Erotic personality quiz

[FeatsofClay]

I got:

The Partier

Many mouths + many hands = many smiles for you. You want to experience several lovers at once and you want them to experience you.

Read more about being A Partier.

Many people find they are a combination of types. This one seems to be your primary one but you may be another, as well. The book's quiz will help you clarify your true type.


How did you do?: http://sagevivant.com/quiz.php

[doc]

The escapest

[Freedom Canadian]

I am an escapist too.

[Varaj]

Your Erotic Personality Is

The Student

You see the sexual realm as one big Petri dish with you as the scientist. Learning is as exciting as doing and very little is out of your scope of investigation.

Read more about being A Student.

Many people find they are a combination of types. This one seems to be your primary one but you may be another, as well. The book's quiz will help you clarify your true type.


The Student doesn’t care a whit about sexual boundaries or conventions. New, unexplored, and even unusual sexual experiences motivate this erotic type. Learning is just as exciting as doing, so even research involving no involvement of the flesh can be as arousing as sex itself. The Student possesses an insatiable curiosity about all things sexual and appreciates others who share that curiosity, although they don’t always need that quality in a mate. The Student is compelled to experiment with new sexual pastimes out of a sincere desire to experience whatever pleasure they offer. The Student will often delve very deep into a sexual topic or activity to ensure the experience is complete.

[Ancalagon]

no switch option darn it :P

[Keeper of Secrets]

I, too, am the Student. Varaj, maybe you and I can study together.

[Varaj]

I, too, am the Student. Varaj, maybe you and I can study together.

I'm up for it. :chestbump:

[Keeper of Secrets]

I'm up for it. :chestbump:

Though, I got the sense that these questions were geared towards female readers.

[there_is_no_bob]

Top.

The Top likes to call the shots—sexually, at least. In real life, they may not show any signs of wanting or needing to be in control, but to achieve erotic fulfillment, The Top needs not only to give orders but also to see them carried out. Their sexual pleasure is of the psychosexual variety, which means that they intellectualize sex more than most of the other erotic types. They are often partial to leather and the accoutrements of bondage, and they frequently reward those people they can bend to their will. They may even like to deliver a bit of physical pain, but only if they know the recipient will enjoy that pain.

[Iron Jenny Kidd]

The Escapist

Your fantasies and preferences are powerful, and you often rely on them even when new or other stimuli are present. Your internal world is much richer than the one you're forced to live in.

[Space Cadet B^3]

escapist, but answer choice wasn't real satisfactory for me...

[Cat of Ulthar]

Escapist too. Bull shit. I'm definitely a Bottom.

[Northcott]

What the fuck?!? TOP? I'm a fucking TOP? :mad:

That's it. I'm going to hunt down the twit that wrote this quiz, tie them up, and make them lick my boots!

[Black Angel]

Another escapist here...

[Ancalagon]

Escapist too. Bull shit. I'm definitely a Bottom.

Maybe you're a bottom that likes to wiggle out of the ropes?

Besides, bondage can be escapism. By being tied up, you are set free.

[Cat of Ulthar]

Maybe you're a bottom that likes to wiggle out of the ropes?

Besides, bondage can be escapism. By being tied up, you are set free.

I guess. But does this quiz then mean that I am really trying to escape my responsibility by giving myself over? Or am I reading too much psychological background in a simple internet quiz?

[Northcott]

Joking aside, I hold to a theory that this kind of play is found chiefly among folks who have either forgotten what it's like to fight to survive, or have never had to do it: in other words, middle class-ish. A little above, a little below. The rich can afford greater decadance, while the poor are so caught up in survival that games which simulate pack dynamics have little appeal: they're living it, and there's no "safe" word to get out of it.

[Sobek]

The wanderer. I like to do it in other people's beds -- or hotel rooms, cruise ships, etc.

