Weekend Supplements: Why the Daily Mail is the only one to get it right

Today is Sunday...and in all traditional British households this means one thing - a session with the newspapers. It might be the Sunday version of your regular read, it might be that you don't get a paper until Sunday (they are SO much bigger - more bang for your buck!), it might be that your other newspaper is replaced by a special, higher-quality version on Sunday (it is the Sabbath, you know! Only the best will doodle-doo!)...or you might be one of the lucky families where this HQ version is in addition to the normal one - so you have two papers to share between you all! The lavishness! [If you live alone, you can wallow/luxuriate in all that ink and knowledge solo - then feel extra smug that your recycling efforts are more impressive than the couple downstairs who spend all their time cycling - No time to read? Bah - just look at my stack of old print! These are going to be toilet paper soon!]

Now, I have been fortunate in that I never have to buy a newspaper - I always have lived where someone else footed the bill. This means I sometimes have no say in the reading material - but that only makes it more exciting for me. Staying in a posh hotel? The Financial Times may be coming your way! Waiting for a bus in a municipal station? There's bound to be a well-thumbed Daily Star somewhere...

If I am travelling, not having news makes me feel a bit sea-sick. I worry that something colossal has happened and I will return and make a frightful faux-pas in mentioning the wrong celeb or maybe the next big entrepreneurial opportunity is slipping me by because the bazillionaire who is looking for a wing man with my exact skill-set is only taking CV submission via YouTube and I hadn't heard a thing about it.

I have rectified this on most occasions where I am able to access a computer as my GoogleReader has subscriptions to all the places I could possibly need:

1. Actual news: Daily Mail Online
2. Science news:
1. New Scientist - Online News
2. Wired Top Stories
3. Queer news:
1. - Gay news daily: Towleroad.com - "Hot blog"--Newsweek
2. automatic straddle
3. be yr own queero
4. Bi-Furious!
5. BiNet USA News and Opinions
6. Bisexual news & opinion from BiMedia.org
7. Bisexuality and beyond
8. Bliss Warrior
9. Blogging for Truth
10. Dorothy Surrenders
11. Dyke Republic
12. Either / And
13. eric mathew's world.
14. Gay UK News
15. Haviland Stillwell
16. HOMELESS YOUTH PRIDE WALK 2009
17. Jess I Am
18. Julie & Brandy In Your Box Office by Autostraddle.com
19. Mohra's Memoir
20. Queer's soup
21. Queers United
22. The Bilerico Project
23. The Lesbian Agenda
24. the lesbiblog
25. this girl called automatic win
4. Women's news:
1. Feminist Daily News
2. Feministing
3. The Pleasure Project
4. WIMN's Voices: A Group Blog on Women, Media, AND…
5. Woman-Stirred
6. Women's eNews
5. Random sites of interest:
1. Blogger Sentral
2. Dave Gorman
3. First Guns
4. Foucauldian Reflections
5. Foucault blog
6. Obsolete Word of the Day
7. philosophy bites
8. Quipsologies | From the Authors
9. Sleep Talkin' Man
6. ...and, of course, the requisite PICTURES:
1. A Collection a Day, 2010
2. Artistaday.com - New art... everyday.    
3. Biblical Art of the Day
4. Cute Overload
5. Daily Squee    
6. Dilbert Daily Strip
7. Fail Dogs
8. Fuck You, Penguin
9. Lolcats 'n' Funny Pictures of Cats - I Can Has Cheezburger?
10. Loldogs, Dogs 'n' Puppy Dog Pictures - I Has A Hotdog!
11. Look at this fucking hipster    
12. Missed Connections    
13. My First Fail    
14. PHD Comics
15. The Map Scroll    
16. Tots and Crafts - Funny Kids' Drawings

Hmm, I feel this is quite telling... I have more interest in funny photos of babies and pets, than about actual world events. I'm not sure how I should feel about that...

Anyway, the point of this post is to say that to supplant my Sunday morning magazine-a-palooza, I have been trying to find the articles online. There are sections of the weekend supplements of various newspapers that I enjoy but buying ten papers to read twenty articles is silly. So I have been trying to scour the web for their links...NOT EASY!

Firstly, there is no list of weekend supplements that I can find - NOT EVEN ON WIKIPEDIA! I might rectify this...

