It has been insinuated recently that I may, in fact, be a prude. So--I did what any normal red-blooded American would do--I took an "Are you a prude?" test--and found out that, in fact, I fall somewhere in the middle. So there!

Secondly, I decided to research the word "prude", finding this excellent discussion. So you see, even if I am a prude, I don't really mind since it comes from an etymology meaning "wisdom" and "integrity".

Rather prudishly, the link reveals nothing except a "page cannot be found" response!

Richard English

Not sure about that, actually. As I recall it was 70, which put me somewhere in their middle group.

Though I suspect lots and lots of people go into that middle group. It's like the carnival fortune teller whose readings are sufficiently broad that everyone can see himself in them, at least somewhere, and therefore marvels at how "accurate" and "perceptive" the carnie is...

Aha! I got a 65...so I'm not that bad after all!

I'm not sure Iunderstood the scoring but I got 30 which it said means

You lie somewhere between untamed and uptight on the prude scale. Depending on the situation, you can be downright prudish or completely unrestrained. Perhaps there are certain taboo topics that make you uncomfortable; one person, for example, might have no problem marching around in their birthday suit in broad daylight, but would rather die than tell a dirty joke. Everyone has different inhibitions as a result of their backgrounds and personal experiences, and you're no exception. Just remember not to judge others if their comfort level doesn't happen to match up with your own. Vivre la difference!

Is that good or bad ?

Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema.

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

Oh, good grief. The whole site must be a farce. That was the same description I got, and a 30 is a lot lower than a 65. I would have expected you to have been a lot more "untamed"!

Um. As I said. [thumbs down]

Yes. Well I scored 40 - and received the self-same assessment narrative. Clearly, unless you score zero or 100% that's what you get.

I suspect the test has just about as much validity as a newspaper horoscope!

Breaking news.

I have now checked this site further and can tell you that there are, indeed, only three commentaries.

20% and below and you "have no inhibitions"; 70% and above, "you're a prude". Anything between (which is probably most of us) gets the commentary already cited.

Load of old cobblers, if you ask me!

Richard English

[This message was edited by Richard English on Sat Apr 26th, 2003 at 3:42.]

There are thousands, possibly millions, of these tests all over the web. At best they're a bit of harmless fun.
I found this one moderately amusing.

For the record it told me that I'm a "cold dead fish : in the unlikely event that I do have sex I pretty much make sure that neither of us will enjoy it very much. I have no idea of what to do or how to do it."

Got me pretty well summed up.

Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema.

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

[This message was edited by BobHale on Sat Apr 26th, 2003 at 6:10.]

Good one, Bob. I'm a "playful Kitten".

Apparently I enjoy making sex fun, pretty much no matter what. I am willing to learn new things if I don't already know them and I am not all that shy.

I wonder whether the test is really supposed to be for women?

Fun, as you say, but still a load of old cobblers!

Richard English

It says I'm a "playful kitten" too.

Heyyyyyyyy, Richard......

It said I was a lion, but I think they're lyin', 'cause I'm most often lyin' around alone with a box of crackers and a tube of K-Y.

I also think the test is female-focused, but fun anyhow!

Now, I'd like to ask a somewhat related question: A radio talk show jerk here in the USA, Tom Leykis, insists that brains are unattractive in women, whereas intelligence is a MAJOR turn-on for me. What about the rest of you? I mean, after the handcuffs and chocolate syrup, you need to have something to say to each other, don't you?

[This message was edited by Asa Lovejoy on Sat Apr 26th, 2003 at 11:54.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
It said I was a lion, but I think they're A radio talk show jerk here in the USA, Tom Leykis, insists that brains are unattractive in women,

---

They certainly are, all sort of grey and wrinkly and squishy. They don't do a thing for...

...oh, he means that intellegence is unattractive, doesn't he ? Boy, do I feel stupid now.

Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema.

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

[This message was edited by BobHale on Sat Apr 26th, 2003 at 9:47.]

Great. (Heavy, Heavy sarcasm...)So the words going through my brain over and over are, "I'm a cold, dead fish." "I'm a cold, dead fish??" "I'm a cold, dead fish." Really Bob, thanks...