[Cat of Ulthar]

Joking aside, I hold to a theory that this kind of play is found chiefly among folks who have either forgotten what it's like to fight to survive, or have never had to do it: in other words, middle class-ish. A little above, a little below. The rich can afford greater decadance, while the poor are so caught up in survival that games which simulate pack dynamics have little appeal: they're living it, and there's no "safe" word to get out of it.

Don't believe that one bit. I know for a fact that many rich people are into this sort of play, and as far as one can be in the Netherlands, I am poor.

[Northcott]

Don't believe that one bit. I know for a fact that many rich people are into this sort of play, and as far as one can be in the Netherlands, I am poor.


I don't know many multi-millionaires, so I'll take your word at the upper end of the scale. ;) But the second part of the statement pretty much goes to my point -- as far as one can be in the Netherlands. When's the last time you had to go a couple days without food because it couldn't be afforded? Or had to choose between shelter and a meal? Or that somebody you love got bloodied as part of establishing their place in the neighbourhood's hierarchy?

Games based upon power plays change dramatically when the games become reality. Think of it as being related to our other thread on rape/ravishment fantasies. Edit: In short, it's not so much fun to pretend to be helpless when you spend every day of every week feeling helpless and scared.

[there_is_no_bob]

Or am I reading too much psychological background in a simple internet quiz?Yes.

It's even less accurate than most.

[Cat of Ulthar]

I don't know many multi-millionaires, so I'll take your word at the upper end of the scale. ;)
Er... as to multi-millionnaires, I have to admit I know not too many either. But I have read, that people who are dominant and powerful in their everyday life (managers, directors etc.) often feel the urge to be humiliated and abused. People think there may be a connection. I don't know, I am not a manager.
But the second part of the statement pretty much goes to my point -- as far as one can be in the Netherlands. When's the last time you had to go a couple days without food because it couldn't be afforded? Or had to choose between shelter and a meal? Or that somebody you love got bloodied as part of establishing their place in the neighbourhood's hierarchy?
:shrug: Seems to me that if that is the case (which happens in the Netherlands too, alas), you would be too focused on survival to think of sex at all. But that cannot be true, because poor people breed as well. So I cannot judge this; still, this quiz seems to be geared to middle-class internet users.

Games based upon power plays change dramatically when the games become reality. Think of it as being related to our other thread on rape/ravishment fantasies. Edit: In short, it's not so much fun to pretend to be helpless when you spend every day of every week feeling helpless and scared.
Hm. Dunno there. Is there psychological evidence to back this up? Because there is also documentation of cases of people who have been abused for example in childhood, and continue seeking this abuse as adults. Again, I do not know, I have not been abused as a kid. Thank Gods.

[Bagpuss]

The Top

[Dr_Avalanche]

Top here too, though I don't think that's really right. Certainly part of it, but not the whole story.

[Northcott]

Er... as to multi-millionnaires, I have to admit I know not too many either. But I have read, that people who are dominant and powerful in their everyday life (managers, directors etc.) often feel the urge to be humiliated and abused. People think there may be a connection. I don't know, I am not a manager.

Yeah, that's an old stereotype of the manager near collapse; so stressed by need for control that surrendering it becomes erotic. There's probably a great deal of truth to that. But when I say rich, I don't mean management -- I mean the really rich people of the world. The elite. Management's just upper middle class. And not that they don't have kinks, just that they can afford to indulge whims on a different scale -- and as the BDSM scene seems all about scale, I think that changes the game significantly.

Mind you, this is all from an outsider's POV, so mileage varies. :)

:shrug: Seems to me that if that is the case (which happens in the Netherlands too, alas), you would be too focused on survival to think of sex at all. But that cannot be true, because poor people breed as well. So I cannot judge this; still, this quiz seems to be geared to middle-class internet users.

Yep, poor people breed. They breed heavily. When you've been stripped down to raw survival -- well, breeding's part of that survival instinct, isn't it? Sex without expectations is a comfort. Raw physical pleasure without intellectualizing it or analyzing it, or complicating it with additional layers of meaning and ritual. Not to say that doing so is bad: I'm just pointing out difference, rather than giving a value judgement.

