The Process Forum - View Single Post

NimrodClover · 10-11-2020

AILovesToGrow:

I do enjoy this discussion and I do appreciate the time you took to review what and how I had defined my approach to this topic. My motivation at the start, with laying out the terms, was not to define them for the overall thread, but rather to help a reader understand how I was setting up boundaries within my following statements - providing fence posts as it where.

Thanks for the Asian terminology background, I was not aware of the Chinese etymology to the Japanese term. I do want to mentioned that I was stressing the modern and more current usage and that appeared germane to the discussion. Also, I was using a translation sequence as established by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) which is more comprehensive and approaches the term from a more neutral scholarly frame. Needless to say, these terms blur a bit around the edges and different defining source will have its own inherent bias.

I would like to mention that I find the general approach still to be very slanted toward essentially a female with male genitalia, often exaggerated, simply plugged on. I did mention that the depiction of structurally male characters with female secondary characteristics is nothing more than trans-males should taken off the table as the discussion is a character with both sex organs.

Thanks for sharing your motivations and what wellspring you draw your inspiration from. My approach is obviously more from an analytical standpoint and it may be derived from separating sexual motivation from the physical body and approaching this less metaphysically and more as a thought experiment. What would a true hermaphrodite deal with, what would be unique to them, and Why would they even exist in the world?

From nearly all the images, stories, animations, movies, etc. I have encountered on the topic few if any seem to approach it from a "what if" standpoint. It may be due to the overt emphasis and, as you noted, almost reflexive approach that "It is about a girl" + "who also has a penis" + "dealing with the added burdens of such"...

This brings it back to my main critique. Why define it in terms a female base with the addition of male genitalia instead of a distinct organism with unique blending of motivations both physical and sociological? It really is not a chick with a dick, that is already out there.

Several years back (2008) I recall seeing a survey asking what women would do if they had a penis for a day. In almost every reply I noticed that the approach was that this was an element added to their otherwise female psyche and not integrated into any manner to their worldview. It really was a plug-on thinking. Again, very few versions of the Futa I have stumbled into depart from this basic paradigm. It just feels like a missed opportunity to consider, critique, or comment on what it is to be male, female, or truly both.

Just don't simply slap on a dick and call it a day.

On a side note:
When doing some more digging on this topic, I have to ask what is up with all the "docking" content? I mean the general expression of a Futa having exaggerated male hardware fits in with the concept that they are male-like but not male-normal. However they seem to have the same drives and physical needs of a male, just with a female body. It presents as if this is used to excuse their more potent sex drive, above that of a base-female. (an approach I criticized previously) But I am perplexed with a large amount of shoving things into urethras. Ouch!

One source material artist, who goes by Lewdua, does an interesting job of showing actual Futa dealing with day-to-day existence. Yes, there is a great deal of intercourse, and I have yet to find any Futa with male characters in their work, but it is nice to see it in more of a tongue-in-cheek treatment.

10-11-2020	#13
NimrodClover KC Strip Artist Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 71	Re: Futanari Poll AILovesToGrow: I do enjoy this discussion and I do appreciate the time you took to review what and how I had defined my approach to this topic. My motivation at the start, with laying out the terms, was not to define them for the overall thread, but rather to help a reader understand how I was setting up boundaries within my following statements - providing fence posts as it where. Thanks for the Asian terminology background, I was not aware of the Chinese etymology to the Japanese term. I do want to mentioned that I was stressing the modern and more current usage and that appeared germane to the discussion. Also, I was using a translation sequence as established by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) which is more comprehensive and approaches the term from a more neutral scholarly frame. Needless to say, these terms blur a bit around the edges and different defining source will have its own inherent bias. I would like to mention that I find the general approach still to be very slanted toward essentially a female with male genitalia, often exaggerated, simply plugged on. I did mention that the depiction of structurally male characters with female secondary characteristics is nothing more than trans-males should taken off the table as the discussion is a character with both sex organs. Thanks for sharing your motivations and what wellspring you draw your inspiration from. My approach is obviously more from an analytical standpoint and it may be derived from separating sexual motivation from the physical body and approaching this less metaphysically and more as a thought experiment. What would a true hermaphrodite deal with, what would be unique to them, and Why would they even exist in the world? From nearly all the images, stories, animations, movies, etc. I have encountered on the topic few if any seem to approach it from a "what if" standpoint. It may be due to the overt emphasis and, as you noted, almost reflexive approach that "It is about a girl" + "who also has a penis" + "dealing with the added burdens of such"... This brings it back to my main critique. Why define it in terms a female base with the addition of male genitalia instead of a distinct organism with unique blending of motivations both physical and sociological? It really is not a chick with a dick, that is already out there. Several years back (2008) I recall seeing a survey asking what women would do if they had a penis for a day. In almost every reply I noticed that the approach was that this was an element added to their otherwise female psyche and not integrated into any manner to their worldview. It really was a plug-on thinking. Again, very few versions of the Futa I have stumbled into depart from this basic paradigm. It just feels like a missed opportunity to consider, critique, or comment on what it is to be male, female, or truly both. Just don't simply slap on a dick and call it a day. On a side note: When doing some more digging on this topic, I have to ask what is up with all the "docking" content? I mean the general expression of a Futa having exaggerated male hardware fits in with the concept that they are male-like but not male-normal. However they seem to have the same drives and physical needs of a male, just with a female body. It presents as if this is used to excuse their more potent sex drive, above that of a base-female. (an approach I criticized previously) But I am perplexed with a large amount of shoving things into urethras. Ouch! One source material artist, who goes by Lewdua, does an interesting job of showing actual Futa dealing with day-to-day existence. Yes, there is a great deal of intercourse, and I have yet to find any Futa with male characters in their work, but it is nice to see it in more of a tongue-in-cheek treatment.