1. Standard memberroyalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    Elsewhere
    Joined
    29 Nov '02
    Moves
    17317
    07 Nov '06 16:451 edit
    A Topological Look at Leviticus

    R. Chicken, Really Adjunct Professa' of Arcana, Tha Ivory Tower

    Only read this if your balls are open and you're not discrete.

    The human body, from a topological point of view, is a surface, compact (because all of its boundaries are part of it and it is bounded in size) and connected (because, roughly speaking, we come in one piece -- I don't want to talk about open sets made of skin).

    Furthermore, we're orientable. For each human, the world not on the surface of the human divides neatly into two pieces; those pieces inside the person (like xyr liver) and those pieces outside. It is of fundamental importance to recognise that everything in a person's digestive tract is outside of the human, from a topological point of view, because it can pass freely from xyr mouth to xyr anus or vice-versa without cutting the surface.

    An important result in topology says that compact, connected, orientable Hausdorff spaces locally homeomorphic to the Euclidean plane are all basically equivalent to spheres with some closed loops of surface stuck on. In particular, a human, regardless of gender, contains a unique such 'handle': the one formed by the alimentary canal. In other words, we're all a bunch of tori.

    Different sexual practices affect our topology in different ways. For example, when a good Christian man turns off the lights and inserts what god intended where god intended it in his good Christian wife, her topology is unaffected. From a topological viewpoint, she's got just as many holes in her as she did beforehand. However, if a godless deviant inserts anything at all into either the mouth or anus of another godless deviant, the receiver's topological hole becomes a mere dent and xe becomes homeomorphic to a sphere. We can conclude that godly objections to such deviant practices are no more than injunctions against inserting anything into a human surface in a way that affects the receiver's topological genus.

    This betrays seriously bizarre sexual attitudes on the part of god. Rather than consider the topology only of the receiver, it is important to understand such activity, whether godlessly deviant or as god intended, as a union of two human surfaces rather than as some undefined action of one surface on another (we're not talking groups, after all). In that case, As God Intended Surface-on-Surface Action is no more than the taking of the connected sum of two tori, resulting in a single, topologically inequivalent surface. However, Plumbing the Alimentary depths creates a new surface from the two original tori, with one torus reduced to a sphere and the other still a torus (the Plumber's crack is invariant). This is homeomorphic to either of the original tori, so it is only in the case of godless deviance that true union occurs.

    Exercise for the reader: Find someone willing and make xym non-orientable tonight!

    Extra credit: What is the maximum number of human surfaces possible in harmonious-union-preserving topological orgies?
  2. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    07 Nov '06 17:033 edits
    Originally posted by royalchicken

    Extra credit: What is the maximum number of human surfaces possible in harmonious-union-preserving topological orgies?
    I believe the number of such human surfaces must be unbounded, as it may be increased by adding disjoint participants.

    If we add a constraint that the orgy participants may not be disjoint, then I think the maximum is 2.

    Further, I believe the maximum number of types of surfaces in this setting is 2. In all of my experience, I have encountered spheres and tori, but nary a Klein Bottle or Mobius Strip.
  3. Standard memberroyalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    Elsewhere
    Joined
    29 Nov '02
    Moves
    17317
    07 Nov '06 17:091 edit
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    I believe the numer of such human surfaces must be unbounded, as it may be increased by adding disjoint participants.

    If we add a constraint that the orgy participants may not be disjoint, then I think the maximum is 2.

    Further, I believe the maximum number of types of surfaces in this setting is 2. In all of my experience, I have encountered spheres and tori, but nary a Klein Bottle or Mobius Strip.
    Your point about disjoint participants is an astute one, and we shall adopt your additional constraint.

    You forgot about hands and feet, though, good Doctor. Your homework is to draw how they may be used to increase the number of human surfaces in an orgy homeomorphic to a single person. If your work is satisfactory, I'll make Mobius strip for you.

    At least you see the Spirituality here, though.
  4. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    07 Nov '06 17:31
    Furthermore, the question of transubstantiation now becomes one of great interest. To change the godly topography, both internal and external, into one single topographic sphere which is then placed upon the surface of a believer, before being absorbed onto the internal topographic world of xym, raises questions indeed.
  5. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    07 Nov '06 17:401 edit
    Originally posted by royalchicken


    Your homework is to draw how they may be used to increase the number of human surfaces in an orgy homeomorphic to a single person.
    I don't think it has an upper bound.

