(16:01:54) +Amethyst: Firstly from a psychological standpoint it would be mentally unhealthy to foster a fetishistic attraction to dinosaur erotica in a zeitgeist where even sexual intercourse with merehouse pets is frowned upon. The resulting dynamic can cause significant stress on the part of the individual in the emotional shame resulting from being attracted to the dinosaur in question couple with the cultural pressure and stigma surrounding the general concept of bestiality. Of course, this analysis assumes that the subject in question is indeed capable of feeling arousal as a result of the dinosaur-erotica stimulus. If this is not the case than while the former analysis is invalidated the new arguement becomes that the subject is then being edxposed to undesirable stimuli which may not only be of no use to the individual, but flat out trauamatizing if presented in a strong enough context. Psychological implications aside, the economic effects of supporting this industry amplify the aforementioned consequences on a societal level. By reading or especially purchasing the book in question the economic demand factor of the item is raised thereby suggesting to the writers and publishers that there is a larger market for the item than there probably realistically is. This is problematic for them as, in artificially inflating the demand for a product they waste resources trying to meet the supply (granted we are dealing with just one transaction on a micro level but as with all sociological data we must assume that any given situation is not solely isolated). It is also problematic for the consumers as there will then be a larger range of socially unacceptable (and thereby psychologically toxic) dinosaur erotica available and potentially forced on them to choose from. As a side effect, the bad-dragon website's sales might go up... Anyway, finally, there are ethical implications in consideration as well, as, firstly, it is questionable on a base level to include dinosaurs in human reprorductive acts as there is nothing neurologically to suggest that there is any evolutionary boon to be warranted from the copulation of a dinosaur with a human. Secondly, it is questionable to any humans involved or portrayed in the making of the story. For instance, the title of the item in question references 'Christie' who we can assume is a human female, and, while without actually reading the aforementioned literature it is difficult to say before, it can be assumed based on the notions surrounding the dominant, predatory nature of the T-Rex and the classically submissive female in modern pornography, that this human female is violated in some way by the dinosaur. If this is not the case with this article, should the demand for dinosaur erotica increase, there will certainly be such an instance of that scenario. If and when it is created then it serves to further cement the role of the female in modern society as a sexual object, reinforcing the patriarchal notions of male dominance and female objectification. Finally, there is the undeniable fact that dinosaurs are, in the first place, quite extinct, which makes all of this very silly in the first place.