Trinary Dimensional Grid for Orientation

[AVanover5]

Okay, I've been a bit frustrated with all of these classifications of 'orientation' or lack thereof or whatever. So, I've decided to make a trinary dimensionality map. I haven't considered pan,trans,poly stuff because I really don't know what it is and I'm pretty sure their definition will be much more clear when I post this map. Okay, so this map has four dimensions which you'll need to understand.

The axes are as follows:

• X: Gender
  
• Y: Attraction
  
• Z: Affection
  
• 4: Drive
  

Each axis has three values: negative, neutral, and positive which correspond to a real value. The 'X' axis will be discussed in the next paragraph. The 'Y' axis is the sexual attraction orientation which contains the corresponding values: asexual(-), demisexual(0), sexual(+). The 'Z' axis is the affectionate orientation with the corresponding values: aromantic(-), neutral(0), and romantic(+). The '4' axis is the sexual drive orientation with the corresponding values: lack of drive(-), varying drive(0), and "normal" drive(+).

The 'X' axis is the traditional gender-based orientation. It's correspondents are homosexual(-), bisexual(0), and heterosexual(+). This axis may be irrelevant when considering other dimensions however. This dimension can also contain contrasting values e.g. heteromantic and yet homoattractive (homosexual). These two things would place plotting points in completely separate quadrants (if you can visualize that). So, I've decided to make the 'X' axis a component rather than a dimension. Think of it as a dimension with in a dimension. Also, we must add a fourth value: non-gender(x) which can simply not be marked at all.

So now with have these three dimensions:

• Attraction
  
• Affection
  
• Drive
  

Three dimensions is much more easily visualized. The previous 'X' dimension is now a component of each dimension. It can be visualized as a completely separate graphs. If you want me to visualize these with graphs, then I will make graphs but I think it's unnecessary. Anyways, how can we use this?

Let's take this sample notation [0,0,0]. This means that a person is demisexual, has neutral affection, and has a varying drive. So how would we add the gender component? Well, here's an example [0+,++,-]. This means that a person is demiheterosexual, heteroromantic, and has no/little sex drive. The component is the sign placed right after the dimensional sign.

Let's mark down the ABCD stuff:

• Type A: [-,+,-]
  
• Type B: [-,-,+]
  
• Type C: [-,+,+]
  
• Type D: [-,-,-]
  

As you can see, this is within the context of asexuality as noted by the first negative sign. These types could also be used for demisexuals and sexuals alike though.

I'm not asking AVEN to actually implement this but I hope this will help broaden people's understanding of orientation. As I said before: I'll make a chart if people would like me to. I think you'll be able to fully comprehend without it though.

For me, I'm [0+,++,0+] i.e. I'm attracted to women with whom I form an emotional connection with, am heteroromantic, and have a varying degree of sex drive to women only depending on my emotional connection with them.

UPDATE (Jan 13th, 11:46 PM PST):

Sorry it took so long to make the graphic. My computer wasn't able to turn on for a while :( But thankfully, it's now up and running. The graphic isn't much because I made it real quick. I'll likely update it if found necessary.

So here, you can the three dimensions with their positive and negative values. The "gender" component is a dimension within a dimension (like the "extra dimensions" in string theory). Basically, any point can have that extra value.

Here are all the possible values without the gender component. For the gender component, you just add hetero, homo, or bi to the word anyways. Perhaps listing this will help you understand why I'm upset with the word classifications. :

Asexuals:

• [-,-,-] Type D
  
• [-,-,0] Aromantic; No word classification (Drive Only)
  
• [-,-,+] Type B
  
• [-,0,-] No word classification (Affection and Drive)
  
• [-,0,0] No word classification (Affection and Drive)
  
• [-,0,+] No word classification (Affection and Drive)
  
• [-,+,-] Type A
  
• [-,+,0] Romantic; No word classification (Drive only)
  
• [-,+,+] Type C
  

Demisexuals:

• [0,-,-] Aromantic; No word classification (Drive only)
  
• [0,-,0] Aromantic; No word classification (Drive only)
  
• [0,-,+] Aromantic; No word classification (Drive only)
  
• [0,0,-] No word classification (Affection and Drive)
  
• [0,0,0] No word classification (Affection and Drive)
  
• [0,0,+] No word classification (Affection and Drive)
  
• [0,+,-] Romantic; No word classification (Drive only)
  
• [0,+,0] Romantic; No word classification (Drive only)
  
• [0,+,+] Romantic; No word classification (Drive only)
  

Sexuals:

• [+,-,-] No word classification
  
• [+,-,0] No word classification
  
• [+,-,+] No word classification
  
• [+,0,-] No word classification
  
• [+,0,0] No word classification
  
• [+,0,+] No word classification
  
• [+,+,-] No word classification
  
• [+,+,0] No word classification
  
• [+,+,+] No word classification " 'Normal' Person "
  

[Eternal]

I'm fairly ignorant of these things, but doesn't a Tri-Grid have 3 factors not the 4 you have described?

Either way, I'm eagerly awaiting a visual example.

[Topher]

I like the idea, but I think I'm going to need a visual representation... (*feels stupid*)

Also, what would "neutral" be on the romantic axis? would that be demi-romantic, as it were?

[Jacqui]

A dimension within a dimension? INCEPTION.

[Eternal]

A dimension within a dimension? INCEPTION.

Just the name of that films brings back my interest and sense of metaphysical wonder.

It also brings back a rather...energetic discussion between two of my friends over whether the whole thing was a dream in the first place. It lasted for over an hour during pizza, then another 3 hours after that. I decided against buying it.

[Palovana]

A dimension within a dimension? INCEPTION.

Just the name of that films brings back my interest and sense of metaphysical wonder.

It also brings back a rather...energetic discussion between two of my friends over whether the whole thing was a dream in the first place. It lasted for over an hour during pizza, then another 3 hours after that. I decided against buying it.

Er...can we see a picture? I'm bad at mentally visualizing these types of things. *is incompetent*

[Jacqui]

I don't think it was all a dream either. Even if it was, it was a damn good movie.

And yeah, a picture would be good.

[Eternal]

A dimension within a dimension? INCEPTION.

Just the name of that films brings back my interest and sense of metaphysical wonder.

It also brings back a rather...energetic discussion between two of my friends over whether the whole thing was a dream in the first place. It lasted for over an hour during pizza, then another 3 hours after that. I decided against buying it.

Er...can we see a picture? I'm bad at mentally visualizing these types of things. *is incompetent*

...You want to see a picture of my friends arguing in very loud voices in my favourite Pizza Hut branch regarding the nature of a film?

If you're asking about the idea of the whole film being a dream, I suggest the following:

http://www.chud.com/24477/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/

http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/07/19/dissecting-inception-six-interpretations-and-five-plot-holes/

[Gosling]

I can sort of visualise this, and it seems like a good idea once you get your head around it, but a visual graph would also be helpful, please.

[Sally]

Three dimensions is much more easily visualized.

Nope. Nothing's easily visualized without a visual.

[mylittlehazmat]

I'm good with just listing what my orientation, gender, romantic orientation is ... posting numbers that then need to be translated seems a bit more work. Though, I do have a question as to why you're frustrated with the word classifications? Plotting on a grid doesn't seem to make it any more convenient, so I'm a bit lost ...

[AVanover5]

I'm good with just listing what my orientation, gender, romantic orientation is ... posting numbers that then need to be translated seems a bit more work. Though, I do have a question as to why you're frustrated with the word classifications? Plotting on a grid doesn't seem to make it any more convenient, so I'm a bit lost ...

The main reason I made this is to get us thinking about the word classifications. Because they're actually not very straightforward for the oddballs (like me) and I think new classifications should be made.

[AVanover5]

I'm fairly ignorant of these things, but doesn't a Tri-Grid have 3 factors not the 4 you have described?

Either way, I'm eagerly awaiting a visual example.

It's trinary because of the number of values, not the dimensions. This grid has three values: -, 0, and +. Most grids have a potential infinite number of values but I specified in this case.

[mylittlehazmat]

I'm good with just listing what my orientation, gender, romantic orientation is ... posting numbers that then need to be translated seems a bit more work. Though, I do have a question as to why you're frustrated with the word classifications? Plotting on a grid doesn't seem to make it any more convenient, so I'm a bit lost ...

The main reason I made this is to get us thinking about the word classifications. Because they're actually not very straightforward for the oddballs (like me) and I think new classifications should be made.

