Please reblog.

Last year I made the Gay Cliques Radar Chart, a simple graph that could help disambiguate what clique you were in based on age, hairyness, fat and muscle.  There were two problems with my chart:

  1. I was missing some gay cliques (eg, bull, daddies, etc)
  2. My definitions of these cliques are my own and might not be accurate (eg, Muscle Pup could be “Jock”, and maybe have some fat)

To resolve this I need your help.  I’m conducting a survey to define these cliques from popular opinion.  I’ll publish the results to this blog and email anyone who provides their address.  

Click here to take the survey, and please tell your friends. The more people who take this the better the data.

loveyoursuit-deactivated2012012 asks:
How long will you keep the survey active?
I am already anxious to see the results. :)

I’ve had almost 200 people take the survey in the two hours that I’ve posted it.  I can see some trends already, but I need more data before I can declare statistical confidence.

Please get as many of your friends to take the survey.  The more varied the data the more precise my results will be.

loveyoursuit-deactivated2012012 asks:
How long will you keep the survey active?
I am already anxious to see the results. :)

I’ve had almost 200 people take the survey in the two hours that I’ve posted it.  I can see some trends already, but I need more data before I can declare statistical confidence.

Please get as many of your friends to take the survey.  The more varied the data the more precise my results will be.

While I don’t have enough data to be statistically relevant (yet…) I can still see some very interesting trends from my Gay Cliques Census.

Here’s a preliminary radar chart overlaying Bears (red) with Cubs (blue).  The solid line is “average” for the sample, while the bounds are one standard deviation above and below average.  

If you fall inside one of these colours, you’re very likely a cub or a bear.

This graph tells us some interesting (if not obvious) things:

  1. Cubs are basically just mini bears.  The average weight of a Bear is the upper-limit for cubs.  The Cubs’ radar chart almost fits inside the average bounds of the Bears’ chart!
  2. 27 is the cut-off age for cubs.  Yes, there are cubs older than this, but they drop off very quickly into bear territory.
  3. You don’t have to be very hairy to be a cub.

I need more data.  What happens to bears that are older than 45?  At what point do Cubs become Otters?

Please spread my survey to as many people as you can.  The more data, the more I can answer!

I now have enough data to contrast Twinks (purple) and Chubs (pink).  This is part of my ongoing Gay Cliques Census.  (Previously graphed: Bears vs Cubs).

Just like last time, the solid line is “average” while the solid area is one deviation above/below the median; if you fall inside this area you’re probably one of these cliques.

Interesting information represented in this graph:

  • Twinks and Chubs have the most drastic difference in physical appearance of any clique in my dataset.
  • People that consider themselves twinks are absolutely tiny!  The average waist size is barely 30" and the max weight is ~180lbs.
  • Folks that identify as chubs are quite large.  Chubs have the highest body weight and largest waist size of any clique.
  • Both twinks and chubs aren’t very hairy.
  • See that white gap around Waist/Weight? Because Twinks doesn’t fully overlap Chubs it’s impossible to ever be a Chubby Twink or a Twinkish Chub.  (Unlike Bears/Cubs where there is a definite limbo grey area).

Next up: Pups and Otters

Please spread my survey to as many people as you can.   Thanks!

wotshakenbacon asks:
Race should be a factor in your graphs, it seems to be a big part of being seen as a bear/cub or not.

idk I thought it would be interesting not trying to start a race war xD
Just in case BLACK RAGE!!!! BLACK RAAAAAGE!

Love the graphs!

It’s sad, but true.  Some folks believe bears are only white.  And I’m sure there are other racial sociotypes that apply to the other cliques.

Identity is very important in Gay Culture; but the Clique-segregation that has been happening isn’t advancing our community. As such, I refuse to segregate my data by race, skin colour, masculinity/femininity, or creed.

Besides, my data sample is so small that race-related findings would be completely anecdotal.

wotshakenbacon asks:
Race should be a factor in your graphs, it seems to be a big part of being seen as a bear/cub or not.

idk I thought it would be interesting not trying to start a race war xD
Just in case BLACK RAGE!!!! BLACK RAAAAAGE!

Love the graphs!

It’s sad, but true.  Some folks believe bears are only white.  And I’m sure there are other racial sociotypes that apply to the other cliques.

Identity is very important in Gay Culture; but the Clique-segregation that has been happening isn’t advancing our community. As such, I refuse to segregate my data by race, skin colour, masculinity/femininity, or creed.

Besides, my data sample is so small that race-related findings would be completely anecdotal.

Questions about my gay cliques census

My friend Chuck has a lot of questions about my gay census.  I’ve compiled them here so I wouldn’t spam you guys by answering them one after another:

  1. You’re survey asks about “cliques” as I recall. Isn’t “clique” a loaded term? Aren’t you skewing your data by using it in the survey? Even if you didn’t use it in the survey, don’t you have a personal bias against what you consider to be cliques? Does this taint your survey or your interpretation of your data?
  2. Would you have obtained a more reliable and relevant data set if you had asked each responder 1) to which social groups do you consider yourself to fit in? 2) to which social groups do you think others perceive you as being part of?
  3. Isn’t the basis of social grouping a certain level of homogenity? Given that, isn’t it to be expected that some people will feel excluded from a group because they do not share the common characteristics of the group?What is your definition of a clique?
  4. By what criteria do you evaluate a social group to determine if it is a clique?
  5. Do you have empirical evidence of “Clique-segregation” or is your proof anecdotal?

Oh boy.  Here goes:

  1. Yes, making cliques as multiple-choice answers can affect my data.  But I feel it’s negligible for the ease-of-use that multiple-choice offers.  I do have a personal bias on what is or is not a real gay clique, which is why I sourced these options from Google.
  2. No, because our perceptions of what other people perceive us to be are skewed by our personal perceptions.
  3. My definition of a clique is a group of people who share commonalities.  You can also call is social grouping or casts.  And, yes, homogeneity is pretty important in cliques.
  4. I use popular nomenclature and applied it to a Google search to find what terms appeared most frequently.  (Eg, “Gay Bear” has almost 4 million results whilst “Gay Rhino” has about 6 thousand).  Then I made it the first question of my survey to see if there were any I had missed.
  5. Clique-Segregation isn’t too common, but there are some pretty nasty cases.

