Argonians and Kahjit in the Elder scrolls world aren't animals, so therefore no bestiality. How it would be considered on an ethical side, from the perspective of Tamriel, is different. There are several non-human races in the world of Tamriel so it might be that they frown upon love and relationship on cross of race, or they might not. But taken into consideration that there's a "lusty argonian maid" indicates that there are some fetishes buried in bookshelves of many inhabitants of Tamriel

TX12001rwb17_ESO wrote: »

KhajiitiLizard wrote: »

TX12001rwb17_ESO wrote: »

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

and right now the polls on this thread says:

"46% believe nothing wrong with it at all"

yeah ...

I fear for the human race....

I fear for the people who would consider others as lesser... just because the are a different species... mind you a fully sentient species... that causes genocide. Whether you like it or not, the creators of the game have added many interspecies couples in the game... DEAL WITH IT.

/end thread

"mind you a fully sentient species"
So are Dogs and Cats and Cows and Horses..or are you claiming that sentience is anything special? in that case your perceiving creatures that are non sentient as lesser beings which goes against what you just said, also their is a reason Khajiit and Argonians are classified as Beast Races.

@KhajiitiLizard The word you are looking for is sapient/sapience (ie, the ability to reason), rather than sentient/sentience (the ability to feel).

The reason Khajiit and Argonians are classified as beast races is because they look like animals, not because they are animals. Don't forget that Orcs are classified as a beast race as well, but physiologically they are an elf race.

On the whole "not having a relationship with anything not of your species" thing, note that this also rules out all Breton/Imperial/Nord/Redguard x Dunmer/Bosmer/Altmer relationships, as men and mer (humans and elves) are different species too.

KhajiitiLizard wrote: »

You probably think it's wrong because it's not an issue in real life... but if there happened to be another [...] species, the same level as humans, living on Earth... oh boy...

Silurians?

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

Why is this a thread?

Because people comment on it

Inarre wrote: »

Im not sure, but my

Nerouyn wrote: »

I selected 'other' cos the best current theory is Argonians may be at least partially botanical. I don't even know if

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

Why is this a thread?

Becaue why not

This is why i told you to go to your corner, look what you did by not doing what i told you BAD @RAGUNAnoOne

Lightninvash wrote: »

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

Why is this a thread?

because @RAGUNAnoOne was supposed to go to the corner but rebelled and made a post instead O.O

I see

I think the big difference here is that there have always been multiple intelligent races coexisting in Tamriel, since the dawn of time (or before it according to some of the creation myths) so their societies and morals have developed with that concept in mind, whereas on Earth (with the exception of a few individuals) the perception was and is very much that you have humans and then you have animals who are fundamentally different, and unable to consent to a relationship. (Even among biologists who freely acknowledge that humans are animals, and are very aware of just how fuzzy the 'line' is, especially when you get into things like how exactly you define different species, which isn't as straight-forward as you might think, this is one distinction which is still pretty clear.)

Whereas in Tamriel just like khajiit and argonian slaves are considered slaves rather than pets or domestic animals and the in-universe debates about it and attitudes towards it mirror real-life attitudes on enslaving humans more than debates on keeping farm animals they are considered to be intelligent races, more or less equal to the others, in other ways too. And if you flip it around their attitudes towards men and mer are similar.

Of course attitudes will vary. I suspect the Altmer who are obsessed with racial purity would be far less likely to consider a relationship with any other race, including the other mer, than say an Imperial who seem to be aware they're something of a 'mongrel' race (albeit all human) already. Attitudes will vary between individuals too. But in general I think Tamriels cultures are much more accepting of it than Earth ones are.

(Which is true of fantasy in general actually. Even in something like Dragon Age where there's very strong racist feelings and tensions between several of the races relationships are not unheard of. In DnD hybrids of all sorts are everywhere.)

Ignotus wrote: »

LiquidSchwartz wrote: »

slumber_sandb16_ESO wrote: »

The difference is that Khajit and Argonians are sentient civilized races on the same intellect level as humans so.. each to their own I guess.
Everyone knows Orc women are the best women anyway.

well that doesnt change the fact that its bestiality even if they are humanoid.
they're still not human and more bestial

I tend to lean this way as well. In my mind, if they can't reproduce due to being too different biologically, then maybe it's not the best idea for them to be romantically involved. I don't know about "illegal", but if I woke up in Tamriel, I probably wouldn't get sexually involved with a species that I can't have viable offspring with. I don't view them as different "races" but more like different "species". Someone mentioned black and white people being romantically involved irl. The difference there is we are definitely of the same human species and can produce viable offspring if the two people wanted to. Again, not sure I'd make it illegal, but that's my personal taste. I could see having a relationship with a Khajiit for example, just not a sexual relationship. My opinion.

And yet it's not that long ago some people were promoting (and presumably believing) the idea that there were huge fundamental differences between people of different skin colours and any children they had together would have all kinds of problems as a result.

As for being unable to produce children I think that's up to the individual. You could equally say it's not a good idea for people in real life to enter into a relationship if they're too old to have kids, or can't have them, or they already have kids from a previous relationship and don't want more. But people do it all the time because there are a whole range of motivations for it beyond simply having children together.

Nerouyn wrote: »

Seriously though, nothing wrong it. The moral issue with bestiality is the inability of animals to provide consent. They can't speak. On top of that you have the fact that like children, animals are less intelligent/aware and are completely under our control so there's also a major power imbalance. But unless you've smeared yourself with moon sugar or hist sap, Khajiit and Argonians should be perfectly capable of saying 'no'. So we're talking about consenting adults.

You've never owned a cat have you? Or had a child for that matter. "Completely under control" is not a phrase that's often heard when talking about either.

ZOS_CoriJ wrote: »

Just keep in mind that a debate is made to be objective.

Except it's not. Because you can't argue facts, of which very few actually exist.
Debates are a series of arguments supporting or arguing against a proposition. These propositions are of two types, values or policies, both of which are subjective viewpoints supported with the four types of evidence: statistical, testimonial, anecdotal, and analogical.

The evidence isn't objective because it's being used to create an argument against other evidence. So even a well-supported, well-argued position is not objective. It's still an opinion.

Acrolas wrote: »

ZOS_CoriJ wrote: »

Just keep in mind that a debate is made to be objective.

Except it's not. Because you can't argue facts, of which very few actually exist.
Debates are a series of arguments supporting or arguing against a proposition. These propositions are of two types, values or policies, both of which are subjective viewpoints supported with the four types of evidence: statistical, testimonial, anecdotal, and analogical.

The evidence isn't objective because it's being used to create an argument against other evidence. So even a well-supported, well-argued position is not objective. It's still an opinion.

Pure facts have been debated over and over in these forums. Just because they are facts doesn't mean some ignorant people won't argue with you anyways.

No this isn't directed at anyone. Just stating a fact.

Like the fact there's a 15% chance to spawn a boss at dolmens yet I still get people crying that you have to kill all the mobs first to get a higher chance.