Gay?

Remove all ads!

50% -No big surprise there LOL..The stupidist question had to be which of your parents were dressed better..I was like uhhh they both dress bad LOL

 

60% for me.

@Aslyn - yeah, my folks are both crappy dressers.

@ Shell - also got the lesbian rumor myself due to a close friendship I had in school.

And when can I get this word back? Sometimes I'm happy and don't feel the need to use five letters.

 

16% gay

"You're a walkin, talkin, red-blooded hetero, just way to straight for these modern times mate"

 

Because they think fag means cigarette, which is manly and straight and stuff. Like the Marlboro Man!

Known fact.

 

Tiny cars are okay, since no one really likes of those yankee irons that consume fuel like mad and are clumsy too, but scooters have become "the thing" of girls. As a result, men can't buy a 800 € scooter when only 20,000 € motorcycle is considered masculine.

I have a long saving ahead...

 

Hahaha....oh well guess I'll jump on the bandwagon and take the test.

23%

Hmm..the test seemed very stereotypical. Who cares if you take care of yourself or not. I have friends who are straighter then a bull and they pamper themselves more then any gay man. This test was obviously made by ignorant Americans who are homophobic.

To all you people who panicked when that first meter went to 100%. You need to calm down. I mean do you really care what some dumb test claims you are? You know if you are attracted to men or women. I cant think of any human emotions that are stronger then sexual attraction.

 

20%

 

XD I would have to say this test is sorta false, as my anwser is a complete understatment.

I got 33%, I thou at least I would be around 70%.
Being a bi male.

 

26%... was actually expecting about that.

Surprised there were no pro-wrestling type questions in there; guys that enjoy watching two muscular blokes in speedos throwing each other around usually rates a couple of percentage points in that appraisal.

That meter hitting 100% didn't bother me; it was either a joke or a panic gimmick.

 

23%....and I'd have thought it would be higher

The 'trial run' of the meter did make me quirk an eyebrow, but I quickly noticed the "get your results" button while it was still running...

In all honesty, I expected to be considered more effeminate than the questions allowed. Oh, and since I married my best friend, she makes that question useless.

TBH, the whole thing is only good for a single chuckle; it's not even done well enough for what I initially thought of a the *accurate* title:

How Much of a Stereotypical Queen Are You

Sigh.

(Oh, it appears that selecting gender at the beginning gives you a significant change on the questions; apparently Channel 4 was trying but the diff q's for females are even more distastefully stereotypical. )

For the record, I'm het; if 'hit on' by a man, I'd be flattered (wish *women* would - uh, not really, honey *whack!*....ow, ) I agree with the comments on regional attitudes, but not with the attitudes around here - I don't *care* if you're gay/straight/bi/asexual - especially anyone HERE! I'm in a monogamous relationship, so it just doesn't enter the interaction equation at all.

EDIT: Oh, I do like the picture at the left of the quiz page, tho.

 

23%
I'm not gay, by the way.
I know that the test was just a way to kill time, but I want that time resurrected, it's not as if it's that funny or worthy of my time.

 

What a resolve. I'm impressed. Uncommon nowadays.

 

Yeah, well...a) she's perfect for me - same taste in music, similar sense of humor, same political/religious views - a little variance to prove we aren't clones or twins seperated at birth, but she's...well, it's like she's the missing part of me. Noone else could ever match that, so all the temptation in my face doesn't do a thing; I could no more cheat on her than forsake my own lungs.

EDIT: case in point - after reading this, my darling spouse pointed out that a person only needs one lung to live. How could you not love someone like that?!?

and 2) the whole 'net identity' thing. All of you are little more than thoughts, ideas and opinions to me; I can't tell how tall you are, what colour skin you have, whether your complexion is smooth or pock-marked, whether you have all your limbs, etc. etc. I'd noticed this a while after I first got online in the ol' USENET, and then I realized - it doesn't matter.

This mode of communication is almost purely on an intellectual standpoint; the anonymity of the 'net means a person's words (and their ability to smith same) stand for how they're perceived, not whether they're gay or straight.

You can't use a mellifluous voice or a dazzling smile to persuade people to agree with you here - you have to use real persuasive language. It doesn't matter if you're a dyslexic left-hander (as long as you take the effort to proof your posts and make sure you haven't worded any swaps...doh!) whether people think you're funny, your choice in long, 'shaggy dog,' overly obtuse jokes and inability to tell same ruin that impression.

But I think I'm making my point - especially online, your sexual preference, gender, ethnic background, etc. has little bearing on what you SAY (unless it actually supports same - a black person talking of prejudice, etc).

To illustrate: 'posterA' puts a hilarious joke in the appropriate thread here on SP - opinion of same is virtually unanimous of its excellence. Then it becomes known that 'posterA' suffered horrible injuries in a childhood car wreck, has only one working eye, and is covered with scars. It doesn't make the joke any less funny, does it?

But...
if this misshapen person approached you in a bar/pub, would you still listen to the funny story? I have to admit that even my exemplarish self might not...

Or, 'SavvySage' is of great help in the game-specific fora; there's no technical problem that this poster hasn't got an answer for. Then people discover that 'SavvySage' is a 14y/o lesbian who's flunking math; does that make the advice any less useful?

But then, would you pay heed to a sullen, shabbily-dressed waif who turned to you on the bus as you talk on your cell about your software problems and she proceeds to explain how to solve them?

Interesting place we congregate at, isn't it?

Just a little something to think about on the long weekend, kids.


Oh, and just in case you thought I'd spared you from the daily Carlinism[tm], I've been saving up a couple of days since my life got a little busy in the close of the week:

- When I was a kid, if a guy got killed in a western movie I always wondered who got his horse.

- People who say they don't care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don't care what people think.

(huh, I think *I'm* guilty of that one!)

and

- If the police never find it, is it still a clue?


Anyways, thanks for bothering to read this far, all two of you; and have a good weekend!

 

Much can be effected through words, should you know how to write. It is true that certain things are not seen but some can be if you know how to look. Real life also has some risks of its own. Myself, I've been surprised both here and there. I think the real matter is how much you know someone, for how long. Online, people can and will lie about their apperance but they are more likely to reveal their intellectual characteristics. You're also more likely to find out about a person's views by reading through his flame wars than by seeing him at work or school. Internet is a huge bank of information and you can find lots if you know where and how to look. The biggest risk you can face is someone who lives in an invented word. Someone who comes up with stuff and believes in it will initially be hard to spot but will eventually display strange patterns of thought. A compulsive liar who lies without thinking much will sooner or later have holes in his memory. Sure, in real life contacts, people won't pull off tricks like giving you someone else's pictures as their own. But they could tell you practically anything. I guess differences work both ways.