An Idea to convey sexuality more clearly?

[squaggly]

I don't know about you, but I always found someone saying that they are demibiromantic asexual or allosexual or transsexual always confused me. I would have to guess at what some of these mean. This was a problem for me, so I tried to find a way to fix this.

 

This is so simple I don't know if it has been done before, but I came up with a system that gives individual sexualities a number describing what it is.

It's a 3 digit number between 110 and 558. Each digit describes a different aspect of sexuality. I'll try to break it down here.

 

First digit: What % of people fitting in your attraction category are you attracted to

5: Pretty much all

4: most

3: about half and half

2: few

1: none

 

Second digit: How sexual is the attraction:

5: Very sexual

4: Pretty sexual

3: medium amount of sexual

2: lightly sexual

1: not sexual

 

Third digit: Who are you attracted to (Taken a bit from the Kinsey Scale)

8: Something different that is too small to be given it's own number or it would make this unnecessarily confusing

7: Only males

6: Mostly males and rarely females

5: Mostly males and sometimes females

4: Either or/ all

3: Mostly females and sometimes males

2: Mostly females and rarely males

1: Only females

0: No one (Only an option if your first number is a 1)

I decided to make a change to the Kinsey scale so that instead of it being focused on whether you want the same or opposite, I focused on gender. This makes it so a gay woman and a straight man could have the same numbers. I think this makes it a bit easier to understand as well.

 

So now let's make some examples!

me: attracted to a few, not sexual, only females. I would have the number 211. My really big word thing would be demiheteroromantic asexual.

hypothetical guy named Johnny: attracted to most, a medium amount of sexual, all. He would get the number 434. His really big word thing would be pansexual or something like that.

 

 

And now for the Pros and Cons!

Pros:

a lot easier for me (and probably most others) to understand

more intuitive

simpler

 

Cons:

Can't really account for the other things like only liking agender people and so on. It also combines bi and pan

is probably already taken by someone else

 

If there is any way for me to improve this, just tell me, and I'll be happy to change it. If someone already made it, sorry I took your thing. This is definitely still a work in progress thing, but I feel it could be massively easier than what we have now.

[LeDeer]

1 hour ago, squaggly said:

What % of people fitting in your attraction category are you attracted to

^I'm not entirely sure what do you mean by this.

 

Aside it, I would say the second and third digits are respectively 3/4 and 1. Not entirely sure on the last one since I've never felt attraction toward males and I've neven met/dated many males, yet I wouldn't consider myself strictly homo.

[squaggly]

7 minutes ago, LeDeer said:

^I'm not entirely sure what do you mean by this.

 

Aside it, I would say the second and third digits are respectively 3/4 and 1. Not entirely sure on the last one since I've never felt attraction toward males and I've neven met/dated many males, yet I wouldn't consider myself strictly homo.

by that I mean, are you attracted to most people, or only a few. Just trying to include demisexuality in there. As for your second number, I think if you feel differently than what you've done, you could move your second number up to a 2 or even a 3

[squaggly]

Oh also I forgot to add, that first number is only for attraction, not necessarily sexual. Someone who wants to be with everyone in a nonsexual way could have a 5 there and a 1 in the sexualness department

[LeDeer]

Mhm then I guess the first digit would be 2 for me, although even "few" sounds too much, it's literally one person lol.

[roland.o]

Labels are for communication with humans. Composed digits are for communication with machines.

 

I'd rather have someone explain their labels to me than the meaning of those numbers.

[Puck]

Hmmm. The struggle here is that traditionally, labels have been used to describe what gender one wishes to have sex with when they choose to have sex. No one who is heterosexual, homosexual, or any other sexual has ever claimed to be sexually attracted to ALL of whatever gender they are saying they are attracted to. So this test might be better to test libido, which is reflective of how much one wants to have sex, rather than their sexuality. 

[Telecaster68]

How is this simpler than saying 'I'd be fine never having sex again'? 

[Tasha the demi squirrel]

Sorry but I think the number system is just confusing I'd rather stick with aro flux demisexual to describe my orientation and if people don't understand so what

[InariYana]

I don't find the current system confusing, it just takes time getting used to it.

"I'd be fine never having sex again" is also good  Like I'm gray, but rarely experiencing sexual attraction and I don't really want to act on it. That's a bit complicated - how often then? Why not act on it? So are you 'a little bit sexual'? Blah blah. But then I could totally say - I'd be fine without sex, ever. Asexual then. Simple.