I was a gazelle. I agree that the questions seemed to be more for men--and the unmarried. At least the "prude" one asked your age and whether you were female or male.

quote:

---

Men seldom make passes
At girls who wear glasses.
Dorothy Parker

---

I do not opine; I merely report.

quote:

---

A radio talk show jerk here in the USA, Tom Leykis, insists that brains are unattractive in women

---

So, Asa, did this radio show host say the same about men? Why do I think not?

I would think any self-respecting man would want an intelligent woman, but then I am of the wrong gender to make that judgement! I can say, though, that intelligent men are sexy to me.

The first test said I was an all out prude. Now I took the second one, and it won't give me an answer. It just makes me go round and round bringing the test back up for me to answer again. I'm hopeless!

The professor in me is just dying to make this post.

When we evaluate tests we look at the reliability (will you answer the same question the same way? This is also termed reproducibility.) and validity (does the test really measure what it says it measures?) Now, Morgan, there may be reliability problems with this test, at least in your case. I believe my answers would be nearly the same each time. However, the validity of these tests is in question, and a test must be valid in order to be reliable (though the opposite is not true.) Bob's experience with each test shows that neither is valid. While he comes out very close to being "untamed" (opposite of prude), the other test shows him to be a "cold fish". [By the way, Bob, I am certain that's not true! ] When we look at validity, we often look at the comparison of 2 tests that measure similar qualities, which these 2 tests purport to do. That is called concurrent validity. One would expect the 2 tests, therefore, to correlate in their descriptions. If, for example, Bob were a "cold fish", he should have measured as a "prude" on the first test. Therefore, these tests, scientifically, are false!

Bob, that is a lot of jargon to prove to you that, in fact, you are not a cold fish!

Which just goes to chow that we must be wary of "pop-phsychometrics"

Laugh if you like; groan if you must - but believe at your peril!

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Bob, that is a lot of jargon to prove to you that, in fact, you are not a cold fish!

---

While I agree that there is no validity to these tests I don't think there's any inconsistancy in being "untamed" on one and "a cold dead fish" on the other.

It could be that I'm a cold dead fish who'd quite like to untamed and wild as one test's questions were based on hypotheticals while the other test's were based on experience.

Actually I'd have to say that in reality "cold dead fish" is probably a lot closer to the truth than I'd like.



Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema.

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

Actually I'd have to say that in reality "cold dead fish" is probably a lot closer to the
truth than I'd like.
_______________________________________________

Alas, Bob, you are not alone!

Walter Mitt- er, Asa Lovejoy

For some reason I was unable to access this site from my home computer. However, it loaded without problems onto my work machine (I knew there was a reason to go to work). I scored 40 and got the usual answer. One thing that amused me was the drop-down list supplied to give your age. The ages ranged from 6 to 100. Why the bias against 5-year-olds using the Net?

quote:

---

I don't think there's any inconsistancy in being "untamed" on one and "a cold dead fish" on the other

---

Bob, obviously I, anyway, disagree with that, and that is precisely why we need operational definitions, as well as a theoretical framework when doing any study such as this. From my perception, it is the uptight prudes who are the cold fish; those untamed rascals are the fantasies! That is why I definitely didn't want a score that labeled me a "prude".

[Now, I hope everyone takes all of this with a grain of salt! Of course I realize that none of these quizzes are scientifically based]

And, arnie, no, I didn't see the 6 - 100 age range. Funny!

Well, no surprise here. I score (no pun intended) a rousing 15 on the Prude test and, I assume, would have scored lower (meaning, to my mind, better) except I am definitely against the telling of adult jokes in front of non-adults.

But the question of whether I would strip in public for $25,000 to my favorite charity? For me, a ham sandwich would be reward enough.


As a way of adding to the chorus of "These tests are bogus," I went on to take the "Do You Have a Sense of Humor" test on the same site and scored (horrors!) right about in the middle. Re-examining the questions and re-taking the test with insincere answers, I realized that this test was highly biased in favor of people who think flatulence is funny. I don't.

quote:

---

I realized that this test was highly biased in favor of people who think flatulence is funny. I don't.

---

I only have one thing to share with you CJ...

Morgan, I knew there was a cartain air about you!