And yeah, the quiz seems geared that way. But then, that bears with my philosophy, so my perception's likely biased.

Hm. Dunno there. Is there psychological evidence to back this up? Because there is also documentation of cases of people who have been abused for example in childhood, and continue seeking this abuse as adults. Again, I do not know, I have not been abused as a kid. Thank Gods.

Ah, but again, there, we have a key difference: those who are so damaged as to seek out further abuse are a different stripe than the BDSM scene. Or one would hope so. Certainly there's plenty of room for the two to cross -- some might even say that such people would be drawn to that lifestyle. But I think there's a great difference between somebody undertaking erotic play within a specific context with clear safeguards and expectations set up, and knowing it ends outside the bedroom, and somebody who repeats cycles of abuse over and over again.

Not that there's any evidence for my theory. It's just something I've noted in talking with people. I've spent time among a pretty dramatic variety of folks in terms of income levels: I was born to a suburban household, but came from a family where flour sacks were recycled into clothing, and spent my teen years hanging out in what was likely the worst neighbourhood in this region. Not to say that folks at the bottom of the economic scale don't play sexual games, but they're of a very different stripe, and notions of domination and submission tend to be more prevalent; lived (in what seems to be a pack mentality) rather than played at, or ignored entirely.

Again: Not a value judgement. :) People who are fortunate enough to be so comfortable in their lives as to indulge in these games have it very good: a tiny portion of the world's population, really.

[Cat of Ulthar]

But when I say rich, I don't mean management -- I mean the really rich people of the world. The elite. Management's just upper middle class. And not that they don't have kinks, just that they can afford to indulge whims on a different scale -- and as the BDSM scene seems all about scale, I think that changes the game significantly.
Ah, but if you look at historic bdsm, you see many (rich!) kings, czars, noblemen and women who indulged in both sides. What do you mean by different scale?

Yep, poor people breed. They breed heavily. When you've been stripped down to raw survival -- well, breeding's part of that survival instinct, isn't it? Sex without expectations is a comfort. Raw physical pleasure without intellectualizing it or analyzing it, or complicating it with additional layers of meaning and ritual. Not to say that doing so is bad: I'm just pointing out difference, rather than giving a value judgement.
But if you put it like that, that would mean poor people have no kinks whatsoever because they are a luxury they cannot afford. Not just no bdsm kinks.

Not that there's any evidence for my theory. It's just something I've noted in talking with people. I've spent time among a pretty dramatic variety of folks in terms of income levels: I was born to a suburban household, but came from a family where flour sacks were recycled into clothing,
Sounds like my childhood. My parents didn't have a penny to their name, we have lived in a barn with no heating during winter, and in a caravan, and I happily fantasised about being tied up and beaten.

and spent my teen years hanging out in what was likely the worst neighbourhood in this region. Not to say that folks at the bottom of the economic scale don't play sexual games, but they're of a very different stripe, and notions of domination and submission tend to be more prevalent; lived (in what seems to be a pack mentality) rather than played at, or ignored entirely.
I will have to ask the SO on this. I don't think you can have grown up in a much worse neighbourhood than the SO (West Ham in the seventies), and he knows plenty of people in 'the scene' (he used to work at a bdsm club). I will have to ask if he thinks the people he grew up with and the people he met at his work were of a very different ilk.

I see what you mean with the notion of domination and submission being of prime importance in the gang and crime scenes of the lower class areas, but I am not sure whether that plays a part in their sex drive...

[Northcott]

Ah, but if you look at historic bdsm, you see many (rich!) kings, czars, noblemen and women who indulged in both sides. What do you mean by different scale?

