Concept for a new sexual "map" -- the musings of a non-expert.

[mad_scientist]

when creating a model for anything, there is a payoff between complete accuracy, and simplicity. With something like sexuality, the range of human experience is so diverse that no simple model will ever encompass it acceptably.

Presumably we're all familiar with this:

(Apologies for the crudeness, I made it in MS paint.)

This is a decent graph layout because unlike the old 1d bar scale, is encompasses heterosexuality and homosexuality as well as all shades of bisexuality AND asexuality. However, it occurs to me that it may not be sufficiently expressive of bisexuality. After all, there's more than one bisexual orientation -- one can be attracted to masculine and to feminine traits, making one bisexual, or to common human (for want of a better word, androgynous traits), making one bisexual. And the interesting thing is that the triangle graph does not distinguish between these two types of attraction.

Thus I propose a square or rectangle layout, with feminine traits at one end and masculine at the other, and sexual attraction on the y-axis as normal:

(Note: thumbnails are clickable, if they're not big enough larger images can be opened.)

Unlike the triangle layout which is ambiguous on this point, we can call the middle androgynous, or common human, traits, and not a mixture of attraction to both male and female traits. Even with this distinction we can encompass the whole range. this is because a person's orientation would not be represented as a dot, but as a line. For instance, a totally asexual person's orientation would read:

Whereas a heterosexual male's might look something like this:

We can also make a bisexual that is attracted to both male and female traits:

Or a bisexual attracted to androgynous traits:

As you may have noticed, this layout is very flexible. My androgynous bisexual example, for instance, is partly attracted to both masculine and feminine traits as well, and is more attracted to masculine that feminine. It's much more informative than a one- or two-word label, and than the dot or small shaded area used in the triangular layout.

One disadvantage is that it wouldn't look nearly as cool on a tshirt.

[Hallucigenia]

This is a cool idea, but I'm scratching my head, because I haven't a clue whether the traits I'm attracted to are "masculine" or "feminine" or androgynous...

[Shockwave]

That reminds me of the Storms Model.

[mad_scientist]

That reminds me of the Storms Model.

Hey, nice.

That model looks quite hard to read at a glance, though, and shows totally different information, so they'd be suitable for totally different purposes. Storm's model looks appropriate to a more professional environment or as part of an in-depth discussion, whereas the above model is designed more as a way to explain an individual's orientation to someone enquiring without having to write paragraphs of complicated text.

Agree with Mr Paradox's point about the y-axis, though -- the strength of sexual attraction thing still confuses me.

[mad_scientist]

This is a cool idea, but I'm scratching my head, because I haven't a clue whether the traits I'm attracted to are "masculine" or "feminine" or androgynous...

Yay introspection!!

If you're homo or heterosexual, the answer's obvious, after all, if they weren't masculine or feminine you'd be bisexual. Assuming you're bisexual, you can alway go with the pretties-looking bisexual orientation graph. No reason a bisexual orientation can't look like the asexual with the line a bit higher -- equally attracted to all three.

[Luvdisc]

Hmm. It could work.

However, if you like androgyny and are asexual, why would it go up on sexual attraction?

I like androgyny and I find many people beautiful, boys and girls, but not on a sexual level... so IDK : P

[Forensic]

What if you like a feminine trait but only from masculine types? <_<

[SlightlyMetaphysical]

What if you like a feminine trait but only from masculine types? <_<

There's always someone who's determined to be difficult.

Although this time it probably isn't me.

[Hallucigenia]

What if you like a feminine trait but only from masculine types? <_<

That's what I was gonna say, yeah. It is not my exact situation but it is reasonably common (witness all the heterosexual anime fangirls squealing over girly-looking "bishonen", for instance).

[Luvdisc]

Yeah, what if you like gay guys? :lol:

[mad_scientist]

Hmm. It could work.

However, if you like androgyny and are asexual, why would it go up on sexual attraction?

I like androgyny and I find many people beautiful, boys and girls, but not on a sexual level... so IDK : P

It wouldn't. It's a graph of sexual attraction, so all asexuals would flatline. Graphs of other types of attraction can be made just as easily, though.

I considered incorporating other attraction but all such models became too complicated to read at a single glance, which was my main goal. So other attraction would have to be graphed separately.

For example, my sexual attraction would read:

Whereas my romantic attraction might read something like:

[mad_scientist]

What if you like a feminine trait but only from masculine types? <_<

You guys aren't playing fair. :(

Unfortunately no really simple model can be totally comprehensive. I suppose in such a situation you would have to use a label and the graph; note that you're hetero/homosexual, but graph the opposing type.