Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Suave on February 04, 2006, 04:11:25 AM
-
Only the liberal would make a "homophobia questionare" :rofl
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html
I scored 44.
-
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/art/p_title.gif) (http://cgi.entropymedia.com/actions/assaultquiz?1=5&2=5&3=5&4=5&5=5&6=5&7=5&8=5&9=5&10=5&11=5&12=5&13=5&14=5&15=5&16=5&17=5&18=5&19=5&20=1&21=5&22=5&23=5&24=5&25=5&submit.x=68&submit.y=10&submit=submit)
-
my score was 10. im not suprised at all.:aok
-
my score is 49. I'm not homophobic. funny because I dislike homos. this test is set up to be favorable to homos. while I wouldn't beat up a homo just for being a homo or damage their property I also wouldn't socialize with homos and I am intolerant of homos. the test is bogus.
-
I'm too afraid to even take the test.
And stop looking at me like that!
eskimo
-
I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT! I shouldn’t have taken that test; it labeled me as a studmuffin. Not gay, mind you, it called me a studmuffin! Oh my world is crashing down!
eskimo
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
my score was 10. im not suprised at all.:aok
So, you’re gay too?
eskimo
-
46 - Your score rates you as "non-homophobic."
-
30
That is also my age... wonder if i get a better score when i get older :D
-
hmmm you may be onto something there nilsen
-
Originally posted by storch
my score is 49. I'm not homophobic. funny because I dislike homos. this test is set up to be favorable to homos. while I wouldn't beat up a homo just for being a homo or damage their property I also wouldn't socialize with homos and I am intolerant of homos. the test is bogus.
Hehe you like the word homo dont you? :D
One more time...
-
16. But only because I was thinking of Nilsen.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
16. But only because I was thinking of Nilsen.
awwww you are so sweet! *wink wink*
-
92 - Your score rates you as "high-grade homophobic." :rofl :rolleyes:
-
40 - non homophobic.
And I reckon my score would have been lower if they'd added a qualifier question to the various "you tease, make fun off, make derogatory remarks" questions.......like..."do you take the piss out of everyone you've ever met regardless of race, nationality or sexual preference?".
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1137109117_20029211530-0-swoop.gif)
-
I think that's what the "3" is for.
-
37 - Your score rates you as "non-homophobic."
Karaya
-
71 - Your score rates you as "homophobic."
Does this mean I can't march in the parade?
-
44 both me and my girlfriend have homo brothers. They can be annoying but.... what ya gonna do?
lazs
-
79 - Your score rates you as "high-grade homophobic."
-
Isn't a "phobia" a fear of something? like Germaphobic is a person afraid or fearing germs.
I think homophobic has become just your standard anti-gay stereotype. I don't fear gays.....I hate them. Of course they'd get all emotional, throw a hissy fit and then say "you fear what you don't understand" but that's not true either. I don't understand gays but understanding doen't automatically mean acceptace.
-
Scored 7.
-
60
That test sucks. It doesn't appear to weight the questions individually.
Basically: let people do what they want. I don't give a crap if they take it up the bum or not. I won't discriminate against them in any way.
But I ain't comfortable around gays for one reason: the PC bull**** means I have to watch what I say or it may be considered hate speech.
I say a lot of crude and lewd things to my friends. Some homosexual people I've met have taken it has a personal attack on their sexuality, rather than me just being an immature arse. So that makes me uncomfortable - having to censor myself or risk being labelled what I'm not.
-
32...
My regards,
Widewing
-
45
Let 'em get married. That would take care of the parades.
-
my score was 15
-
No Guns, a Germaphobic is afraid of German's and Saurkraut. :D
But Homophobic is a very biased word. People who do not agree with homosexuality are automatically called Homophobic so as to weaken their position. I.E. It's not that they don't agree with Homos, it's that they are afraid of them. That's their problem.
I think there wouldn't be as much of a problem if they dropped the word Homophobe all together.
Btw, I scored a 44.
Also, take that website and your score with a grain of salt. That website is very pro-gay. It has many articles on why homophobia exists (repression of homosexuality) and that there is a gene that makes a person Homosexual. Each article makes many leaps and bounds and long stretches to prove it's point.
-
Gehyest thread of the year by far! :aok
Think if we petition skuzzy he would come up with a ::GEHY:: emoticon?
-
25 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."
"In his 1996 study of 64 white, male college students, Dr. Henry Adams classed 29 participants as "non-homophobic." Their mean score was 30.48, however, placing most of the men outside of this sub-group. Dr. Adams reported that he had difficulty finding heterosexual men whose scores ranked them as high-grade non-homophobic"
Oh crap, does that mean I'm a studmuffin?! Hold me, Gunslinger!
-
Originally posted by SOB
25 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."
"In his 1996 study of 64 white, male college students, Dr. Henry Adams classed 29 participants as "non-homophobic." Their mean score was 30.48, however, placing most of the men outside of this sub-group. Dr. Adams reported that he had difficulty finding heterosexual men whose scores ranked them as high-grade non-homophobic"
Oh crap, does that mean I'm a studmuffin?! Hold me, Gunslinger!
Yes SOB, embrace the obvious! :::hetro-hug:::
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Gehyest thread of the year by far! :aok
Think if we petition skuzzy he would come up with a ::GEHY:: emoticon?
LOL...something "flaming"? :)
-
19 - Sirloin is 3 times as gay as I am.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yes SOB, embrace the obvious! :::hetro-hug:::
Now you're confusing me. You tell me to embrace the obvious, then you hug me . I think you want to love me, and that makes me uncomfortable. So either I'm not gay, or you're ugly...but either way, I'm pretty sure you're queer as Freddie Mercury!
-
Originally posted by SOB
Now you're confusing me. You tell me to embrace the obvious, then you hug me . I think you want to love me, and that makes me uncomfortable. So either I'm not gay, or you're ugly...but either way, I'm pretty sure you're queer as Freddie Mercury!
Notice that I said "hetro" hug. It's not that I'm ugly its that your gay. Time to move on.
-
76 - Your score rates you as "high-grade homophobic."
