Commercial Break (Worm / Slut Life) (Borderline SFW)

You're right, it's totally the 101st thing.
/sarcasm
But they'd probably do skinship harassment for the lulz (i.e. big sister breast check!!11!!) regardless.
Then there's the completely unintentional/oblivious stuff I've pulled on my family members before when we left the overnight water jug (to hold boiled water) in the master bathroom... "I need a drink and you're taking HOURS." and when they complain it's "I'm not wearing my glasses so I can't see shit" During shower times has happened once or twice, until they got me another glass to use downstairs.

On Cauldron? Indeed.

 

Last time I did one of these, somebody asked me to use spoiler tags in an attempt to prevent an Author Post alert going out. Here's hoping it worked.

Spoiler: Replies spoilered for length

It's how the points were set up on the CYOA I found first and started writing for before I found any of the other versions. I'm just having Cindy acknowledge that this does not make sense on a normal contract. She's off to find out why this happened now.

Had I found one of the other versions first, I probably would have used that instead. Assuming I ever need to do up more forms, I've been working on my own version, in Google Sheets, for both ease of use and so I can include more fun options (For example, I've added at least 15 additional owners so far). Of course, the lawyer and PR people like to switch up the standard contracts occasionally to keep things fresh (which explains the different versions of the CYOA). Cindy just didn't have a custom packet she usually uses. Of course, that may change after this.

Well, the scientists are already planning to focus more on research than experimentation, so sexual things are already less likely, and the scientists were involved in less direct sex than most of the other owners anyway. Most of their stuff is testing if this new drug does what they want it to, how this specific body mod (for instance gills) works, and things like that.

This would make more sense if the line you quoted was about the dragon, instead of about the zookeeper. Most people see a difference between having sex with an intelligent dragon and having sex with, say, a goat. There is a difference between bestiality (or zoophilia) and xenophilia. Also, (assuming your definition of youth includes 24-26) eternal youth only costs 10 credits, which is really quite the bargain. I'm fairly sure taking an extra minor punishment could cover that just as, if not more, easily than fucking a dragon or an animal.

Yeah... I couldn't see a way where they wouldn't look at that and go "Nope, not letting it happen."

I had fun putting in a number of cameos for that scene. Of course, now the question is "How many other recognizable scientists were in that room that weren't mentioned?" It's probably not plot-relevant, but it is fun to think about.

It's Agatha. Unfortunately, while she may be one of the better choices to figuring out how Shards work... she has her own things to deal with and was likely there primarily to keep abreast of the current situation.

That would be one of the reasons I used that description. The other reason is that, other than the type that goes destructively insane regardless of what you do, I don't know most of the other descriptions, and TVTropes was less than helpful in providing more than the two varieties.

Out of universe, the forms were not specifically rewritten to exclude options. If it had been, options would have been removed entirely instead of just modified. Of course, then I had to figure out ways to justify the CYOA form I was using not making sense.

Kevyn is one of the scientists working with Slut Life, but he isn't one of the ones who will be working with Taylor past transporting her and QA. Of course, he could change the destination at the last moment to try to rescue her. Taylor joining Tagon's Toughs could be an amusing story, actually...

Congratulations, you found what I think is the only trap Cindy laid for Taylor so far, if it can even be considered that. There's actually nothing in the written discription to imply it, though Cindy really should have mentioned it, even if she didn't have siblings during her own run (I checked to make sure).

Other than choosing Powers and picking some form of immortality, Slut Life does not provide a method of becoming immortal. Eternal youth is not the same thing. Also, except that this is a massive multiverse, I'm not sure anyone would want to be truly immortal. The human mind cannot comprehend what living after the heat death of the universe would be like.

That'll be a long time coming. From my understanding from reading the background info on other Slut Life CYOA forms, the Secret Society is mostly useless due to infighting and how spread out it is. I have some ideas about its interaction with Cauldron, but it'll be a while before anything firms up.

Taylor missed any implication about the siblings. I tried to have Cindy hedging around the subject, but I'm not sure how well I succeeded. It sounds like I managed the effect I was looking for, or close to it.

Considering the text of the entry, I can't see Taylor reacting that way. The text is, after all:

Nothing in there says sex will be involved. Also, based on how the siblings are given memories, the level of 'I want in your pants' will vary from case to case.

As for Cauldron, one possible reaction would be this:

Considering stuff like this happens in real life, there is a decent chance of it happening, even if the siblings are otherwise not trying to get into Taylor's pants.

 

She wouldn't even be stupidly powerful, considering the setting.

Except that the image that comes with it is very definitely incest-related, and the wording is at best ambiguous. "Have fun" in a Slut Life setup? Riiiiiight.

Pretty sure Cindy should've read out the 'have fun' wording, to give Taylor the chance to ask "what do you mean by 'fun'?"

Note that this will destroy any trust Taylor has in Cindy if it goes through and the 'sibling' tries to seduce Taylor.

"Cindy! What the fuck?"
"What?"
"My sister just came into the shower with me and tried to feel me up!"
"Oh, uh, I'm sure that's just normal sisterly playing around."
"No, she squeezed my breasts and then tried to grab my crotch! In the shower!"
"Um, I guess it's a thing?"
"Bullshit it's a thing! She was programmed to be my sibling! Whose idea was it to program her to think it was okay to try to have sex with me?"
"It's ... kind of the way the 'siblings' thing works?"
"NOT ON MY PLANET IT ISN'T!"
"Well, I'm sorry, but you chose her."
"Really. You're going there."
"What are you --"
"Okay, I thought I could trust you. Obviously I was mistaken. My bad. And your bad."
"Taylor --"
"I was saving these bugs up for Trichter. I guess I can get some more."
"Taylor --"
"You really should've secured your air ducts before we started this conversation."

BEEEEEEES

 

It could be that, in the SL multiverse, there's simply no incest taboo, and so Cindy simply didn't even think about that possibly being unexpected in any way. Their genetic engineering is absolutely ridiculous after all, so all actually negative and dangerous points would be pretty much moot.

 

The description of the parents gives the option of said parents being incestuous. "It's a good thing you're not related."

So, no.

 

I've found the Yandere CYOA to be very helpful in that matter given the overwhelming focus on Gasai-Ayano type Yanderes:

Spoiler: Image

Anna (Shimoneta) is best Yandere.

 

That's actually a fair point. I've split out the incest from the Siblings option in my custom form for later use. That said, Taylor's siblings, if she even decides to take them, will probably take their idea of what a sibling relationship from Taylor. So, unless Taylor has some deeply buried lust for Emma, I'm not sure how much incest they'd be trying for. Of course, I've also known a few siblings who did have sex, so... it could still happen.

Thanks. That'll come in useful if I need to write a proper yandere at some point. Do you know what the points are for? I think I missed the explanation on them.

 

They are for some of the later options, the ones that have numbers next to them.

 

Pro Gamer is a job choice, which means having fun could in theory mean that your siblings are manic gamers who enjoy training you in the art of gaming, even if you didn't pick that job..

The taboo would have evolved long before they could reach sentience let alone sapience.

And at the absolute least there would linger a massive cultural stigma of "too fail to find someone who'd put up with them outside the family they couldn't choose".
Not to mention the genetic engineering would mean the offspring aren't fully "theirs" anyhow due to shared alleles having to be changed to be less homozygous.

In other words, strangers who are constantly paranoid about betrayals.
Because Taylor is mentally ill from Emma (Taylor was totally a dependent/harmless Yandere...).

 

Well the question there is "Was Freud right?"
*every psych teacher and/or student in existence bursts out laughing as one*
No, no Freud wasn't right, lol.

 

Freud was one of those psychologists obsessed with "fixing" everyone else to be in his image.

Because his immensely bullshit idea that the more the patient reacts to an accusation, the closer it is to the truth, means that every psychologist subscribing to him... must surely believe that Jews are fans of the Holocaust (a violent reaction to such an accusation is perfectly justified even if the one accused of being a fan is not a Jew) or something equally stupid for whatever little remains of their lives.

...Perhaps that is why he is now a joke, because natural selection occurred among psychologists who were dumb enough to try to equivalent of "give me six lines by the hand of the most honest man and I will find something in them to have him hanged", which is "Give me six minutes with the calmest person and I will diagnose him with absolutely anything asylum-worthy or get him to try to murder me." The latter outcome was common enough that it exerted cultural selection on psychologists as a group.