The "Are You a Prude?" test comes from a site with over 200 tests and minitests. They don't seem to be particularly serious (I mean, "The Sexual Purity Test"? Come on now.), but some may be amusing.

But getting back to Kalleh's original point: It fascinating to see how the word prude has changed. In French it originally was a positive term, meaning "wise woman", short for prude femme¹. But the French word shifted in mean to refer to "a woman too wise, too observant of decorum and propriety", and it then came into English with that shifted, negative meaning.

This is all from the link Kalleh provided. That link didn't work well for me, so I'm repeating it here, hoping that the second time will be the charm.

--
¹modeled after preudomme, "a man of experience and integrity" = "wise man" = prude wise + homme man

"modeled after preudomme, "a man of experience and integrity" = "wise man" = prude wise + homme man"

...and overweight New Orleans cook! No, strike that, chef!

"The peculiarity of prudery is to multiply sentinels, in proportion as the fortress is less threatened." -- Victor Hugo

Wow, haberdasher, you're already a member!

This is probably not that related to this thread, but then I am known for that! If any of you will be in the Chicago area, "Lysistrata" will be here, starting tonight and running until June 8. In case you are not familiar with it, it is a fantastically funny play by Aristophanes, based on the Peloponnesian War. The play first appeared around 415 BC, and it satirizes warmongers with a women's peace movement of refusing sex until the men cease fighting. Shufitz and I haven't seen it yet, but we certainly are planning to! It is showing at the Viaduct Theatre on 3111 N. Western Avenue. Hope to see some of you there! (CJ, especially you since you live in Illinois!)

I wish I lived closer to Chicago! "Lysistrata" is something I would truly love to see. You will let us know how it is?

Well, Shufitz and I saw "Lysistrata" last night, and maybe because we had such high expectations....but it was just awful. While we knew that they had modernized it, we didn't realize the exent to which that was done. The whole first act, in fact, wasn't even part of the true "Lysistrata". So glad, Morgan, that we weren't able to talk you into it!

Still, it was of fun when, throughout the second act, the male cast members wore three pink balloons just below the belt: two small round ones, and a long one pointing up and out from just above those two. (whistling an innocent air ... ) Wonder why that was?

And, of course, Shoe, you forgot the 3 men dressed up as penises (which dictionary.com tells me can be spelled "penes" as well); now, it was obvious that the 3 men in those costumes were having a lot of fun!

Reviving a thread...

I am reviving this "prude" thread because once again I have been called a "prude." This time it was on OEDILF because I thought a limerick referring to a nurse's aide who fed urine to patients as disgusting.

When they first called me "prudish," I thought, "no, you've got the word wrong. 'Prudish' means modesty related to sexuality or nudity." Yet, when I looked it up, most dictionaries say it means a person who is excessively attentive to propriety, which could apply to the urine limerick. Yet, the online Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines it as: "a person who is easily shocked by matters relating to sex or nudity."

My question...is there a British/American difference on the definition of "prudish?" Do Americans define it more broadly, while the Brits' definition is related more narrowly to sexual modesty?

Obviously, I can't speak to English vs. American differences regarding prudery... but I could not agree with you more regarding the idea of ingesting urine as disgusting. I'm not sure which is more disgusting: the nurse giving it or the patient consuming it.

There is a distressing decrease in propriety, with an increase in sneering at people who are taken aback by sexually explicit language, public sexuality, disgusting bodily fluid exchanges, etc.

Amen to Jo's point, and I'm glad you are a prude... how refreshing! Stand proud....

It's obviously only my own observation but I believe that the "average" American is more prudish than the "average" Briton.

One thing that brought this home to me was the "accidental" revelation of Janet Jackson's nipple on TV. The US newspapers censored the image so as not to upset the delicate sensibilities of their US readers; the British and European press displayed the picture of the incident in its full "glory". In fact, exposure of breasts in the British national press (or the more downmarket section of it) is so common as to be quite unremarked.

Comment on sexual matters and deviations is common enough in the UK but I, too, agree that the "urine" limerick was not a good one. That's not prudishness on my part since, had the limerick been about some kind of sexual practice involving urine, that would have been fine by me. But in this instance it seemed to be about a nursing mistake, or possible deliberate act of malice, and that I didn't find expecially funny or appropriate.