-
I don’t think it’s fair that I gained all of my homophobe points just because I like to make fun of gay people; that doesn’t make me a homophobe, just rude and insensitive.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
I don’t think it’s fair that I gained all of my homophobe points just because I like to make fun of gay people; that doesn’t make me a homophobe, just rude and insensitive.
eskimo
Its still fun to make pick on them!! :rofl
-
24
-
(http://home.wtal.de/homer/home/ho_smile.gif)
"I like my beer cold; my TV loud and my homosexuals fah-laming!"
-
where's dowding?
-
46..... Apparently I'm not afraid of them either. I believe it is a mental disorder, as does Dr. Joyce Brothers so I'm in good company.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
60
That test sucks. It doesn't appear to weight the questions individually.
Basically: let people do what they want. I don't give a crap if they take it up the bum or not. I won't discriminate against them in any way.
But I ain't comfortable around gays for one reason: the PC bull**** means I have to watch what I say or it may be considered hate speech.
I say a lot of crude and lewd things to my friends. Some homosexual people I've met have taken it has a personal attack on their sexuality, rather than me just being an immature arse. So that makes me uncomfortable - having to censor myself or risk being labelled what I'm not.
If it makes you feel any better I've always thought of you as in immature arse and not a bigot.
-
Originally posted by Furball
where's dowding?
LOL :D
Sorry Dowding, but I've got the humor of a 12-year-old and I don't think that will ever get less funny, ya big poofter you. ;)
-
62 - Your score rates you as "homophobic."
I do dislike gays but the phobic part is a bit over the top.
I prefer the term "Probed Anas deprived" or "Anti-fudgepacker".
-
44
Its not what people do witheachother that irks me. Its the prancing, and the voice tones that turn me off..the same as a nagging woman, or other things that irritate.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
19 - Sirloin is 3 times as gay as I am.
eskimo
Didn't u do the Barbie skinned C202?...:)
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Didn't u do the Barbie skinned C202?...:)
It was a BarbieFire... But hey, at least I didn't score a 7 on the homophobe test!
Ok maybe 3 X is an exageration... 2.72 X as gay is probaly more accurate.
eskimo
-
I got a 40, does that mean I'm gay?
-
You know how I know you're gay?
'Cause I saw you giving Airhead an HJ in the hottub at the mini-con.
-
Originally posted by SOB
25 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."
"In his 1996 study of 64 white, male college students, Dr. Henry Adams classed 29 participants as "non-homophobic." Their mean score was 30.48, however, placing most of the men outside of this sub-group. Dr. Adams reported that he had difficulty finding heterosexual men whose scores ranked them as high-grade non-homophobic"
Oh crap, does that mean I'm a studmuffin?! Hold me, Gunslinger!
We MAY forgive you. Maybe.
Karaya
-
I'm not afriad of 'em...I just don't like most of them.
SOB, keep your hands and fish where I can see 'em. We don't need any accidnets in here. :D
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
44
Its not what people do witheachother that irks me. Its the prancing, and the voice tones that turn me off..the same as a nagging woman, or other things that irritate.
i agree, being gay is no excuse for being a nancy boy. i hate women who have the same attitude of "OMG WE GOTTA SHOP!! COME ON GIRLS!!" ****ing nancy boys. but i have no problem with their sexual orientation at all. and the whole roomate thing, consider sharing a condo with a lesbian, would you hit on her knowing that your advances would be an effort in futility? i wouldnt, but i am lazy.
-
27--Non-homopubic.
-
21 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."
High Grade!!
woot!
-
Originally posted by SOB
"In his 1996 study of 64 white, male college students, Dr. Henry Adams classed 29 participants as "non-homophobic." Their mean score was 30.48, however, placing most of the men outside of this sub-group. Dr. Adams reported that he had difficulty finding heterosexual men whose scores ranked them as high-grade non-homophobic"
Originally posted by midnight Target
21 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."
High Grade!!
woot!
:huh
-
49 - Your score rates you as "non-homophobic."
so not a homophobe, I just dont like them
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
49 - Your score rates you as "non-homophobic."
so not a homophobe I just dont like them
so yer sayin u don't like homo-phobes?
-
This thread makes me wonder...What Would Freud Do?
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
so yer sayin u don't like homo-phobes?
oops forgot a comma.
-
16
I am unafraid.
-
89..... High Grade Homophobe
-
44 - I aint afraid, just dont sit next to me on the bus
-
taking the test honestly i get a 73.
-
Homophobe --- what homosexual person coined that term? A phobia, by definition is an acute or intense FEAR of something. I, along with many others would argue that the anti-gay are not "afraid" of gays or lesbians by any means. I think Gays, in general, pump themselves up by convincing themselves the rest of the world is somehow scared.
No matter how you look at homosexuality, (religion or evolution) it is a failure.
It says in the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin and those who do it shall suffer in hell.
In evolution, the homosexuals die off, because they don't have offspring.
Hence, failures.
As far as I am concerned, anyone can be as gay as they want as long as they keep it to themselves.
-
so, Midnight, is your homophobia based on your unconscious fear about spending eternity suffering in hell?
-
Actually there are evolutionary theories that speculate the existance of homosexual or asexual family members strengthens the ability of the genome to be passed to the next generation.
I think the only failure here is in some folks attitude toward fellow humans.
-
26 here, must be why I get along so well with so many of you.... studmuffins.
-
Originally posted by Midnight
...It says in the Bible...
...In evolution...
keep your identity crisis to yourself please
-
Originally posted by Midnight
It says in the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin and those who do it shall suffer in hell.
Chapter and verse, please.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Chapter and verse, please.
How about this
orginally posted in the Bible
A. Leviticus 18:22 : "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
B. Leviticus 20:13 : "If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
C. Roman 1:26-27 : "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
Well, I guess it doesn't say "suffer in hell" but its clear that its a sin in the Bible.
Granted, I'm not religious, so it doesn't matter to me. I'm just pointing out that homosexuality is a failure in either religious or evolutionary circles.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
keep your identity crisis to yourself please
I don't have an identity crisis. I am not homosexual, and I don't follow the Bible. I am a straight, caucasion male that understands the science behind evolution. I also don't care about homosexuals, providing that they do not parade around acting like I am supposed to care about what they do and how they do it.
