Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Something for our Straight Readers

Here is an old questionnaire, recently reprinted in Psychology Today. Take it and see how you come out:
Questions for Heterosexuals
developed by Martin Rochlin, Ph.D., 1977

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2. When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?

3. Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?

4. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?

5. Isn't it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?

6. Heterosexuals have histories of failures in gay relationships. Do you think you may have turned to heterosexuality out of fear of rejection?

7. If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer that?

8. If heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate number of mental patients heterosexual?

9. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?

10. Your heterosexuality doesn't offend me as long as you don't try to force it on me. Why do you people feel compelled to seduce others into your sexual orientation?

11. If you choose to nurture children, would you want them to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face?

12. The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you really consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?

13. Why do you insist on being so obvious, and making a public spectacle of your heterosexuality? Can't you just be what you are and keep it quiet?

14. How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to a compulsive, exclusive heterosexual object choice and remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, natural, healthy, God-given homosexual potential?

15. Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to narrowly restricted, stereotyped sex-roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role-playing?

16. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?

17. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?

18. How could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual, considering the menace of overpopulation?

19. There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed with which you might be able to change if you really want to. Have you considered aversion therapy?

20. Do heterosexuals hate and/or distrust others of their own sex? Is that what makes them heterosexual?

How did you do? Are you normal?

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey TTFers,

when and how did you first decide you were not sexually attracted to horses?

I'm glad that while we're pondering what is important for the government to borrow money for that we have someone as wise as Barack Obama to sort through it for us:

"The federal government funded a study that examined what effect a gay man's penis size has on his sex life and general well-being.

The study was among several backed by the National Institutes of Health that have come under scrutiny from a group claiming the agency is wasting valuable tax dollars at a time when the country is trying to control its debt. This particular research resulted in a 2009 report titled, "The Association Between Penis Size and Sexual Health Among Men Who Have Sex with Men."

The study reported, among its findings, that gay men with "below average penises" were more likely to assume a "bottom" sexual position, while those with "above average penises" were more likely to assume a "top" sexual position. Those with average penises identified themselves as "versatile" in the bedroom."

glad they could help gays sort out that whole "top-bottom" thing

"The grant was administered by NIH's National Institute on Drug Abuse, and went first to a group called Public Health Solutions and a researcher with the National Development and Research Institutes before going to individual researchers.

Those researchers then compiled data from a survey of more than 1,000 gay and bisexual men at events in New York City for the gay community.

"This country is broke and we cannot spend money on this kind of stuff," said Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition, which drew attention to the report as part of a six-month investigation into NIH grants for examples of "institutional waste."

A Traditional Values Coalition release stated that at least $9.4 million went to a 10-year study that included the penis-size research.

The study, which last year was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, claimed there previously had been "little research among men who have sex with men assessing the association between penis size and socio-sexual health."

The study found that men with larger penises were more likely to contract certain sexually transmitted diseases. It also found that men with above-average penises enjoyed more satisfaction with their lifestyle.

The original survey had a relatively high response rate -- with 83 percent of those approached agreeing to participate. "As an incentive, those who completed the survey were given a voucher for free admission to a movie," the study said."

July 19, 2011 10:53 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

I'm glad that while we're pondering what is important for the government to borrow money for that we have someone as wise as Barack Obama to sort through it for us

I see you are still having that reading comprehension problem, Anon. You could probably improve your comprehension if you read the whole article instead of skipping over parts you don't like.

You seemed to have missed this bit of pertinent information:

"Though it's difficult to trace exactly how much federal funding went to the project, the study was one of many linked to an $899,769 grant in 2006. The grant was administered by NIH's National Institute on Drug Abuse, and went first to a group called Public Health Solutions and a researcher with the National Development and Research Institutes before going to individual researchers. "

This study Anon finds so fascinating, as he laments his long lost love, Mr. Ed, is just another piece of pie BUSH and his GOP cronies bought with borrowed money.

Now once again, it's up to the Democratic President to clean up after the GOP ex-President. Clinton cleaned up after Reagan and Daddy Bush, turning their deficits into surplus, and Obama will clean up after Baby Bush too.

Unless of course the GOP decides to continue to sit on their hands and shut down the government again. It worked so well for them last time...

July 19, 2011 2:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Now once again, it's up to the Democratic President to clean up after the GOP ex-President. Clinton cleaned up after Reagan and Daddy Bush, turning their deficits into surplus, and Obama will clean up after Baby Bush too."

Clinton only had surpluses because, two years after he was elected, Americans gave control of Congress to Newt Gingrich's troops who had a contract with America to balance the budget.

He had no choice.

Similarly, the deficit problem is only being talked about now because the Tea Party forced it into the conversation.

Obama presented his budget in February projecting trillion and a half dollar deficits to the horizon and hoped the Tea Party was bluffing and would just automatically approve a debt extension.

He got a suprise!

Now, he's trying to keep up with a process where he has provided no leadership.

He has no choice.

July 19, 2011 5:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You seemed to have missed this bit of pertinent information:

"Though it's difficult to trace exactly how much federal funding went to the project, the study was one of many linked to an $899,769 grant in 2006. The grant was administered by NIH's National Institute on Drug Abuse, and went first to a group called Public Health Solutions and a researcher with the National Development and Research Institutes before going to individual researchers."

it's interesting that Bea the Ditz thinks the fact that the exact amount the government spent to study penis size in gays can't be determined is "pertinent"

the rest of us thinks it's quite ridiculous that the government spent any money at all for this purpose

for things like this we should raise taxes?

just goes to show how "out-of-it" these lunatic fringe types are

July 19, 2011 5:52 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Actually, this study has an important result. They find that men with larger penises did not have significantly more sex partners than average and small men, but they did have significantly higher rates of viral skin-to-skin STIs, including anal/genital warts (HPV), anal/genital herpes (HSV-2), gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and urinary tract infection. In understanding this result it is important to know what the men were doing, and it turns out that men with larger penises tend to be the penetrators while those with smaller ones get penetrated. This information can help understand how particular diseases are spread, which is an important consideration for health science.

Condom use did not correlate either way with reported penis size. The researchers classify STIs into two classes, those that are spread by skin-to-skin contact and those that are spread by fluids. Men with larger penises have higher rates of skin-so-skin diseases but not the fluid-spread kind.

Two possible explanations for the data are that 1.condoms may tend to break and leak on larger penises, and 2.penetrating is a more dangerous way to catch some diseases than is being penetrated. Having found the higher rate of a certain class of infection for larger-penised men, researchers should then investigate these two hypotheses and see if one or the other better explains the relationship.

It is not trivial at all but an important thing to know about the spread of disease. It is a simple, straightforward epidemiological question with a useful result. Some people may think it would be okay to simply let gay men get sick and die, but I think medical science should study and understand the spread of diseases, even among gay men.

JimK

July 19, 2011 6:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

could we pay for it with a special tax on gay bars?

July 19, 2011 6:47 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"it's interesting that Bea the Ditz thinks the fact that the exact amount the government spent to study penis size in gays can't be determined is "pertinent""

Do personal insults win many arguments for you Anon?

Let me spoonfeed the "pertinent information" to the you with a baby spoon this time so maybe you'll get it. Doubtful, but maybe.

"Though it's difficult to trace exactly how much federal funding went to the project, the study was one of many linked to an $899,769 grant in 2006. "

So while you are "pondering what is important for the government to borrow money for that we have someone as wise as Barack Obama to sort through it for us", the truth is the grant to study penis sizes in gay men was funded in 2006, meaning it was GOP who appropriated, borrowed, and approved spending money on this research all the way.

Wise people will remember Obama was a Senator and Bush was President in 2006 when this borrowed money was spent for this project. It wasn't until January 2007 the Democrats took over the House.

July 20, 2011 8:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama is trying to protect the status quo

he wants to increase this kind of inane expenditure of tax funds

he introduced a budget in February as proof of that

the Tea Party has, shockingly, proposed that we return non-essential government spending to pre-stimulus levels

what a bunch of nuts, right?

