Well of Souls Forums

Arioch wrote:and seeing a leaky male will generally send nearby females into a panic to resolve the situation ("get that boy some tail, STAT!").

I can imagine the embarrassement if alex have a "nocturnal emission"


*wake up*
how shit...
*take the sheet to wash them*
*horde of loroi rush at him*
*run away in fear*
AM SORRY! I DIDNT WANT TO GET THEM DIRTY! DONT KILL MEEEEEE!!!!

Arioch wrote:The Loroi male is like a stag permanently in rut, charged with hormones and reproductive fluids; if he can't find an outlet, there is the danger of overloads that may unbalance his system. There are built-in "safety valves" against fluid buildup (if you've ever seen video of a bull elephant in rut, that will give you some idea), and seeing a leaky male will generally send nearby females into a panic to resolve the situation ("get that boy some tail, STAT!").

If the situation continues, a male may begin to suffer from dehydration, malnutrition, hormone imbalance, depression, mania, or self-destructive behaviors. This rarely happens, as it is very unusual for a male to be in a situation in which there aren't any nearby females.

Is there some sort of biological feature which prevents onanism from solving that problem (so, say, human females would thus likewise be unable to provide... treatment) or is it just some sort of cultural taboo against self-indulgence?

...God I love this forum.

EDIT: WAIT. We all thought humans would help the Loroi by being their "love-bunnies", as it were, but that's not the case...
Humanity is going to teach the Loroi the joys of masturbation!

Count Casimir wrote:...God I love this forum.

EDIT: WAIT. We all thought humans would help the Loroi by being their "love-bunnies", as it were, but that's not the case...
Humanity is going to teach the Loroi the joys of masturbation!

They´ll nuke us for this...

Solemn wrote: Is there some sort of biological feature which prevents onanism from solving that problem

Never heard that particular term used before... had to look it up. Every day is a learning experience!

There's nothing to prevent that kind of outlet, but as you can probably imagine, it's not a typical practice. When there's a line of females waiting outside your door...

Sex deprivation would be an unusual circumstance for a Loroi male, and would most often occur when something was wrong with him to begin with... such as poor health, having a communicable disease, or suffering from emotional or psychological problems ("I'm on a sex strike!").

Count Casimir wrote:...God I love this forum.

EDIT: WAIT. We all thought humans would help the Loroi by being their "love-bunnies", as it were, but that's not the case...
Humanity is going to teach the Loroi the joys of masturbation!

That or artificial insemination. 1 male could then fertilize 100 of females

Arioch wrote: Sex deprivation would be an unusual circumstance for a Loroi male, and would most often occur when something was wrong with him to begin with... such as poor health, having a communicable disease, or suffering from emotional or psychological problems ("I'm on a sex strike!").

oh, and here i was thinking that a "the man, the myth" t-shirt was bad

nice find Karst45

Arioch wrote:...
When there's a line of females waiting outside your door...

Hoo boy, now we´re in Geeksexland already...

Cy83r wrote:

Wiki says wrote:In addition, wealth is unevenly distributed, with the wealthiest 25% of US households owning 87% of the wealth in the United States, which was $54.2 trillion in 2009. (citations removed)

To put the concept of trickle-down simply, the rich keep getting richer and the masses ride their coattails into prosperity, and I happen to agree that this seems to be the case.

In the past certainly, but today American businesses are squatting on the better part of two trillion dollars, and not doing a damned thing with it.

I can only think of two explanations of this divergence from the average value of worker output from the average compensation. The first one I prefer because it is just funny and wonky (not because it is a correct explanation).

Wages are determined by supply and demand like many other things, and in this case it is the supply of labor that has shot way up in the past half century.

Nathan_ wrote:

I can only think of two explanations of this divergence from the average value of worker output from the average compensation. The first one I prefer because it is just funny and wonky (not because it is a correct explanation).

Wages are determined by supply and demand like many other things, and in this case it is the supply of labor that has shot way up in the past half century.

This type of analysis makes me chuckle as a grad student, so many fundamental problems/disequilibria in labor markets that simple supply and demand model cannot explain. Just FYI, Econ 101 and classical models are not how an economy actually operates , just oversimplified abstractions. Wages should reflect productivity in a market clearing model, since the employer is paying the worker what his or her labor is worth in terms of output, and according to theory, a laborer will only accept a wage for what their labor is worth (this assumption dictates labor supply in the classical model but it is empirically false due to imperfect information, monopsony power, employer vs labor rights, and the fact that laboring is not necessarily a voluntary action). Just read Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations passages Book I Ch VIII, 11-16 if you wish for an authoritative explanation of why a simple supply and demand model does not exist/explain labor markets accurately.

Furthermore, the increased supply labor has been absorbed by an increase in the size of the economy/demand for labor (though over the past 10 years something like 50,000 net U.S. jobs have been created while the workforce grew by 3 million but that is only if my memory recalls the literature I was reading the other day accurately, so there is a "reserve army of the unemployed" pushing down wages slowly).

"a laborer will only accept a wage for what their labor is worth"
Your caveat is correct, demand for food is inelastic, and work or starve is not exactly a free choice. Though, for the time being atleast we have enough of a safety net to forestall such decisions, which is why so many are simply dropping out of the economy.

"Furthermore, the increased supply labor has been absorbed by an increase in the size of the economy/demand for labor."
During the period of stagnating wages, sure.

Just read that excerpt from Adam Smith, it deals with wage suppression irrespective to supply. It's all about the power to allocate economic rent, not supply. You're idea that there are too many workers is Malthusian, just play around with the http://www.bls.gov/ and see how growth in the economy without jobs growth is a relatively recent phenomenon. Wage stagnation has been occurring for far longer than the problem you denote. (The labor force could have very well increased by women entering the workforce due to declining wages).

Also Reich threw together a nice infograph on the issue

I'm somewhat amused by that graph, one of the many things that amuses me about it is that the sharp drop off in the rise in wages which it shows happens at the start of the seventies not at the end, which the graph prefers to indicate. Indeed, there was one particularly noticable event to occur right around the time that this graph indictates that wages ceased their relatively rapid upward ascent. That event was the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system and the last remnant of commodity backing to the global currency systems, gee, I wonder why a man like Reich wouldn't want that relationship to be considered? and instead wants to put the focus instead on the eighties?

Ktrain wrote:Your idea that there are too many workers is Malthusian

Malthas was wrong because businesses were actually investing their wealth in growing the economy, that has changed. How fast is world population growing? And just how long do you think that will continue?

Wage stagnation has been occurring for far longer than the problem you denote.

No, Wage stagnation did not begin until after global labor supplies were opened up in the form of trade and immigration. The middle graph you posted tells the tale: The part in which the average workers made the most gains, was between the 1890s-1920s mass immigration, and the current 1960-on mass immigration.

Well the important thing in some cases is how many goods you can get for your wage. Which a lot of the graphs tend to forget. While the "wealth" of a middle class family or even a lower class one hasn't shifted as much, their expected goods range have changed quite profoundly.

Not perfectly certain thou what is productivity in this case? Company wealth transfer? Worker hours, honestly uncertain at this moment. Hell after checking past inflation, the majority of goods here today are cheaper than 30 years ago.

junk wrote:Well the important thing in some cases is how...

much copper wire you can get away with! (free cookies if one know were that quote come from)

Whats the rough population of Maia? I'm trying to get an idea of the scale of Loroi worlds.