    It’s time for Otters vs Pups.  Part of my data-visualizing series from the Gay Cliques Census. (See previously: Bears vs Cubs, Twinks vs Chubs).

    I didn’t even put Pups on my original Cliques Chart, only graphing the sub-group “Muscle Pups.”  I guess I subconsciously realized what can now be proven with data: there’s not much physical difference between Otters and Pups.

    • Pups are about 20lbs heavier than Otters
    • Otters are less fat than Pups, averaging 1-2" smaller waist sizes
    • Otters are slightly hairier than Pups
    • Between 25-35, Pups start calling themselves Otters

    Because there is so little distinction physically, I assume there’s a lot going on with personality that distinguishes Pups from Otters.  This is (unfortunately) something I did not put into my survey.

    Let’s take a break from radar charts and talk about the wonderful people who have taken my survey:

    • 70% of participants are under 35-years-old.
    • 4% aren’t even legal yet.
    • A lot of people rounded up their height to 6-feet-tall.  This was expected.
    • 220lbs and 34" are the average weight and waist sizes.
    • Less than 3% identified as “Extremely Hairy.”
    • While 8% claim to be completely smooth.
    • 1-in-4 guys don’t identify with cliques.
    • But only 1-in-10 guys don’t care about looks.

    My next series of graphs will talk about attraction, what cliques are into, how age affects who we’re attracted towards and what clique gets the most attention.  Oh, and you wouldn’t believe who the least judgmental clique is.

    The survey is ongoing, so please take it if you haven’t already, or tell your gay friends.  I’m seriously lacking data for people over 35 (and twinks, for that matter).

    These charts were made with Google Chart API.  You’re welcome to take them apart: Age pie chart, Cliques pie, Attraction pie

    Anonymous asks:
    I don't mean to come across as rude in any way, but don't you think charts about "cliques" only perpetuates stereotypes?

    I think that’s just a semantics issue.  I’ve used “Cliques” as a synonym for “Social Groupings,” where the former has a negative connotation.  (Whoopsies).  

    My survey data is based on how people identify themselves, not our preconceptions of Cliques.  In that way, I think it breaks down some of our stereotypes.

    A good example is how most people project that Twinks are generally completely smooth, but my data reveals only 20% of Twinks are completely smooth.

    I would like to do a follow-up survey to compare our preconceptions to reality and measure the difference. 

    Anonymous asks:
    I don't mean to come across as rude in any way, but don't you think charts about "cliques" only perpetuates stereotypes?

    I think that’s just a semantics issue.  I’ve used “Cliques” as a synonym for “Social Groupings,” where the former has a negative connotation.  (Whoopsies).  

    My survey data is based on how people identify themselves, not our preconceptions of Cliques.  In that way, I think it breaks down some of our stereotypes.

    A good example is how most people project that Twinks are generally completely smooth, but my data reveals only 20% of Twinks are completely smooth.

    I would like to do a follow-up survey to compare our preconceptions to reality and measure the difference. 

    UPDATED: I’ve updated the chart to be more readable.  The listed percentages are now relative to the average person who took my survey.  (eg: Muscle Bears are 27% more into Muscle Bears than most people; Daddies are -20% less into Chubs than most people).

    ——————————————-

    It’s time to talk about Who’s-into-Who.

    My survey asked folks what kind of men they’re interested in.  Using this data, I’ve created an ugly matrix comparing Cliques (left-to-right) with interested ins (top-to-bottom).  The number inside each box is the percent of participants who are into the corresponding Clique.  This is also colour-coded.  RED means they’re most likely into something, BLUE means they’re not interested.

    Let’s begin.

    • Muscle Bears are the most desired group.  Muscle Bears are also the most exclusive, with 90% of Muscle Bears are into other Muscle Bears.  The next closest interest are Cubs, but less than half of Muscle Bears are even into them.  Ouch.
    • Twinks are the least desired group.  Even Twinks dislike themselves.  Chubs (who are physically VERY different from Twinks) are the most interested in Twinks.
    • People who don’t identify with any cliques (No Labels on the Matrix) are the most equal-opportunity, followed by Pups and Twinks.
    • Most cliques are somewhat into themselves.
    • 50-65% of Chubs are into cliques that weigh 230lbs or more.

    The survey is ongoing, so please take it if you haven’t already, or tell your gay friends.  There are some fringe cliques (Bulls, Wolfs and Gym Bunnies) that I have very little data on, and it would be nice to see how they fit in this chart.

    Most of the people taking this survey are from your blog and are cubs, bears or muscle bears. Won’t that skew the data?

    Also I don’t understand statistics and your graphs intimidate me.

    I’ve gotten this question a lot.  And the answer is:

    Yes, most of the people who read my blog identify as ursine-something.  However, people who read my blog aren’t the biggest contributor to the survey.

    So, no, this will not affect the data because I segment things based on cliques.  Only the overall average is affected, but how often have you seen me use that?  It’s pretty much useless.  I’ve never referenced the overall average.

    I wanted to get data on more than just Cubs and Bears so I took out advertising on Facebook that targeted Gay Men.  The campaign started in San Francisco so I could optimize the CPM on a smaller market before I expanded it to English-speaking people in America. The final ad looked like this:

    There are worse things skewing my data.  Like duplicate entries or people falsifying their stats.  Don’t worry, I’ve accounted for these outliers and their influence on my data is diminished.  (You can read about naive bayesian filtering and standard deviations on Wikipedia if you want to learn more).

    When I’m finished analysing everything, I will release a normalized (no email addresses, locations anonymised, etc) version of the results for folks to play with.

    In the spirit of controversy, I’ve taken my previous chart with Cliques-into-Cliques, but now it’s broken down by age group.  Data has been weighted by group and normalized to prevent data skewing by over-represented groups.  (I’m looking at you, Bears).  The number shown is the percent difference from average.  (Eg, 17-and-younger is 17% more likely to be into Chubs than the average survey taker).

    But why is this chart controversal?

    • Younger people (under 35) are more equal-opportunity than older people who took my survey.
    • Between 18-34 participants interest across cliques’ peaks.
    • Another way to look at this is that after 35, guys start to hone-in on what they want and become more exclusive to that type.
    • This downward trend starts to level off at 55+ (which is the upper limit of my data)
    • Guys 17-and-under REALLY like chubs.
    • Interest for Daddies drops steadily as we go up in age groups, but there’s this weird spike in Daddy lust around 45-54…before dropping again.

