Path: not-for-mail
From: rache <rache696@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories.d
Subject: Re: {ASSM} Sex Ed Notes by Rachael Ross (SciFi, Fantasy, etc.)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:36:55 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <1160192215.763440.9630@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
References: <eg3qev$e0q$1@chessie.cirr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.177.249.16
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1160192221 22459 127.0.0.1 (7 Oct 2006 03:37:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 03:37:01 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <eg3qev$e0q$1@chessie.cirr.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=203.177.249.16; posting-account=qBK25Q0AAACTpvYY3RGCixMIsuvRRKwm
===================
Barbs? Ouch! I wouldn't do anything like that to anyone, anywhere. And
the downside to less menstruation is???
Anyway, all joking aside, look around. We're in ASSM and ASSD and we
are gods, which is the genuine pleasure of writing fiction. With me,
what you see is what you get, I've never been much for hiding a story,
or an opinion, though I confess most of my social commentary is purely
accidental. I still take credit for it though, if it's especially
clever. If it's not clever I blame the Republicans. If I did get to
really redesign human reproduction, it would be asexual, and sex would
just be for fun and domination mostly. Some profit too maybe.
rache
Van Falmouth wrote:
> rache696@yahoo.com posted on ASSM in ASSTR Message-ID:
> <54635asstr$1160025004@assm.asstr.org>:
>
> >...
> >Please note that this is intended to provide background material for
> >the Dabara series of short stories ...
> >...
>
> Let's see. Rache has redesigned the sexual apparatus for her
> characters in the "Dabara" series. Her men, once fucking begins,
> have their cocks locked into her women's vaginas for half an hour
> after ejaculation, both by constriction of the vagina's "hymeneal
> muscle" and by rear-projecting barbs on the cock (ouch!).
> Impregnation is rare because ovaries release eggs less than a dozen
> times in any woman's life, with ovulation, susceptibility and menses
> lasting a month. If successful the woman bears the brat, presumably
> as usual, but presents it to male tits for nourishment, said tits
> having been stimulated to milk production by chemical substances
> transferred from woman to man during the half-hour impregnation.
> Female rape of the male, ascribed with the old feminist canard only
> to dominance play, is plausible and more likely because her women are
> larger than her men and because a woman's mere touch is still
> apparently enough for a hard-on.
>
> The above produces some small gain. Women profit by a great
> reduction in menses occurrence and men by the pleasure of nourishing
> their brats -- if their nipples don't get sore. Certain new tactical
> issues will arise in relations between the sexes. Perhaps they are
> Rache's real concern.
>
> Male wet nurses is an interesting idea. As demonstrated by monkeys
> and one flat-chested human mother of my acquaintance, the absence of
> fatty deposits around the nipple is no bar to nutrient production.
> Bring it on! -- as our drug industry may do.
>
> But if human reproduction is to be redesigned, surely the answer is
> marsupialism (if I may coin a word). Let the embryo be emitted into
> the female pouch while still too small to be painful when passing
> through the cervix. And let the marsupialism be mutual. A fetus of
> six months or more might be transferred from mother's pouch to
> father's and back again. Granted, you'd need tits inside both
> pouches, which constitutes the only drawback apparent to me. I'm not
> opposed to the new tits, merely to loss of the old!
>
> Van Falmouth
> vanfal@sdf.lonestar.org