-
What if homosexuality is an evolutionary response to overpopulation?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
What if homosexuality is an evolutionary response to overpopulation?
:noid
Then everybody in China is gay?:O
Homosexuality accures in primates, any studies suggest why? maybe they're just bored?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
What if homosexuality is an evolutionary response to overpopulation?
It could be, but in today's society it is not a logical argument. There are too many single men and women out there to say that someone is unable to find a mate of the opposite sex. Also, being senitent, humans should not so easily sway, as they should be able to make a choice as to what will carry their bloodline.
A gay man must know that he can never have his own children if he does not have sexual intercourse with a woman.
Unfortunately, advances in science (artificial insemination) means that having children is no longer dependant on a man and a woman ever having even seen each other and therefore allowing homosexuals to carry their genes on to the next generation. That is something that could change evolution.
-
Homophobe: to be afraid of homosexuals...
No I've never meet a homo whom I couldn't kick his arse, so no I am not afraid of homos....:aok
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
What if homosexuality is an evolutionary response to overpopulation?
On south park it worked to curb the flow of illegal immigrants from the future.
-
Sometimes I feel like I'm talkin to a wall.
Genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother's side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. (Corna et al. 2004)
-
40 -
Guess not giving a rats in person or on the quiz is just not enough, for a low score. It requires active endorsement for that. interesting.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
What if homosexuality is an evolutionary response to overpopulation?
Interesting idea, but infertility might make more sense than nature producing men who don't know where to put their noodlees. Then again, nature made the platypus and the effing mosquito....so who knows?
-
I've always felt that gay people were no different than straight people aside from the obvious. They lead productive lives and are generally nice people. There are some that don't even fit the stereotype of a gay person. I've also noticed that most people (read: white middle aged males) are only concerned with male homosexuality. Female homosexuality is no different, and yet most men find it to be stimulating and, frankly, fun to watch.
I've never understood why people do what they do to gay people. Maybe it's because I'm too young to really understand, but it doesn't seem right to degrade someone over their choice of sexuality. What difference does it make? Unless they're coming on to you heavily, why make a fuss? Society has to label people to feel better about themselves, so they know where certain people stand in relation to themselves. Most people who dislike gay people do it because they're uncomfortable around them. Why? Security in ones sexuality helps that, I've found.
I don't particularly like gay people because most of the ones that I have met (who annouce to me they're gay) flaunt it like I'm supposed to treat them different. I've had friends in school who were gay and I had no problems with them, because they weren't "openly gay."
I guess we have issues with people being openly gay. That seems to be the reason for me.
Maybe I'll understand when I get more seasoned. 21 really isn't he age to be making philosophical observations.
-
is masturbation a gay activity?
-
yes but only if you have manly hands
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother's side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. (Corna et al. 2004)
What does that prove? It tells me that the women who were releated to the gay men probably had the same genes... which they both got from their mother. That just means the mother had the genes, and some got passed on to her son as well as her daughter.
-
Originally posted by texace
I've always felt that gay people were no different than straight people aside from the obvious. They lead productive lives and are generally nice people. There are some that don't even fit the stereotype of a gay person. I've also noticed that most people (read: white middle aged males) are only concerned with male homosexuality. Female homosexuality is no different, and yet most men find it to be stimulating and, frankly, fun to watch.
That about sums it up. If people want to be gay, fine. Just don't go acting it all out in front of the rest of us like it is a big thing that we all need to share in.
My opinion, men like to watch "lipstick lesbians" which are young, attractive women, because in public, they appear as women should (soft, pretty, dressing as women). If you saw one in public, you wouldn't know it unless she was acting openly sexual to another female. Also, men can look at them and be sexually interested.
Men don't like "butch lesbians" because they intentionally dress and act macho. It may be stero-type, but they are usually identifiable just walking by.
By the same token, if a man is gay, but looks and acts like a man in public, how would anyone know the difference?
But, if a man is dressing in feminine clothing, or walking around with a classic female strut, or talking in a high-pitched voice or presenting himself in a manner that is obviously non-masculine, it gives non-gay men a feeling of not wanting to deal with that person. It's not from a phobia.
My biggest issue is a question... Why is it when we (white males) don't like something and want nothing to do with it, the supporters of (insert sexual or religious group here) say that we are haters and have no tolerance? Why can't I just not like gay men the way I don't like to watch drag-racing or monster-truck rallies? I don't see drag-racing fans protesting that I am a drag-racing hater.
-
49 - Your score rates you as "non-homophobic."
I really don't care with what you do with yer donut as long as it DOES NOT include me!
Mac
-
Knee-jerk reactions, I suppose. They probably think you don't like them because they're gay, which equates discrimination in their eyes. Some people like that don't understand that others may not like thier attitude and thought process. We don't dislike them because they're gay, we dislike them because they're annoying.
If you tell me you're gay and I've known you for years, it's not going to change my opinion because I know who you are. If you tell me you're gay and I don't know you, but you don't make an effort to press your agrenda on me, then I can get along with you and be firends. If you announce you're gay and try to get me to like you, I probably won't.
It's more of a matter of disliking annoying, whiney people than it is gay people. Same thing with females. :confused:
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
is masturbation a gay activity?
No, if it's only YOUR hand!
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Midnight
It could be, but in today's society it is not a logical argument. There are too many single men and women out there to say that someone is unable to find a mate of the opposite sex. Also, being senitent, humans should not so easily sway, as they should be able to make a choice as to what will carry their bloodline.
I don't think you understand me. What I mean is that it's possible that humans have evolved so that a lot of them start screwing the same sex when population density is too high. Natural birth control.
It has nothing to do with the number of single men and women.
And I'm sure that many sentient humans choose same sex partners despite their own homosexual tendencies. Hell look at Tom Cruise.
-
The homosexuality you see in Nature is not a choice the animal makes about one sex over the other, it is instinct.
Homosexuality in nature is a dominating and embarassing act. I.E. Primates. Alpha monkeys will often mount lesser monkeys who do something they shouldn't have. It is incredibly embarassing, and you will probably never see the lesser monkey act out of place again.
Genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother's side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. (Corna et al. 2004)
I'd have to see the study. But from what I see here, it is shoddy science to claim that women with boosted fertility have more babies. Again I'd have to see the study, but this only shows that relatives of gay men CHOOSE to have more babies.
-
Originally posted by texace
It's more of a matter of disliking annoying, whiney people than it is gay people. Same thing with females. :confused:
Just last fall I was waiting in my doctors office to get my flu shot and this flamer came in wearing a fur coat and limp wristed and talking loudly about all kinds of rubbish...all I could think about is STFU! I almost left the office I was so put off by it. (fortunately he left for a snack cuz he was early)
Just like texace said, it wasn't because he was gay, it was because this person was bloody annoying.
-
22! High grade non-homo!
(phobe)
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
is masturbation a gay activity?
Mrs. Palm & her five lovely daughters....
-
Originally posted by Midnight
What does that prove? It tells me that the women who were releated to the gay men probably had the same genes... which they both got from their mother. That just means the mother had the genes, and some got passed on to her son as well as her daughter.
That's ok Merc, I'll explain.
It shows that it is possible that homosexuality may actually be a genetic trait that helps the genome replicate. Remember it is the gene that is the key, not the individual. And it also shows that it is not entirely a foregone conclusion that homosexuality is an evolutionary failure, as you are wont to think.
And Laser... the study is cited at the end of the quote. Feel free to look it up.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
That's ok Merc, I'll explain.
It shows that it is possible that homosexuality may actually be a genetic trait that helps the genome replicate. Remember it is the gene that is the key, not the individual. And it also shows that it is not entirely a foregone conclusion that homosexuality is an evolutionary failure, as you are wont to think.
And Laser... the study is cited at the end of the quote. Feel free to look it up.
When that gene can be identified in utero I'll bet the left will morph into rabid pro-lifers. :)
-
64 - Your score rates you as "homophobic."
43
-
I’m curious if people’s homophobia mellows with age; please post your age and homophobe #:
Age 40, homophobe 19
-
Age 17, 24
-
age 42 homophob 66
my son is 17 and he hit 79
:rofl
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
Just last fall I was waiting in my doctors office to get my flu shot and this flamer came in wearing a fur coat and limp wristed and talking loudly about all kinds of rubbish...all I could think about is STFU! I almost left the office I was so put off by it. (fortunately he left for a snack cuz he was early)
Just like texace said, it wasn't because he was gay, it was because this person was bloody annoying.
Ya, because I've never been annoyed by a loud mouthed 'redneck' spouting hate and mis-information on the basis that thier point of view is all that matters.
It annoys 'ME'! waaaaaaaa!
post after post like this ... me me me me....... your pretty selfish.
Originally posted by Midnight As far as I am concerned, anyone can be as gay as they want as long as they keep it to themselves.
Then how about you keep your marrige to yourself. Your girlfreind... You seem awefully happy to point out YOUR hetrosexuality..... What if others don't want to hear about your 'sick' sex life?
You don't see that you are doing exactly what your complaining about?
Originally posted by Midnight I don't have an identity crisis. I am not homosexual, and I don't follow the Bible. I am a straight, caucasion male that understands the science behind evolution. I also don't care about homosexuals, providing that they do not parade around acting like I am supposed to care about what they do and how they do it.
Get over yourselves. Does anyone care if your hetro? Imagine your post with "Gay"' and "hetro' terms in place of one another.
Seems like it's all about how YOU feel.
-
Originally posted by JBA
Homophobe: to be afraid of homosexuals...
No I've never meet a homo whom I couldn't kick his arse, so no I am not afraid of homos....:aok
Are you saying you know the sexual orientation of everyone you've ever met? Or are you saying that you've never met anyone whose bellybutton you couldn't kick?
-
Blukitty, I give your post "two snaps up"!
-
LOL
-
Do gay dolphins go to hell?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Do gay dolphins go to hell?
I thought they went to new zealand.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Do gay dolphins go to hell?
Of course not, you silly goose!
(http://www.angelfire.com/or/goroslair/images/biggayalfull.jpg)
-
bigamy should be legal for hermaphrodites?
-
Midnight and you do know those scriptures you're quoting were edited by a Roman Emperor in the 5th century A.C.
So it could mean didley squat.
Gay Dolphins go to Big Gay Al Animal sanctuary.
That and I scored a 74..... I wonder :D
-
scored 88... btw homophobia is not an appropriate term... it is a language trick to indicate a fear or to somehow make not liking the SOBs seem inappropriate. make no mistake, gays are not born, they are recruited. I dont fear em, i just have no use for em.
-
I got a score of 63... I'm betting I was in the mid 30's score wise until I had the misfortune of going to Provincetown, Mass.
Openly gay is fine by me, but seeing numerous same sex couples engaging in sexual activities in a public atmosphere just to make a political statement sours my opinion.
Heterosexual or Homosexual, keep it in the privacy of your own home...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
21 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."
High Grade!!
woot!
Heh, beat ya by 3 points! (18 here)
Funny thing is, I admitted by my answers that I routinely tell gay jokes, and use insulting descriptives to refer to gays.
Hmmmm.....well, I suppose that actually makes sense given the literal premise that this is to determine whether or not one fears gays :D
culero (thinks gays are absurd but is completely tolerant of them)
-
Scored a 9...
Hey, it's my bowling score! :huh
-
42 - Your score rates you as "non-homophobic."
I lived in the South End of Boston for 9 years, My nieghbor in the apt, above my wife and I was/is gay, had no problem, with him or the dozens of others on mt street,
Heck the keep the road so GD clean I loved it. The swept the street every spring, hung wreths every christmas, planeted flowers in ever avaible spot they could find.
The didn't bother me, knew I was straght, the didn't bother my wife, obviously. We would have him and others over for party's/ dinner and they us.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
I’m curious if people’s homophobia mellows with age; please post your age and homophobe #:
Age 40, homophobe 19
Age 45, Homophone 27
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
That's ok Merc, I'll explain.