    Suppose we have an n-surface orgy homeomorphic to a single person. It follows that that mass of flesh will have a handle, based on your astute analysis in the original post. Enter the (n+1)th human. If he is godless, he can plug both ends of the existing hole using some of his members, creating a sphere out of the previously existing mass, and in doing so, his alimentary canal becomes a new handle thereto attached. The new mass is now an (n+1)-surface orgy homeomorphic to a single person.
  6. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    07 Nov '06 17:462 edits
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    I don't think it has an upper bound.

    Suppose we have an n-surface orgy homeomorphic to a single person. It follows that that mass of flesh will have a handle, based on your astute analysis in the original post. Enter the (n+1)th human. If he is godless, he can plug both ends of the existing hole using some of his members, creating a sphere out ...[text shortened]... e thereto attached. The new mass is now an (n+1)-surface orgy homeomorphic to a single person.
    Is the nature of the godless such that it can open the sphere of the godly?
  7. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    07 Nov '06 17:52
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Is the nature of the godless such that it can open the sphere of the godly?
    Hell, I don't know. I don't understand any of this topology crap. I don't even think my answer is correct. I don't even understand RC's question.
  8. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    07 Nov '06 18:001 edit
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Is the nature of the godless such that it can open the sphere of the godly?
    Godless just means anal, for Christ's sake.

    Edit - Hence, turning the torus into a sphere by blocking reasons.
  9. Standard memberroyalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    Elsewhere
    Joined
    29 Nov '02
    Moves
    17317
    07 Nov '06 18:161 edit
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Hell, I don't know. I don't understand any of this topology crap. I don't even think my answer is correct. I don't even understand RC's question.
    Your answer is correct. I'll have to think about Starrman's question; it seems like it involves cutting and that's not a homeomorphism.

    EDIT Actually, a pair of human surfaces acting godly, except with something judiciously inserted into the actor, is homeomorphic to the godly sphere. Thus, for example, appropriately hand-transformed DVDA is an instance of the godless opening the godly by the addition of handles.
  10. Standard memberroyalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    Elsewhere
    Joined
    29 Nov '02
    Moves
    17317
    07 Nov '06 18:19
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Furthermore, the question of transubstantiation now becomes one of great interest. To change the godly topography, both internal and external, into one single topographic sphere which is then placed upon the surface of a believer, before being absorbed onto the internal topographic world of xym, raises questions indeed.
    It sounds so dodgy when put that way. People must be scared to be Hausdorff somewhere private with you.
  11. Standard memberroyalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    Elsewhere
    Joined
    29 Nov '02
    Moves
    17317
    07 Nov '06 18:24
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Godless just means anal, for Christ's sake.

    Edit - Hence, turning the torus into a sphere by blocking reasons.
    Godless could also mean oral. Those two are equivalent; this is why Leviticus bans both.
  12. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    07 Nov '06 18:282 edits
    Originally posted by royalchicken
    Godless could also mean oral. Those two are equivalent; this is why Leviticus bans both.
    The two are identical from a topological viewpoint, so I didn't feel the need to distinguish them.

    PS: Isn't Leviticus only about homosexuality?
  13. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    07 Nov '06 18:32
    Originally posted by royalchicken
    Rather than consider the topology only of the receiver, it is important to understand such activity, ... as a union of two human surfaces rather than as some undefined action of one surface on another...
    Why? It's not as though the surfaces have been superglued together.
  14. Standard memberroyalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    Elsewhere
    Joined
    29 Nov '02
    Moves
    17317
    07 Nov '06 18:34
    Originally posted by Palynka
    The two are identical from a topological viewpoint, so I didn't feel the need to distinguish them.
    Right. That's why I've used the term 'godless'.
  15. The sky
    Joined
    05 Apr '05
    Moves
    10385
    07 Nov '06 18:34
    Maybe you could say some words about the topological significance of the Crucifixion.
Back to Top