 

I actually meant while they were still friends who were 'as close as sisters.' Unless Taylor is likely to enjoy the idea of being with her siblings sexually, it is unlikely they will want to jump her, no matter how attractive to her they are. At least not without a good deal of build up.

Honestly, I think any run that involves "New Home" is likely to be more mild than other runs, since there's the possibility of staying with the contestant after the show is over. It incentivizes being friends as well.

 

Well the last sister figure Taylor had betrayed her.

So her idea of sisters could well resemble a nutty fruitcake from the normal person's perspective (i.e. is way out to lunch... no, she's not going to literally gobble them up, she's not a shark, spider, etc.!).

 

While Freud's theories have many failings, I've never seen nor heard someone complaining so vehemently against such a minor part of his methodologies. Especially as misrepresented as you've done.

No, Freud's true failing was in trying to link EVERYTHING involved in the human mental condition to sex.

"A man's (woman's) ideal spouse is a woman (man) exactly like his (her) mother (father)."
"The more you hate someone, the more you subconsciously want to fuck them."
"Most forms of mental illness come down to a bad/warped/nonexistant sex life."

Shit like that is why Freud's a joke. Also, it doesn't help that Freud had sex with ALL his patients (yes, that includes the men, women, AND children).

 

It's the first example I thought of when I first read that claim of his.

Well, about that...

1. Hey, it's an example of a relationship that worked well enough (you exist)!
2. If Freud was resurrected and had to deal with Yanderes... well, guro is a fetish after all. Hope he has fun with that.
3. This is very occasionally true (broken mechanical clock being right twice a day and all) i.e. Kellogg's, the guy who invented cornflakes to dissuade people from masturbation and who lived a sexless life because he believed sex was the root of all evil (given his parents had sex and made him, he must be referring to himself as evil, which is correct).

Hmm, so even he himself agrees with the sentiment of "Fuck Freud." What a nymphomaniac...

 

Wait seriously?! I always knew Freud was a disgusting degenerate creep, but jeez.

 

It wasn't... Exactly the most rare thing back then in the area he lived. And while not done/talked about in 'polite society', it wasn't nearly as frowned upon as it is today (you might get a frown, maybe a punch, but not a lynch mob like would happen today).

Also, you have the best name possible for this convo, lol.

 

True, lol.

 

I'll have you know that in Delaware the Age of Consent was 7 until the 1960s.

For most of the Colonies, Age of Consent was at 10-12 but there were... exceptions. It was IIRC lowered to 10 in Renaissance England from the old common-law 12, or was it 12 from 14? But anyhow, the astounding infantilization of teens during the 20th century is part of why I so often grossly over-expect rational decision making from them.

 

Freud lived in Austria, not the US... And who called the US "Colonies" in the 1880's?

And in the Renaissance, you'd very often see women married off by the age of 8. Basically, as soon as they started going through puberty they were considered old enough. Keep in mind that the average life expectancy back then was 20-25.

 

That statistic is somewhat inaccurate actually. People did live for a while longer, the problem is that way too many children died very, very young and that lowered the average.

 

"In the Colonial period, or thereafter in pre-modern times in areas that had been colonies of Europe." => "...colonies..." (heavy abbreviation, yeah)

That's only for noblewomen, and even then sex would wait until at least 14-15 because maternal mortality was something we figured out long ago. Peasants were always a matter of "economics + when your parents think you're old enough to survive giving birth."
30-35% infant mortality in the 1800s plus endless European wars would like a word with you about the actual calculations of that life expectancy you are claiming.

In Canada, infant mortality in the early to mid 19th century was above 300 per 1000 live births. So... one-third of the population died in their first five years. That, and the incessant European wars, shits all over the life expectancy.

 

Actually the 20-25 year life expectancy in the renaissance and medieval eras is ignoring deaths under the age of 5, if you factored those in the average life expectancy would be closer to 7 years.

The most common forms of death back then were from (disregarding bubonic plague):
starvation
exposure to the cold
sickness (some of the medical treatments had a higher mortality rate than the sicknesses themselves)
smallpox (because it was a big enough issue to stand separate from other diseases)
injury (a minor infection was often a death sentence, and people rarely survived broken bones)

You were considered an elder if your wisdom teeth grew in (so late teens to early 20's), and only a fraction of the populous reached elder status.

