and reasonable as any of the races of man or mer. No animal cruelty, no problem.
Not really. First off, I think it required some medical intervention to make it work, and since they share no common ancestor, they can't be the same species. If that were real, there would be no way two species from different planets with that are so obviously different would be able to naturally procreate.Don Reba said: