The Fellatio Coefficient is a mechanism designed to objectively and quantifiably measure one's skill in the art of fellatio. It was designed contemplating the following guidelines and philosophies, which present both the letter and spirit of the rule:
(a) Attractiveness: The alluring and arousing quality of a fellator, whether physical or otherwise
(b) Fellatio: The act of oral sex on a male, including other acts naturally linked to that act and performed in conjunction with that act, but necessarily excluding intercourse
(c) Fellator: The person performing fellatio (also, the “assessed”)
(b) Orgasm: Sexual climax (also, to “finish,” “ejaculate”)
(e) Recipient: The person receiving fellatio (also, the “assessor”)
(f) Refusal: Indicates a would-be fellator’s unwillingness to perform fellatio. This should not be interpreted as a response to any force or coercion; the fellatio coefficient, law, and morality all oppose sexual assault.
(g) Response: The fellator’s system of permissions and reaction to the recipient’s orgasm
(h) Spontaneity: Willingness and eagerness to independently and of individual accord initiate fellatio under given circumstances
2. On fellatio generally
(a) Users of the fellatio coefficient may consider its importance self-evident. These criteria do not purport to assert or deny the value of oral sex or any other activity, nor to imply its worth in sexual relationships.
(b) Fellatio is an inherently subjective act, enjoyed uniquely between each fellator-recipient couple. It is impossible to discourse on the subject with absolute objectivity, as each recipient’s demands and each fellator’s talents will interact differently with everyone. That said, the fellatio coefficient posits that certain estimations can offer a useful referential tool.
3. On gender neutrality
(a) The fellator’s gender is unimportant; no specifications regarding or implicating gender-specific ideals should be read into these guidelines.
4. On scoring guidelines:
(a) Scoring philosophy
(i) Scorers apply a points-based system enforcing a rubric (see infra 4(d)-(g)).
(ii) Points are awarded for criteria met; there are no deductions.
(i) Pursuant to 1(a), refusal to perform fellatio will preclude the assessed from scoring any points.
(c) Statistical significance
(i) While it is possible to apply the fellatio coefficient to evaluate even single encounters, accurate measurements—here as in most things—rely on a sample of sufficient size.
(i) The fellator's attractiveness, while not essential, is of value for the purposes of groping, a general sense of accomplishment, arousal, &c. It is posited that, all other things being equal, a rational recipient would opt for an attractive fellator over an unattractive one.
(ii) Points are awarded here ONLY IF at least one point is awarded elsewhere.
(iii) The fellatio coefficient distinguishes three levels of attractiveness. Level One denotes unattractiveness; Level Two denotes average attractiveness; Level Three denotes strong attractiveness. No more than two (2) points may be awarded on the basis of physical attractiveness.
(iv) This is not designed to be a very high bar.
(iv) This is not designed to be a very high bar.
(i) The fellator’s performance evaluation considers overall skill, dexterity, and adroitness in the act of fellatio. Performance benchmarks include, on the low end, refusal to perform or the infliction of pain (which preclude points), and at the high end, inducing orgasm.
(ii) Performance scores contemplate the fellator’s capacity strictly, but only very generally the fellator’s willingness. Consider the following examples:
(A) Alberta is by all accounts a very skilled fellator. However, she often prefers to induce orgasm via intercourse rather than via fellatio. Despite infrequently bringing her recipient to orgasm via fellatio, Alberta might still score a six (6) for performance.
(B) Barbara is by all accounts a very skilled fellator. However, she never prefers to induce orgasm via fellatio, and almost always opts for intercourse instead. Because she opts not to complete the act of fellatio so consistently, she is eligible for a diminished performance score (e.g., a five (5) instead of a six (6)). This is pursuant to an analogy to the general rule that refusal to perform fellatio precludes any points. Given that premise, refusal to perform more than a certain fraction of the complete act with any regularity limits points concomitantly.
