The fully automated panty remover malfunctioned...

[LupusDei]

The fully automated panty remover malfunctioned...

It was only ever used by a couple obscure celebrities. But did, thanks to widespread reporting of the incident the -- as soon turned out -- notoriously buggy gadget see irrationally wide adoption? Seems likely.

 

[gunhilltrain]

The fully automated panty remover malfunctioned...

It was only ever used by a couple obscure celebrities. But did, thanks to widespread reporting of the incident the -- as soon turned out -- notoriously buggy gadget see irrationally wide adoption? Seems likely.

Why would anyone have a machine do that when it's more fun to do it yourself?

 

[LupusDei]

Why would anyone have a machine do that when it's more fun to do it yourself?

I don't think it was marketed that way, not initially at least.

There could be two very different types. One, a floor standing device that resides where such a need might reasonably arise, potentially including public or semi-public toilets. In the inevitable failure modes it could chew the cloth, and/or become a robot that chases potentially removable panties...

The second, and probably more interesting, is a wearable, installed on, in or around said panties, and uses networked sensor data and machine learning to predict situations they would need to drop...

The first you might have in your bedroom or the second one you might gift to your girlfriend making the above question completely legitimate either way. But at that point it's probably already a fad she wishes.

 

[sirhugs]

Why would anyone have a machine do that when it's more fun to do it yourself?

The Victorians.
and their 21st cenrtury imitiators.
Touching woman parts is... icky.

 

[AlinaX]

Reminded of this:

The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 Sub-Meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer (say a nice hot cup of tea) were well understood - and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance with the theory of indeterminacy.

ETA: Since maybe this wasn't sufficiently obvious: Yes, a quote from Douglas Adams's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

 

[sirhugs]

Reminded of this:

is that from Hitchikers Guide? If so, it is copyright and needs acknowledgement.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I don't think it was marketed that way, not initially at least.

There could be two very different types. One, a floor standing device that resides where such a need might reasonably arise, potentially including public or semi-public toilets. In the inevitable failure modes it could chew the cloth, and/or become a robot that chases potentially removable panties...

The second, and probably more interesting, is a wearable, installed on, in or around said panties, and uses networked sensor data and machine learning to predict situations they would need to drop...

The first you might have in your bedroom or the second one you might gift to your girlfriend making the above question completely legitimate either way. But at that point it's probably already a fad she wishes.

With all due respect, this is imaginative but it doesn't make much sense. It's being imaginative for its own sake.

I know this is a stretch, but it reminds me of monorails, which have been considered "futuristic" for decades now. (Yes, there are a few of them in use in different parts of the world, especially Japan). It was a technology that was made to work but it failed to have widespread application because they weren't that useful. Well, they could be seen as a "fad" like your panty-removers, but a fad that keeps coming back and never seems to end. Also, it's a fad among city planners (they are expensive to build) rather than among consumers buying a much cheaper product.

 

[gunhilltrain]

The Victorians.
and their 21st cenrtury imitiators.
Touching woman parts is... icky.

I must be in a weird mood because I'm giving everybody a hard time today. What's most interesting about this is the 21st Century Victorians. Okay, so how did they make a comeback? There are several possible explanations for that, but what's your real story. The malfunctioning panty-removers are just a detail.

 

[gunhilltrain]

is that from Hitchikers Guide? If so, it is copyright and needs acknowledgement.

I'm not up on copyright law, but it's two long (very long) sentences. I know, "fair use," which I'm not up on either. If one really has to follow legal procedure, the acknowledgment wouldn't be enough; wouldn't one need actually permission? Anybody knows more, then let us know.

On this site, it's usually the moderators who bring up such issues. The chance of the actual publishers ever finding it is slim, perhaps, but the site has to cover itself anyway. Other sites do the same thing, but Lit is (or was) a bit negligent about it at times.

 

[sirhugs]

I'm not up on copyright law, but it's two long (very long) sentences. I know, "fair use," which I'm not up on either. If one really has to follow legal procedure, the acknowledgment wouldn't be enough; wouldn't one need actually permission? Anybody knows more, then let us know.

On this site, it's usually the moderators who bring up such issues. The chance of the actual publishers ever finding it is slim, perhaps, but the site has to cover itself anyway. Other sites do the same thing, but Lit is (or was) a bit negligent about it at times.

Well, now that I are a moderator, I am bringing it up. Fair use is a very litiguous area. Lit does not want to attract litigation.
At the very least, noting the source is a reasonaable step.

 

[LupusDei]

With all due respect, this is imaginative but it doesn't make much sense. It's being imaginative for its own sake.

Yes, it's absurd, obviously. For the sake of being absurd. But I couldn't end laughing until I posted it.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Well, now that I are a moderator, I am bringing it up. Fair use is a very litiguous area. Lit does not want to attract litigation.
At the very least, noting the source is a reasonaable step.

You mean you are a moderator of one of the forums? Well, congratulations! (I know I could look it up.)

 

[gunhilltrain]

Yes, it's absurd, obviously. For the sake of being absurd. But I couldn't end laughing until I posted it.

I got that it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. Do you think you'll actually write it, or were you just playing with the idea for the moment? I don't know why I went off on that monorail rant. Possibly because I recently saw a video about them.

 

[sirhugs]

You mean you are a moderator of one of the forums? Well, congratulations! (I know I could look it up.)