It shows that it is possible that homosexuality may actually be a genetic trait ........ .........homosexuality is an evolutionary failure, as you are wont to think.
up.
I have always felt Homosexuality is a birth defect. Like i.e. downs syndrome.
There is no way that any animal species would have such a trait that would lead to its own extinction and it be a selected trait. It has to be either a decision of a birth defect.
-
age 39 score "non-homophobic." 42
-
I think the majority of homosexuality in todays world is learned behavior, but no doubt some cases can be medically proven that people are born that way.
-
38. I say derogatory things and laugh at the way the flamboyant gays act, but I otherwise couldn't give two ****s about a gay person being around me. Then again I treat everyone the same, I don't care what you do as long as it doesn't negatively affect me.
-SW
-
Originally posted by JBA
I have always felt Homosexuality is a birth defect. Like i.e. downs syndrome.
There is no way that any animal species would have such a trait that would lead to its own extinction and it be a selected trait. It has to be either a decision of a birth defect.
You clipped out my quote to make it sound exactly the opposite of what I said. Poor form.
Your feelings may be refuted by the evidence. Maybe you should read it.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
I’m curious if people’s homophobia mellows with age; please post your age and homophobe #
Age 45 score 44
-
19.
-
Age: 30
Score: 25
Definitely matured with age.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Age: 30
Score: 25
Definitely matured with age.
Does that mean that you have become more or less gay with age?
-
Totally more gay. As if you didn't know, mister man!
-
Interesting...
I think I'm getting more gay too...
-
is that possible?
-
It is for SOB. :D
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Interesting...
I think I'm getting more gay too...
I predict that 32.6% of those participating in this thread will become gay within 2 weeks. 75.5% of those people just reading this thread and did not post will turn gay within 2 weeks.
-
84
Really, in soviet times homosexuality was a crime.
-
Before or after the Nazis invaded? Actually it was a crime in US too untill very recently.
We had nazi laws like that too. Some colleges even had rules against mixed ethnic dating untill the 1990s.
-
Isn't there three states in the USA where it's legal for a M&F to have anal sex but for two men to do the same it's crime punishable by being jailed?
-
Originally posted by Suave
Before or after the Nazis invaded? Actually it was a crime in US too untill very recently.
Hmmm. Really, never thought it can behave to nazi law. I'll check the criminal law history book.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Before or after the Nazis invaded? Actually it was a crime in US too untill very recently.
You will be surprised. Me too.
The first law dated 1832.
Changed at 1903.
Withdrawn at 1917.
Again operated from 1933.
Changed at 1960.
Withdrawn at 1993.
I think there was no nazi problem at 1832. Really, the same law, but not for civilians (russian army drill regulations) are dated from 1706 with change at 1716.
-
Originally posted by Estel
84
Really, in soviet times homosexuality was a crime.
It has been a crime in most non-Greek civilizations. Laws banning gay activities have been falling by the wayside for decades. At this rate I’m sure that it will be against the law NOT to be gay within 50 years or so.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Isn't there three states in the USA where it's legal for a M&F to have anal sex but for two men to do the same it's crime punishable by being jailed?
i know there are states with laws against oral sex of any kind... i thought texas was one of them.
-
So dating a Ghey Asian Albino Midget would just be WRONG!
:huh
-
Originally posted by AWMac
So dating a Ghey Asian Albino Midget would just be WRONG!
:huh
Unless you live in Kalifornia.
-
Finally read the thread and took the silly test, scored a 51 which I'm fairly certain is as low as an evangelical who accepts the scriptural witness on the subject is going to be able to score.
The test itself assumes that homosexuality is an ethical lifestyle and in no sense inherently wrong or immoral and that further the only reason someone would not endorse that lifestyle is that one has an irrational hatred and fear of homosexual. It also assumes that a negative assesment of homosexuality will result in violent, abusive, and discriminatory behavior towards homosexuals. Presumably the more negative your assessment, the more likely you are to be violent. In other words, enlightened, rational, and peaceful people are favorably inclined to homosexuality, only mindless bigots are opposed to it. The problem is not homosexuality, the problem is your negative reaction to it.
I believe the fundamental flaws in these premises can be exposed if one were to reframe the test in terms of adultery and adulterers. Is it not possible to have a negative view of adultery as ethically wrong without being labeled an "adulterophobe?" Must we accept that the problem cannot be adultery, but must instead be our inability to accept and embrace it? Does my opposition to adultery really have to stem from an irrational hatred and fear of adulterers, or might I honestly believe it to be wrong in and of itself. Am I really bound to go around acting violently towards adulterers because I am strongly opposed to adultery?
A test that cannot even allow for decisions based on the validity of biblical ethics or even "traditional morals" is hardly an objective assessment of character.
- SEAGOON
-
Congratulations, you have just debunked this Intardnet quiz. Although, I think your time could have been better spent picking your teeth or clipping your toenails or maybe just staring at the wall.
-
57
You would really need a psychology professor to explain what phobias are, but it doesn't take much smarts to understand the quiz isn't legit where it would serve science. It is incomplete, and as Seagoon said, leaves out so many things that might make it a scientific test, it should not be treated as such.
Lot of fun though reading the thread. Guess now I've participated. Man, talk about peer pressure. Dang it Airscrew got me to thinking. Was the only reason I participated.:)
Les
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Finally read the thread and took the silly test, scored a 51 which I'm fairly certain is as low as an evangelical who accepts the scriptural witness on the subject is going to be able to score.
The test itself assumes that homosexuality is an ethical lifestyle and in no sense inherently wrong or immoral and that further the only reason someone would not endorse that lifestyle is that one has an irrational hatred and fear of homosexual. It also assumes that a negative assesment of homosexuality will result in violent, abusive, and discriminatory behavior towards homosexuals. Presumably the more negative your assessment, the more likely you are to be violent. In other words, enlightened, rational, and peaceful people are favorably inclined to homosexuality, only mindless bigots are opposed to it. The problem is not homosexuality, the problem is your negative reaction to it.