Bush is not running for President and is not part of the Tea party

he is a moderate Republican

he and Obama are fast friends with similar policies

July 20, 2011 9:01 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Oh brother, Anon. You'll say any lie -- like Obama and Bush have "similar policies" -- when everyone knows Obama wants to cut the Bush tax cuts but it's members of the GOP including the Tea Baggers who don't!

It's clear to everyone but Anon who shares "similar policies" on taxation with Bush -- today's corporate funded GOTP.

July 20, 2011 10:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NIH was given 1 billion in stimulus funds and told to spend it in a month. projects takes 5-6 years to complete, but the funds HAD to be spent in 30 days.

Even the libs at NIH thought it an outrageous waste of money.

Stimulus was a STUPID idea, and if we hadn't had that ridiculous expenditure, we wouldn't be in this situation now.

July 20, 2011 11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to the Treasury Department, when George W. Bush took office in 2001 the national debt was $5.73 trillion ($5,727,776,738,304.64 on Jan. 20, 2001) and when Bush left office in 2009, the national debt had increased to $10.63 trillion ($10,626,877,048,913.08 on Jan. 20, 2009). That’s an 85% increase of $4.9 trillion.

The reality is that the national debt is now about $5-6 trillion higher than that figure because taxpayers now are responsible for half the mortgage loans in this country. This is because in September 2008, Bush nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and placed them into a conservatorship run by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So the total national debt that Obama came to office with is more like $16 trillion.

Today the national debt stands at $14,342,898,467,069.07.

The idea behind stimulus money is to quickly get it into the hands of consumers who will spend it and drive up demand. Businesses don't hire or expand when there is no demand for their products. We need another stimulus and we need it now because now that stimulus spending is done, unemployment figures are creeping back up. Unemployment will continue to rise so as long as demand remains low.

July 20, 2011 5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh brother, Anon. You'll say any lie -- like Obama and Bush have "similar policies" -- when everyone knows Obama wants to cut the Bush tax cuts but it's members of the GOP including the Tea Baggers who don't!

It's clear to everyone but Anon who shares "similar policies" on taxation with Bush -- today's corporate funded GOTP."

Oh, I'm not saying there's absolutely no difference.

Just that the difference isn't significant.

Bush expanded Medicare, expanded the deficit.

Obama has opened a third front in the war on Islamic fundamentalists, and favors keeping the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.

Bush would never get Tea Party endorsement.

"According to the Treasury Department, when George W. Bush took office in 2001 the national debt was $5.73 trillion ($5,727,776,738,304.64 on Jan. 20, 2001) and when Bush left office in 2009, the national debt had increased to $10.63 trillion ($10,626,877,048,913.08 on Jan. 20, 2009). That’s an 85% increase of $4.9 trillion.

The reality is that the national debt is now about $5-6 trillion higher than that figure because taxpayers now are responsible for half the mortgage loans in this country. This is because in September 2008, Bush nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and placed them into a conservatorship run by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So the total national debt that Obama came to office with is more like $16 trillion.

Today the national debt stands at $14,342,898,467,069.07."

I see...

the new lunatic fringe Orwellianism is that Obama has reduced the debt by over a trillion in two and a half years.

Alert the press.

They have no idea- and they're very fond of Obama.

"The idea behind stimulus money is to quickly get it into the hands of consumers who will spend it and drive up demand. Businesses don't hire or expand when there is no demand for their products."

or when they don't know how much it will cost them because of the Obamaregulation complex

"We need another stimulus and we need it now because now that stimulus spending is done, unemployment figures are creeping back up. Unemployment will continue to rise so as long as demand remains low."

warning: socialist on the blog

so, we need to constantly tax and redistribute to keep the economy healthy

I see....

July 20, 2011 9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Today the national debt stands at $14,342,898,467,069.07"

OK,OK

I can't stand it anymore!

I'll send in the seven cents

July 20, 2011 10:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home