Sorry for leaving the blog alone for so long. Got distracted. Now I have to build all the momentum again. Oh well.
A while ago, back when I was still writing for this thing, a friend of mine reminded me of the Kinsey scale. I had heard of the Kinsey reports vaguely and immediately asked, "Isn't that obsolete?" Wikipedia isn't very staunch in agreeing with me, but a quick Google search isn't showing me any intense animosity for the ancient documents from the mid 20th century. This source linked to from Wikipedia was all I could find in a hurry. This post isn't about the validity of the Kinsey scale anyway, so if someone can link to some good debate on that in the comments I'd be much appreciative.
If you didn't click on the link there, the Kinsey scale basically stipulates that sexual orientation falls into a digital scale from 0 to 6, leaving seven options. This is a bit better than the common conception of two or three options (or one for extremely conservative cultures), claiming people are either totally "straight" or "gay", leaving an option open for "bisexual" to keep this theory of binary sexuality from coming all to pieces. The Kinsey scale stipulates that 0 means entirely heterosexual, 6 means entirely homosexual, 3 means exactingly in the middle, and the other buckets in between are for middle areas. There is also an "x" option for asexuality as well. (Boy, how I wish I was in that zone sometimes.) The criticism of the scale, of course, is that it's not precise enough, and doesn't cover all kinds of orientation. A computer scientist would just say, "we'll increase the resolution from 7 to 14 then", but the actual issue is missing dimensions and spectra. Gender identity isn't specified at all, and from what I've seen in contemporary writing in this field, BDSM sexuality is missing too. To continue on the subject matter of this blog, I stipulate that futasexuality is missing too.
I know I've said that futanari isn't a fetish, but in the context of an orientation scale for it, it would be. I'll also use the computer science example of process priority. A program with a priority of 0 is said to be of the highest priority, and positive values are of lesser priority. The greater the magnitude, the less the priority. This seems backwards compared to the natural world, but remember that in computer memory, a single value in memory has a maximum value. If you have only three digits to write a base ten numeral, then the highest you can specify is 999, no way around that. It's the same way with computers. Plus, it prevents priority values from tending to infinity. I propose a futasexuality scale would work the same way.
So, presume an individual has an affinity for futanari content. This person might have a strong, fetish-like need for it, and their score on this futasexuality scale would be 0. There has to be a futanari element for orgasm to be necessary. I should mention I've been lurking at Gurochan lately for several reasons, one of which is to explore depravity further to see if my jadedness has an upper limit. Despite going through the Literature section and reading of horrific dismemberment, cruel sadism and gross bodily emissions, I actually find this stuff somehow less 'corrupt' than futanari, which is what I like about it. Something about a woman with a penis (not the liberal, politically correct "mixture of gender forms" I mentioned idealistically) just rails against my upbringing so exactingly that it completes the usual taboo feeling of sexual pleasure I've already been made to feel and...I was going to write about that in another post anyway.
Wow. I guess that would put me near a 0 as well, but to be honest, I can do without it. Sometimes. Almost always at the moment before orgasm, my imagination hurriedly throws in some kind of futanari element to push me over the edge. But not every time. I have other favourite kinks, like morphophilia. (Sorry to all 'real' kinksters who actually practice BDSM, I'm borrowing your word. But it's part of my language too.) So I guess I would have to put myself at 1 or 2 for now. That's how bad I have it, or good if I were seeking a relationship with another futasexual. It hasn't adversely affected my ability to function in society, though. (If it did, I would seek a priority inversion to allow some other weird fetish to replace this one. Computer science joke, har har.)
That's the other good part of using a 0-based zenith on a scale; with no upper limit, the range is infinitely precise. People can say just how futasexual they are, in their own way. There's certainly no potential for 'harmful labels'; if someone calls you a 33, correct them and say you're a 34. Or something. Actually, there should be an upper limit, because I find most people don't like futanari at all. I guess you could say your rating is at infinity, but that's not a literal number. Maybe the scale could be an objective measurement of how many times you have literally achieved orgasm without a futanari influence. It would only matter to you, though, since you're the one who owns your thoughts and would have to take responsibility for imagining a dickgirl instead of whoever you just copulated with. And that's the way it should be with every vector of sexuality.
I also want 0 to be the highest priority because I know some people who really, really like futanari would say "my futasexuality rating is eleventy billion!!11!111" and then get one-upped by the person next to them. I spend too much time on the internet. But for now, I see at least four vectors for sexual orientation: hetero/homo-sexual, BDSM sexuality, gender identity, and futasexuality. They could even be reprsented as a four-dimensional integer array, with the values representing how deviant from the norm (as much as I hate to say there is a norm) each value is (with the exception of the last one) so I guess my orientation[][][][] would return {1, 1, 1, 1}. Futasexuality could just as easily be re-combined into those three, however. A futanari person would probably look more or less like one of the binary sexes to you; there may be a futanari role to be played out in a BDSM setting; and futanari could be a possible gender identity. Again, my whole concept of futasexuality is just one more wispy proposition out there in this wild liberal blogosphere that some imaginary person may align themselves with.
Forgetting people for a moment, I had another idea for a scale of some kind relating to futanari, but this one is more of a geiger counter. Just a silly idea I had. Go to some smutty image gallery somewhere, like Rule 34 (I dare not to link to that on this somewhat work-safe blog), pick a character/setting/show/movie/game, and see how many pages it takes for a futanari image to show up. Genderswaps (known to some as Rule 63) don't count, although it should, since both count as messing with conventions of sex and gender. Futanari fans don't always lump that stuff in with their fandom. As a test, Turanga Leela from Futurama just scored a 1, the lowest possible score. Whether that's the best or worst is up to your personal taste. Funny, because when I first had the idea for this article, the score would have been 1, but I expected the non-futa content to eventually push it down to 2. Instead, a new image came up, keeping the rating at 1. In fact, there were two futanari images out of 64 loaded on the first page. Why does Leela keep rating so well on this scale? I guess I'll write about that next. If you can't wait that long, this question-and-answer post from my second post will have some answers.