The best I could do was find this marketing company that assesses readership, etc. of UK newspapers. They provide a list of all the newspapers and their supplements:

3 am    The Mirror
Celebd on Sunday     Sunday Mirror
Culture     The Sunday Times
The Daily Express Saturday    The Daily Express
Entertainment Mail     Sunday Mail, Scotland
ES Magazine     The Evening Standard
The Eye    The Times
Financial Times Magazine     Financial Times (there's this Arts section, but what you want is FT Weekend)
The Guide     The Guardian
The Herald Magazine     The Herald
How to spend it     Financial Times
The Independent Magazine     The Independent Newspaper
The Information     The Independent
Live     The Mail on Sunday
Mailsport Weekly     Sunday Mail
Observer Food Monthly     The Observer
Observer Music Monthly     The Observer
Observer Sport Monthly     The Observer
Observer Travel Magazine     The Observer
OM The Observer Magazine     The Observer (there is also this excellent eViewer - fee to pay)

S Sunday Express Magazine    The Sunday Express
S:2     The Sunday Express
Seven Days     Sunday Mail
Spectrum     Scotland on Sunday
Starmag     Daily Star
Style     The Sunday Times (fee to pay)

Sunday     News of The World
Sunday Herald Magazine     The Herald Sunday (free three day trial - per email address!)

The Sunday Review    The Independent on Sunday
Sunday Telegraph Magazine    The Sunday Telegraph
The Sunday Times Magazine     The Sunday Times (fee to pay)
The Sunday Times Rich List     The Sunday Times
Take 5     Daily Star
Take it Easy     Sunday People
Telegraph Magazine    The Telegraph
Television & Radio     The Daily Telegraph
Times Magazine     The Times (fee to pay)
The Times Special Supplement    The Times
TV Mag     The Sun
We Love Telly!     The Mirror
Weekend (The Daily Mail)     The Daily Mail
Weekend (The Guardian)     The Guardian (there is also this excellent eViewer)

You Magazine     The Mail on Sunday


Out of these there are a few that I really like (emboldened) - these I have provided weblinks where possible. They are a mix of magazines published on various days.

There are others I have thought of that aren't in the list:
Stella by The Telegraph, which has a terrible website - it gives links to all the fashion things and leaves out the bits loved best by me! Lucy Cavendish writes a column about her family, next to Bryony Gordon who writes about her single life - together they make up the last page called 'How the other half lives'. There are no links allowing me to read previous articles, as there are for Liz Jones from the Daily Mail; I had to do a search for them and both writers' entries are variously linked under Fashion, News or Family categories - no consistency. Plus Vicki and Octavia are a mother and daughter Agony Aunt pairing but the links are to each advice bit separately - with no link in between to take you to the other dose of advice being dished out on the same day (there are always two).

The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday are my favourite source - easy to navigate and free. The only real downside in the journalism (apart from the right wing stance which some may dislike) is that they are trying to do more trashy, celebrity exposé stories - they are even starting an office on the West coast of USA to be first in line with the gossip - which makes me sad. :(

The other thing I don't like is the Daily Mail's supplements being so fiercely gender-identified. Live is supposed to be for the men, whilst ladies can enjoy You. I like both and I don't think designating one for a particular gender is useful.

For some this post will be a valuable resource to minimise time-wasting searches, for others it will be anathema to your beliefs since you value the printed page rather than online content and you worry that the websites will bankrupt the printing presses.


Bonus of the day... stocious or stotious - to be very drunk! Thanks, Lucy Cavendish!

Web 2.0

The consumers of information and entertainment on the internet are becoming the creators. Dilbert mash-ups. Vimeo movie reviews. Youtube fan clips. Wikipedia entry edits.

We are creating our world. We might be producing information that no-one else is consuming. We might be making more than we are taking in. Our output might be outpacing our input. Does that matter? If we are not informed before we produce, we have the pleasure in knowing our work is naively original - we cannot possibly have copied or been influenced - we haven't seen the other output.

But to what extent is our perhaps ill-informed produce worth anything? Can it be called truth?

When information is modified in Wikipedia it is either changed automatically or on flagged pages there is a pause, a debate between self-nominated experts, a professional over-seer moderates and then we have alterations (if permitted). There is a checking system and it works - mostly. We are not by nature a society of liars. We do not want to produce inaccuracies (other than when we are compelled for commercial or personal reasons). We like to have contributed to helping improve global understanding. We want to have been pivotal in making something better. We want to be seen as knowledgeable, clever. We want to show off.

That is why I think there is just cause to believe in Wikipedia. Eventually we will use it as a resource and cite it. GoogleNews was planning on doing just this and conducted an experiment into its efficacy. In another article it is stated that:
"it’s hard to argue with the idea that many Wikipedia pages — which are often more comprehensive and updated more quickly than some news sites — offer background and context on current events that could be beneficial to Google News users."

