My results:
HARD ANDROGYNE
Your score placed you in the category of Hard Androgyne. This is the "tom boy" type of ranking. You may also wish to review Androgyne and Gentle Butch, the two categories surrounding you. In a ranking across the femme/butch gamut, if 1 is femme and 100 is butch, you fall between 53 and 60 on the scale. For a review of where you fall in the overall population in numbers, refer to this chart. Your group encompasses folks of all types, genders, and orientations; it includes a large number of males and averages around 41 years of age.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the time you really don't think of yourself as butch or femme, but if pressured, you tend to react aggressively - either to solve a problem or to defend yourself. You aren't extremely masculine, yet are more drawn to your masculine side than your feminine side.
Security is paramount to you, and the locks on your house and tendency to monogamy reflect that. You like money in the savings and a retirement plan in place. You are nervous and insecure without that. You are a good provider, often appearing in upper management positions, and are an excellent supervisor.
Logic and mathematics fascinate you, and you have a very good memory. You are best remembering what you have seen in a video sense - sound and picture. About half of what you read sticks with you and what you hear goes in one ear and out the other. Pictures you remember very well.
You like action adventure movies and books, though you don't read a lot. You are heavily into technology, computers, and fun lil gadgets to play with.
As a parent you are strict but not overbearing, and tend to be a bit over protective. You are a staunch defender of your legal rights.
For partners you prefer a softer femme, along the lines of the Classic or Lipstick Femme. For friends you encompass everyone, though you find Extreme Butches a bit plastic and pure Androgynes indecisive.
You know, the only thing that's NOT right about this "assessment" is the very last part. I tend to lean more toward those like myself than toward the more "feminine" types.
Take the test yourself and let me know how you scored!
Butch or Femme Test
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Better Living Through Chemistry - Part II
I've been on the Prozac now for just a day shy of 5 weeks. As hokey as this may sound, I feel like I'm living in a totally different world. I take delight in the smallest of things -- a Dutch Iris opened up in our garden overnight and this morning when I saw it, I clapped my hands in childlike glee. As I'm walking outside, I catch myself stopping and turning my face toward the sun, just reveling in it. Food tastes better! (That MAY NOT be a good thing -- LOL!) I find myself laughing and just enjoying each day more than I ever had.
But my relationship with Lisa -- WOW! Has it changed? No, I don't think so. Is it better? No, I don't think that, either. It's more relaxed, I think. Maybe a bit less stressful for her because she doesn't come home wondering whether I'll be weepy or raging that night. And with that relaxation comes such special feelings of being together, such joy, feelings I never really recognized before. I love Lisa, always have. But I can actually FEEL the love emanating out of me toward her and I can actually FEEL the love coming back at me.
I once professed to another woman that I loved her deeply, profoundly, and would do so forever, that she was the love of my life and that, even if I found another to love, it could never be as deeply as I loved her. I often wonder where she is, what she's doing, and think fondly of her but in my heart I know that the role she filled in my life was NOT to be the love of my life, but to open my heart to love and be loved by this spectacular woman that I have found on this journey in life.
Lisa and I started off talking a lot -- I found her a fascinating person to talk to, with her knowledge of so many things, her quick wit, her childlike love of cookies and ice cream, those piercing blue eyes, and that wonderful way she has of spinning a yarn. But now, five years later, we talk just as much and just as frequently. We talk to each other on our cell phones during our commute home each night, we talk about politics, abortion, world events, local events, people, friends, our days, and I STILL find her fascinating to talk to.
And, now that I'm on the Prozac, I enjoy it even that much more. I notice more things now. Like the way I find her studying me in the evenings when we're watching television. I'll say "what?" and she'll say "Nothing, just enjoying the scenery." Sometimes I'll find her looking at me and I can TELL that she's thinking how much she loves me, and I simply say "I love you too!" She grins.
Yeah, menopause isn't so bad with a Prozac chaser...
But my relationship with Lisa -- WOW! Has it changed? No, I don't think so. Is it better? No, I don't think that, either. It's more relaxed, I think. Maybe a bit less stressful for her because she doesn't come home wondering whether I'll be weepy or raging that night. And with that relaxation comes such special feelings of being together, such joy, feelings I never really recognized before. I love Lisa, always have. But I can actually FEEL the love emanating out of me toward her and I can actually FEEL the love coming back at me.
I once professed to another woman that I loved her deeply, profoundly, and would do so forever, that she was the love of my life and that, even if I found another to love, it could never be as deeply as I loved her. I often wonder where she is, what she's doing, and think fondly of her but in my heart I know that the role she filled in my life was NOT to be the love of my life, but to open my heart to love and be loved by this spectacular woman that I have found on this journey in life.
Lisa and I started off talking a lot -- I found her a fascinating person to talk to, with her knowledge of so many things, her quick wit, her childlike love of cookies and ice cream, those piercing blue eyes, and that wonderful way she has of spinning a yarn. But now, five years later, we talk just as much and just as frequently. We talk to each other on our cell phones during our commute home each night, we talk about politics, abortion, world events, local events, people, friends, our days, and I STILL find her fascinating to talk to.
