Test on sexual orientation.

[_Tchild]

I scored a zero. Am I a homophobe? Quick, somebody, where can I troll for gays in Provo so that I can be more well rounded and add a little diversity to my life?

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I scored a zero. Am I a homophobe? Quick, somebody, where can I troll for gays in Provo so that I can be more well rounded and add a little diversity to my life?

I got a one. Let's meet in a bathroom.

[_Fiannan]

The funny thing is that most of the people I hang around with, well I guess I tend to have way more female friends and acquaintences than men, tend to score much higher. Most of the females tend to score a 4 or 5 with a range of 6 or 7. That either says something about my friendship circle or the test.

[_Some Schmo]

However, I do know that for me it's not just a behavior. I am attracted to men. I didn't choose this. As far back as I can remember, I've been attracted to other males. This has caused me quite a number of problems in my life that I'd rather not have, including my disaffection from the church. Trust me, it'd be a WHOLE lot easier to be able to choose.

It's not that way. I'm sorry that you can't accept it, but it's true. Whether purely genetics or environment, it's who I am. I've heard the "choice" opinion a number of times, but NEVER from an expert, ALWAYS from someone who has pre-labeled homosexuality as a sin.

When I read Fiannan's second post, I was thinking I wanted to post something to this effect (although from a heterosexual's POV). I obviously could not have done it justice, and certainly could not have outdone what you wrote, Awake in the West.

It never ceases to amaze me how heterosexuals who want to believe that SSA is a "sin" will come up with all this baseless hypothetical crap to support their point of view. They can't be bothered to actually listen to homosexuals who will tell them what it's really like (clearly, they all must be lying... amazing how they all lie the exact same way, but still... lying). They'd rather sound like an idiot than admit they are probably wrong.

This is yet another reason why religion is a virus that infects the mind, as Dawkins suggests.

[_Blixa]

I admit that this test seems Freudian based. One who says they are not all that attracted to people of the opposite gender (asexual?) may be classified as being less heterosexual since the psychoanalytic school of thought would say something is going on in the sub conscious -- denial.

There was nothing remotely "freudian" in that test that I could identify. by the way, Freud worked with the idea of the Unconscious, "sub-conscious" and it's usual connotations have little to do with freudian thought. There is no monolithic "school" of psychoanalytic thought which understands sexuality so simplistically.

The test struck me as a tepid reworking of the Kinsey sexual continuum. There are much more interesting and challenging concepts that use a continuum model, as opposed to absolutely fixed categories, such as Adrienne Rich's notion of a "lesbian continuum," found in her well known essay, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence."

The the idea of a norm and deviations from it (and the submerged moralism of such a position), is however, not only absent from most kinds of modern psychology, but also quite historically variable.

[_Yoda]

[

quote="Fiannan"]The funny thing is that most of the people I hang around with, well I guess I tend to have way more female friends and acquaintences than men, tend to score much higher. Most of the females tend to score a 4 or 5 with a range of 6 or 7. That either says something about my friendship circle or the test.

I scored a 5 with a range of 10.

I am more attracted to men sexually, but, in terms of viewing, I think that the female body is more aesthetically pleasing to look at.

It reminds me of this episode on Seinfeld:

Elaine: "Well, the female body is a... work of art. The male body is
utilitarian, it's for gettin' around, like a jeep."
Jerry: "So you don't think it's attractive?"
Elaine: "It's hideous. The hair, the... the lumpiness. It's simian."
George: "Well, some women like it."
Elaine: "Hmm. Sickies."

LOL

[_Fiannan]

[

quote="Fiannan"]The funny thing is that most of the people I hang around with, well I guess I tend to have way more female friends and acquaintences than men, tend to score much higher. Most of the females tend to score a 4 or 5 with a range of 6 or 7. That either says something about my friendship circle or the test.

I scored a 5 with a range of 10.

I am more attracted to men sexually, but, in terms of viewing, I think that the female body is more aesthetically pleasing to look at.

