Sunday, June 28, 2015

The Future of Human Sexuality

    b64 w6L k6 Rm/n SsYyw
    s-- y+/--
    B0 f- t- w- c- g+(++) k s- r
    T6(7) C1 L5s h+(c++) d-- a- w-- c y e m2 q-

If you spent any length of time on geek forums in the late 1990s, you might recognize syntax similar to what you see above. Then, it was The Geek Code that was making the rounds, succinctly defining what you claim-to-geek (instead of claim-to-fame) was and where your specialties lay. (If you've already figured out where I'm going with this, congrats.) However, even if you are still familiar with the shorthand used for The Geek Code, those strings above might not make much sense.

Brief history lesson: The Geek Code wasn't the first of it's kind, though it did bring such codes into the more public eye. It was actually based off of the NBCS used in even older forums and chat rooms (late 1980s to early 1990s). End history lesson.

That's because the above string isn't written to define my geek qualifications.

Recently reported by the Telegraph, Freddie Fox (of gay drama "Cucumber") declined to lay claim to a sexuality, saying “I hope that I am the type of person who would fall in love with another person, as opposed to a sex. Most of my life to date has been as a straight man, but who knows what will happen next?"

He's not alone.

What we need is a Sexuality Code. I've done some heartfelt digging, and I couldn't find anything close to my liking. What you see above is a blend of Geek (in cyan), Goth (in pink), Furry (in yellow), Twink (in red) Codes and classic NBCS (in tan). (apologies to the color-challenged).

If such a Sexuality Code could ever become public use, I suspect the currently-existing sexuality terms would become antiquated, and I look forward to that day.