And, now that I'm on the Prozac, I enjoy it even that much more. I notice more things now. Like the way I find her studying me in the evenings when we're watching television. I'll say "what?" and she'll say "Nothing, just enjoying the scenery." Sometimes I'll find her looking at me and I can TELL that she's thinking how much she loves me, and I simply say "I love you too!" She grins.
Yeah, menopause isn't so bad with a Prozac chaser...
Thursday, June 02, 2005
It didn't pass! :-(
Sacramento, California) Supporters of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in California are hoping 'third time lucky' after the measure suffered its second defeat in as many days on Thursday.
The bill will be put to a third vote Friday in the legislature. This morning, if was rejected by a vote of 37-35, the same margin by which it lost on Thursday night.
The duplication of the vote shows that despite pleas from LGBT civil rights groups and legislators who support the measure.
The bill's author, Assemblymember Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco), said he hopes to use the remaining time before Friday's vote to try to sway the eight lawmakers who did not vote to support the legislation. Under Assembly rules any bill up for approval must get a minimum of 41 votes. Abstentions or absentees are counted as no's.
All of the Assembly's Republican members voted against the bill. During debate on the legislation several GOP lawmakers described the bill as an illegal usurpation of the will a majority of California voters expressed five years when they approved Proposition 22, an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative.
"If you want to destroy the law, mock it, call it names. If you don't have the courage to go back to the people in the proper way, tell a big lie," said Assemblyman Jay La Suer (R-La Mesa). "This has nothing to do with discrimination. It has everything to do with the destruction of the moral fiber of this nation."
Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles), one of six openly gay and lesbian members of the Legislature delivered an impassioned plea to have the bill passed.
"You cannot give me, if we are all created equal, an argument that says I cannot marry my partner," said Goldberg who has been in a relationship with the same woman for 26 years.
"You cannot tell me there is any definition other to say I am not really a human being like all the rest of you heterosexual human beings. ... Unless you are willing to look me in the face and say I'm not a human being just like you are, you have no right to deny me marriage in the state of California or anywhere else."
The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act would require local clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but allow people opposed to gay marriage to refuse to conduct weddings.
The measure has the support of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and other key Democrats. Last month the California Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage. (story)
So far Gov. Schwarzenegger has sent mixed messages about whether he would sign the legislation if it were passed.
In a January meeting with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle Schwarzenegger suggested that this may not be the best time to push gay marriage, saying that a legislative push to fully recognize marriage rights for gays might backfire.
"Eventually in a few years from now, you can readdress it again and see what the people of California think,'' he told the paper. "You cannot force-feed those kind of things.''
Last year in a Tonight Show appearance Schwarzenegger said gay marriage would be "fine with me" if it were enshrined in state law or ruled legal by the courts. (story)
The issue of same-sex marriage also is slowly heading toward the California Supreme Court. Last month a San San Francisco judge ruled that state laws preventing gay marriage are illegal. (story)
Tuesday, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed an appeal in the case.
Meanwhile, a conservative group called the "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" has begun collecting signatures to have a proposed amendment to the California Constitution banning same-sex marriage placed on the 2006 ballot. (story) If approved by voters it would not only bar gays and lesbians from marrying but also void the state's landmark domestic partner law.
Last week, LGBT groups and their supporters announced a broad coalition to combat the attempt to amend the Constitution. (story) On Monday, the nation's two largest LGBT civil rights groups announced a million dollar fundraising drive to help defeat the proposed amendment.
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights Campaign announced they would donate up to $100,000 each as a challenge to encourage others to contribute.
The groups said they hoped to raise the $1 million by Labor Day.
The bill will be put to a third vote Friday in the legislature. This morning, if was rejected by a vote of 37-35, the same margin by which it lost on Thursday night.
The duplication of the vote shows that despite pleas from LGBT civil rights groups and legislators who support the measure.
The bill's author, Assemblymember Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco), said he hopes to use the remaining time before Friday's vote to try to sway the eight lawmakers who did not vote to support the legislation. Under Assembly rules any bill up for approval must get a minimum of 41 votes. Abstentions or absentees are counted as no's.
All of the Assembly's Republican members voted against the bill. During debate on the legislation several GOP lawmakers described the bill as an illegal usurpation of the will a majority of California voters expressed five years when they approved Proposition 22, an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative.
"If you want to destroy the law, mock it, call it names. If you don't have the courage to go back to the people in the proper way, tell a big lie," said Assemblyman Jay La Suer (R-La Mesa). "This has nothing to do with discrimination. It has everything to do with the destruction of the moral fiber of this nation."
Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles), one of six openly gay and lesbian members of the Legislature delivered an impassioned plea to have the bill passed.
"You cannot give me, if we are all created equal, an argument that says I cannot marry my partner," said Goldberg who has been in a relationship with the same woman for 26 years.
"You cannot tell me there is any definition other to say I am not really a human being like all the rest of you heterosexual human beings. ... Unless you are willing to look me in the face and say I'm not a human being just like you are, you have no right to deny me marriage in the state of California or anywhere else."
The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act would require local clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but allow people opposed to gay marriage to refuse to conduct weddings.