I believe the fundamental flaws in these premises can be exposed if one were to reframe the test in terms of adultery and adulterers. Is it not possible to have a negative view of adultery as ethically wrong without being labeled an "adulterophobe?" Must we accept that the problem cannot be adultery, but must instead be our inability to accept and embrace it? Does my opposition to adultery really have to stem from an irrational hatred and fear of adulterers, or might I honestly believe it to be wrong in and of itself. Am I really bound to go around acting violently towards adulterers because I am strongly opposed to adultery?
A test that cannot even allow for decisions based on the validity of biblical ethics or even "traditional morals" is hardly an objective assessment of character.
- SEAGOON
Seagoon,
Who is more likely to physically abuse/attack a gay person: someone who scored a 10 on the test or someone who scored a 90? Really, I think that the only folks who might consider attacking gays for being gay are those who have very high scores and an intense hatred/fear of gays. Those in the middle simply have a typical dislike of gayness.
Suppose I had two neighbors, one was gay and the other was an adulterer. I’d probably be friends with both; however, I would probably think less of the adulterer. After all, she broke a serious promise to her husband and an implied promise to her children and even her parents. The gay neighbor has not hurt anyone or broken any promises. Besides, her partner is really hot and they never close their shades.
It’s really not a good comparison: the fear/hatred of gays versus adulterers. Not since the puritan days have people abused adulterers. The fear/hatred of gays really is irrational; based on many people’s reactions to gays; you’d think it was an awful crime equal to child molestation. The entire point/question is: why do people care so intensely how other people behave sexually? Honestly, I just don’t get it. Do most people imagine every person/couple they meet having sex and they can’t stand the idea of homos going at it? If I were forced to watch either: a couple of average homos going at it or an old obese hairy couple going at it I think I’d be able to keep my lunch down a bit longer watching the homos. Why don’t people protest against old obese hairy couples having sex? You never hear about that, why? It’s gross isn’t it?
Seriously, if anyone with a medium or high score could chime in here, what is it that bothers you so much about gays? Please don’t spew out the typical’ “it’s just wrong” and “the bible says its wrong” response, be specific. What goes through your mind when you are disturbed about gays? Is your mind somehow forced to imagine them having sex? Are you afraid that they are going to hump you while you’re sleeping? Do biblical passages appear in your mind when you meet a gay?
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Seriously, if anyone with a medium or high score could chime in here, what is it that bothers you so much about gays? Please don’t spew out the typical’ “it’s just wrong” and “the bible says its wrong” response, be specific. What goes through your mind when you are disturbed about gays? Is your mind somehow forced to imagine them having sex? Are you afraid that they are going to hump you while you’re sleeping? Do biblical passages appear in your mind when you meet a gay?
eskimo
While I can't juge what is attractive or not, I get the sense that most men greatly exaggerate the attractiveness of their own ass.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Finally read the thread and took the silly test, scored a 51 which I'm fairly certain is as low as an evangelical who accepts the scriptural witness on the subject is going to be able to score.
The test itself assumes that homosexuality is an ethical lifestyle and in no sense inherently wrong or immoral and that further the only reason someone would not endorse that lifestyle is that one has an irrational hatred and fear of homosexual. It also assumes that a negative assesment of homosexuality will result in violent, abusive, and discriminatory behavior towards homosexuals. Presumably the more negative your assessment, the more likely you are to be violent. In other words, enlightened, rational, and peaceful people are favorably inclined to homosexuality, only mindless bigots are opposed to it. The problem is not homosexuality, the problem is your negative reaction to it.
I believe the fundamental flaws in these premises can be exposed if one were to reframe the test in terms of adultery and adulterers. Is it not possible to have a negative view of adultery as ethically wrong without being labeled an "adulterophobe?" Must we accept that the problem cannot be adultery, but must instead be our inability to accept and embrace it? Does my opposition to adultery really have to stem from an irrational hatred and fear of adulterers, or might I honestly believe it to be wrong in and of itself. Am I really bound to go around acting violently towards adulterers because I am strongly opposed to adultery?
A test that cannot even allow for decisions based on the validity of biblical ethics or even "traditional morals" is hardly an objective assessment of character.
- SEAGOON
what a convoluted arguement! that's close to what I would expect Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson to say. Seagoon, do you also beleive the purple tele-tubby is gay?
-
Hi Eskimo,
Originally posted by eskimo2
Seagoon,
Who is more likely to physically abuse/attack a gay person: someone who scored a 10 on the test or someone who scored a 90?
Curiously enough, according to the statistics, someone who scored between 0 and ten is much more likely to abuse/attack a gay person. By far the largest number of attacks on homosexuals are perpetrated by other homosexuals, with some stats indicating that gay couples are up to 10 times more likely to batter one another than married heterosexual couples. The Justice Department report "Intimate Partner Violence 1993-1998" released in May of 2000, for instance, indicated that domestic violence occurred in 25-30% of homosexual households - and that was just the reported crimes that could be statitstically analyzed.
In any event Eskimo, to interact briefly with your other questions, it is actually possible to be strongly opposed to homosexuality for other than visceral or emotional reasons, and also without a desire to attack them. For instance, my own opposition to homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with feelings of revulsion or the somewhat bizzarre sequence of fantasies you outlined. The chief end of my life is to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever" one of the outworkings of a sincere love for God is the desire to obey His commands, and while the Bible teaches that sex is His good gift, it indicates that this good gift is to be enjoyed in the context of heterosexual marriage, and that outside of that context we are taking what He has given and misusing it and disobeying his commands. So far instance, Joseph refused to commit adultery, not out of fear, but because he loved God (Gen. 39:9) Therefore I'm opposed to any misuse of sex, including homosexual sex.
