(no subject)

[which_chick]

So, I took this fucking OK Cupid test. And I didn't lie. I don't, on memes and stuff. Probably I should have. I know the *correct* answers, the ones to give so that I come off sounding like a reasonably normal, sane person. When it's necessary, I can pass for normal. To avoid the asylum, to keep from being burned at the stake, I can fake normal with deep and abiding sincerity. However, memes are not currently linked to the great governmental databases stored inside that mountain in West Virginia and I can still tell the truth on 'em. Of course, when I do that, the memes give me evil psycho hell-bitch results and then I get upset and blog about the whole mess.



OK Cupid says that I am some really mean looking woman in a turtleneck whom they refer to as Genghis Khunt. Isn't that Khute?

Read My Result
Take the Test

I have a few issues with this, even though I do own a black turtleneck.

Issue #1: I spell better than that. If you're going to lable me a cunt, do it properly.

Issue #2: I didn't see a whole lot of difference between question 31 (ish) and 32 (ish). They were:

First question -- If it was either you dying or 10 people dying, would you pick (a) you or (b) them?

Second question -- If it was either you dying or 10,000 people dying, would you pick (a) you or (b) them?

My issue here was that these are the same question and that all you're doing there is arguing over price. The impression I got from these two questions was that there was some essential difference between retail and wholesale sacrifice. Like, y'know, retail sacrifice is somehow more okay. (For the ethically challenged: It's not. Yes, I am an authority on the subject. Okay, for the nine thousand, nine hundred ninety people who DO NOT DIE in the first question but who DO die in the second question, the questions are different. For them. But this is not about them. This is about you. In either question, if you want to live, at least ten people are going to die. Either that's right or it's not. Ethical behavior doesn't have so much to do with scale as all that and the questions, for the person being asked them, are the same.) Look. Either the needs of the many (random strangers) outweigh the needs of the few or they don't. In my book, if the few is me, the needs of the faceless many are irrelevant and I'm not particularly willing to lie and claim otherwise to impress some candy-ass internet personality test that thinks it can know everything about me from some damn ticky-boxes.

Issue #3: They had a guess if necessary remark for the number of people you'd kissed but not a guess if necessary thing for the number of people you'd slept with. I guess that says, well, everything that needs to be said there. (Go on with your whore name-calling if you must, but I don't fuck for money, goods, or other considerations and I never, ever have. I'll cop to slut but not to whore. Quick joke: What's that word for chicks who have sex with men to get money, goods, or other considerations. Starts with a w...? Wife.)

Issue #4: I'm not particularly sure this is an accurate lable. I don't date. I don't sleep with random strangers (anymore). Hell, I don't sleep with anyone these days. Just because I refuse to lie about what I did with much of my twenties is no reason to be handing out mean lables that sound like I left a wake of broken men behind me. On the whole, it wasn't the men that got broken.

Comments

[wootsauce.livejournal.com]

But the menfolk are skeered of strong, sexual women :(

[electroweak.livejournal.com]

Eek! Down that road lies the evolution of extreme sexual dimorphism and probable eventual extinction!

[galena417.livejournal.com]

I did that test, too, and it's completely fucked up.

Why should you lie about things you've done?

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

I feel somewhat better about this -- brother-the-younger called to say that he turned up as The False Messiah (http://www.okcupid.com/personality?type=DBLM&g=1&o=1#). *snerk* I feel a lot better about being a cunt in a black turtleneck.

Thanks, dude. :)

[electroweak.livejournal.com]

Looks like this is a parody of those idiotic Meyers-Briggs tests (which, I will note, truly are deserving of parody). And furthermore, it looks like the parody was designed to anger those who take it with deliberately insulting results.

I don't know whether to be impressed or vaguely irritated. Perhaps both.