    Please keep in mind that this is not progressive data; you aren’t necessarily going to stop liking something as you age.  What we’re seeing here is how different generations of gays like different cliques.

    The survey is ongoing, so please take it if you haven’t already, or tell your gay friends.  There are some fringe cliques (Bulls, Wolfs and Gym Bunnies) that I have very little data on, and it would be nice to see how they fit in this chart.

    It’s time for Gay Interests by Region.

    Half of people who took my survey gave me their location.  Using this information, I can see how region affects who you’re into.  (And what cliques exist where, but that’s later).  Just like my other heat graphs, the number in each box is the percentage from average that a region is into a clique.  (Eg, Florida is 9% more into Chubs than the average).  

    There’s a lot of information in this graph, so please let me know if you have questions:

    • Bears are most popular in The Western States, and particularly popular in Los Angeles, where they’re ~19% more popular than everywhere else.
    • Bears are not very popular in The Northeast, especially in New York, where they’re ~19% less popular than everywhere else.
    • Cubs are popular almost everywhere.
    • Muscle Bears (like normal bears) are not very popular in The Northeast. But they’re really popular in The South.
    • The Midwest (especially Minnesota) is the most equal opportunity of all these regions, not caring about looks 4% more than everywhere else.
    • Atlanta and San Francisco are the most looks-centric.

    You can summarize these results pretty simply:

    • The West loves Bears and Cubs, but not Daddies
    • The Midwest likes everyone except Twinks
    • The South is pretty obsessed with bears and muscle cliques, but really dislikes Daddies.
    • The Northeast is the only place where Twinks are popular and Muscle Bears are not.

    The survey is ongoing, so please take it if you haven’t already, or tell your gay friends.  I’m only able to show the top cities and locations because many places don’t have enough data…but if more people take my survey I can show regional data with more confidence.

    Anonymous asks:
    Your such a cute guy but most of your graphs and polls always seems to favor bears and muscles and discriminate against every other kind of other gay group. For people who are cub chasers and twinks is this suppose to be to make them have low self esteem? Like guys that are naturally skinny could see them self as not fitting into the gay culture because they think their not muscled up enough or feel they have to go the gym constantly in order to have self worth. I find it funny that bears act like twinks or the must self absorbed and vein people around, but yet if a guy my shape who is skinny says that a bear is cute they won't even say thank you or acknowledge my existence. I'm not about to go to the gym and muscle up to have friends and fit in. I don't mean to sound like i'm saying your discriminating just seems like all your polls discriminate to a certain group.

    I’m not sure what you’re asking, but I’ll try to answer anyways.

    These graphs are the product of a survey I’m running.  They’re the result of thousands of people entering their personal stats, clique associations and what kind of men they’re into.

    I did not make my graphs discriminating.  Men just know what they want.  (Unless you’re a Daddy).

    No, my graphs don’t “favour” bears and muscles.  Muscle Bears are the most popular group overall, but not everyone likes them.  Please take a moment to read my graphs, you might be surprised to learn that Muscle Bears aren’t very popular on the East Coast.

    No, my graphs aren’t intended to give “cub chasers and twinks” low self esteem.  If you read my graphs you should see that both of those cliques have pockets of admirers; either other cliques or by location.  (Eq, Twinks are very popular on the East Coast).  This is information that they could use to help themselves in the dating/social pool.  Instead of a Twink trying to hang out or date Muscle Bears (who dislike Twinks 9% more than everyone), they should try socializing with Pups, Chubs, Daddies or people who don’t use labels.

    It sounds to me like you’ve been burned by Bears who aren’t into you.  I have been turned down a lot by bears because I’m too dark, skinny, short, not kinky enough, or too young.  Just move on and try socializing in circles that appreciate you for more than looks.  Please read my charts, or tell me what clique you’re in so I can better guide you.

    Anonymous asks:
    Your such a cute guy but most of your graphs and polls always seems to favor bears and muscles and discriminate against every other kind of other gay group. For people who are cub chasers and twinks is this suppose to be to make them have low self esteem? Like guys that are naturally skinny could see them self as not fitting into the gay culture because they think their not muscled up enough or feel they have to go the gym constantly in order to have self worth. I find it funny that bears act like twinks or the must self absorbed and vein people around, but yet if a guy my shape who is skinny says that a bear is cute they won't even say thank you or acknowledge my existence. I'm not about to go to the gym and muscle up to have friends and fit in. I don't mean to sound like i'm saying your discriminating just seems like all your polls discriminate to a certain group.

    I’m not sure what you’re asking, but I’ll try to answer anyways.

    These graphs are the product of a survey I’m running.  They’re the result of thousands of people entering their personal stats, clique associations and what kind of men they’re into.

    I did not make my graphs discriminating.  Men just know what they want.  (Unless you’re a Daddy).

    No, my graphs don’t “favour” bears and muscles.  Muscle Bears are the most popular group overall, but not everyone likes them.  Please take a moment to read my graphs, you might be surprised to learn that Muscle Bears aren’t very popular on the East Coast.

    No, my graphs aren’t intended to give “cub chasers and twinks” low self esteem.  If you read my graphs you should see that both of those cliques have pockets of admirers; either other cliques or by location.  (Eq, Twinks are very popular on the East Coast).  This is information that they could use to help themselves in the dating/social pool.  Instead of a Twink trying to hang out or date Muscle Bears (who dislike Twinks 9% more than everyone), they should try socializing with Pups, Chubs, Daddies or people who don’t use labels.

    It sounds to me like you’ve been burned by Bears who aren’t into you.  I have been turned down a lot by bears because I’m too dark, skinny, short, not kinky enough, or too young.  Just move on and try socializing in circles that appreciate you for more than looks.  Please read my charts, or tell me what clique you’re in so I can better guide you.

    Bears VS Muscle Bears

    Sorry for not making a survey update for the past few days.  I’ve been working on a “Live” infographic that will aggregate results in a more interactive way.  But, it’s a pain in the ass working with Google’s spreadsheet API.

    Until I get that finished, here’s a radar chart showing the difference between Bears (orange) and Muscle Bears (blue).

    Whats the difference between a Muscle Bear and a Bear-Bear?  Body fat and Age.