I know this will seem hard to believe, but I'm far from "homophobic." I've worked with homosexuals, and even counseled homosexuals trying to leave that lifestyle. Prior to becoming a Christian, I even lived over a gay bar in Alexandria, VA and worked security at Columbia Island Marina, which is one of D.C.s major gay trysting spots after dark. I've had a chance to see the long term damage that homosexuality or any other lifestyle that makes an idol out of fornication can do. It's not surprising to me at all that the life expectancy of gay men is significantly lower than that of heterosexuals, that gay relationships are hardly ever monogamous and generally short-lived, that the suicide rates in the gay community are depressingly high, or that it is plagued with STDs. We were not created for an endless pursuit of sexual gratification, and when we attempt to make that the chief end of our lives, we will inevitably end up failing to find contentment or even peace. Quite the opposite, usually its an e-ticket to depression, despair and bitterness. It's questing after dust. "Vanity and Grasping for the wind" as the author of Ecclesiasties puts it. So while the primary reason I am opposed to homosexuality is from a desire to obey Scripture, the secondary reason is because homosexuality like all heart idols, consumes its worshippers and I don't want that to be the end of anyone's life. I know that the current wisdom is that if we don't accept the lifestyle we must hate the practitioners, but actually I'd say that by accepting a destructive lifestyle we actually do them far more harm.
I know this will make little sense to a hard-core materialist, especially the young ones, or to someone who has never really reached an end of the pursuit of pleasure, but believe me if scripture hadn't told me that, the evidence of my own experience would have made that clear.
- SEAGOON
-
Does this guy ever answer a question with less than 500 words ?
-
Nope.
-
If Seagoon's feelings are similar to what the Catholic church taught me, then he wouldn't dislike homosexual individuals so much as dislike the practice/glorification of that "lifestyle". To that line of thought, homosexuality could be compared to someone who, say, feels the need to masturbate 20 times a day. While it's no fault of the person who has that particular trait, it's nonetheless an unhealthy lifestyle which certainly shouldn't be "celebrated" or encouraged. At least that's how several of the Catholic priests I know feel about it, and that's similar to how I feel about it, too.
I'm not religious in any active sense of the word. I harbor very little respect towards the institution of marriage, as marriage as it is today is virtually meaningless anyway. Real commitment comes from a bond between two people, not from signing on the dotted line or having the local Priest say "Man and Wife". I know plenty of "married" couples who disgrace the very idea of marriage, to say nothing of those people who get married/divorced multiple times. It's like the people who live however immorally they want 6 days a week, but think going to church every Sunday somehow makes them more "religious" than I am. What a joke.
But then, we live in an age where it's considered okay and even encouraged to cheat on your spouse as long as you do it before you're officially married. Considering the small number of gays in the population, homosexuality is at most a minor concern. Our society might be decaying from within, but that decay isn't caused by gays and anyone blaming the gays is merely searching for a scapegoat.
My score on the test ranged from low 30's to upper 40's, after taking it a few times with different "qualifying assumptions" for several of the overly broad questions.
J_A_B
-
Seagoon, you quoted a statistic "The Justice Department report "Intimate Partner Violence 1993-1998" released in May of 2000, for instance, indicated that domestic violence occurred in 25-30% of homosexual households"
I guess you never read it (the DoJ report) or you get your stats second hand from an unreliable source.
Here it is... Please find the passage you are quoting?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vvr98.txt
Intimate partner violence, 1993-98
Between 1993 and 1998, an average of 1.1 million
violent crimes were committed against persons by
their current or former spouses, boyfriends, or
girlfriends annually. An average of 87% of this
violence, termed intimate partner violence, was
committed against women.
Between 1993 and 1998 intimate partner
victimization of women differed by race. American
Indians were victimized by an intimate at rates
higher than those for all other females -- 23
American Indians per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
compared to 11 blacks, 8 whites, and 2 Asians.
Black females were victimized at higher rates than
white and Asian females, and white females
experienced violence by an intimate at rates
higher than Asians.
Average annual rate
of inmate partner
violence per 1,000
persons age 12 or
older, 1993-98
Female Male
White 8.1 1.3
Black 11.2 2.0
American Indian 23.2 4.2*
Asian 1.9 0.3*
*Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
Trends in intimate partner violence
The rate of intimate partner violence against
white females fell significantly between 1993 and
1998, from 10 victimizations to 8 victimizations
per 1,000 women.
The apparent decline in the rate of intimate
partner violence against black females as measured
by comparing the 1993 and 1998 rates was not
significant. Insufficient sample sizes for
American Indian and Asian females prevented
examination of trends.
Female victims of intimate partner
violence, by year, 1993-98
Female victims of intimate partner violence
White Black
Number Rate Number Rate
Total 4,560,740 8.1 961,380 11.2
1993 895,090 9.8 162,600 11.9
1994 813,670 8.8 174,470 12.5
1995 731,850 7.8 188,510 13.3
1996 689,170 7.3 177,530 12.3
1997 695,930 7.4 129,610 8.9
1998 735,040 7.7 128,660 8.7
Note: Multiple-offender victimizations are
classified by the most intimate relationship
between the victim and one of the offenders.
There were too few cases of Asian and
American Indian females to provide reliable
estimates for each year.
Among white males there was no discernible trend
in the occurrence of intimate partner violence.
The rate in 1998 was similar to the 1993 rate.
There were too few sample cases for black,
American Indian, and Asian males for estimation of
changes in rates by year.
Reporting of intimate partner violence
Intimate partner violence is reported to police in
lower percentages than violent crime in general.
The percentage of intimate partner violence
against females reported to police did not differ
by the race of the victim, 1993-98. The only
exception was that 66% of violence by intimates
against black females was reported to police
compared to 51% of violence against white females.
The percentage of violence against white, Asian
(52%), and American Indian (51%) females reported
between 1993 and 1998 was similar (not shown in
table).
White male victims of intimate partner
violence, by year, 1993-98
Number Rate
Total 713,466 1.3
1993 136,380 1.6
1994 146,610 1.7
1995 104,050 1.2
1996 96,940 1.1
1997 87,370 1.0
1998 142,120 1.6
Note: Multiple-offender victimizations are
classified by the most intimate relationship
between the victim and one of the offenders.
There were too few cases of black, Asian, an
American Indian males to provide reliable
estimates for each year.
Reasons for not reporting the victimization were
similar across the victims' racial groups,
1993-98. Violence by intimates against females
was not reported to police most commonly because
the victim stated it was a "private or personal
matter." Other commonly stated reasons this
violence was not reported to the police was
because the victim "feared reprisal" and the
victim wished to "protect the offender."
