I call him “Fister Roboto”. He’s a fully-integrated multi-fetish artificial being. And the best part is… he’s learning.
And he doesn’t just “fist”!
What about Taylor and Nova from the original Planet of the Apes? Sure they are both Homo Sapiens, but the future humans are practically feral. Can they legally give consent? Although I suppose that doesn’t matter in ape court.
Only an issue pre-Crisis. In the Byrne era, at least, Clark’s powers developed slowly and one at a time. Invulnerability came first (unless you count the ability to absorb solar radiation in the first place), so unless the Kents believed in spanking there’d have been plenty of time for him to learn how to moderate everything. Also, I kind of suspect that he has to consciously turn his super-strength on and off the same way he has to toggle heat vision.
Yes, I think this is the only explanation for his being able to pass as human Clark. With his super fast reactions he is not in danger from having his powers deactivated. With enough control he could shake hands with you and you would feel only a human like hand while he could still stop a bullet fired at any other part of his body at the same time.
Well, you’re clearly doing it wrong.
In the god-awful Superman Returns with Brandon Routh, isn’t it implied that Lois Lane’s kid is Superman’s?
More than implied, but even Luther never used “bonk”.
I will grant this, but only if we agree that 1000 year old aliens (or vampires) boinking high school students is still maybe just a bit creepy.
[Butthead] Heh heh you said “penile”[BH]
Actually, despite whatever the point was of people who initially started this idea, there is something to it. Maybe I’ve got too much of my Catholic upbringing still rolling around my head, but let me see if i can present what their argument might be.
Start from this premise: throughout history, sex is PIV, solely for the purpose of forming babby. So using your hand, someone’s mouth, butthole, anything else is wrong, a sin, whatever. This goes double for animals, because they can’t consent. Bestiality in this case is just using the animal as a sperm receptacle. Might as well fuck a tree while you’re at it. There’s no “love”, no emotional connection. Just manual stimulation (and a lot of imagination).
Now, in the sci fi world things are different. Alien species are not human, but they are intelligent. Having sex with Major Kira, Dax, Deanna whatever is “close enough” that there isn’t a question. But what about Odo? Whatever his biology is, sex doesn’t involve PIV, so the non-human partner isn’t really having sex. He may not mind, but he isn’t having sex.
And what about, say, puppeteers? If you fell in love with a puppeteer, I don’t think you’re going to go put your sperm or egg inside another living creature. So sex for either of you, together, isn’t really sex. It’s going to be a compromise.
So, in a sense, alien sex is similar to bestiality, in that it’s not mutual sex. But it also isn’t bestiality, because there is no animal nature involved. Both species are able to give consent.
You just outed Superman
Whoosh. I’m sure he was referring to grude’s typo.
Starfleet apparently didn’t have a problem with it.
Well, IMO that would depend on the nature of the robot, wouldn’t it? Full android-level artificial person with independent self-consciousness and agency and an awareness of sexuality a-la Blade Runner, or LCdr Data, I’d say consent applies as with any other sapient. If the android was created asexual it could be kind of skeevy to put it to such use, especially with those that do not emulate humanoids: R2D2 is obviously intelligent and conscious and could be fitted with a variety of accessories, receptacles and probes, but we have no idea if the notion is even in its code.
If your robots do NOT have a conscious aware personality, are strictly programmed machines, then what you have is a fancy sex toy, an animated RealDoll. Expensive masturbation, ultimate 3D porn. Knock yourself out, if your religion doesn’t have a problem with that.
What about holograms? They can acquire sentience. :dubious:
What was Tuvak doing when he “relieved” his pon farr tensions with the hologram of his wife on the holodeck? Eh?
No doubt all that “shared DNA” on TNG got an enormous boost with test-tube technology, as in (for example) Spock’s case.
It’s just worth noting here that the term “rishathra” was coined by the same Larry Niven who wrote the infamous “woman of Kleenex” article.
And “sodomy” is the accurate term, here. Sapient creatures can consent to sexual acts, but interspecific sex acts would always be non-procreative. Vaginal sex between Lois and Clark, anal sex between Lois and Clark, and anal sex between Lois and Jimmy would all be equivalent in this sense.
It’s grude’s one and only cite, a “famous example.” Who knows what he thinks it was? He couldn’t even figure out the Louis reference.
BTW, I’ve been published in Nature. And it was a joke. Lot’s of things are possible.
He catches his urine in his mouth.
Somebody turn on the rule 34 machine.
Furries?
Haven’t any of you seen “Hancock?”
NSFW, just for the subject matter, there’s no nudity.
But just in case:
Haven’t any of you seen “Hancock?”
NSFW, just for the subject matter, there’s no nudity.
But just in case:
It’s titled “deleted scene” but I’m pretty sure I saw that in the movie. . .
ETA: Double post reported. Sorry about that!