Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Star Trek to Spelljammer
Next Message: Re: Star Trek to Spelljammer
Month Index: January, 1997


From:     Ziggy <jperry@??.net>
Date:     Mon, 6 Jan 1997 07:37:01 -0600 (CST)
Subject:  Re: [Spelljammer] Sex in wildspace
>I think the dinamics(sp?) of sex in wildspace would depend mostly on
>survival value.  Think about it.  If the pair (or trio, or whatever)
>moved out far enough to be in "true" freefall, their air would run
>out really quickly (they are doing some pretty heavy breathing, after
>all).  The only way they could simulate freefall is if they pushed
>away from a ship and stayed on the gravity plane.  This would require
>the ship to be motionless an away from a planet or other gravity
>boasting body, which means that *all* of the crew would know what's
>going on, and would probably herd to the rail to watch the specticle.
>(sp?)

(that's dynamics and spectacle)...

and, would it really matter if the crew saw them on a two or three person
ship?  hmm...the 3,000,000,000 mile high club. :)


     ___________
    | -----     |
    |    /      |
    |   /       |
    |  /        |
    | -----IGGY |
    |___________|
         \o/
          #
         /'\


Previous Message: Star Trek to Spelljammer
Next Message: Re: Star Trek to Spelljammer
Month Index: January, 1997

SubjectFromDate (UTC)
Re: [Spelljammer] Sex in wildspace    JAMES E MCFARLAND    06 Jan 1997 06:16:44
Re: [Spelljammer] Sex in wildspace    Ziggy    06 Jan 1997 13:37:01
Re: [Spelljammer] Sex in wildspace    Johndolar7@???.com    06 Jan 1997 17:18:00

[ SPJ-L@Cornell.edu ] [ Spelljammer@Leicester.ac.uk ] [ Spelljammer@MPGN.com ] [ Spelljammer-L@Oracle.Wizards.com ]