    • Muscle Bears are (on average) 10 years older than their Bear counterparts.
    • Bears are 20-30lbs heavier than Muscle Bears
    • The average waist size for Muscle Bears is 35", while the average for Bears is 39"

    What does this mean for Bears?  If you lose 20-30lbs of fat, you will double the amount of people who are into you.  Unless you live in New York.

    This chart was made using Google’s Chart API, so feel free to take it apart.

    This survey is ongoing, so please take it if you haven’t yet, or tell your friends to take it.  Especially if they’re older, a Muscle Bear, or a Twink.

    Almost done…

    Anonymous asks:
    i'm a chub.. super chub you may say.. and i love/hate muscle bears.. they are the wonder of the world.. the beauty of the mortals.. i worship every singe of them.. but just like the gods.. they only see me as dirt.. worthless lazy disgusting creature.. none of them want me.. and if they do.. they treat me like shit.. ..

    i have nothing against you.. or your blog.. or your project.. but being the non beautiful person in beautiful gay world.. is a living hell.. i'm still you biggest fan.. and i'm still gonna worship muscle bears.. but i don't think i will have a men of my dream..

    Mahal Kita
    DJhms

    From my survey, Muscle Bears are the most desired and most exclusive social group.  They’re almost exclusively only into other Muscle Bears and have the least interest in Chubs next to Daddies.

    My personal experience with Muscle Bears isn’t particularly good, most of them ignoring me based on arbitrary physical factors or my age.  I have no data or research to back it up, but I suspect Muscle Bears’ aloof attitude is the result of two things:

    1. As the most desired group, the attention has made Muscle Bears self-absorbed and conceited.
    2. Muscle Bears haven’t always been Muscle Bears.  I suspect a lot of them start out admiring the beefy physique or Muscle Bear culture, and workout to get into the Muscle Bear clique.

    Again, I have no research to back up these ideas.  But, I’d love to know why Muscle Bears are so exclusive to other Muscle Bears…thoughts, anyone?

    Anonymous asks:
    i'm a chub.. super chub you may say.. and i love/hate muscle bears.. they are the wonder of the world.. the beauty of the mortals.. i worship every singe of them.. but just like the gods.. they only see me as dirt.. worthless lazy disgusting creature.. none of them want me.. and if they do.. they treat me like shit.. ..

    i have nothing against you.. or your blog.. or your project.. but being the non beautiful person in beautiful gay world.. is a living hell.. i'm still you biggest fan.. and i'm still gonna worship muscle bears.. but i don't think i will have a men of my dream..

    Mahal Kita
    DJhms

    From my survey, Muscle Bears are the most desired and most exclusive social group.  They’re almost exclusively only into other Muscle Bears and have the least interest in Chubs next to Daddies.

    My personal experience with Muscle Bears isn’t particularly good, most of them ignoring me based on arbitrary physical factors or my age.  I have no data or research to back it up, but I suspect Muscle Bears’ aloof attitude is the result of two things:

    1. As the most desired group, the attention has made Muscle Bears self-absorbed and conceited.
    2. Muscle Bears haven’t always been Muscle Bears.  I suspect a lot of them start out admiring the beefy physique or Muscle Bear culture, and workout to get into the Muscle Bear clique.

    Again, I have no research to back up these ideas.  But, I’d love to know why Muscle Bears are so exclusive to other Muscle Bears…thoughts, anyone?

    punchyouinyoass asks:
    This isn't a question, so I apologize in advance.

    In reference to your data on what gay men like based on region, I have evidence that supports that. I'm moving from San Diego to Philadelphia, so I changed my location accordingly on my OKCupid profile.

    Begrudgingly, I am viewed as a twink (despite my attempts to alter that). So, in San Diego, I got, on average, one to two views per day. But in Philadelphia, I get about six views per day and one to two messages from completely different people.

    Thus, your data set is accurate. At least from my viewpoint. Just thought you'd like to know.

    Thank you for the anecdotal evidence!  You’re the second “Twink” to comment on how changing their region gets them more attention.  I’m pretty confident in my results (wouldn’t publish them if I weren’t) but I have no idea why these regions affect interest the way they do.

    Does anyone know why Twinks are more popular in the North East?

    Or why Muscle Bears (who are popular everywhere with everyone) aren’t so popular in New York?

    (In case you missed it, the chart for Gay Interests by Region is here)

    Remember that survey I was doing?

    I’ve gotten so many responses that Google Docs can’t accept any more.  Seriously.

    So I’ve written my own survey thing which records everything into MySQL, so there are no arbitrary limits.  I know, I should have done this from the beginning.

    If you were having trouble taking the survey before, please try again at this new address:

    http://www.studiomoh.com/fun/census/

    Thank you!

    (If you already took the survey you don’t need to take it again)

    Presenting the Results Infographic for the Gay Cliques Census.

    This is a collection of the previous charts I’ve done, in a more readable and interactive style.  Since the survey is ongoing, this infographic is updated live.  All the data represented is accurate to the last recorded response.

    I’ve also created a (very simple) tool to help folks find out what they are based on averages for each Clique.  It works by finding which clique’s average you’re closest to based on the five physical attributes…so, it can be wrong sometimes.  We can make the tool better by getting more people taking the survey.

    Enjoy!

    Update: The identification tool had a bug and was pushing out very wrong answers. This has been resolved and should be showing much more accurate results now. Sorry about that!  Read about it here.

    A new clique appeared tonight: Bulls

    They were below the data-relevance threshold, but a bull from Canada just tipped the scale.

    Bulls are essentially Muscle Bears, plus 60lbs of muscle.  And they really like Pups.

    Anonymous asks:
    Hey, I would love to see you use the data to determine if these pre-defined cliques actually exist, or, at least if they are truly differentiated based on the 5 variables you chose. Maybe do an ordination? Or some cluster analysis?

    Yes, that’s how I picked the top 15 cliques.  And I use the data people provide in the first question of the survey to further refine the options available and the cliques displayed.

    Anonymous asks:
    Hey, I would love to see you use the data to determine if these pre-defined cliques actually exist, or, at least if they are truly differentiated based on the 5 variables you chose. Maybe do an ordination? Or some cluster analysis?

    Yes, that’s how I picked the top 15 cliques.  And I use the data people provide in the first question of the survey to further refine the options available and the cliques displayed.

    Anonymous asks:
    I recently took your survey, and I forgot to mention that there's a clique that you might want to include: the Pocket Gay. Has anyone suggested this to you?

    I only surface cliques that have statistically relevant data.

