No. You're missing the point. The design of the thing is functional. The plan is not to shoot you. The plan is to get the girl. If there's no girl, then the plan, well, is like the room.

Early ,'Objects In Space'


Natter 42, the Universe, and Everything  

Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, flaming otters, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.


§ ita § - Jan 26, 2006 6:34:28 am PST #2737 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

the idea is that a lower level of stress in general might lead to both more ease in public speaking and more interest in penetrative sex

But I still don't get the idea of penetrative sex being linked in that direction to lower stress. Why would it be? More than the other way round?


Emily - Jan 26, 2006 6:35:15 am PST #2738 of 10002
"In the equation E = mc⬧, c⬧ is a pretty big honking number." - Scola

I was thinking more that lubrication and relaxation are more likely to go well if one has lower levels of stress than otherwise. That's not going to explain the men -- maybe higher levels of stress are communicated to their partners? -- but that's what I've got.


§ ita § - Jan 26, 2006 6:36:29 am PST #2739 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I was thinking more that lubrication and relaxation are more likely to go well if one has lower levels of stress than otherwise.

But then you need more detail about why there wasn't penetrative sex...did they intend to and couldn't physiologically pull it off? Did they never intend to? Did things never get that far because it all fizzled?


Emily - Jan 26, 2006 6:40:14 am PST #2740 of 10002
"In the equation E = mc⬧, c⬧ is a pretty big honking number." - Scola

But then you need more detail about why there wasn't penetrative sex

I do? I was proposing an alternate explanation, not stating a conclusion that I intended to support with research.


Nutty - Jan 26, 2006 6:41:24 am PST #2741 of 10002
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."

For example -- and I am pulling this out of my hindparts:

  • You have a standard level of stress.
  • You live in a society where penetrative sex is the most socially-acceptable format for sex.
  • Sex in general lowers stress levels.
  • Potential causes of higher stress include:
-- not having sex at all
-- having sex in a less socially-acceptable format
-- a billion other details that are totally coincidental
-- public speaking

It's the billion other details that get my hindparts in a twist, personally. But the above scenario is a more logical psycho-social explanation for the study's findings than "If you only were straighter and narrower, you'd be less tongue-tied in front of a crowd!" as if the g-spot plugged directly into the social-skills part of the brain.


§ ita § - Jan 26, 2006 6:42:25 am PST #2742 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I was proposing an alternate explanation, not stating a conclusion that I intended to support with research.

Fine. Turn down a golden opportunity for a paper. Or we can read it as you plural, the general you. If one doesn't know why penetrative sex didn't happen, how strong an explanation is it? For one, that is.


tommyrot - Jan 26, 2006 6:42:30 am PST #2743 of 10002
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.

It's the 20th anniversary of the loss of Challenger. (Tomorrow, IIRC.)

7 myths about the Challenger shuttle disaster

It didn't explode, the crew didn't die instantly and it wasn't inevitable

Yeah, the "explosion" thing that always gets repeated has bugged me:

Myth #2: Challenger exploded
The shuttle did not explode in the common definition of that word. There was no shock wave, no detonation, no "bang" — viewers on the ground just heard the roar of the engines stop as the shuttle’s fuel tank tore apart, spilling liquid oxygen and hydrogen which formed a huge fireball at an altitude of 46,000 ft. (Some television documentaries later added the sound of an explosion to these images.) But both solid-fuel strap-on boosters climbed up out of the cloud, still firing and unharmed by any explosion. Challenger itself was torn apart as it was flung free of the other rocket components and turned broadside into the Mach 2 airstream. Individual propellant tanks were seen exploding — but by then, the spacecraft was already in pieces.


§ ita § - Jan 26, 2006 7:02:38 am PST #2744 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Someone I don't know at work forwarded me and a number of other people a video file. Which I didn't watch. When I replied to him asking why he'd sent it to me, he said "it just went by mistake." Now I want to watch the video. To see exactly what he's being so passive about spamming.

Very crafty.


Jessica - Jan 26, 2006 7:02:48 am PST #2745 of 10002
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset

Diamond-encrusted chocolate. $5 million!


tommyrot - Jan 26, 2006 7:04:14 am PST #2746 of 10002
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.

Satire of the Presiden't justification for spying on Americans without warrents: [link]

Q. ... But is it legal for the president to ignore the law?

A. Maybe not according to plain ol stupid ol regular law, but we're at war! You don't go to war with regular laws, which are made outta red tape and bureaucracy and Neville Chamberlain. You go to war with great big strapping War Laws made outta tanks and cold hard steel and the American Fightin Man and WAR, KABOOOOOOM!

Q. How does a War Bill become a War Law?

A. It all begins with the president, who submits a bill to the president. If a majority of both the president and the president approve the bill, then it passes on to the president, who may veto it or sign it into law. And even then the president can override himself with a two-thirds vote.