It reminds me of this episode on Seinfeld:

Elaine: "Well, the female body is a... work of art. The male body is
utilitarian, it's for gettin' around, like a jeep."
Jerry: "So you don't think it's attractive?"
Elaine: "It's hideous. The hair, the... the lumpiness. It's simian."
George: "Well, some women like it."
Elaine: "Hmm. Sickies."

LOL

This is a reason I find labels somewhat difficult. FOr instance, I have one friend who says that she finds women more a turn on than men (sexually) but men more a turn on in regards to relationships. So what is she? I know another gal who hates men, literally, and feels that if she had her way 90% would be castrated and the remaining "superior" 10% would be used to maintain the population -- yet she despises lesbianism. And many women will look up either feminist lesbain porn on the internet, or female on female porn that, while made for heterosexual men appeals to a lot of women. So are these women bi or lesbian?

[_MCB]

This is a reason I find labels somewhat difficult.... So are these women bi or lesbian?

You answer your own question. Set aside the labels and let people be people. Labels restrict peoples' options. They tend to act according to those labels, without overcoming the negative experiences that precipitated the problem.

[_Fiannan]

I admit that this test seems Freudian based. One who says they are not all that attracted to people of the opposite gender (asexual?) may be classified as being less heterosexual since the psychoanalytic school of thought would say something is going on in the sub conscious -- denial.

There was nothing remotely "freudian" in that test that I could identify. by the way, Freud worked with the idea of the Unconscious, "sub-conscious" and it's usual connotations have little to do with freudian thought. There is no monolithic "school" of psychoanalytic thought which understands sexuality so simplistically.

The test struck me as a tepid reworking of the Kinsey sexual continuum. There are much more interesting and challenging concepts that use a continuum model, as opposed to absolutely fixed categories, such as Adrienne Rich's notion of a "lesbian continuum," found in her well known essay, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence."

The the idea of a norm and deviations from it (and the submerged moralism of such a position), is however, not only absent from most kinds of modern psychology, but also quite historically variable.

Well, not sure Sigmund or Anna Freud would have agreed with the idea that psychoanalytic thought was so much a "big tent" since Anna occaionally had people kicked out of the organization she led, which not only carried on her father's work, but was extremely influencial in government in the 1940s - 1960s.

The thing is, few people thought about the sub conscious prior to Freud. He was the one to suggest that a behavior could be the result of hiding a desire -- for instance, an anti-porn zealot who secretly wants the stuff banned since he or she believes watching the stuff will make them go crazy. Same with anti-gun nuts. Now if a person is negative to homosexuality it can be diue to a religion, or it could be due to things like whether they think it is beneficial for society , or if they might secretly harbor such attractions.

I would place Freud into the category of those who believe that homosexuals should be treated fairly, but that it is totally improper for the society to equalize it with heterosexuality. He felt that all people were born with a form of bisexuality but that instincts to reproduce, coupled with society's expectations, steered most towards heterosexuality. Other "inverts" as he called them were not to be judged as "sinners" but they were genetic dead-ends.
So in the world of people who see it as not serving society they might have an equally negative attitude towards healthy people who fail to reproduce. I suppose in that respect Dick Cheney's daughter is following both the Bible's teaching to reproduce as well as a Darwinian law as well -- much more than a Mormon nun I might add.

[_Yoda]

I admit that this test seems Freudian based. One who says they are not all that attracted to people of the opposite gender (asexual?) may be classified as being less heterosexual since the psychoanalytic school of thought would say something is going on in the sub conscious -- denial.

There was nothing remotely "freudian" in that test that I could identify. by the way, Freud worked with the idea of the Unconscious, "sub-conscious" and it's usual connotations have little to do with freudian thought. There is no monolithic "school" of psychoanalytic thought which understands sexuality so simplistically.

The test struck me as a tepid reworking of the Kinsey sexual continuum. There are much more interesting and challenging concepts that use a continuum model, as opposed to absolutely fixed categories, such as Adrienne Rich's notion of a "lesbian continuum," found in her well known essay, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence."

The the idea of a norm and deviations from it (and the submerged moralism of such a position), is however, not only absent from most kinds of modern psychology, but also quite historically variable.

So what was your score, Blixa? Or did you bother taking the test? Just curious.