    Currently there are zero people who have identified as “Pocket Gay,” so I believe it’s less a social grouping and more of a label.

    Anonymous asks:
    I recently took your survey, and I forgot to mention that there's a clique that you might want to include: the Pocket Gay. Has anyone suggested this to you?

    I only surface cliques that have statistically relevant data.

    Currently there are zero people who have identified as “Pocket Gay,” so I believe it’s less a social grouping and more of a label.

    virtualcock asks:
    Are you the one who did the Gay Cliques Census? That's amazing! I've always wondered about the classification, and someone has finally put it into a more accessible form. Great project!

    Yup, I made it, with the help of thousands of survey respondents.

    This all started a year ago when my cubby and I were brainstorming the physical boundaries for different cliques, resulting in the original Gay Cliques radar chart.  Of course, this was horribly flawed and based solely on personal opinion…which drove me to create the Census and crowd-source the true definition of each clique from people who self-identify as such.

    virtualcock asks:
    Are you the one who did the Gay Cliques Census? That's amazing! I've always wondered about the classification, and someone has finally put it into a more accessible form. Great project!

    Yup, I made it, with the help of thousands of survey respondents.

    This all started a year ago when my cubby and I were brainstorming the physical boundaries for different cliques, resulting in the original Gay Cliques radar chart.  Of course, this was horribly flawed and based solely on personal opinion…which drove me to create the Census and crowd-source the true definition of each clique from people who self-identify as such.

    Anonymous asks:
    Just curious how you think race figures into this. The model for these "types" revolves around Eurocentric concepts. For example, body and facial hair is not common in all races. Median height is different between races as well. Further, "twinks" used to refer specifically to young skinny blondes. Many races, regardless of how they fit into classifications you've laid out would fit into the cliques aside to them, as a result of race. That said, I gather that your focus is specifically on body types, so this question may be completely irrelevant. I will say it's an interesting survey you're taking, Just thought I'd ask a complication question.

    This is a pretty popular question, that I’ve answered a couple times before, but you bring up an interesting concept: Eurocentric features.

    Hair is an incredibly strong definer between cliques, just a little extra fur can make the difference between being a Bear and a Chub.

    Height, however, makes no difference.  I actually use height in conjunction with waist size and weight to calculate volumetric density (it’s kind of like bodyfat percentage), which plays an important role in social grouping.

    Anonymous asks:
    Just curious how you think race figures into this. The model for these "types" revolves around Eurocentric concepts. For example, body and facial hair is not common in all races. Median height is different between races as well. Further, "twinks" used to refer specifically to young skinny blondes. Many races, regardless of how they fit into classifications you've laid out would fit into the cliques aside to them, as a result of race. That said, I gather that your focus is specifically on body types, so this question may be completely irrelevant. I will say it's an interesting survey you're taking, Just thought I'd ask a complication question.

    This is a pretty popular question, that I’ve answered a couple times before, but you bring up an interesting concept: Eurocentric features.

    Hair is an incredibly strong definer between cliques, just a little extra fur can make the difference between being a Bear and a Chub.

    Height, however, makes no difference.  I actually use height in conjunction with waist size and weight to calculate volumetric density (it’s kind of like bodyfat percentage), which plays an important role in social grouping.

    wildmen asks:
    Just wanted to congratulate you on creating the Gay Cliques Census Results Infographic, and point out something you've probably noticed: the Narcissus Factor. There is a clear tendency in most of your cliques to be most attracted to the same clique.

    Oh yeah, that’s been the trend since the beginning.  There are a few cliques that aren’t so narcissistic:

    • Daddies: Their interests are all over the place
    • Pups: Who like most all cliques
    • Bulls: like Cubs more than anyone

    If you switch to the “From Average” view, there’s an emerging trend in the leaner cliques.  I haven’t modeled it yet, but at first glance it appears the greater your mass to waist size ratio, the more inclusive to your clique you become.  (See: Gym Bunnies and Rats).

    wildmen asks:
    Just wanted to congratulate you on creating the Gay Cliques Census Results Infographic, and point out something you've probably noticed: the Narcissus Factor. There is a clear tendency in most of your cliques to be most attracted to the same clique.

    Oh yeah, that’s been the trend since the beginning.  There are a few cliques that aren’t so narcissistic:

    • Daddies: Their interests are all over the place
    • Pups: Who like most all cliques
    • Bulls: like Cubs more than anyone

    If you switch to the “From Average” view, there’s an emerging trend in the leaner cliques.  I haven’t modeled it yet, but at first glance it appears the greater your mass to waist size ratio, the more inclusive to your clique you become.  (See: Gym Bunnies and Rats).

    blaaargh:

    Oh good, he has a form where you can add in your own.

    Heh.

    Anonymous asks:
    I think you could help separate various cliques if you included some measure of musculature in your survey. It looks like you are using a BMI calculation (with waist size?) which is inappropriate for men who are weightlifters.

    Joe

    I’m calculating volumetric density, which is much more accurate than the-very-flawed BMI.  Perhaps not as accurate as a “Lean to Fatty” scale, but it’s good enough for my survey.

    Anonymous asks:
    I think you could help separate various cliques if you included some measure of musculature in your survey. It looks like you are using a BMI calculation (with waist size?) which is inappropriate for men who are weightlifters.

    Joe

    I’m calculating volumetric density, which is much more accurate than the-very-flawed BMI.  Perhaps not as accurate as a “Lean to Fatty” scale, but it’s good enough for my survey.

    shortattentionwhat asks:
    Would you ever consider doing a poll dealing with things like political views, religion, social attitudes and the gay cliques? It would be interesting to know which groups have which views and ideals.

    Eh.  It’s been done already.  It was kinda boring.

    I’m a little burnt out on data analysis and charts in general.  I’ve got a few things left to analyze then I’m opening the survey data to the public:

    • What are the common physical traits of tops and bottoms
    • How does location affect physical traits of cliques (eg, West Coast Bears are ~20lbs heavier than East Coast Bears)
    • Cliques flowchart
    • A live map of this chart

    And then I swear I’m so done.  Maybe a breakdown of what cliques people are actually aware of by age, since young folk sure seem to know a lot of ‘em.