Excellent point! Perhaps I should revise my theory to be a method of means, rather than a middle class phenomenon. On the other hand, the nobles of history that I can think of who were involved in such behaviours might more properly be labelled as deviants; taking their tastes to such levels that, were they fettered by the same rules as normal people in our modern society, would result in charges being levied against them. More brutality than kink. Who were you thinking of?


But if you put it like that, that would mean poor people have no kinks whatsoever because they are a luxury they cannot afford. Not just no bdsm kinks.

I think that if you strip away enough comfort from a person, yes, kinks disappear. If their very survival is in threat, the safety margin for kinks either becomes very small or perhaps even disappears.

Sounds like my childhood. My parents didn't have a penny to their name, we have lived in a barn with no heating during winter, and in a caravan, and I happily fantasised about being tied up and beaten.

To be clearer: My parents were the flour-sack kids. I wasn't myself -- not until the old man took off when I was a teenager. The guys I hung out with were the son of a biker, a guy who's father had tried to sell him when he was a kid, another guy who's father brought the family over from another (non-English speaking) country and then abandoned them, etc. It made for interesting observation, watching both worlds at once.

Out of curiosity, and I understand if you don't feel like answering this: but what was it that had you fantasizing about your circumstances actually getting worse? I ask because when I was a kid there were a couple times when I was punished by being stripped down and beaten nice n' welty with a leather strap. I really can't imagine anybody fantasizing about that, and the idea of doing so while already in hard circumstances mystifies me.

I will have to ask the SO on this. I don't think you can have grown up in a much worse neighbourhood than the SO (West Ham in the seventies), and he knows plenty of people in 'the scene' (he used to work at a bdsm club). I will have to ask if he thinks the people he grew up with and the people he met at his work were of a very different ilk.

Please do. I'd be interested in hearing his observations.

I see what you mean with the notion of domination and submission being of prime importance in the gang and crime scenes of the lower class areas, but I am not sure whether that plays a part in their sex drive...

Not just gang and crime: people in general. My experience was that the pack mentality went way beyond those specific sub-sets. It was a food chain set-up: nobody wanted to be the victim, so (almost) everybody was looking for an angle, and even among good friends there was often this sense of them looking to see if they were having the wool pulled over their eyes. I'm not sure how to sum it up. Perhaps "hungrier"? Everybody was looking for a step up, so very few people were content to be the one on the bottom. There was an honesty to the deception: "an honest villain", Shakespeare might say.

As to whether or not it plays a role in sex drive: I don't think it's possible to entirely separate the two. That seems a false dichotomy to me. My thought is that we can only pretend to compartmentalize our lives in neat fashion, but no matter how we struggle to do so, one section will leak over into another, one way or another. Even if just in little, subtle ways. Boxers tend to have a certain arrogance in their stride, though they often leave the violence in the ring.

[Cat of Ulthar]

Excellent point! Perhaps I should revise my theory to be a method of means, rather than a middle class phenomenon. On the other hand, the nobles of history that I can think of who were involved in such behaviours might more properly be labelled as deviants; taking their tastes to such levels that, were they fettered by the same rules as normal people in our modern society, would result in charges being levied against them. More brutality than kink. Who were you thinking of?
Eh, I'm at work, don't have my books here, but I like bdsm in historical settings, and there are quite a few examples in some of the books I got of kings and concubines, nobility etc. I reckon you are thinking of my favourite Marquis, but though he was considered a deviant (also by me, his books are more shocking than erotic) there were many who went less far whose exploits have been recorded.

I think that if you strip away enough comfort from a person, yes, kinks disappear. If their very survival is in threat, the safety margin for kinks either becomes very small or perhaps even disappears.
I agree. So why do you think that particularly so for the bdsm scene? I think with every kink, there is a certain amount that will never disappear (especially when you are poor and hungry and working hard for a meagre wage, it is nice to fantasize!) and a certain amount that will never get to blossom unless it is given time and space.

