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:
1.
Definitions
(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)
(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.
(b) Willingness
(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.
(d) Attractiveness:
(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.
(e) Performance
(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.
(f) Spontaneity
(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.
(g) Response
(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
Appendices
Appendix A
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)
A: 1
P: 6
S: 2
R: 4
D: 0
Fellator
2: 9(3)
A: 2
P: 5
S: 2
R: 3
D: 0
Fellator
3: 7(1)
A: 2
P: 4
S: 1
R: 1
D: 0
Fellator
4: 7
A: 2
P: 4
S: 1
R: 0
D: 0
Fellator
5: 4
A: 2
P: 2
S: 0
R: 0
D: 0
Fellator
6: 3
A: 2
P: 1
S: 0
R: 0
D: 0
Appendix B
The
following are examples of archetypal models available for use as shorthands to
ease comparisons.
Milena: 0
A: 2
P: 0
S: 2
R: 4
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.
Sarlacc:
0
A: 0
P: 0
S: 0
R: 0
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.
Watergate:
8(4)
A: 0
P: 6
S: 2
R: 4
D: 0
-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: 2
P: 5
S: 0
R: 0
D: 0
-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.
Fifteen:
10(4)(1)
A: 2
P: 6
S: 2
R: 4
D: 1
-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.
No comments:
Post a Comment