In what way are they not straightforward? And which ones? because we've already discussed about new word classifications. Such as androsexual and gynesexual (I think) for liking men and women, as opposed to homosexual and heterosexual, to clear up gender issues. Etc etc.

[AVanover5]

I'm good with just listing what my orientation, gender, romantic orientation is ... posting numbers that then need to be translated seems a bit more work. Though, I do have a question as to why you're frustrated with the word classifications? Plotting on a grid doesn't seem to make it any more convenient, so I'm a bit lost ...

The main reason I made this is to get us thinking about the word classifications. Because they're actually not very straightforward for the oddballs (like me) and I think new classifications should be made.

In what way are they not straightforward? And which ones? because we've already discussed about new word classifications. Such as androsexual and gynesexual (I think) for liking men and women, as opposed to homosexual and heterosexual, to clear up gender issues. Etc etc.

Check my update. As far as gender goes, there are four possible values: tendency towards male, tendency towards female, tendency towards both sexes, and tendency towards neither sex. Some words don't consider all of these. For example: "Demisexual" usually only considers the 4th value.

If you read my OP, you'd know that: I'm [0+,++,0+] i.e. I'm attracted to women with whom I form an emotional connection with, am heteroromantic, and have a varying degree of sex drive to women only depending on my emotional connection with them. The only description for this is "Heteroromantic Demisexual", but that's a bit ambiguous since "Demisexual" doesn't imply any sex nor does the "Hetero" in "Heteroromantic" necessarily apply to "Demisexual". And information about sex drive is missing completely.

[AVanover5]

I like the idea, but I think I'm going to need a visual representation... (*feels stupid*)

Also, what would "neutral" be on the romantic axis? would that be demi-romantic, as it were?

Basically, yeah. A person that doesn't have/lacks interest in/lacks desire for an emotional connection until they experience sexual attraction. Or... varying between romantic and aromantic to be more broadly defined.

[mylittlehazmat]

I'm good with just listing what my orientation, gender, romantic orientation is ... posting numbers that then need to be translated seems a bit more work. Though, I do have a question as to why you're frustrated with the word classifications? Plotting on a grid doesn't seem to make it any more convenient, so I'm a bit lost ...

The main reason I made this is to get us thinking about the word classifications. Because they're actually not very straightforward for the oddballs (like me) and I think new classifications should be made.

In what way are they not straightforward? And which ones? because we've already discussed about new word classifications. Such as androsexual and gynesexual (I think) for liking men and women, as opposed to homosexual and heterosexual, to clear up gender issues. Etc etc.

Check my update. As far as gender goes, there are four possible values: tendency towards male, tendency towards female, tendency towards both sexes, and tendency towards neither sex. Some words don't consider all of these. For example: "Demisexual" usually only considers the 4th value.

If you read my OP, you'd know that: I'm [0+,++,0+] i.e. I'm attracted to women with whom I form an emotional connection with, am heteroromantic, and have a varying degree of sex drive to women only depending on my emotional connection with them. The only description for this is "Heteroromantic Demisexual", but that's a bit ambiguous since "Demisexual" doesn't imply any sex nor does the "Hetero" in "Heteroromantic" necessarily apply to "Demisexual". And information about sex drive is missing completely.

I did read your OP, but didn't have enough interest to memorize the model. If you say you're a Hetero-Demisexual, that implies the romantic and sexual tendencies go hand in hand and that they're both oriented towards women. I don't know why you'd need to describe libido, but there you are ...

Your issue seems to be with vague terms like demisexual, but those are easily modified by putting the o-

Hang on. If you're heteroromantic demisexual, that means you would only be sexual towards women anyway because demisexual means you're sexually attracted to those you're romantically interested in. So ergo, women only. The romanticism defines the sexuality in the terms of demisexuality, so ... eh.

IDK. I have a difficulty associating numbers with any qualitative value, so your model seems like way more work.

[AVanover5]

I'm good with just listing what my orientation, gender, romantic orientation is ... posting numbers that then need to be translated seems a bit more work. Though, I do have a question as to why you're frustrated with the word classifications? Plotting on a grid doesn't seem to make it any more convenient, so I'm a bit lost ...

The main reason I made this is to get us thinking about the word classifications. Because they're actually not very straightforward for the oddballs (like me) and I think new classifications should be made.