The measure has the support of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and other key Democrats. Last month the California Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage. (story)
So far Gov. Schwarzenegger has sent mixed messages about whether he would sign the legislation if it were passed.
In a January meeting with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle Schwarzenegger suggested that this may not be the best time to push gay marriage, saying that a legislative push to fully recognize marriage rights for gays might backfire.
"Eventually in a few years from now, you can readdress it again and see what the people of California think,'' he told the paper. "You cannot force-feed those kind of things.''
Last year in a Tonight Show appearance Schwarzenegger said gay marriage would be "fine with me" if it were enshrined in state law or ruled legal by the courts. (story)
The issue of same-sex marriage also is slowly heading toward the California Supreme Court. Last month a San San Francisco judge ruled that state laws preventing gay marriage are illegal. (story)
Tuesday, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed an appeal in the case.
Meanwhile, a conservative group called the "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" has begun collecting signatures to have a proposed amendment to the California Constitution banning same-sex marriage placed on the 2006 ballot. (story) If approved by voters it would not only bar gays and lesbians from marrying but also void the state's landmark domestic partner law.
Last week, LGBT groups and their supporters announced a broad coalition to combat the attempt to amend the Constitution. (story) On Monday, the nation's two largest LGBT civil rights groups announced a million dollar fundraising drive to help defeat the proposed amendment.
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights Campaign announced they would donate up to $100,000 each as a challenge to encourage others to contribute.
The groups said they hoped to raise the $1 million by Labor Day.
California legislature to vote on gay marriage today
Keeping our fingers, toes, eyes and anything else crossed that this bill passes. It will be the first legislation of its kind -- passed voluntariliy by the lawmakers as opposed to by court order.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
They can have my gun....
I don't get this -- why on earth would anyone need to carry a concealed firearm to a gay pride celebration if not with the express intent to cause harm to someone? Going to a gay pride celebration "packing" sort of gives the impression that these folks are looking for trouble, doesn't it?
Utah Gays To Carry Concealed Arms To Pride
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
(Salt Lake City, Utah) A gay gun club says its members will bring firearms to Salt Lake Pride celebrations next month despite a regulation from Pride organizers that says no guns are allowed at the events.
Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah founder David Nelson says that the rule which would ban "weapons of any kind" is too broad, unenforceable.
Nelson said that his members own and use legally concealed firearms and will not be deterred by the regulation. He said that the rule is a departure from the 2003 and 2004 pride events when organizers agreed that people with legally concealed firearms could not be denied admission to the events.
Nelson said that his requests to the organizers to revise the new rule remain unanswered.
Some 30,000 people are expected to attend this year's Pride in Sault Lake City from June 8 through 12. It is one of the largest outdoor events organized in the city.
"Previous organizers understood that people with Utah Concealed Firearm Permits have met every federal and state legal requirement to choose carrying legally concealed firearms, and welcomed us," Nelson said.
"There were no complaints at the 2003 and 2004 events. The previous organizers didn't confuse the difference of legal and illegal firearms."
"New organizers announced their plan to search all attendees and their personal property, but I suspect their 30,000 searches would quickly become impractical and a public-relations disaster," Nelson said. "
Seven of the eight announced Pride events are planned for the Salt Lake City Public Library, Library and Washington squares, and the surrounding city streets and sidewalks - all government properties, according to Nelson.
"State laws are very clear about who, what, when, where, why and how legally concealed firearms may be prohibited," Nelson said. "In almost every instance, the organizers fail the legal requirements that would let them ban our firearms."
Utah Gays To Carry Concealed Arms To Pride
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
(Salt Lake City, Utah) A gay gun club says its members will bring firearms to Salt Lake Pride celebrations next month despite a regulation from Pride organizers that says no guns are allowed at the events.
Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah founder David Nelson says that the rule which would ban "weapons of any kind" is too broad, unenforceable.
Nelson said that his members own and use legally concealed firearms and will not be deterred by the regulation. He said that the rule is a departure from the 2003 and 2004 pride events when organizers agreed that people with legally concealed firearms could not be denied admission to the events.
Nelson said that his requests to the organizers to revise the new rule remain unanswered.
Some 30,000 people are expected to attend this year's Pride in Sault Lake City from June 8 through 12. It is one of the largest outdoor events organized in the city.
"Previous organizers understood that people with Utah Concealed Firearm Permits have met every federal and state legal requirement to choose carrying legally concealed firearms, and welcomed us," Nelson said.
"There were no complaints at the 2003 and 2004 events. The previous organizers didn't confuse the difference of legal and illegal firearms."
"New organizers announced their plan to search all attendees and their personal property, but I suspect their 30,000 searches would quickly become impractical and a public-relations disaster," Nelson said. "
Seven of the eight announced Pride events are planned for the Salt Lake City Public Library, Library and Washington squares, and the surrounding city streets and sidewalks - all government properties, according to Nelson.
"State laws are very clear about who, what, when, where, why and how legally concealed firearms may be prohibited," Nelson said. "In almost every instance, the organizers fail the legal requirements that would let them ban our firearms."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)