Coming over all Queer....

Gender Identity (Man, Woman, Trans/Man/Woman) Is Trans really one? +
Sexual Preference (transsexual, bisexual, homosexual, pansexual, asexual(?))+
Sexual-ness (hypersexual, sexual, asexual)

- a three-dimensional map. Of something. Of our gender identity/sexual preference/sexualness. Should this be all that makes it onto the map? What about 'types' of people, both physically and psychological.

Further, why are there even discrete boxes at all? Whether or not you agree with the everyone-is-to-some-degree-bi analysis (BI-UBIQUITY) or not, I think that maybe taking a step back in two directions might be handy:

a). The idea of there being 'gay' people and 'straight' people is a social construction, a temporal one. That's not to say that all MSMs aren't homosexual, or that sexual preferences exist, for example, but just the idea that a separate classification of people , of species almost, is worth making, is relatively new. We wouldn't, or shouldn't claim that some people are 'talls', as people. [I acknowledge this may be down to the whole heteronormativity element, but surely even that concept cannot exist if you disregard sexual orientation as a worthy category of segregating people?], i.e. will The Man (white, male, cis, heterosexual, sexual, middle class, western), next be given 'tall' as a labelling characteristic

b). I don't really remember what this point was going to be.

I heart that I spell everything with a z. Ezerything.

I might heart that I want to put everything I type in inverted commas, that maybe even the definite article is only allegedly thus called 'the'.

I certainly don't heart how I'm rambling, how wordy this bloody thing is, or how scattered/wrong my ideas are. Back to the brain-stone.

Glass for Sugar?

Your glass is like my sugar
It pin-points in my eyes.

Material success, immaterial success.
Win, lose, chose.

Is it better to live a (materially/conventionally) 'successful' life, or to go out on a limb and risk it all?

Is this anti-profession, anti-'materialism' approach, of rushing for McJobs a real attempt at individualism, or independence of thought?.

Or is it just another mould, another definition of 'material'. Ideas as objects, creativity as property, Warhol as Thatcher?

The First, funny things in life.

The fact that all that stands between you and that cute little thing you're after is brain chemistry, the fact that all that makes you moth-like to their light is brain chemistry.


Socialization, upbringing, childhood, acculturation, Americanization, modernization, globalization, the 'therapeutic ethos', consumerism, mass media, mass produced.
Education. Education. Education.

Tough on thought, tough on the causes of thought.

It makes me laugh that me and m. sit up all night and debate, neither of us ever really sure if we actually believe in what we're defending, or why we're bothering. Defining, defending. Surely the point is to actually, hopefully, move on? To get Hegelian, to synthesize, and look for something in between? Have we been overrun by the 'capitalist thought', winners and losers?

Of course I'm not sure what I just said. Who would be?

I'm coming home, I'm coming home
To make it alright
So dry your eyes...
- Thom Yorke, Harrowdown Hill