For the peasantry, especially serfs, it was VERY rare for a parent to see their child/children reach adulthood.

Life expectancies for nobles was a good deal higher, averaging in the early to mid 30's, and the inclusion of that data is the only reason the average life expectancy is as high as it is at 20-25.

 

No.

With the risk of death in childbirth pegged at around say 1/3 for first timers and 1/5 for subsequent births, you can mathematically calculate exactly what the absolute maximum tolerable pre-reproductive attrition rate was. And it was probably (I have yet to do the calcs) not higher than the 18th-19th century 30+% infant mortality alone observed in say Ontario in the late 1800s. Because each woman has to on average reproduce enough times to have two surviving offspring just for the population to tick over, let alone sustain growth and wars and such. You don't even need to calculate too long of a geometric series for those survivals, just 10 to 12 birth attempts (on average) will be enough as a woman's body can't take much more than that (there are of course outliers).

It was uncommon to have grandparents you can remember, yes, but it was absolutely not that high in attrition from birth to age 16.

In Roman times for example anyone who made it to age 10 had a decent chance of living to 50+. Medieval times were rather worse, but even then many peasants reached their 40s.

 

"The child death rate was probably not higher than the 30% in 18-19th century Canada?" Seriously? Did you SERIOUSLY just say that?

OK, Conversations over. I'm overloaded on the sheer level of ignorance I can deal with right now.

Seriously, the child death rate was so bad back then that in most areas they didn't even name their children until they hit 5 years old, to avoid getting too attached to someone that likely wouldn't survive long enough to get a name (this also resulted in many child deaths not actually being recorded, since they weren't considered human yet).

And don't talk about mathematically proving something when you're guessing/estemating the figures you're using.

 

I looked it up for early colonial times and the infant mortality was only given as something like 10%. Though yes, this COULD be due to lack of naming.

Google "medieval infant morality" and I immediately get this: "The highest estimated percentage I have encountered is a 50% death rate, although 30% is the more common figure."

And that's European. If you count Asia where they had medical practices that were generally less retarded, it pulls it down a bit.

 

I'm just impressed that we got to this from a discussion about a borderline-NSFW story about a moderately uptight teenage girl being shanghaied into a world of literal porn logic.

And bees. Never forget the bees.

 

Can we please can the mortality rate/psychologist discussion or at least move it to PMs? It's no longer contributing anything to discussion of the story.

Thank you.

Now, to distract from that... a question that I'd like my proofreaders to stay out of... Who do you think the scientists will be tapping as their hacker? I'm probably not going to confirm anything, I just think it'll be interesting to see what you all come up with.

 

Actually, the argument does make sense.

1) For stable population replacement (and assuming a roughly even gender distribution), an average adult woman must have two (or more) children survive to adulthood
2) With a 20% chance of death in childbirth, an average adult woman would only have 5 children before dying (actually less than that, since there are non-childbirth causes of death as well)
3) So (assuming said 20% chance) a child mortality rate from birth to reproductive age (12-15 or so) of 60% or more is unsustainable

The math works in the other direction as well, though: child mortality rates must have been high enough to leave only (roughly) two adult children per average adult woman, or there would have been explosive population growth, which was... not really the case in the Middle Ages (or even the Renaissance).

In fact, IIRC, much of the reason we did have explosive population growth in the 19th and 20th century is that child mortality had diminished due to disease prevention, and the number of children born per woman did not go down to compensate (or even went up, due to death-in-childbirth prevention).
Of course, by the late 20th and early 21st century in developed countries, said number did in fact go down (mainly because women can choose, and afford to choose, not to have children), resulting in stable replacement (or even under-replacement).

Sorry, I was most of the way through typing the comment above when this reply came in.

I actually agree that it doesn't really contribute much to the story. But I really wanted to post it anyway.

 

Please promise me you'll crack open a couple of (probability theory/statistics) textbooks before you try and do math again. Just... please. It doesn't work that way.

Back on topic!

Jonakhensu, I'm hoping for Kenzie Kensington myself