A Model of Human Sexuality

[goldenshadows]

I quickly put this together as I have never found an accurate model of sexuality yet.

Any suggestions on how to update it would be much appreciated

Things I know I'm missing

• Sex
• Gender Roles
• Behavior
• Possibly including Aesthetic and Sensual Attraction

The following examples are "ideal" ( I hate using that word but couldn't think of a better one) examples of the identity. People may identify with these if they feel they fall close to that graph.

Edit:

So the current tips for improvement include

• greater recognition of agender and non-androgynous non-binary people
• different definition of bisexual (which honestly I'm still confused on)
• greater recognition of non 50/50 split of bisexuality and variations in pansexuality

Anymore suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Including ways to alter the model to fit them.

[physace]

Maaaaths, oh, gloooriooous Maaaaths :3

I apologize for not contributing to your model, but I must say that this post made me smile. : ]

[skymessenger]

AAAAHHHH! MATH! *freaks out*

In all seriousness, good work!

[ThaHoward]

Nice, simple and quite explanatory charts, I like it! Very good

And you could maybe add demisexuality. Like having a headline "Demisexuality" with then two graphs under it, one for primary sexual attracion and then one for secondary. This could on the other hand only be the intensity thing though.

[Vyanni Krace]

I love the title. XD

[rotanimonedaifg]

Wow, this is really cool. I can't wait to see how it develops.

Just curious, what about the fact that a lot of pan- and bisexual people have lean more or less towards specific sexes and genders, as opposed to being attracted to all equally? Though I admit, that seems hard to represent all the possibilities on a graph.

[Glitter Spock]

Your model assumes that bisexual people are only attracted to binary genders. All the major bisexual organizations define bisexuality as the capacity for sexual attraction to members of one's own gender plus other genders. I also know a woman who identifies as bi, and can experience attraction to other women and to nonbinary people, but not to men. Bisexuality doesn't mean "attracted to men plus women" or "attracted to two genders"; those definitions didn't come from within the bisexual community.

Also, a lot of nonbinary people aren't androgynous. Your model doesn't take into account that people can experience themselves as completely outside of gender or having a neutral gender (examples: agender, neutrois).

[panladea]

I LOVE THIS

THIS IS THE BEST

EVER

OMG

[ThaHoward]

Your model assumes that bisexual people are only attracted to binary genders. All the major bisexual organizations define bisexuality as the capacity for sexual attraction to members of one's own gender plus other genders. I also know a woman who identifies as bi, and can experience attraction to other women and to nonbinary people, but not to men. Bisexuality doesn't mean "attracted to men plus women" or "attracted to two genders"; those definitions didn't come from within the bisexual community.

Also, a lot of nonbinary people aren't androgynous. Your model doesn't take into account that people can experience themselves as completely outside of gender or having a neutral gender (examples: agender, neutrois).

It's difficult to get every detail in place. It's best to keep it simple and generalize it. They might for an instance put a star next to the bisexuality, and then explain that bisexuals might also be attracted to other genders.

[Glitter Spock]

Your model assumes that bisexual people are only attracted to binary genders. All the major bisexual organizations define bisexuality as the capacity for sexual attraction to members of one's own gender plus other genders. I also know a woman who identifies as bi, and can experience attraction to other women and to nonbinary people, but not to men. Bisexuality doesn't mean "attracted to men plus women" or "attracted to two genders"; those definitions didn't come from within the bisexual community.

Also, a lot of nonbinary people aren't androgynous. Your model doesn't take into account that people can experience themselves as completely outside of gender or having a neutral gender (examples: agender, neutrois).

It's difficult to get every detail in place. It's best to keep it simple and generalize it. They might for an instance put a star next to the bisexuality, and then explain that bisexuals might also be attracted to other genders.

But this isn't just a detail. This is getting the definition of bisexuality and biromanticism wrong. Non-bi people defining being bi as 'attraction to men plus women' or as 'attraction to two genders' is the reason why bi people get people wrongly accusing them of being anti-nonbinary or anti-trans solely for identifying as bi.

[goldenshadows]

Glitter Spock I'm sorry about my misunderstanding of bisexuality (there's a lot to know). Could you draw up how you would put bisexuality on these graphs? I'm trying to get it right.

Also, being attracted only to the binary ends of the gender spectrum doesn't necessarily mean one isn't accepting of it.

But please tell me if bisexuality (as a broad definition) could fit on this model. Or is it just to variable?

[KayleeSeranada ~☆]

Mm, these models sure are pretty, but I have to agree with the criticisms of it being erasive of non-binary people, and I think it's to the point that this type of model just won't work because it doesn't have enough flexibility to it.

Here's the model of sexualities that I've been working on for a few months. (Note, if it were a full and complete model of my idea, all of the circles would have a description inside of it, but I just wanted to make this as quickly as possible.)

I just whipped this image up as a proof-of-concept, but the idea is this: each circle iteration maps out a specific sex/gender/presentation combination (SGPC) (for example, in the circles I took the time to colour, we can see the most prominent colours line with a female-bodied person with a feminine gender identity who presents femininely). The circles, then, represent what sort of attraction the person has to this SGPC (red indicating sexual desire, purple indicating romantic attraction) and to what degree (the thicker the ring, the stronger the attraction). We can see that this person has a particularly strong attraction both sexually and romantically to female-bodied women who present femininely, but absolutely no attraction to female-bodied women who present androgynously. Alternatively, we can see that this person has an exclusively sexual attraction to genderfuck-presenting women (a fetish) and an exclusively romantic attraction to personal-presenting women (a romanticism), and also has a mild attraction to some masculine-presenting women.

I was unsure at the time that I was making this as to how we could represent multigender/genderfluid folks, but one idea is that we could draw lines between the fluid SGPCs which would have the colours and thickness of attraction type and strength. Another possibility is to use symbols within the circles (for instance, a person fluid from male-bodied man presenting feminine to male-bodied woman presenting feminine would have a star in both places). I feel that this one is more comprehensive, and also shows the complexity of various genders/SGPCs in an organised fashion.

EDIT: Some other improvements that I forgot to mention are that I'll probably make physical sex options for people mid-transition as well ("Male + HRT" and "Female + HRT" seems like a good and proper way to cover it).

EDIT: And just so ya'll know, I'm currently working on a formal paper that explains this in intense detail, and am also making a computer programme that will allow you to explore and play around with this chart. I probably won't have it all until about next year, though!

[Glitter Spock]

EDIT: Some other improvements that I forgot to mention are that I'll probably make physical sex options for people mid-transition as well ("Male + HRT" and "Female + HRT" seems like a good and proper way to cover it).

I am unsure what you mean by 'female/male plus HRT' in your model. By female + HRT, do you mean someone with a vagina who takes testosterone? Or do you mean someone whose identity is female and takes estrogen? If the former, it really rubs me the wrong way to be referred to as female when I do not use that label myself for my own body. If the latter, I'm not understanding why HRT automatically makes someone's identity different.

My sex-identity, meaning the body I would be most comfortable in, is neutrois. Your model doesn't seem to account for people like me.

[VindicatorPhoenix]

I have a math obsession, so I find this approach interesting. It doesn't have any glaring errors in my opinion and is a neat way to look at things. It should be noted that not all people belonging to a category have a specific nature and that the graphs only represent a general trend.