For additional information see Intimate
Partner Violence, BJS Special Report, May
2000, NCJ 178247, and Violence by Intimates,
BJS Factbook, March 1998, NCJ 167237, available
on the BJS website.
Reasons for not reporting intimate partner
violence to the police, females, 1993-98
Female victims of intimate partner violence
White Black
Average Average
annual Percent annual Percent
Private or
personal matter 124,210 34% 19,400 36%
Afraid of reprisal 70,760 19 10,390 19
Protect offender 45,630 12 6,830 13
Small/no loss 27,500 7 1,380* 3*
Police will not
bother 21,570 6 2,850* 5*
Other reason
given 147,850 40 26,290 49
Note: Percentages may not total to 100% because
respondents could suggest more than one reason. "Other
reason given" include responses such as "police
ineffectiveness or biased," "not clear a crime occurred,"
"inconvenient," and "reported to another official." There
were too few cases of Asians and American Indians to
provide reliable individual year estimates.
*Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
---------------------------------------
-
Seagoon,
Paragraph #1: You took my words out context and avoided the question:
“Who is more likely to physically abuse/attack a gay person: someone who scored a 10 on the test or someone who scored a 90? Really, I think that the only folks who might consider attacking gays for being gay are those who have very high scores and an intense hatred/fear of gays. Those in the middle simply have a typical dislike of gayness.”
Gays generally do not attack each other for being gay; “domestic violence” has nothing to do with homophobia and hate crimes.
Hetero men are also probably more likely to abuse hetero women; so what?
Paragraph #2: The keyword in all of this is “likely”. Likely clearly does not mean absolute. No one, not even the test I think, is suggesting that you personally are a highly likely to attack a gays for being gay.
Paragraph #3:
I’m sure that most folks who scored a 90 also do not consider themselves homophobic. After all, who’s afraid of a studmuffin? Right?
“We were not created for an endless pursuit of sexual gratification, and when we attempt to make that the chief end of our lives, we will inevitably end up failing to find contentment or even peace.” - You said this after explaining the sorts of gays that you have been exposed to. Find an equally seedy hetero bar area and you are going to find many of the same problems. Personally, I don’t know too many “out” gays but the ones that I do know are all in long term relationships. I doubt if they consider the pursuit of sex any more important than I do.
That aside, I’m sure that many gay men live for sex, as do many hetero men, so what?
eskimo
-
I think that the testers and guys like blukitty just aren't getting it.
It is not fear that drives most people uncomfortable with homosexuals... it is not even the fact that they are homo's.
The vast majority of us don't care or even know details about others sex life.
The problem comes with the normal human trait to emphathize... It is what we do. We place our selves in the situation that we see or... sometimes, even hear about.
As such... it is perfectly normal to be repulsed by seeing males kissing in public say. When we see attractive male/female partners doing the same we react differently. This is far from "homophobic" this is a natural and normal way to be.
most likely there is only a tiny little portion of the population that actually fears homo's
lazs
-
yup and the person who fears that homo is the other homo he hangs out with.
-
homophobia doesn't mean being afraid of a homosexual person or persons, it is an internal fear that "YOU" may have these feelings...the phobic person will repress/supress these feelings unconsciously.
It is this fear that prompts phobic people to act threatened when they see a homosexual or homosexual behavoir. That is what is not normal.
This explains what happened in Boston this past week. The only threat to the attacker was his own internal fear; He projected this unconscious threat onto gay guys he never met - hence: homophobia
-
Hi MT,
The stat was a cite from a counseling journal published a few years ago, I've did some tracking since and found they pulled the stat from another report which miscited the document. I suspect they probably meant to cite a paragraph from a different report released by the DoJ in July 2000 "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence":
"The survey found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2 percent of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 percent of the opposite sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent."
So thank you for noting the problem in the cite. I'll withdraw the original statement for the sake of argument. If you want personal experience in counseling in terms of "intimate partner battery" the highest number of incidents I've seen and discussed with other counselors, is from single relatively promiscuous women in multiple short-term relationships. The lowest is from couples married 7 or more years. The testimony from other counselors I've spoken with tends to confirm that pattern.
Anyway, Mea Culpa. My apologies for citing secondary sources in the first place. When it comes to scripture, theology, religion, and history I can usually cite the originals, but when it comes to crime stats, I admit most of my contact is via secondary or tertiary summaries.
- SEAGOON
Originally posted by midnight Target
Seagoon, you quoted a statistic "The Justice Department report "Intimate Partner Violence 1993-1998" released in May of 2000, for instance, indicated that domestic violence occurred in 25-30% of homosexual households"
I guess you never read it (the DoJ report) or you get your stats second hand from an unreliable source.
-
xtoronto.... I have never heard of a phobia that was based on your fear of becoming the feared object. That just seems weird..
But say you are right.... there can't be more than a tiny sliver of a percent of people who are afraid that they wil become homos so act as you describe.. certainly not enough to throw the word about so much.
lazs
-
lazs, here's a definition to what I'm referring:
Projection: Projection is one of the defense mechanisms identified by Freud and still acknowledged today. According to Freud, projection is when someone is threatened by or afraid of their own impulses so they attribute these impulses to someone else.
For example, a person in psychoanalysis may insist to the therapist that he knows the therapist wants to rape some women, when in fact the client has these awful feelings to rape the woman.
source (http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.cfm?term=Projection)
-
I scored 41, but I'm subratcing 10 points because I was eating a banana during the quiz...
22. It bothers me to see two homosexual people together in public.
the $7 charge for a bottle of budweiser bothered me during the lesbian sorority girls stage show
-
Originally posted by Debonair
I scored 41, but I'm subratcing 10 points because I was eating a banana during the quiz...
the $7 charge for a bottle of budweiser bothered me during the lesbian sorority girls stage show
LOL!
If you feel the need to subtract 10 points, I don’t think that you were EATING that banana.
eskimo
-
One thing in this world there's a real shortage of is love. Too many people just don't realize how precious it is, in any form.
-
xtoronto.. that is called projection and not a phobia. It like firearms... people either fear them because they project or because they are phobic... two entirely different things.
I think that using the word "homophobic" in the wrong way is indicative of an agenda.
lazs