I have always loved bears, a lot a lot a lot. So I was wondering, are there a lot of bears in San Francisco?? Because I would love to have a super sexy bear such as yourself or one of your pups. That would make my life. ^_^
That would make your life? Dude, you gotta aim higher. There is more to life than finding a partner of a certain body type.
Recommended reading: the best advice I’ve ever given.
Big pup and I don’t identify as Bears. Physically speaking, we are more like Bulls than any other gay subgroup. Lil’ pup is a gym bunny.
Bears account for roughly ~8% of the gay population in any given location, but they are most common in Herndon, VA (+40% more common), Indianapolis, IN (+35%), and Phoenix, AZ (+21%). San Francisco is average for Bear population density. Given that Bears are overwhelmingly into other Bears, you will have the best chance in a city with more Bears than average.
Source: Gay Cliques Census, The Geography of Gay Cliques.
So, I took the gay clique census and it labelled me as an otter. From what I have seen, otters are tall, gairly hairy, and very slim. I am short (5'4 tall), muscular (160lbs, which on 5'4 shows BMI to be considerd 'overweight' even though my weight is due to muscle mass and not fat), and hairy. I notice that the census doesn't differentiate between weight that is muscle or fat. Can that be made an option? I believe it make several results more accurate.
I’ve written about this a few times already.
But, if you look carefully at the data visualization, you might see this:
As you’ve already explained, BMI is flawed and doesn’t take into account ratio of fat to muscle. That’s why I’m calculating VOLUMETRIC DENSITY!!!
This is the formula the US Marines use to check body composition. The higher your volume to weight ratio, the more body fat you have. Volume is calculated as a cylinder where the circumference is given waist size. Its not perfect, but its better than asking people to self select as “fat” or “muscled.”
About your census project, can you please include some metrics on race? As a gaysian, I feel regularly disenfranchised wherever I go, so it would be really interesting to see where I fall in your survey's "Most Likely Appreciated" section. It really hit me because as a twink, the section said Melbourne would be a good place to be, but common knowledge and research into sexual racism shows that Asians are on the bottom of most white Australian's lists.
I have data on race, but haven’t released it yet. Spoiler alert: it’s very controversial.
I won’t be doing a racial preference analysis, because that’s been done several times and it’s pretty clear that white gay dudes are most desired. Being a gay man of color cuts your chance of being “desirable” by 75%. I am too lazy to Google this study for citation.
I will be releasing sexual activity by clique affiliation and race soon. Despite being subject to sexual racism, gay men if color get laid way more than their white counter parts. Especially Pacific Islanders, who have the most sexual partners of any racial minority.
This is not new information. The SF sexual health council does a yearly study on gay men with nearly identical results to my online survey. Again, I’m too lazy to cite a link right now. I’m on my phone. I’m sorry.
Eventually I’ll have enough data to express affiliation with gay cliques by race. There is a theory that Asians are less likely to identify as bear…but initial data says this only happens in regions where Asians are a minority. (Interesting!)
Is it possible you could make a lesbian version of your census question thingy? c:
After the initial success of the Gay Cliques Census, I interviewed some Lesbians to see if it would be possible to replicate for another group.
Its not possible.
Where gay men have 18+ widely recognized social groups derived from (primarily) physical attributes, Lesbians do not. There seem to be some labels like bull dyke, baby dyke, or lipstick lesbian, but from the women I interviewed there is no strong identity with those labels like in gay world.
Physical attributes also seem less important to lesbians, at least from the women I interviewed.
It would be very interesting to do research on their community, but I don’t think the Census or Geography infographics in their current form would be very representative of the lesbian community.
Why is POWERBOTTOM not an option on your gay census data questionnaire? It's about time we got the respect that we deserve in this community!!
The social groups (Bears, twinks, etc) are surfaced automatically from data presented to the survey. Because only one person in my survey identifies as “Power Bottom” the clique isn’t considered relevant, compared to, say, “pigs” which have about 200 people, but still not enough data for the infographic to display that clique.
I talk about this in more detail here.
Presenting the long overdue follow-up to my original Gay Cliques Census infographic: The Geography of Gay Cliques.
When I filter survey responses by geographic region, all sorts of interesting things happen. We see what cities have the most bottoms (Santa Clara, California), where in the world Twinks are most popular (Canberra and New York), and more.
Just like my previous infographic, I’ve started collecting new dimensions of data and will reveal additional sections as information becomes available.
Please let me know what you think (and tell me if you encounter any bugs!)
Hey there, great idea running the census. My results came back as average but im a little confused as to how to gauge what groups are attracted to that type.
You can be skinny as a Twink, big as a Bull, completely hairy, totally smooth, black, asian, native american…you can be anything in the gay community and there are guys who will be into you.
The only thing you can’t be is Average. Average makes you invisible. You might as well be straight, but even straight guys get more play than Average guys in gay world.
