Ramblings of an Anonymous Coward

Jesus Doesn't Want Me For a Sunbeam

it's been a while since i've written here and i'm really not sure how much longer i will. i find myself unable or unwilling to share as much anymore, but i like to think it is all for the better. i'm definitely hanging on until may 20th so i too can have a one-year blog-aversery. i will note, however, that everytime i think about stopping, i end up posting a lot more for a while. who knows? maybe i'll end up doing that again. maybe not.

somehow i found myself at a site called supervert 32c, inc. -- it was in my bloglines somewhere. i don't know what caught my eye, put i popped it in a new tab and have just started poking around. oh my! quizzes. not safe for work quizzes no less. yes, yes... lead on mcduff!

ok, they are calling them surveys and tests. whatever. so i started with the two surveys, since those were the most noticable and showed results. i answered them with complete honesty and when scanning the results, it was nice to see i was for the most part in the norm. in fact, if i recall, i was in the majority for all except maybe one or two questions.

• computer sex survey
• sexual perversity survey

now in the perversity survey, i hope to goodness that some of these people were just putting bullshit answers to be out of the norm. for example, at the time i saw the results, 11 people said they had sex with a minor that was between 0-5 years old. that is fucking sick! as a percentage, it was still low, but jesus... thats 11 people that need to be eliminated from this world if true or smacked upside the head if they thought they were being funny.

i expected the 16-18 category to be high (it was actually kinda low), because i'm sure there are plenty of border-line (e.g. 19 having sex with a 17/18) cases.

so while i may be wrong, i'm going to believe some of this shit just is bs, and i look at the result of 12 people saying they have sex with dead bodies frequently. ew! that number is close enough to the 11 i cited earlier, so it must be the same peckerheads. or at least i'm going to believe that. i am. i am. i must!

if you decide to take the shockometer test, please do so before reading on.
seriously.

it makes a difference.

i'll wait.

so i took this test and was a bit disappointed. if you took it, you're likely to know why. i'm not squeamish in the least and was sadly hoping for some pictures that might actually be shocking. no dice. however, i don't fault anyone if they find them disturbing... a couple defintely are when you consider they are real. my results:

As a result of your "winning" performance, the profiling algorithm indicates that you are a person of strong will and high self-esteem. You have the confidence and the drive to attain your goals -- even, however, at the expense and the welfare of others. Your compassion for the tragedies of the individuals depicted was "over-rided" by the compulsion to complete "the game". While you are probably a high achiever, you are blind to the high price that others pay for your accomplishments. Your strength in will corresponds to a weakness in morality. While playing the "game," did you not consider for a moment the horrible plights of the victims depicted? Do you know how truely horrible it would be, for instance, to be tortured and beheaded during war? You may have "won" the game, but you have "lost" at humanity.

If the shockmeter reveals anything, it surely must be that you shock yourself.

dear profiling algorithm -- while i can't totally dismiss your assessment, it is clear that you are confusing an ability to view material that is "shocking" with necessity of not being shocked. and that is dismissing the fact that the photo quality was poor and you only got to see the image for a split second. i don't want to throw you for a loop (pun intended), but i never looked at your test as a game... i just wanted to see the pictures. it was curiousity, and thankfully i'm not a cat.

next i moved on to the color test. in fact it was the luscher color-test. i have a book that has this test in it. how cool. my results:

situation
You seek a solution to existing problems or anxieties, but are liable to find it difficult to decide on a right course to follow.

stresses
You are sensitive and prone to absorbing enthusiasms. You seek an idealized, but so far unfulfilled, situation in which you can assume with another a complete accord and mutal depth of understanding. You feel there is a risk of being exploited if you are too ready to trust others and therefore you demand proof of their sincerity. You need to kneed exactly where you stand in your relationships.

interestingly, they have you take the test twice. the answer above is from test-2 which is said to be the more accurate. my test-1 said for this...

You strive for straightforward relationships, founded on mutual trust and understanding. You wish to act only in conformity with your own convictions. You demand freedom to make your own decisions without beign subjected to interference, outside influence or the necessity of making compromises

sadly, that sounds more like me.

desires
You take pains to control the situation and it's problems by proceeding cautiously. Has sensitivety of feeling and fine eye for detail

problems
You need to protect yourself from your tendency to be too trusting, as you find it is liable to be musunderstood or exploited by others. Therefore you seek a relationship providing peaceful and understanding intimacy, and in which each knows where the other stands.

You do not wish to be involved in differences of opinion, contention or argument, preferring to be left in peace.

lastly, since it was under the color test, i kinda thought this might be a test of some sort, but sex lingo is a dictionary of sexual terms (slang) and tells you what they mean, often with a picture. ummmm. yeah. i'm not sure what to think seeing there were plenty of terms i had never heard before. guess i'm a prude after-all.

well, i've spent more than enough time on this site...

Posted by ac at May 8, 2004 03:06 PM