    The "Other" Cliques

    One of the features of my census is that the cliques are generated by the people taking the survey.  Here are some of the cliques that are very close to surfacing:

    • Chaser
    • Chicken
    • Muscle Cub
    • Gainer

    And here are some unique cliques that people have entered into the “Other” box. They all have just one entry, so I doubt they’ll ever achieve statistical relevance.  But, I’ve bolded my favourites:

    • Jock
    • Fashionista
    • Normal
    • Art Fag
    • Cat
    • Lesbian
    • Scooby Squad
    • Gazelle
    • Platypus (Plural: Platypi)
    • Gorilla
    • Straight
    • Lumberjack
    • Sea Otter
    • Panther
    • Honey Badger
    • Monkey
    • Slug
    • Gay divorced former mormon daddy
    • Giraffe

    Another clique has just broken through the data threshold.  Introducing: Chasers.

    Physically speaking, Chasers are very average.  What really distinguishes them from other cliques is their interest in Bears (80%), Chubs (60%) and Daddies (50%).  It’s the highest of any clique, higher than even Bears themselves.  

    Let’s talk about Tops and Bottoms.

    I asked respondents to indicate their sexual role on a scale of 1 (total bottom) to 5 (total top), with 3 being versatile and 0 indicating that this question wasn’t relevant to them.  (Not all folks use top/bottom roles, etc).

    Overall, the distribution of tops and bottoms follows a near-perfect bell curve, with most folks being “Versatile.”

    But, when we break it down by Cliques…it gets interesting:

    • Daddies are statistically more likely to be tops than any other clique
    • Twinks, Cubs and Bulls (surprise!) are the most likely to be bottoms
    • Bears (topish) compliment Cubs (bottomish)

    This has been added to the live infographic, so it will be updated as more data comes in.  Though, with nearly 8,000 responses, these averages won’t change much.

    As Alexander pointed out, there is a correlation between Age and your chance of being a Top or a Bottom.  The chart above shows the relation between Age, Height and Weight to top/bottom-ness.  The dotted line is “Average,” so if a bar is below the line there are more bottoms in that group, and if the bar is above the line there are more tops.

    • Younger folk are more likely to be Bottoms
    • After 36, the chance you’re a Top increases yearly…until you’re 60.
    • Men under 5'10" or over 6'4" are more likely to be Bottoms.
    • Guys lighter than 180lbs or heavier than 280lbs are more likely to be Bottoms.

    Any ideas why guys over a certain size start trending more bottom-ish?

    Preview of my next infographic.  A much prettier (and interactive) version of this.

    I have ~7,000 pieces of location data, so my new chart will be much more accurate on explaining interests by region.  I also hope to show regionality of cliques, physical differences by location, and where people are even familiar with these terms.

    I’m sure I’m missing something…so, is there anything location-based you guys want?  Like, where are all the tops?

    Anonymous asks:
    Dude! You need to geotag the Gay Cliques Census to create a body type map of SF (and the rest of the world). Use IP address geolocation or just ask users to enter their address in the survey. Map this shit out with a fusion table.

    I’m working on that now, actually.  Right now my heatmap only shows points (as 1 latitude by 1 longitude squares), but as soon as I figure out how to highlight specific regions it should be ready for launch.  Here’s a preview showing the density of Tops to Bottoms:

    Tops (blue) are scattered pretty sparsely, compared to Bottoms who are just about everywhere.  

    Anonymous asks:
    Dude! You need to geotag the Gay Cliques Census to create a body type map of SF (and the rest of the world). Use IP address geolocation or just ask users to enter their address in the survey. Map this shit out with a fusion table.

    I’m working on that now, actually.  Right now my heatmap only shows points (as 1 latitude by 1 longitude squares), but as soon as I figure out how to highlight specific regions it should be ready for launch.  Here’s a preview showing the density of Tops to Bottoms:

    Tops (blue) are scattered pretty sparsely, compared to Bottoms who are just about everywhere.  

    Gainers and Muscle Cubs have just appeared in the Gay Cliques Results.

    Gainers are to Chubs the same way Cubs are to Bears:

    • Gainers are basically smaller Chubs
    • Gainers are really into Chubs

    Additionally, the same differences exist between Bears and Muscle Bears as with Cubs and Muscle Cubs:

    • Muscle Cubs are leaner than Cubs
    • Cubs are younger and hairier than Muscle Cubs

    Chasers actually appeared a while ago…you can read about them here.

      The Interests Heat Map and Tops/Bottoms Candlesticks have been updated with these new cliques.  I’ve also added an “Average” to the radar charts to act as a visual baseline for everything.

      innerriot asks:
      What's the difference between a muscle bear and a bull?

      Based on the latest data from the Gay Cliques Census, Bulls are 60-100lbs bigger, taller, and hairier than Muscle Bears.  Physically speaking, Bulls are like Super Muscle Bears.

      Muscle Bears are one of the most selective cliques with 85%  of them being into other Muscle Bears.  Bulls are much more equal opportunity, liking Muscle Pups, Cubs and Pups more than other Bulls.

      Here’s the two radar charts overlayed, Bulls are purple and Muscle Bears are yellow:

      innerriot asks:
      What's the difference between a muscle bear and a bull?

      Based on the latest data from the Gay Cliques Census, Bulls are 60-100lbs bigger, taller, and hairier than Muscle Bears.  Physically speaking, Bulls are like Super Muscle Bears.

      Muscle Bears are one of the most selective cliques with 85%  of them being into other Muscle Bears.  Bulls are much more equal opportunity, liking Muscle Pups, Cubs and Pups more than other Bulls.

      Here’s the two radar charts overlayed, Bulls are purple and Muscle Bears are yellow:

      Here’s an ugly preview of the regionality piece I’m working on.

      When I break down my data by country, I can see how geography affects the physical definitions of cliques.  Most social groups are (surprisingly) identical across countries, but Bears, Cubs and Gym Bunnies have drastic physical differences:

      • Bears are bigger and younger in Canada, averaging ~250lbs and 35 years.
      • Compare to the United Kingdom where the definition of a Bear is the lightest and oldest at ~220lbs and 40 years.
      • If age weren’t a major factor in the UK, most Cubs from America, Canada and Australia would be considered Bears!

      Remember that Gay Cliques thing I was doing?

      In the survey, people could give me their sexual role on a scale of 1-5, 1 being a total bottom, 3 being versatile, and 5 being total top.  There was a sixth option, “This doesn’t apply to me,” because sexual roles are social creations in the Gay Community.