In what way are they not straightforward? And which ones? because we've already discussed about new word classifications. Such as androsexual and gynesexual (I think) for liking men and women, as opposed to homosexual and heterosexual, to clear up gender issues. Etc etc.

Check my update. As far as gender goes, there are four possible values: tendency towards male, tendency towards female, tendency towards both sexes, and tendency towards neither sex. Some words don't consider all of these. For example: "Demisexual" usually only considers the 4th value.

If you read my OP, you'd know that: I'm [0+,++,0+] i.e. I'm attracted to women with whom I form an emotional connection with, am heteroromantic, and have a varying degree of sex drive to women only depending on my emotional connection with them. The only description for this is "Heteroromantic Demisexual", but that's a bit ambiguous since "Demisexual" doesn't imply any sex nor does the "Hetero" in "Heteroromantic" necessarily apply to "Demisexual". And information about sex drive is missing completely.

I did read your OP, but didn't have enough interest to memorize the model. If you say you're a Hetero-Demisexual, that implies the romantic and sexual tendencies go hand in hand and that they're both oriented towards women. I don't know why you'd need to describe libido, but there you are ...

Your issue seems to be with vague terms like demisexual, but those are easily modified by putting the o-

Hang on. If you're heteroromantic demisexual, that means you would only be sexual towards women anyway because demisexual means you're sexually attracted to those you're romantically interested in. So ergo, women only. The romanticism defines the sexuality in the terms of demisexuality, so ... eh.

IDK. I have a difficulty associating numbers with any qualitative value, so your model seems like way more work.

The model is just a step toward word classification. A thought process, if you believe that, laid out in black and white. Anyways, that's not necessarily true. One can be romantically interested in one gender while sexually attracted to another. It's messed up (for them to deal with) but I know people like this.

[mylittlehazmat]

I'm good with just listing what my orientation, gender, romantic orientation is ... posting numbers that then need to be translated seems a bit more work. Though, I do have a question as to why you're frustrated with the word classifications? Plotting on a grid doesn't seem to make it any more convenient, so I'm a bit lost ...

The main reason I made this is to get us thinking about the word classifications. Because they're actually not very straightforward for the oddballs (like me) and I think new classifications should be made.

In what way are they not straightforward? And which ones? because we've already discussed about new word classifications. Such as androsexual and gynesexual (I think) for liking men and women, as opposed to homosexual and heterosexual, to clear up gender issues. Etc etc.

Check my update. As far as gender goes, there are four possible values: tendency towards male, tendency towards female, tendency towards both sexes, and tendency towards neither sex. Some words don't consider all of these. For example: "Demisexual" usually only considers the 4th value.

If you read my OP, you'd know that: I'm [0+,++,0+] i.e. I'm attracted to women with whom I form an emotional connection with, am heteroromantic, and have a varying degree of sex drive to women only depending on my emotional connection with them. The only description for this is "Heteroromantic Demisexual", but that's a bit ambiguous since "Demisexual" doesn't imply any sex nor does the "Hetero" in "Heteroromantic" necessarily apply to "Demisexual". And information about sex drive is missing completely.

I did read your OP, but didn't have enough interest to memorize the model. If you say you're a Hetero-Demisexual, that implies the romantic and sexual tendencies go hand in hand and that they're both oriented towards women. I don't know why you'd need to describe libido, but there you are ...

Your issue seems to be with vague terms like demisexual, but those are easily modified by putting the o-

Hang on. If you're heteroromantic demisexual, that means you would only be sexual towards women anyway because demisexual means you're sexually attracted to those you're romantically interested in. So ergo, women only. The romanticism defines the sexuality in the terms of demisexuality, so ... eh.

IDK. I have a difficulty associating numbers with any qualitative value, so your model seems like way more work.

The model is just a step toward word classification. A thought process, if you believe that, laid out in black and white. Anyways, that's not necessarily true. One can romantically interested in one gender while sexually attracted to another. It's messed up (for them to deal with) but I know people like this.

I know.

But if one is sexually attracted to males and romantically attracted to females, there is no break down in the word classifications - they would be androsexual and gyneromantic. Even if one is androdemisexual, and they are gyneromantic, then their sexuality is automatically asexual because they can only become sexually attracted to males upon being romantically interested, which wouldn't happen, because they're gyneromantic.