Out of curiosity, and I understand if you don't feel like answering this: but what was it that had you fantasizing about your circumstances actually getting worse? I ask because when I was a kid there were a couple times when I was punished by being stripped down and beaten nice n' welty with a leather strap. I really can't imagine anybody fantasizing about that, and the idea of doing so while already in hard circumstances mystifies me.
To be clear: I had a wonderful childhood. I was sometimes cold, but never hungry, and my clothes were maybe home made of horrible cloth, but I had clothes. I subscribed to three libraries so I always had plenty to read. I have the greatest most loving parents in the world. I lived in the countryside so could always go out exploring. The only thing that was bad about my childhood, was the other kids. They hated me because of my braininess and inability to understand the social code.
I have never been abused or treated badly. I do not know if my kinks would have been the same if I had. I know there are theories about that but most of those are something along the lines of "bdsm is a mental affliction caused by trauma caused by abuse in the childhood" and that is just bullshit.
But yeah, I dreamed about being tied up and beaten, even if I sometimes was beaten up by the other kids. I did not like it, I was afraid of it. But still. Hard to explain. I guess it is a bit like the difference between having sex with someone you don't like and having sex with someone you like. The first is horrible, the second is heavenly. But it is both sex. Someone who is not into sex might say, how can you want it then and not then? Because to them it is the same. Not to us.

As to whether or not it plays a role in sex drive: I don't think it's possible to entirely separate the two. That seems a false dichotomy to me. My thought is that we can only pretend to compartmentalize our lives in neat fashion, but no matter how we struggle to do so, one section will leak over into another, one way or another. Even if just in little, subtle ways. Boxers tend to have a certain arrogance in their stride, though they often leave the violence in the ring.

I come across as confident, arrogant sometimes. I am in charge in my life. I wish to submit to a man, but only in the confines of our sexual life. If a man tries to tell me what to do outside of that sphere, he is in a heap of trouble. I do not let myself be ordered about.
I strongly believe in that difference, and most submissives I know are strong, confident people in everyday life. So, don't believe that.

[Northcott]

I agree. So why do you think that particularly so for the bdsm scene?

Because it works along the same spectrum of human experience: issues of control, or lack thereof, receiving or giving pain. In very hard circumstances these are the flavours of life. If the cup's already full, trying to pour more in just causes it to overflow.

I think with every kink, there is a certain amount that will never disappear (especially when you are poor and hungry and working hard for a meagre wage, it is nice to fantasize!) and a certain amount that will never get to blossom unless it is given time and space.

Drive people hard enough and they break. Never mind kinks; every other desire fades or disappears. Hope gets ground down, and suicide rates climb.

I know there are theories about that but most of those are something along the lines of "bdsm is a mental affliction caused by trauma caused by abuse in the childhood" and that is just bullshit.

Yeah, I don't buy that either. :) If things were that cut n' dried, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But yeah, I dreamed about being tied up and beaten, even if I sometimes was beaten up by the other kids. I did not like it, I was afraid of it. But still. Hard to explain. I guess it is a bit like the difference between having sex with someone you don't like and having sex with someone you like. The first is horrible, the second is heavenly. But it is both sex. Someone who is not into sex might say, how can you want it then and not then? Because to them it is the same. Not to us.

Interesting. Definitely a different perspective on violence, to be sure. Certainly one that's quite alien to me. Thanks for answering the questions.

[Space Cadet B^3]

With as many sexy motherfuckers as we have on this site, why the hell haven't we written our own erotic tests yet?

[Hatter]

The Bottom, which is fairly bullshit since many questions didn't have a choice that applied to me.

[Brynja]

The bottom.

Big shock there.

[doc]

The bottom.

Big shock there.

He is who he is, if you can't deal with Hatter gayness well, shame on you. I like him he's a nice guy and a good role model for The Hamster (who needs one).:tongue:

[Brynja]

No you doof, I got bottom.

[Janos]

Watcher/Top. One question both answers applied.

[doc]

No you doof, I got bottom.

Teaseing you Bry :)