(iii) The performance score, as the principal evaluative measure, is designed to be as normative as possible, and thus not to rely on recipients’ subjective opinions. For this reason the approach should rely on results rather than methodologies. Nevertheless, it is clear that the subjective value of different methodologies will produce different results in different evaluators. That a fellator’s capacity to conform to the desires of a given recipient is valuable and should be measured mitigates this problem; nevertheless, the value of large sample sizes should be reinforced.
(iv) Note that the performance score sets a somewhat low bar. The fellatio coefficient’s effectiveness at comparing fellators at very similar performance levels is sacrificed to facilitate broader comparisons.
(v) No more than six (6) points may be awarded on the basis of performance. This is the most important measure.
(i) A fellator’s spontaneity is considered an inherently valuable characteristic.
(ii) The fellatio coefficient distinguishes three levels of spontaneity. Level One indicates no spontaneity; Level Two indicates a limited degree of spontaneity (usually localized to situations that have already become intimate); Level Three indicates a propensity to initiate fellatio, even without intimate context. No more than two (2) points are available for spontaneity.
(i) A fellator’s response points accumulate according to the fellator’s ability to ameliorate the recipient’s experience in the final stages of the act.
(ii) Rather than scoring on a scale, the response score is a bonus format. Points are available for different permissive behaviors.
(iii) No more than four (4) response points are available.
(iv) To clarify the impact of response points, they should be noted in parentheses after the standard fellatio coefficient and before the discretionary points (e.g., 10(4)(1)).
(h) Discretionary points
(i) The fellatio coefficient acknowledges the need to leave room for it to grow in the accuracy and exhaustiveness of its evaluative qualities, and thus leaves room for additional points to be added for any value not otherwise covered.
(ii) Discretionary points should be added very conservatively.
(iii) To clarify the impact of these discretionary points, they should be noted in parentheses after the standard fellatio coefficient and response points (e.g., 10(4)(1)).
5. The rubric
Attractiveness Score (A)
+0 = Unattractive
+1 = Average to moderately attractive
+2 = Attractive
Performance Score (P)
+0 = Refuses to perform/inflicts only pain in attempting to perform
+1 = Offers only nominal oral contact; all but refuses
+2 = Totally inept/prohibitively brief innings
+3 = Relatively inept/induces boredom
+4 = Capable; somewhat limited capacity to induce orgasm
+5 = Skilled; capacity to induce orgasm is high
+6 = Excellent; surpassing capacity to induce orgasm; recipient might struggle to prolong the experience
Spontaneity Score (S)
+0 = Never initiates
+1 = Initiates only in intimate situations
+2 = Initiates at any time
Response Points (R)
+1 = Permits ejaculation on the body generally (including breasts)
+1 = Permits ejaculation in the mouth
+1 = Swallows semen
+1 = Permits ejaculation on the face
Discretionary Points (D)
-(According to recipient discretion)
Note that a zero (0) in the performance category precludes all other points
The following are demonstrative non-fictional examples of the fellatio coefficient’s application. They are given in descending order and only in sufficient quantity to demonstrate different notations over a range of scores. Names are redacted to protect the innocent.
Fellator 1: 9(4)
Fellator 2: 9(3)
Fellator 3: 7(1)
Fellator 4: 7
Fellator 5: 4
Fellator 6: 3
The following are examples of archetypal models available for use as shorthands to ease comparisons.
D: 1 (for being from Mortal Kombat)
-A ‘Milena’ is a fellator who is very attractive and willing, seems to have everything going for him/her, and then absolutely mangles any recipient.
D: 1 (for being from Star Wars)
-A ‘Sarlacc’ just has nothing to offer. It might also be a very hostile creature seeking to digest you.
-A ‘Watergate’ is an unattractive mess, and you don’t want a part of him/her at first... but hey, the pseudonym ‘deep throat’ wasn’t for nothing, apparently.
Georgia Satellite: 7
-A ‘Georgia Satellite’ is a very skilled fellator who makes completed fellatio—or any fellatio for that matter—so unattainable that his/her performance score suffers.
Tobias Fünke: ?
-The ‘Tobias Fünke’ is very flexible.
-The ‘Fifteen’ is perfection. This fellator not only boasts maximum scores in every category; he/she has also earned a discretionary point for something extra special.