So I really don't see the issue.

And I don't mean to sound like a butt or anything, but trying to learn your model to make it feasible to use fluently makes me want to beat my head into the desk. Other people seem to think the idea is good, so IDK where my disconnect is, but I still don't see how the model improves things ... you say it is a step forward, but I don't see where we're making a step forward. It seems like we're just being inefficient.

[AVanover5]

[...]Even if one is androdemisexual, and they are gyneromantic, then their sexuality is automatically asexual because they can only become sexually attracted to males upon being romantically interested[...]

Demisexual can also mean "one who lacks interest in sex until they form a strong emotional connection". You wouldn't know if you were androdemisexual otherwise...

The idea behind this grid thing is to increase the understanding of the diversity and hopefully clarify on the qualitative definitions (at least, for people who think like me).

[mylittlehazmat]

[...]Even if one is androdemisexual, and they are gyneromantic, then their sexuality is automatically asexual because they can only become sexually attracted to males upon being romantically interested[...]

Demisexual can also mean "one who lacks interest in sex until they form a strong emotional connection". You wouldn't know if you were androdemisexual otherwise...

Well, no, you wouldn't know you were demisexual until your sexuality was "awakened" as it were. Until then, you'd be essentially asexual. I can't be sure of this, as I haven't spoken in depth with any amount of demisexual people, but as far as I know it, that's what it is. But if you know your romantic attraction, it's not hard to piece it together after the fact.

[AVanover5]

[...]Even if one is androdemisexual, and they are gyneromantic, then their sexuality is automatically asexual because they can only become sexually attracted to males upon being romantically interested[...]

Demisexual can also mean "one who lacks interest in sex until they form a strong emotional connection". You wouldn't know if you were androdemisexual otherwise...

Well, no, you wouldn't know you were demisexual until your sexuality was "awakened" as it were. Until then, you'd be essentially asexual. I can't be sure of this, as I haven't spoken in depth with any amount of demisexual people, but as far as I know it, that's what it is. But if you know your romantic attraction, it's not hard to piece it together after the fact.

Is there a guide of orientation definitions somewhere at least? The wiki hasn't really helped me to understand, at all... The definitions seem so unbalanced in my mind (hence my grid making).

[mylittlehazmat]

[...]Even if one is androdemisexual, and they are gyneromantic, then their sexuality is automatically asexual because they can only become sexually attracted to males upon being romantically interested[...]

Demisexual can also mean "one who lacks interest in sex until they form a strong emotional connection". You wouldn't know if you were androdemisexual otherwise...

Well, no, you wouldn't know you were demisexual until your sexuality was "awakened" as it were. Until then, you'd be essentially asexual. I can't be sure of this, as I haven't spoken in depth with any amount of demisexual people, but as far as I know it, that's what it is. But if you know your romantic attraction, it's not hard to piece it together after the fact.

Is there a guide of orientation definitions somewhere at least? The wiki hasn't really helped me to understand, at all... The definitions seem so unbalanced in my mind (hence my grid making).

I haven't taken a hard look at the wiki, so I'm not sure what it may have or may be lacking. I can outline anything you need. Everything I've learned has just been from paying attention to posts on this site, and a wee bit of background information.

[AVanover5]

[...]Even if one is androdemisexual, and they are gyneromantic, then their sexuality is automatically asexual because they can only become sexually attracted to males upon being romantically interested[...]

Demisexual can also mean "one who lacks interest in sex until they form a strong emotional connection". You wouldn't know if you were androdemisexual otherwise...

Well, no, you wouldn't know you were demisexual until your sexuality was "awakened" as it were. Until then, you'd be essentially asexual. I can't be sure of this, as I haven't spoken in depth with any amount of demisexual people, but as far as I know it, that's what it is. But if you know your romantic attraction, it's not hard to piece it together after the fact.

Is there a guide of orientation definitions somewhere at least? The wiki hasn't really helped me to understand, at all... The definitions seem so unbalanced in my mind (hence my grid making).

I haven't taken a hard look at the wiki, so I'm not sure what it may have or may be lacking. I can outline anything you need. Everything I've learned has just been from paying attention to posts on this site, and a wee bit of background information.

Well, let me know if you find anything worth looking at while browsing through this site :/