This is probably the main point. With citizen journalists on the spot and giving us a street view of incidents, we can be there immediately. We can judge for ourselves. There is no editor, script writer, teleprompter reader. We can see for ourselves.

Academia's main bugbear is that it takes two years to review then publish scholarship. The information may well be old, based on outdated research and outmoded data. The purpose of publishing is thusly not for the benefit of Mankind to improve knowledge, but to add to someone's CV/resume, to make them closer to tenure. If we have a moral obligation to make our research available to everyone, then we should be publishing in Wikipedia or on our blogs. We might need to sell journals and books, but we might care more about letting humanity know a little bit more sooner rather than later.

Maybe information overload would be a problem. Putting all the research out there, for magazines to paraphrase in brief articles, where nuances are lost and inaccuracies flourish, might be pointless. The white noise wall of information may become too much and deter people from engaging or even listening. Perhaps after a serious debate in conference tracks, journal counterarguments and rival books, there might be a more solid argument produced, a more refined, joint understanding. This might be what should be fed down to the general populace. The average Joe doesn't want to have to grasp ten years of chemistry teaching to know that the new pharmaceutical might help his condition, as long as he avoids caffeine and doesn't have the trigger gene.

Are we protecting the public from being overwhelmed with information, or are we creating knowledge strata? Limiting those deliberately to make the information seem more valuable; information that is released only in the rarefied air expelled by other scholars.

Should we trust information produced by multiple persons working without financial gain (unless they are promoting a theory that one can learn more about in a handy pocket-sized classic available for only £5.99!) and viewable to the multitude who can join in as editors if so moved, or allow the information to remain unchallenged if they believe/know it to be fact?

Here is a site that talks about a documentary that was made on this very topic - it includes an embedded version of the documentary. Well worth watching!

Update: I have just found this on Claire O'Farrell's blog: "Scholarly work is essential in order to guarantee certain standards of truth and accuracy, of value to the social body. But popular books are also essential to communicate ideas to a non-specialist general public...A book does not stand alone, it is intrinsically bound up in a social network of work done by others." Interesting...
Also, there is this academic article that explores the issue of trust in Wikipedia contributions.
Ian Bogost thinks that academic output should be for the general public:

"But wait, you might say, why would a discipline of philosophy need or want to explain itself to a general population? This is the domain of specialists, and some will hold that we cannot or should not "simplify" our nuanced positions for the unwashed masses. This is wrongheaded. I'm of the general belief that academia has a responsibility to the public interest, but more than any other philosophical movememt in recent memory, OOO stands to benefit from the deep engagement of ordinary people, since it returns the attention of philosophy to the real, everyday world."

Tuesday tutorial...

Need clever pictures designed to stimulate debate? Check this one about feminism and then explore SocImages further...

Exciting new European LGBT tv channel is coming! Fruit.tv want suggestions as to their content - give your opinions here. I love the name SO many allusions... Jeanette Winterson - yay!

Wondering who is on IoS Pink List 2009? Me, too! Check out last year's whilst we wait...

Also EllenTV has released a sneaky clip of Halle Berry dancing on the show through twitter... watch it here!

Miraculous absence of a hangover...

I naughtily indulged in Sunday drinking shenanigans (and drunk dialled the latest girly - oops), but feel FINE today. Hooray!

Decided not to wear a bra today as I don't need to go outside (no-one should go outside the house if there is a chance of a chill-wind causing nipple exposure...that's what padded brassieres are for ladies!) and I like my masculine silhouette - almost boi-ish...

I wonder if I can have days when I am butch despite having blonde hair to my waist - need I put it up, or can I fulfill my criteria for butchness, with flowing locks? I certainly like to mix it up - girly dresses whilst wearing man's cologne - it feels scandalous, pushing boundaries...so risque!

Links of loveliness:
I may never have mentioned it before, but I should have - an excellent daily art update is available on your iGoogle homepage as well as by just clicking on their website: www.artistaday.com - fabulous images and uses snippets of information on the creations...

Scary stuff in the form of more snooping and surveillance which I don't think is over-hyped or hysterical like a lot of Big Brother bullsh*t stories running rife in the media. In an article about a GhostNetwork which has hacked governmental computers, they write that:
In this case, the software also gave hackers the ability to use audio and video recording devices to monitor the rooms the computers were in. But investigators said they did not know whether or not this element had been used. (@ BBCNews Website)
Holy crow! That is super-scary...