      The only clique who indicated that sexual roles don’t apply to them were “Gainers.”

      Actually, ~18% of Gainers said top/bottom/versatile doesn’t apply to them!

      This is absolutely fascinating.  Does anybody know why nearly 1-in-5 Gainers don’t align with a sexual role?

      I should have done this from the beginning, but I’ve added the Density (or Body Type) to the infographic.  This should make it much easier to understand what the physical definition of a clique is at a glance.  Before, you had to guesstimate from height/weight/waist values.

      I’ve also replace the “Height” attribute in the radar charts with “Density,” since height doesn’t play a role in what social group folks associate with.  (Yes, even the two people who are “Giraffes” are average height).

      The Gay Cliques Census is located here, for anyone interested in the results.

      Anonymous asks:
      Hi. My partner and I just took your survey. You obviously spent a lot of time and energy creating it. We were just wondering what is the intended purpose of this. Besides shedding some light on the demographics of the gay community, was this created for any particular purpose? Thanks. F&B

      I had a few goals for the Gay Cliques Census:

      So, basically, I just wanted to “shed some light” on the gay demo.

      Sorry for not making any census-related updates for the past few months.  I had started to get bored and was working on other meaningful projects.

      Nevertheless, I can’t believe I haven’t done this graph yet:

      Where did these cliques come from?

      As I’ve mentioned before, these cliques/labels/social groupings are automatically generated from survey input.  I didn’t come up with them, you guys did.  When there is enough data to be considered statistically significant, the clique is surfaced.  (Thats why bulls were added later).

      What Cliques are people actually aware of?

      This graph shows the top 17 cliques, ordered by the percent of people who are aware  of each clique.  At 93%, almost everyone knows what a Bear is, 1-in-3 know what a Chaser is, but very few people are aware of Bulls or Gainers.

      This graph is pretty even across every dimension—age, clique, location, etc—except when it comes to Chickens.

      What is a Chicken?  WIth only 21 people self-identifying as Chicken I can’t say what an average Chicken looks like.  Whatever they are, it seems to only be used by older generations and folks in the UK.  It has completely fallen out of use by the younger generation:

      image

      Chasers, Gainers, Bulls and Muscle Cubs are the most clique-conscious (aware of 18+ cliques on average) while Twinks and people who don’t associate with cliques are the least aware (10 or less on average).

      At what point do these labels become bonafide Social Groups?  Bears and Cubs are certainly qualified with >90% awareness, but what about Bulls?  Only 1-in-5 people are aware of their existence.

      Browser and Operating System use by Gay Cliques

      Using browser data from Gay Cliques Census respondents, we can see that the average Gay male is pretty tech savvy:

      Nearly one-third of gay men use Macs, 80% use an up-to-date web browser and 10% took my survey on their iPhone!  

      Nevertheless, this is the average.  Things get really interesting when we segment based on cliques:

      • Otters are the techiest of Gay Cliques, with nearly half of all Otters using a Mac over a PC and >90% up-to-date web browser.
      • Daddies are the least technical Gay Clique, they’re the highest users of Internet Explorer, and only ~40% have up-to-date web browsers.
      • Cubs and Twinks prefer Android to iPhones
      bigbadbroseidon asks:
      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:

      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

      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

      Anonymous asks:
      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.

      Anonymous asks:
      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.

      Anonymous asks:
      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.

      Anonymous asks:
      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.

      chub4bears asks:
      Love pics of guys doing the Dylan pose. How many bodybuilders out there are chubby chasers?2

      Interest in types by body density

      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.

      alexcheser asks:
      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).

      alexcheser asks:
      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).

      Anonymous asks:
      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:

      image

      “Normal Gay.com: for men with no category”

      Population: zero

      Anonymous asks:
      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:

      image

      “Normal Gay.com: for men with no category”

      Population: zero

      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!)

      http://studiomoh.com/fun/census/geography.php

      Anonymous asks:
      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.

      Anonymous asks:
      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.

      Anonymous asks:
      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.

      Anonymous asks:
      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.

      Anonymous asks:
      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!)

      Anonymous asks:
      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!)

      Anonymous asks:
      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.

      Sigh.

      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.”

      Anonymous asks:
      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.

      Sigh.

      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.”

      Anonymous asks:
      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.

      Anonymous asks:
      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.

      Exciting news, everyone!

      I’m working with The University of Texas School of Public Health on a new research project funded by the National Institutes of Health.

      The goal of this new study is to learn how the gay social groups (bears, cubs, twinks, etc) impact the health and HIV/STD risk of gay men.  What groups are most at-risk?  Could we be tailoring sexual health services better?  The results could have a very big, positive impact for our community.

      Details are still developing, but in the coming months I’ll be traveling to Houston to work on the project and my census will be published…soon.

      therealproteinpowder2486 asks:
      Why aren't there more bears of color in bear-centric media?

      Thats a really good question.  Let’s look at the data first:

      image

      People of Color are underrepresented in the bear community because bears are mostly into other bears and the most self-identified bears are white.  (Source: gay cliques census, 2/3s of bears and cubs are into their own type; >80% of self-identified bears are white).

      Most bears are white.  Most bears are into other bears, who happen to be mostly white guys. So it makes sense that the bear community would cater to its majority audience…except that the bear community was originally designed to be inclusive.

      How bad is it?

      image

      Bearracuda proudly states that they’re the largest attended bear dance party and most prolific gay dance event in the US.  Despite this, they don’t use people of colour in their promotions.

      image

      The top dating apps for bears, scruff and growlr, don’t use people of colour in any of their app screenshots, ads, or promotions.  Some bear dating sites, like Bear411, won’t even allow people of colour (particularly asians) to join their site.

      image

      The biggest bear runs in the world, Lazy Bear, TBRU, and Ptown Bear Week don’t use people of colour in their ads, promotional flyers, or websites.

      Correction 5/27: TBRU has used people of colour in previous years’ flyers. Thank you, J Larry for pointing this out!  I’m sorry for not digging deeper.

      Without some representation in bear-centric media, the bear community sends a strong message that people of colour are not welcome.

      But, its not all bad.  There are some very prominent people in the bear community who do not practice discrimination against skin colour and even include us in their work.

      image

      Where the Bears Are has always had a varied cast of bears representing different ethnicities (like me), Beach Bear Weekend is a new bear run that uses people of colour in their promotions, Bear Invasion has a balanced representation of ethnic minorities (like me).

      People of colour are underrepresented by the bear community, but we can change that by supporting bear parties, events, and media that is inclusive.

      therealproteinpowder2486 asks:
      Why aren't there more bears of color in bear-centric media?

      Thats a really good question.  Let’s look at the data first:

      image

      People of Color are underrepresented in the bear community because bears are mostly into other bears and the most self-identified bears are white.  (Source: gay cliques census, 2/3s of bears and cubs are into their own type; >80% of self-identified bears are white).

      Most bears are white.  Most bears are into other bears, who happen to be mostly white guys. So it makes sense that the bear community would cater to its majority audience…except that the bear community was originally designed to be inclusive.

      How bad is it?

      image

      Bearracuda proudly states that they’re the largest attended bear dance party and most prolific gay dance event in the US.  Despite this, they don’t use people of colour in their promotions.

      image

      The top dating apps for bears, scruff and growlr, don’t use people of colour in any of their app screenshots, ads, or promotions.  Some bear dating sites, like Bear411, won’t even allow people of colour (particularly asians) to join their site.

      image

      The biggest bear runs in the world, Lazy Bear, TBRU, and Ptown Bear Week don’t use people of colour in their ads, promotional flyers, or websites.

      Correction 5/27: TBRU has used people of colour in previous years’ flyers. Thank you, J Larry for pointing this out!  I’m sorry for not digging deeper.

      Without some representation in bear-centric media, the bear community sends a strong message that people of colour are not welcome.

      But, its not all bad.  There are some very prominent people in the bear community who do not practice discrimination against skin colour and even include us in their work.

      image

      Where the Bears Are has always had a varied cast of bears representing different ethnicities (like me), Beach Bear Weekend is a new bear run that uses people of colour in their promotions, Bear Invasion has a balanced representation of ethnic minorities (like me).

      People of colour are underrepresented by the bear community, but we can change that by supporting bear parties, events, and media that is inclusive.

      dandalf-thegay:

      camsfarts:

      monkeysaysficus:

      stormdthecastle:

      So basically I in about a year or so I managed to skip right over the bear stage :3

      What is this test?!!?

      What the actual fuck?! They have this down to a science now?

      Yeah, noodlesandbeef made the Gay Cliques Census a while back. It’s pretty interesting actually.

      Hi, I made this.  You can see the project here and read all about it here.

      The data presented represents (currently) over 80,000 survey responses from gay men around the world.

      The “Definer” tool calculates the euclidean distance of your stats against the average states of every clique.  The shorter the distance, the closer you are to the average body type of that clique.

      The tool was actually designed to drive viral traffic to the census by using a “triggering” CTA like Define Me (I also tested What am I? and Where do I belong?).  The tool generated (in a peak month) almost 300 facebook shares a day, and also helped me refine results when people felt they were incorrectly defined.

      The tool is accurate for physical attributes, but identity in the gay community is more than how much body hair you have.  Ultimately, if you identify as a Bear, Bull, Twink, or a Turtle you are that.  And nobody can tell you otherwise.

      I identify as Beyoncé.

      Data is from ~30,000 responses to the gay cliques census.

      Sexual Activity of Gay Cliques

      The chart above shows average number of sexual partners for non-monogamous survey responses.  (Meaning, folks who didn’t have just one sexual partner in a six month period).  Its ordered by least sexually active group to most.

      Its not surprising that Gainers (25% of which don’t associate with a sexual role) and Chubs (who are the least sought after group) are the least sexually active groups.  It also shouldn’t be surprising that the most sought after groups (the gym bunnies, muscle pups, gym rats, muscle bears, and bulls) have the most sexual partners.

      What is surprising is the addition of a new clique, “Pig."  While I have a lot of data on people who identify as pig, the body type varies so greatly that they have not appeared on the live infographic.  The only defining constant for pigs is how sexual they are, with the most sexual partners in 30 days of any group.

      There seems to be a relationship between generation and sexual history, as there also seems to be more tops in the older generations.

      And good news for smooth guys and the extremely hairy: you get lots of sexual partners for your hirsutism (or lack thereof).  But if you’re average, you get laid less.

      Next steps: using this information to help target sexual health PSAs better.

      Data is from ~30,000 responses to the gay cliques census.

      Sexual Activity of Gay Cliques

      The chart above shows average number of sexual partners for non-monogamous survey responses.  (Meaning, folks who didn’t have just one sexual partner in a six month period).  Its ordered by least sexually active group to most.

      Its not surprising that Gainers (25% of which don’t associate with a sexual role) and Chubs (who are the least sought after group) are the least sexually active groups.  It also shouldn’t be surprising that the most sought after groups (the gym bunnies, muscle pups, gym rats, muscle bears, and bulls) have the most sexual partners.

      What is surprising is the addition of a new clique, “Pig.”  While I have a lot of data on people who identify as pig, the body type varies so greatly that they have not appeared on the live infographic.  The only defining constant for pigs is how sexual they are, with the most sexual partners in 30 days of any group.

      There seems to be a relationship between generation and sexual history, as there also seems to be more tops in the older generations.

      And good news for smooth guys and the extremely hairy: you get lots of sexual partners for your hirsutism (or lack thereof).  But if you’re average, you get laid less.

      Next steps: using this information to help target sexual health PSAs better.

      buttsnguts asks:
      Sorry-- have you thought about apply machine learning, or artifical intelligence, in your research-- for example, to classify body type or preferences for certain ones from photos?

      What do I even know about AI? 

      My experience with “machine learning” is very limited.  I’ve built a few systems using naive bayesian classification, decision trees, and clustering.  I have a preference for unsupervised learning systems, but usually work with data sets that are too small for that.

      I do not consider myself knowledgable enough to provide a technical answer, but I will be happy to address the principle thesis of your question.

      Let’s teach computers to classify us based on our body type. Surely, this will provide immense benefit to the gay community.

      I actually built a “dumb” classifier for the gay cliques census.  I’m too lazy to look at the code, but there’s, like, 30-dimensions of data and almost 2-million rows of data.  Definitions are reinforced by people who take the survey, additional data is gathered from people who use the definition tool, and negative feedback is used when people disagree with their classification.

      Super basic machine learning system.

      All thats missing is a piece on computer vision to assess photos for these dimensions.

      Its possible, but why would you do that?