amusing...
Jan. 31st, 2006 10:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
collwenwhat's behind the cut isn't work safe-
| Perfection You scored 68 elegance and 65 spankability! |
| An absolutely stunningly high score for elegance, and a good solid high score for spankability. An excellent result! But there's more to this, isn't there? Someone as elegant as you would have to be equally spankable. So I bet you were trying to get that lower score. You threw the test, with your obvious wrong answers like pretending to think that garter belts are sexy, or that a prosaic git like Wordsworth might be into spanking, or that Ezra Pound was a poet at all. Which is subversive, and therefore spankable, oui? So you also win on spankability! Congratulations! You're cooler than the lovechild of, let's see, Bjork and Lord Byron, and more spankable than two dolphins leaning over a gate! Er, that last simile may need some explanation. You see, cetologists have established that a dolphin is essentially a buttock with a tail at one end and a beak at the other. That's why they so often travel in pairs. (And I should also clarify that the author of this test harbours no improper thoughts or desires concerning our ocean-going mammal friends. Tat would be lower than Gottlob Frick's voice, Aaron Spelling's brow and a televangelist's belly. I'm kinky for similes, not cetacea. Just sayin'.) So contact me if you like, you winner you, and I'll send you your prize: I believe it's a picture of a fluffy bunny. |
 |
My test tracked 2 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
| Link: The elegant spankability Test written by Laon- on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the 32-Type Dating Test |
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 03:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 12:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 08:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-02 02:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 08:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-02 02:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-02 12:17 pm (UTC)interesting
Re: interesting
Date: 2006-02-01 12:44 pm (UTC)lol
Re: interesting
Date: 2006-02-01 03:25 pm (UTC)Re: interesting
Date: 2006-02-01 03:53 pm (UTC)