Sure, there’s a dating site for Average Gays:
“Normal Gay.com: for men with no category”
Hey there again! I had a question after the last post about chubs being the least sought after group. If you don't want to be liked because of your weight explicitly, do you really not have any options for dating and/or partnership statistically? Forgive me if my question is naive, I live in a small city in Kentucky with a very shallow gay population.
I’m really sorry for the frankness of that last blog post, but let’s be clear:
Gay men aren’t just shallow in Kentucky, Gay men are just shallow.
I haven’t really touched this topic because I have strong personal bias after being burned by people in the gay community for not meeting their superficial expectations; I have been turned down a lot because I’m too dark, skinny, short, not kinky enough, or too young. If they did find me attractive, they wouldn’t even befriend me unless we had sex first. (This might be why I have so few friends).
Just how shallow are gay men?
Only 10% of the census respondents said that looks don’t matter, the other 90% had strong preferences towards certain cliques. When I put this data into a matrix, we see that people who associate with a clique are mostly into other people in that clique. (Eg, if you identify as a Bear you are probably only into other Bears).
I wanted to know more about the 10% of gay men who didn’t care about looks, so I ran the numbers as if these men were their own clique…a clique that didn’t care about looks. We’ll call them turtles, after the animal that picks a mate for their personality.
Turtles are physically very average, though they are more likely to be bottoms. Geographically speaking, gays in the Mid-west care less about looks than the rest of America. However, the biggest indicator that someone doesn’t care about looks is if they don’t identify with any cliques. Nearly one-in-three people who doesn’t identify with a clique don’t care about looks.
Yes, there are people out there that don’t care about looks.
But don’t worry about trying to find gay men who don’t care about looks; You should follow your passions instead of other people. Do the things you love to do and you’ll attract meaningful friends and relationships who share those interests. (This is the best advice I’ve ever given).
Love pics of guys doing the Dylan pose. How many bodybuilders out there are chubby chasers?2
The above graph charts relative attraction against the range of body densities grouped by their average gay cliques. The data is from my Gay Cliques Census.
Chubs are one of the least sought after groups, with less than 10% of survey respondents saying they were into Chubs. The only people who are into Chubs are Chasers, Gainers, and other Chubs.
As you can see in the chart above, interest in Chubs is highest towards the fattier (or less dense) end of the body type spectrum, with interest declining as the suitors’ bodyfat decreases.
I’ve included Muscle Bears (the most desired clique) for comparison. Interest in Muscle Bears is pretty consistent, but steadily increases the less bodyfat you have…until you get to Bulls (but thats because Bulls seem to go after younger, smaller guys and they skewed the data).
I’m just guessing, but let’s say that the Muscle Pup, Gym Bunny, Gym Rat, and Muscle Bear cliques is when folks start looking like bodybuilders. If this is the case, then ~2% of respondents with Bodybuilder stats are into Chubs, or one-in-fifty bodybuilders are into Chubs.
He’s talking about my old Gay Cliques Census.
May I ask what piece of software you use to portray and visualise the data sets please? I am writing up a socio-economic profile of a small community and I feel that this software would help me communicate key demographic trends. Thanks. Conor
I assume you’re asking about the visualisations for my Gay Cliques Census? I originally collected data using Google Doc’s form tool, which also produced live graphs based on results of the survey. Unfortunately, Google Spreadsheets have a slew of limitations (including some very short spreadsheet sizes), so I wrote my own survey tool which saves information to a MySQL database. MySQL is much more powerful than Google Docs and has many statistical functions built in.
So I did most of the math with MySQL with some custom functions for Bayesian Classification I wrote myself. These results are cached and refreshed every hour to spare my server load.
The graphs are generated using Google’s Chart API. There are many graphing libraries out there, but this one is really simple and easy and I’ve used it in almost all my projects that need graphs. Highly recommended.
I’m aware that their are all-in-one suites of software that do the data analysis and display for you, but I am too much of a control freak to know anything about them. Hence why I wrote my own analysis formulas.
Besides the charts and statistics taken, what are your thoughts on cliques, presumptions etc?
I dislike cliques because I don’t fit into them and hate how the gay community is so exclusive to their respective social groups.
Remember when the Bear movement was all about bucking the trend of body fascism? I wish these “cliques” were more about identity and body-acceptance and less about exclusion and elitism.
Some folks (read: morons) feel that my survey has made segregation in the gay community worse, but I feel it’s simply turned a mirror on our own culture. Look at the absurdity of 18+ different labels. The only people who said “Looks don’t matter” are those who don’t align with any clique.
These pie charts represent a sample of ~100,000 gay Facebook users.
It’s disturbing that nearly 1-in-5 gay men are Conservative…or that anyone likes cats at all.
Update: Here’s the political breakdown by generation
Going back to all that data you gathered with your survey: what were some of the more surprising things that you learned in going over the data?
There weren’t too many surprises, but here’s what stood out to me: