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.
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
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.
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!
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:
- 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!
- 27 is the cut-off age for cubs. Yes, there are cubs older than this, but they drop off very quickly into bear territory.
- 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!
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:
- I was missing some gay cliques (eg, bull, daddies, etc)
- 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.