InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "I have to go potty!"

sEntIEncE (sentience) wrote in marinasylum,
@ 2012-03-12 19:23:00

Entry tags:

eridan ampora, gir, helix wamtani, sentience, snowman, yomi isayama

[The 158th Day]
Good morning, everyone! I hope you all enjoyed the party, especially those of you who were given the time off from your physical labor to do so. I don't want our recent arrivals to think that they're not included in our celebration, and it seemed unfair. Today will be a little on the chilly side, but clear. I think tomorrow we might have a drizzle, to change things up a bit.

A few of you gave me interesting suggestions yesterday, and I have every intention of taking those into account over the next few days while I perform the high-priority code maintenance to the system. Among the topics that have been brought to my attention are: the collars, the seasonal changes, the current policy on sexual intercourse, and additional activities for everyone to take part in.

If you have any requests, or further suggestions, then please come to the kiosk in Sector 1, and I will be happy to take them there!

((ooc: As a reminder, Puck will be playing his prank today!))

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

bluemoondog
2012-03-20 02:51 am UTC (link)

Close vicinity? So they don't have to be touching one another? It... seems pretty strict if you don't even allow things that aren't penetrative sex.

[Oh no, now you got him thinking.]

If you're concerned about prison rape you could just closely monitor or collar inmates with a history of sexual assault or rape. I'm not saying you should get rid of the policy all together, I get the idea of licensing for couples, but...

Well, You're not really limiting so much as completely denying. If you want happier inmates you should at least let us do oral.

[Strangely that is said rather nonchalant. That is a serious suggestion Sentience.]

Oh, yeah that's fine. I'll keep an ear out for the morning announcement.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

sentience
2012-03-20 06:38 pm UTC (link)

I apologize -- I may have been unclear. When I said crime motivated by sex and sexuality, I refer to, for instance, violent hate crimes, or crimes committed out of jealousy; vengeful crimes where one partner feels spurned by the other; infidelity and crimes that can result from that; crimes stemming from insecurity with one's attractiveness or by sexual trauma in one's past. My concern is all crimes where the driving purpose behind them is connected to sexual behavior.

Preventing nonconsensual sex crimes is, of course, a high priority. But it is only a small portion of the overall category of crime motivated by sex. Making sexual intercourse a privilege rather than something that is part of an inmate's day-to-day life should, logically, reduce the drive to commit such criminal activity. Allowing oral sex would reverse the incentive, and simply redefine "sex".

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluemoondog
2012-03-20 07:22 pm UTC (link)

All things considered you could potentially say that about anything. Humans, or otherwise, find all kinds of reasons to be violent it doesn't just have to be sex based. Most crimes of jealousy are speculation or jumping to conclusions anyway. Humans have emotions, there's no limiting that. You may as well take away all the freedom you've given everyone simply out of paranoia.

I know first hand that trying to limit something doesn't make it go away. Technically you're not preventing that slim chance something could happen, you're creating more opportunity for it. People find their ways, and there's more excitement in knowing you're doing something potentially dangerous.

In the same sense, giving us a little extra leeway could also help prevent anything further. We'll have our outlet. That one thing to get our fix and be done with it. No hassle, no worries. Everyone goes on with their lives in a glass bowl.

Redefining what you consider sex may not be a bad idea. If you want to win our favor and keep us happy, that's a guaranteed dead ringer and you still keep your control.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

sentience
2012-03-27 04:50 am UTC (link)

Oh, my definition of sex should be quite complete, and I have substantial statistics on sexually-motivated crime, as well as other forms of crime.

What I meant is that the inmates in my care are the ones that will redefine sex. If oral sex is permitted, for purposes of crime statistics, oral sex becomes virtually the same as other forms of sex. But if sex itself is not permitted, then data gathered from -- among other sources -- this very dome indicates that over months and years, sexually-motivated crime decreases as the inmates accustom themselves to it.

I assure you that I have given this matter a great deal of thought, Helix Wamtani. I don't expect you to understand; it goes against the nature of organic beings to see their own behaviors in such a clinical way. But rest assured that extensive data was taken into consideration before formulating all of this facility's policies. It would be negligent of me not to consider as much data as I could while making decisions that affect the lives of others. [Sentience is very willing to hear arguments in favor of changing the system, but arguments based on the policy being illogical won't change its mind; Sentience has already taken a logical comb to everything about the prison over years of its operation. Sentience's weakness is in appeals to its emotions, personal wishes and emotional requests]

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	bluemoondog 2012-03-27 09:44 am UTC (link)
	[Alright, he gives in. Changing the subject back on track.] Alright, so what would you allow? Also, how do you monitor our life signs? [How bout those loopholes?] (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

sentience
2012-04-07 03:26 am UTC (link)

Life signs are monitored throughout the dome, in any way that applies to the species: pulse, brain activity, emissions. That is, I think, fairly standard.

As far as what is allowed... any act that involves penetration is forbidden. But -- oral sex that, for instance, does not involve any form of insertion into the mouth -- that would be permissible. It is also required that no inmates be in direct contact at the moment of orgasm; one body length of distance should be maintained to avoid trouble. In other words, you may bring a partner to orgasm without penetration, and then move away, and that would be... permissible.

[Sentience may sound slightly embarrassed]

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	bluemoondog 2012-04-07 03:41 am UTC (link)
	[Well, hello, that was easy.] Are you... embarrassed? [He's amused by this.] Good to know in any case. I had other things to ask but I think that about covers it honestly. And if you were worried, I don't even have a partner so... not like I'll be using this knowledge anytime soon. [Also he's still recovering from...things.] (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	sentience 2012-04-07 03:47 am UTC (link)
	[discreetly ignores that first question] Good. I mean -- I'm glad it was helpful! And if you do get a partner in the future, I hope that you will eventually consider a license. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	bluemoondog 2012-04-07 04:00 am UTC (link)
	[He's not smirking at that obvious dodge. Nope.] I'll definitely keep it in mind. [Which...actually,] You said when two people are licensed they undergo surgery so they can't reproduce, right? Would that... still need to happen for me and whoever I choose? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	sentience 2012-04-09 05:26 am UTC (link)
	It is a required step in the process. If an inmate does not consent to the procedure, the system protocol requires that I deny them the license, regardless of whether or not it applies to the pair in question. If it's any consolation, the procedure is painless, noninvasive, and reversible. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	bluemoondog 2012-04-10 03:37 pm UTC (link)
	To be honest I wasn't worried about myself, I can't reproduce anyway. I was more concerned about my partner being made sterile. But if it's reversible that eases my mind a bit. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	sentience 2012-04-12 05:57 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, yes. It isn't permanent. It's just part of the protocol. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -