Gaydex

From KneeQuickie

A 3d plot of the gaydex, with 10 straights and changing numbers of gays and females, as represented by the G and F axes respectively.

Abstract

The gaydex is a precise and quantitative measurement of the "gayness" of any given group, devised by the inhabitants of #almea, mainly Spack and pharazon. Spack did the majority of the conceptual and data-gathering work, with pharazon handling the analytic and mathematical portions of the work.

Theoretical and Conceptual Foundation of the Gaydex

Origins

The concept of a gaydex was first realized by Spack as an attempt to qualitatively measure the "gayness" of a population--an abstract and immaterial quality that anyone present in a group of people of mixed sexual preferences will likely be able to detect.

Spack had made the observation that many qualities of systems, such as populations, that are widely held as abstract and theoretical have been able to undergo quantification and scrutiny. The entire field of game theory is built upon such a foundation. Observing, after much research, that no sound quantitative measurement of the gayness of a population had been discovered, he then set to work creating one.

Spack's earliest formulation of the gaydex was simply a quick and dirty way of determining whether a population was more gay or more straight. He added -1 to a group for each straight male (the reasoning being that, since the measurement is being conducted on gay people, straights were better fit to be negative measurements), 0 for each bisexual male, and 1 for each homosexual male, and then dividing the resultant number by the total number of people present.

Since these experiments were carried out on an internet text-based medium that was not the NeoBoards, the population mostly consisted of adolescent males and thus no consideration of females was necessary.

It became readily apparent, however, that things would have to be more complex than that.

The Rabbit Hole Goes Deeper

As every occupant of #almea--regardless of sexual preference--noted, the gayness of the channel increased disproportionately to the ratio of gays to straights. An increasing number of gay people, it seemed, made the population more apparently gay.

In addition, the presence of females--something unaccounted-for previously--caused a steep increase in the masculinity of a population. This effect is one sociologists and the average straight male can both attest to: straight men are wont to macho posturing in the presence of women.

It was soon discovered, by the addition of lesbians to #almea, that they had essentially the same effect as straight women.

However, since many gay men are bent (through their empathy and what have you) towards more feminine discussion fodder, such as chocolate, flowers, and rock-hard manass, they had a gayening effect on the population as well.

Fundamental Axioms of Gaydexology

It was at this point that the Fundamental Axioms of Gaydexology, also known as Spack's Laws were first identified:

• A gay man is just as gay as a straight man is straight;
• The number of gay men present greatly increases the gayness of a channel through a process later termed "gay autocatalization" because of the catalyst-like way in which gay men gayify each other;
• The number of straight men present decreases it more linearly;
• The presence of women has an exponential degayning effect, by inducing macho posturing;
• The presence of women also has a linear gaying effect, due to the introduction of chocolate, flowers, and manass.

Spack subsequently contacted pharazon to begin the mathematical formulation of the gaydex.

Data-Gathering Methods

The main way in which data was gathered in the formulation of the Gaydex was through the subjective, indepentent rating of the gaydex of a population at a given time by all of the members of the population.

The medium through which the participants carried out their discussions was via the #almea channel on an IRC network. This served to bottleneck the ways in which the participants can communicate with each other, removing such real-world interference as body language and gay telepathy.

The mean gayness ratings in different circumstances were written down and plotted into several models, which served as vaulable tools in the formulation of the gaydex.

From these data and the subjective and intuitive observations of Spack and pharazon, and also the participants in the research, the mathematical formulation of the gaydex was able to go underway.

Mathematical Foundation of the Gaydex

The gaydex function I, as formulated by pharazon, the mathematical mule and co-creator of the gaydex, is given by:

<math>I(S,G,F) = k(G - S) + F(\gamma G - \sigma S) + a(\frac{1}{2}G^2 - G + \frac{1}{2})</math>

where S is the number of straight males, G the number of gay males, and F the number of females. k, γ, σ, and a are constants, respectively representing the gaydex contribution by a single male, the gayening effect of women, the straightening effect of women, and the gay autocatalyzation factor. Increasing I corresponds to increasing gayification.

The selection of symbols to represent the constants of the equation--k, γ, and σ--was mostly arbitrary. While the selection of a for autocatalization is relatively straightforward, the others are based mostly on the preference of the authors. σ was selected for the straightening effect of women because of its resemblance to an erect (if tiny and very unbefitting of Spack and pharazon) penis seen from profile.

Derivation

The fundamental axioms can be phrased thus:

• On average, a lone gay is just as gay as a lone straight is straight
• However, a group of gays will autocatalyze each other and raise the gaydex in disproportion to their number
• Any females present will cause straights to act more macho and flaunt their masculinity and straightness
• This is opposed by their tendencies to bring up such gayening topics as kittens and ice cream.

From here, the three gaydex equations can be written down:

<math>\frac{ \partial I }{ \partial S } = -k</math>

<math>\frac{ \partial I }{ \partial G } = k + a(G-1)</math>

<math>\frac{ \partial I }{ \partial F } = \gamma G - \sigma S</math>

Since the equations are independent of each other, solving them is a simple matter of integrating each one and adding:

<math>I(S,G,F) = P(S) + Q(G) + R(F)\,</math>

<math>P(S) = \int -k\,dS = -kS + C_1</math>

<math>Q(G) = \int k + a(G-1)\,dG = kG + \frac{1}{2}aG^2 - aG + C_2</math>

<math>R(F) = \int \gamma G - \sigma S\,dF = F(\gamma G - \sigma S) + C_3</math>

<math>I(S,G,F) = k(G - S) + F(\gamma G - \sigma S) + a(\frac{1}{2}G^2 - G) + C</math>

Initial conditions

Having five constants, five sets of initial conditions are necessary for exact values. By the first fact above, <math>I(1,1,0) = 0</math>. Careful research has yielded the remaining four, and thus the constants:

<math>I(8,3,0) = 0; I(2,2,0) = 1; I(2,1,2) = 0; I(1,1,1) = \frac{1}{8}</math>

<math>C = \frac{a}{2}; k = \frac{4}{5}; a = 2; \gamma = -\frac{3}{20}; \sigma = -\frac{11}{40}</math>

Graphical Representation

The pink two-dimensional graph is a graph of the gaydex (given on the Y axis) of a population with 10 straight men, no females, and the number of gay men graphed along the X axis. As you can see, the gaydex is initially below zero (i.e. "straight"), but steadily increases with the number of gays.

Increasing numbers of gays.

The gray two-dimensional graph plots a fixed population of 10 straight males, no gay males, and an increasing number of females as graphed along the X axis.

Increasing numbers of females in a no-gay population.

At first impression, the message of the graph is incongruous: why, in a population with no gay males, should the population become increasingly gay with more and more females? After all, aren't females supposed to cause men to become macho and want to show off their heterosexual masculinity?

However, the seemingly strange data returned by the Gaydex function in these conditions isn't so strange after all. The females contribute a gayening effect; and, as anyone who has ever attended a Tupperware party can attest, a group that is significantly female can develop a rather gay atmosphere. And, in a population with many straight males and only a few females, the heterosexuality of the population increases dramatically, because of competition for mates.

Potential Problems with the Gaydex

Theoretical Problems

• One issue that is commonly raised by critics of the gaydex is its measurement and modeling of an abstract quality that tends to resist typical measurement and scrutiny. After all, how would one construct a "gayometer"? The most typical reply of the formulators of the gaydex is that, simply, you create a human. The social nuances that indicate the gayness of a population are too complex to measure via man-made tools, but the human brain, being as complex and socially attuned as it is, works as an excellent device. People can sense the gayness--as a perception of a series of qualia and their interactions distributed across a system composed of the superegos of the participants--even if they can't put it on a microscope slide (yet).

• A factor that is not taken into account by the gaydex at present, which has been raised by many and may be added to subsequent revisions, is that the gayness of a conversation is often dependent on the subject matter. In particular, the effect of gay autocatalysis happens with much more strength and rapidity at the introduction of homoerotica into the conversation. On technical subject matter, it can drop very low. Put into a chemical analogy, the activation energy changing properties and effectiveness of the catalyst depends on the medium it's present in. For the time being, the current gaydex measurement serves as an average across a series of levels of homoerotica, ranging from none (dry technical talk), to pure (discussions of man-on-man action).

• In theory, Richard Simmons should have a greater effect than, say, Ian McKellen, but such considerations are rather too intangible to be measured; the best we can do is use averages. Bisexuals in particular may have varying contributions; under the current system they count <math>1/2</math> each way.

• Lesbians are also not taken into account. At present this does not present a problem, since the definition of gayness currently uses the metric of "pounding manass" - a unit has yet to be decided. Lesbianism, therefore, does not affect this, though the upshoot of the addition of lesbians is a further increase in heterosexualness whilst adding homosexualness by their very presence.

• <math>I(0,0,0)</math> is not zero as might be expected, but rather <math>-1</math>. Scholars are divided into two main schools of thought on this. The traditional view has been that a measurement at <math>(0,0,0)</math> is nonsensical because there is no context within which to judge, in much the same way that the equation for distance with gravitational acceleration <math>s(t) = (gt^2)/2</math> can be solved for negative t, but this has no meaning in reality. Recently, however, a more interesting theory has arisen: <math>I(0,0,0)</math> reflects a sort of cosmic straightness background, permeating space-time and driving the barbecue and lesbian porn markets. According to proponents of this theory, it explains why most male organisms prefer poon to cack, or are at least driven to say they do.

Misnomers

• Some have pointed out that the gaydex is poorly named, since it doesn't measure gayness any more than it does straightness. A more accurate name might be "sexdex", but despite the two <x>s, nominologists generally agree that "gaydex" pwnz that.

Predictions and Consistency

• One of the biggest current issues with the Gaydex is that it presently lacks a significant volume of scientific verification. At present, the authors are working on such information and invite anyone who is willing to explore such themselves.

Heterosexual "Critical Mass"

An issue that is rasied frequently comes as a result of exploration of the gaydex function over different ranges of values. As the reader who has done such exploration has likely noticed, a no-gay, no-female population degays at a steady rate with an increasing heterosexual male population. Have there not, at many points, been instances where a population of othewise heterosexual men have turned to homosexual acts?

The answer given by most Gaydexologists at present is simply that the Gaydex does not take time into account in its current formulation. (Gaydexologists are working ardently on such improvements, however.) It does seem that, over a timeline, there is a "critical mass" where a heterosexual male population, in lieu of females, turns to homosexual activities.

Of course, on crucial fact that is ignored when considering such scenarios is that men under these circumstances find psychological workarounds to explaining the manner in which they resort to alleviating their sexual urges.

Men in prisons, as the most common example, will often have homosexual intercourse. However, they often perform such acts on men they call "bitches", whom they dress up like women (to the point of even giving them ponytails and pink-dyed uniforms). Additionally, their sex is lubricated often with something such as honey or syrup, which they consider to be a "buffer" between them and gayness. They will also often say that their activities are justified and not homosexual, because they are strongly asserting their masculinity (which they associate solely with heterosexuality) and simply going to the last resort to get off.

Men in prisons who seem to be homosexual by default, rather than resorting to it because there is no poon to be had, are often murdered. How, in such an anti-gay atmosphere, can the gaydex be anything but approaching negative infinity?

As one final point of discussion, it has been observed time and time again that heterosexual men who have had homosexual sex in prison often return to their heterosexual lifestyle as soon as they're released from prison.

OK, the biggest thing we need now is just a bunch of reports and data and things to add weight to our arguments before releasing it outside the ZBB community. Cites, acknowledgements, headings &c may also prove useful.