More dire warnings that new interconnectivity through social networking is more surveillant than we might have thought...

...and a hilarious story about one son's saucy contribution to his parents' home decor...

Finally, I think I might have found the people for whom I'd like to work once my PhD is finished... the Information Warfare Monitor (IWM), which comprises researchers from Ottawa-based think tank SecDev Group and the University of Toronto's Munk Centre for International Studies.

Queeries for Queeroes

So another question for the LGBTQ community...
Do lesbians who indulge in fisting find childbirth easier as a result?

...and the usual Sunday Serving of Surflinks...

• Check out Tom Robinson's fab website: he is a queer man who ended up marrying a woman and having babies with her, but remains solidly promoting LGBTQ pride and resistance through his awesome music. His website kindly allows free downloads of his tunes for the sensible reason that ("iTunes downloads cost 79p per track. Writer/publisher get 6p, Performer 6-8p, Visa/Mastercard 7p, Apple 12p, and Record Company almost 50p. Sod that. Help yourself to my songs & share them with your friends") - make sure you play 'Glad to be Gay' at every queer event you attend - too often there is such dispiritedness as a result of constant battles with prejudice that queer events can feel a bit angry, isolationist and overly-political. Sometimes we just want to be really, you know, gay - - as in happy! As Dana's brother, Howie, said at GayPride on The L Word: I mean (shouting to the crowd) be gay, be proud everybody! (The crowd roars back.)

Sing if you're glad to be gay
Sing if you're happy that way, hey
(Tom Robinson lyrics)

• Really interesting session at WAM2009 called In/Out of Focus, Broadening a Feminist Lens: Gender, Non-Conformity and the Media, which you can follow on twitter...
• If you don't laugh, you'd cry...Papal condoms!
• Volunteers needed for a worthy event: Bi Health 2009
• Also, for those wanting more help in their activism schemes, you might want to apply to Soulforce...
• For major fans of Riese and crew (like me!) become a fan of Autostraddle's new facebook page!
• Oh, and Towleroad has an awesome listing - check THEM ALL OUT!
  
• Therese Szymanski, who is completely fabulous, has a lively blog and an excellent website writes fantastic queer, women-oriented fiction. Having been given the book of erotica 'Tall in the Saddle', I thought I would share a quotation from her story which I thought equally hilarious and accurate!

"You know I can't let let you go back there now."
"I don't want to."
"So what do we do?"
Billy held Elise tight with one arm while her other caressed her hair, then the full length of her back, stopping only to cup her full, shapely ass. "We've got horses. Can you ride?"
"Hell, yes, I can ride."
"So we got us horses, a treasure map, and the rest of out lives. What's say we go for it?"
Elise rolled Billy onto her back, ripped open her shirt, and said, "Start speaking proper English, stop acting stupid, and let me see you as you really are and we might have a deal."
Little did Billy know that Elise was practically defining butch/femme relations for the next century with that single move.
Therese Szymanski, The Life and Times of Ornery Crazy Mean Bad Bill, 2007

I'm a bit surprised how much I loved the story and then I realised it was because it felt safe, mirroring the heteronormative lines of romance stories I have seen, read and heard since I was a child. The protagonists are a man (who is really a woman, but who dresses, acts and names herself in the masculine style) and a woman who live together, eventually have a child (adopted) and reconcile with the estranged family members who are just fine with their alternative lifestyle choices. Did I really feel more comfort in reading familiar stories with a queer take for queer women, or is it ingrained in humans to have that sort of same+other relationship, rather than same+same? More introspection needed...


On the idea of introspection, I was in the bath finishing TL&ToOCMBadBill, when I realised in all my roles where I have been the boss, I have never felt comfortable in charge of women who were physically bigger than me. At 5'8 and 8stone it is hard to find employees smaller than myself, but more importantly what does it mean about my self image and ability to be the strong woman in charge yet physically weaker? The same goes for women I want to date - they are all similar in physique. Either I am so egotistic that I can only fancy people of similar body-shapes, or I think the men in my life should be bigger than me (men are the protector, tall and imposing like my father) and that the women in my life should be smaller than I (women are delicate and need protecting like my mother). This might be linked to the idea that I prefer to date younger women (I cannot get down with well-used puss, or wrinkly flesh, post-birth bodies, etc. - maybe I worry that they have diseases if they have been about a bit). I would prefer a young virgin, then any mistakes in bed would be ignored (what does that say about my bedroom confidence?) and we could learn to love one another together rather than having to show off one's skills. At 28, younger lovers are realistically going to be 18-28, anything younger really feels gross and paedophilic. Yet I also sought young inexperienced male partners, I had a plan to hang about seminaries, young, men, probably virgins learning to be vicars, looking for a wife - I could be a real hit! Do I seek to help out at queer LGBTQ youth events because I am experienced in working with youngsters, or is it that I think there might be a potential gf there for me? Weird... I think there might be something Freudian in this...