I'm not sure the Janet Jackson incident is a good example. I expect the US newspapers censored it from fear of frivolous legal actions being taken against them by people seeking to make money by claiming to be offended. Fear of litigation is a bigger motivating factor for newspapers than mere prudishness..

What amuses me over the notorious wardrobe malfunction was that, in fact, the nipple was covered. True, more of the breast was visible than is expected in polite society, but the nipple itself was obscured.

Although such sights are not supposed to be allowed on British TV before the "watershed" of 9 PM, when children are expected to be in bed, I feel sure that the furore in America would not have happened over here, even if the incident had happened before 9.

Lol - I've just done the test Bob linked to near the top of the page, and came out as a 'playful kitten' too.

Come on CW - your turn!

COLD DEAD FISH????!!! C'mon.... geeze

LOL - are you sure you wanna know this about me?

Says I'm a horny rabbit. May need some counseling - LOL.

What a riot!

quote:

It's obviously only my own observation but I believe that the "average" American is more prudish than the "average" Briton.

We've talked about this before, Richard, and I think we'll have to agree to disagree. CJ and someone else from that workshopping said the same about Americans. I just don't think so. I think we are similar in that regard. Yet, I don't have any "data." It's just my opinion.

I think you are right, KHC, I should be proud of it. "Prude" has a noble past, as the AHD says. It came from the French word prude femme, meaning "wise woman." This word came from an older word, preudomme meaning a man of experience and integrity. This comes from Old French prod, meaning "wise" and "prudent." Now this prod comes from Vulgar Latin...what is Vulgar Latin? Anyway, "prude's" history is from the meanings of "integrity" and "wise." Apparently it changed in the 1700s because a woman could be too wise or too observant of decorum.

Well, I took that silly test also... I'm a chilled, unliving trout... too bad that a computer telling me that has no consequence to me!

I like "integrity" and "wise"... and decorum says a lot. Go, Kalleh!

It seems to me that the makers of the quiz have gotten the perverted idea that exhibitionist is the opposite of prude. I know, it's just a silly internet quiz.

But I don't think of myself as a prude. I can be raunchy, amazingly so; but in the privacy of my own space, or amongst the company of very close friends of my own choosing. I love sex; I love the opposite sex; I can laugh at a good raunchy joke until my sides hurt. I just don't engage in these activities with the general public.

Does that make me a prude? Or just someone with self respect? Of course, that question indicates a predilection for judgementalism on my part, I guess.

Took the test again.
Still a cold dead fish.
No surprises there then.

(Actually that may be overrating me as I had to choose the least inapplicable answer for some - they really need some more "didn't understand the question" options.)

So here are my real answers.

1. How often do you have sex?

What’s that then?

2. What is your favorite position?

I quite like the front of the pub, near the window.

3. How do you feel about spanking?

It’s rightly banned nowadays in schools.

4. When finding a lover.....

Lover? There you go again with the obscure vocabulary.

5. What is something you would most likely say in bed with someone?

In bed? With someone else? Does that really happen?

6. Someone that doesn't quite meet your standards for attractiveness is giving you
the eye...what do you do?

I have no standards. And what would I do with someone's eye?

7. A friend of a friend of a friend offers for you to join an orgy. What do you do? The people there are attractive.

I would think about it but probably not go. And probably be too embarrassed to ever speak to that friend again. Or that friend of a friend. Or that friend of a friend of a friend.

8. What are you most skilled with?

Obfuscation.

9. What really gets your motor running?

My motor seized up years ago through lack of use.

10. Your lover proposes a new role playing theme involving a 8 foot diameter burrito shell and ground beef, and cheese, and....you get the idea...

I refer you to the answer to question four. But who could eat a burrito that big anyway? You’d get sick. The question just doesn’t make sense.

11. You walk in on an acquaintance having wild wild sex on the living room floor....You...

I'm British. Pretend I haven't noticed whatever it is they're doing and go about my business. Never mention the incident.

12. You open up your "sex drawer" and get out your.....

Clean sex, then put one on each foot before putting on my shews.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

Well - now I'm embarrassed by not only my ranking on the silly internet quiz but by my silly idea that posting it here would be fun. Sorry to offend!