I am indeed the moderator of this very forum, for my sins.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I am indeed the moderator of this very forum, for my sins.

I hope this isn't too much of a digression, but that reminds me of what Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) says near the beginning of Apocalypse Now, "I wanted a mission and, for my sins, I was given one."

Anyway, please go easy on us.

 

[AlinaX]

Following the new law that a woman without underwear was considered to have consented to sex, a technological race began (a) to make underwear that could never be removed (effectively chastity wear), and (b) to find ways to remove underwear, no matter how secure.

 

[sirhugs]

Following the new law that a woman without underwear was considered to have consented to sex, a technological race began (a) to make underwear that could never be removed (effectively chastity wear), and (b) to find ways to remove underwear, no matter how secure.

I always thought that was why liquor was called "panty remover".

 

[LupusDei]

Following the new law that a woman without underwear was considered to have consented to sex, a technological race began (a) to make underwear that could never be removed (effectively chastity wear), and (b) to find ways to remove underwear, no matter how secure.

Anti-rape / rape-resistant underwear, shorts, pants, bras, jackets, devices, etc, do exist in great variety, ranging from simply reinforced garments to inclusion of tracking and automated alarm systems, inbuilt tasers to shock the attacker or means to do mechanical harm like this lovely penis trap:

(Rape aXe - Teeth Condom from 10 of the Most WTF Anti-Rape Devices Around the World)

As a potential rapist (hypothetically)... I would just say the possible prevention of opportunistic advances may or not balance out the slightly increased risk to wearer's life, and trading just a beating for rape could indeed be advantageous in most contexts, but the main purchase here -- as in with most clothing in general -- is that of confidence. And that added confidence and freedom to be, well, cocky (backed by the added chance to resoundingly declare refusal), may be what actually prevents classification of a victim in the eyes of the predator in the first place. However, that is the hardest variable to put to test, so we may only speculate.

***

Perhaps a company in search of cornering the AR wear market presented the semi-stationary panty remover as part of proof of concept of the extreme security of their newest AR wear product line...

... that included the conditional self-removal as added comfort feature.

The company bankrupted however, and both patents were bought out by obscure sex toys manufacturer... who accidentally managed to make one or both of them mainstream, in their version.

 

[LupusDei]

I got that it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. Do you think you'll actually write it, or were you just playing with the idea for the moment? I don't know why I went off on that monorail rant. Possibly because I recently saw a video about them.

Playing with the idea (as most I drop here). And as that it was far more straightforward nonsense than even tongue-in-cheek, although there's certainly potential for satire.

All I knew about the actual thing then was that the producer's previous most successful product was the Bellybutton Blower (I suppose it blows raspberries upon one's belly button or something like that; no, I won't be surprised to learn that's a real thing somewhere either).

***

The problems with monorails are twofold: the road is the engine and thus capital and maintenance intensive, and the lane change is far more complicated than with iron railway. Combined, they offset the fact it's the cheapest transportation from an isolated car perspective, at least in low enough speeds the round zero in rolling resistance still has a major influence (but even that's somewhat offset by necessity to maintain the magnetic levitation).

While superconductors aren't actually necessary as such... the monorail is rather a marker tech for age of cheap room temperature superconductors and extreme long term political security and stability, anticipated future that resist arriving.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Playing with the idea (as most I drop here). And as that it was far more straightforward nonsense than even tongue-in-cheek, although there's certainly potential for satire.

All I knew about the actual thing then was that the producer's previous most successful product was the Bellybutton Blower (I suppose it blows raspberries upon one's belly button or something like that; no, I won't be surprised to learn that's a real thing somewhere either).

***

The problems with monorails are twofold: the road is the engine and thus capital and maintenance intensive, and the lane change is far more complicated than with iron railway. Combined, they offset the fact it's the cheapest transportation from an isolated car perspective, at least in low enough speeds the round zero in rolling resistance still has a major influence (but even that's somewhat offset by necessity to maintain the magnetic levitation).

While superconductors aren't actually necessary as such... the monorail is rather a marker tech for age of cheap room temperature superconductors and extreme long term political security and stability, anticipated future that resist arriving.

Wow, you really want to write about monorails. The only reason to build one is that elevated trains are cheaper than subways, and supposedly they would be more accepted by communities because they are less "visually intrusive," whatever that means. (They are also quieter, but you can do the same thing with regular trains.) Thus somebody proposed (not officially) that a monorail would be better than trying to complete the enormously expensive Second Avenue subway on the East Side of Manhattan.

Except, New York has had about 160 years worth of experience with elevated trains (mostly the old steel-trestle ones). New Yorkers generally hate them and will not accept a new one almost anywhere, monorail or not. Rational or not, they just don't want the routes in front of their windows or going down their street. The city, in fact, had an aggressive program to tear them down until they couldn't cut any more without impacting busy services. The same is true in Boston and probably Philadelphia.

In cities that never had els, like Vancouver, BC, Monterrey, Mexico, and a large number of Asian cities, there is no prejudice against them. Asian cities will build them through the densest areas where they probably wouldn't be accepted in the United States or Europe, and no one protests that I know of

Myrtle Avenue el demolition

Demolition of the Myrtle Avenue line in Brooklyn, 1969, which was replaced with a bus. Hey, let's put a monorail through here!

sirhugs, has this thread drifted too much?