And this is the future...

So, this is the first day post-mourning, grieving period over - it will be colourful clothes from now on - and productivity...

Firstly, some superior links:

Thai autistic boy is saved by Spiderman from a window ledge (@DailyMail)

Alienated when surrounded by chums up to their eyes in sibling squabbles? Then the website beinganonly.com is for you - there is even a conference for only children - plus Kathryn Flett's article.

A great discovery: a natty wee blog about asexuality: http://thereisnocloset.blogspot.com/

Totally agree: 'What Rolling Stone and the Abstinence-Only Movement Have in Common'

Femme's of Power (the book) and other literary delights are ably discussed in Bookslut's fantastic article

Ooh, I think I forgot to mention...

Each morning after checking iGoogle (UK news, queer news, tech news, Dilbert, word match up, art of the day, twitterfeed, facebook, quote of the day, Japanese word of the day, English word of the day), browsing a paper edition of The Daily Mail, checking my work email address and avoiding my personal one, plus logging out of the auto-sign-in MSNMessenger, I routinely check Marie Lyn 'Riese' Bernard and crew's new website. It is splendiferous and I recommend anyone with an interest in things pertaining to queer women give it some serious attention.

Today those lovely ladies sent my tumbling through the internet with the following links:
SXSW Update
Bitch magazine's 'women in science' link to Flickr
Jezebel caught up with the 'ladies loving ladies late' trend

...and then I was wondering: what ever happened to Beth Orton? The answer is here.

... and then I was glad Feministing had this article on the missing gender discussion regarding the recent German school girl shooting.

Formal Friday

Compare the original Grant Woods to the irreverant remake featuring Lyndsay Lohan and Sam Ronson.

The B*R*A will be delighted by the news that there are more ladies exploring sapphism than ever before.

Surprisingly cute Japanese Lolita fashions are not just about sex.

Racism in a queer world: fact or fiction?

Now I consider myself a film-fan, not a buff (my knowledge of directors, lighting, sound tracks is lacking) and not a connoisseur (my taste is not refined - I do not prefer Bergman films to ones starring Jim Carey - in fact it is usually exactly the opposite) - but I do watch a lot. On a good day (or bad day if you are my supervisor and want me to be finishing my sodding PhD) I watch three - most likely I have seen them before, because I like the comfort of popping in a video (yes, VHS wins hands down over DVD right now as a local charity shop sells them for 20p each and there is nothing like a quick detour back from the library to pick up 6hrs of entertainment with enough change from a quid to buy a choccy bar; though my poor hearing and my fascination with words means the subtitles on the DVDs means it is a tough call when browsing my film shelves) and hearing the familiar dialogue and action in the background as I tackle more academic endeavours. The movies are normally ones that I have seen multiple times, otherwise the new scenes and plot will distract me. A familiar movie is much better to study along to than a music album, with which I will be tempted to type in tempo or sing along.

Given this self-belief in my film-fan status, I was surprised to see that I only own ten movies with an LGBTQQ theme or main character:
Ace Ventura Pet Detective
Crush
Bound
Kissing Jessica Stein
The Birdcage
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Orlando
East is East
Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe (I continue to hold that Idgie and Ruth had a non-straight romantic love for one another, perhaps Idgie more so than Ruth)
Unconditional Love (which I only own as I worked as an extra in it - though buying the DVD was a bit useless as our scenes were cut)
Priscilla Queen of the Desert
To Wong Foo, thanks for everything, love Julie Newmar

There are a handful of others with minor LGBTQQ characters or scenes or themes: The Shawshank Redemption, Dude, where's my car?,The Constant Gardener, American History X, etc. I have however watched a gazillion other movies which would broaden my meagre collection of ten if I should ever find them in that Age Concern charity shop.

My thought of the day is that racism and gender/sexuality/queer issues are rarely tackled together. Now I am either guilty of not watching enough movies (possible) or there really aren't many ethnically diverse queer characters and themes. East is East and To Wong Foo stand out - and it is only the latter that actually seems to tackle the race issue by making sure the comedy and clashes, arguments and insults are usually centred on the ethnic differences - racial slurs being bandied about maybe was designed to distract from the LGBTQQ issues and make it more accessible to a wider audience (men in dresses, ooh, no; men making jokes about swaybacks, honkies, etc, whilst wearing dresses, hmm, yeah, okay). There actually wasn't any real intelligent discussion about racial differences and what they meant to one another - maybe that was the point, to make it a non-issue as if racial dissimilarities within the queer world were not a problem so not worth talking about - which I think is codswallop - there is no rule to say those that are non-straight will ignore all other differences and bond together as one queer group - just see the mention of the black lesbian bars in that episode of The L Word (Life Cycle? - bike ride)...

Racism for me is about how one is judged badly, denied goods and services, treated less than others because a physical difference - manner of speaking, accent, skin colour, nose or eye shape, hair texture. This might be because of ethnicity (one's biological heritage - mine is mostly Scandinavian, I think) - but such differences might just as well be a result of illness, disability, accidental injury, as deliberate surgical enhancements and 'beauty treatments', random chance and natural gene pool diversity. I guess it is easy for me to comment on what it means to experience racism, as most would think it has never affected me. On census forms I would tick (if forced - for I hate labels and pigeonholing) white/Caucasian female (I guess I am genetically female, though I've never had a DNA test, and I feel mostly female - what ever that really means - and have done for the past 27 years). But I have dual-nationality, was born in a country that is 'traditionally' unpopular with its geographic neighbours - went to University in a country where being from the country that my accent sounds like it originated was a occasionally a desperately unpopular thing (only a few weeks back another blonde like me was beaten up because her accent, like mine, was not local - it was not the colour of her skin, it was the mere fact that she sounded like she had spent time, lived, was born, or had parents from another nearby rival country).

Why are there no significant black characters in movies? I have read that non-hetero lifestyles are taboo in many African-linked communities, either in the continent itself or in those Americanised families in the USA. I have African friends for whom homosexuality is a puzzle - they cannot understand why anyone would do that, they think it is a deliberate political/fashion statement rather than a genuine lifestyle choice (let's not argue here about whether living a non-str8 life is a choice or not - you can see this website for more information), they speak of men from their home village who never marry and do not have kids and they are seen as strange outsiders, unlucky in life, but not as having different romantic and sexual desires (see The Constant Gardener for a taste of this taboo and news story of people married to supposedly hide their gayness are being dobbed into the police in Zambia). I have read articles (research by man undercover about hip black homophobes actually being gay) and websites (see my comment after the video) that suggest that there is a not-so-subtle challenge to being queer in an ethnically-diverse neighbourhood/family. Though there are websites of support!

...and we are not talking about religion here - nothing about liturgical bans on queer behaviour and identities, there have been these issues (the Pope, the recent Iran survey and their President's opinion as expressed in USA about the lack of homosexuality in his country). This is not about a profound belief in morality based on faith in a higher power who has decreed what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in human behaviour. It is not about morality in the most part - when asked to identify why LGBTQQ issues are taboo in their culture/ethnic community/neighbourhood I don't imagine many would offer reasonable moral evidence about it innate evilness or intrinsic unacceptability. I expect the answer would be mostly, it is wrong, gross, not done, weird, unnatural, etc. There might be suggestions of it being offensive to look at (well you don't need to watch queer couples together - don't buy that sort of porn, don't hang out in the pink district if you don't want to see same-sex pecks on the cheek, holding of hands or snogging that obviously has a romantic or sexual meaning to those involved), you fear it will corrupt others into joining in or copying them - what is your worry that the species will die out if we are not all heterosexual and reproductive? Many straight couples don't help populate the earth, whereas many queer couples do. Are you worried that you will be asked or expected to join in? Are you fearful that you would be overpower and forced to engage in acts you find so distasteful? Do you think the likelihood of you being a victim of gay assault or rape is high?

I just don't understand what people are worried about. If it is simply the 'natural' instinct to heard with others who are similar and fear/avoid those who are different, then that is silly. We are not a planet of clones, we are all different - that is the beauty of us. Even monozygotic twins fancy different people, prefer different ice cream flavours, laugh at different jokes .

What is this obsession with labelling, then identifying with and huddling together those that are like us, and disregarding and fearing those that are not. In the end we are all on our own, we are all our own island, as we are all individual, there is no-one exactly like us to form a huddle. Why base these categories on physical differences? Black, fat, tall, bespectacled, big chin, dressed like a goth, mohican hair, posh accent, camp manner, feminine habits, etc.

It is all very confusing to me.