Thorn Wilde

Tomorrow morning boyfriend will arrive. He lands at 10 and will be in town probably an hour or so after that. Picking him up at the train station. I'm nervous, but excited. He's already on his way, on the night bus to Heathrow. Can't wait to have him here... I'll be heading to bed now so I can get up in the morning. Goodnight, everyone!

Glad to hear it. Thank you for letting us know. Goodnight to you both!

Jasper's a chill bro. And hey, everyone has to get their first kiss from somewhere, right?

That's good.

Loz is one of the most complex characters I've ever written. He started out as just an antagonist, but it quickly became obvious that he couldn't be just that. I'm glad you see that as well.

Heh, I like giving my readers feels. Isn't that the whole point? Thank you. I'm glad the angst hasn't turned you away.

Know that feeling. Sometimes I feel like I only just woke up and it's already bedtime...

‘Why did you do it?’ he asked, looking at me over the top of his spectacles. This was my third session. They made me go twice a week. I refused to meet his gaze. ‘I already told you. He was a bully. He hurt someone really badly. I wanted him to hurt, too.’ In my first session, we had talked about my family. My mum leaving, how I felt about that. Did it make me angry? Yes it did. It made me furious. I told him about how I’d pushed Jason when he mentioned her, how that pissed me off. A sim

Back home from D&D. We killed werewolves today. I finished the first draft for my anthology story last night (10k words, longest short story I've ever written) so gonna read through it a couple times before bed, do some editing, I think. Oh, and upload the next chapter of Storms. Hope everyone's had/having an okay day.

This is beautiful and powerful. Beauty can be born out of pain. Not an attempt to cheer you up, simply stating a fact.

Reminded of this by a friend's words this morning. Love this cover.

The heart is for your way with words, and the hope that your day will improve. Hugging you in my heart, my friend.

I do understand that desire and that need. It's just that the scientific method doesn't work like that. You have to go into it as unbiased as humanly possible, and so far studies either attempt to prove that homosexuality is definitely genetic, or that it definitely isn't. Why does that have to be the answer? Wouldn't evidence that sexuality is fluid and that heterosexuality is no more natural or normal than homosexuality because both form part of a sexual continuum also serve the same purpose? And can't people's sexualities be hardwired without it necessarily being genetic? We're stuck in this loop where everyone is looking in the same place. They're all standing around the same box going, 'I'm sure the house keys are in here,' instead of spreading out and looking all over the house. Maybe the keys are on the table in the corner, hiding in plain sight, and nobody ever bothered looking. And, unfortunately, regardless of where the keys are, somebody will just sit down and say, 'There are no keys.' Even with empirical evidence right in front of their noses, people will ignore it if it suits their agenda (see climate change and vaccines, and then let's not get further into those in case it gets political). There will always be people who want to make gay people straight. And the idea that people are born either gay or straight is harmful to already marginalised groups. Not to mention that all of this research focuses more or less exclusively on gay cis men and doesn't take into account gay women (some of it being actively misogynistic by suggesting that female sexuality isn't on par with male sexuality, which, have you met any cis women?) or the existence of bi- and pansexuality (with some, as we see here, actively trying to prove that these sexualities don't actually exist), and nor does it bother to include the existence transgender or intersex people. And don't ask me to count the number of times I've been asked to just pick a team or been told, 'But you're gay/straight now cause you're dating someone of the same/opposite sex/gender.' Much the same way as I've been asked to pick a gender and been told that there are only two of them, which is also scientifically speaking demonstrably false (and much easier to disprove). This from members of the LGBTQ community as well as from straight people, by the way. We're all human. We all have to live on this planet and try to get along. And the far more important battle here is to impress that upon people, the fact that in the grand scheme of things none of this matters, and can't people just be allowed to be with who they want and be who they are? Something that both straight and LGTBQ folks would do well to consider. Isn't that more important than rooting around that same old box looking for keys you may never find?

Morning, everyone! My laptop's battery decided to give out last night, so now if I unplug it, it immediately turns itself off. Replacing the battery is probably cheaper than buying a new laptop, so I'll take it to the Mac store tomorrow, I guess. When I'm meeting boyfriend. He arrives tomorrow. I'm super nervous, omg!

Goodnight, Def! I'm heading to bed too. Nighty night, DiC!

...I may have hypothetically called him a scumbag, though. You know, if by chance his issue is with the rules that prohibit glorified pedophilia. But, as I said, this is a hypothetical.

Ah, the book is as old as from 2005. This could explain why their views on bisexuality are so outdated. The second review you shared is interesting because it's so overwhelmingly negative towards the book. There are a couple of points in that review that are worth looking at: This paragraph suggests that both heterosexuality and homosexuality develop at some point during childhood. That is to say, that we are all born bisexual, or perhaps rather asexual, with preferences developing as we grow. This explains why heterosexuality is more common, because we all grow up in heteronormative environments, but in no way suggests that heterosexuality is in any way more natural or normal than homosexuality. Not saying this statement is true, but it's an interesting thought. Why are we so against the idea that social factors can, in fact, influence sexual orientation, in either direction? Sexuality can demonstrably be fluid. Many people change their sexual identities over the course of their lives. Many start out thinking of themselves as straight and later considering themselves gay, this is extremely normal. The opposite can also be true. Some then say, 'Oh, I was really gay/straight all along, I just thought I wasn't,' while others are perfectly comfortable with the idea that they were straight and then became gay, or vice versa. And people who consider themselves gay can fall in love with and be sexually attracted to a person of the opposite sex without changing their sexual identity. The problem is social pressure to change one's identity, not the fact that it happens. So there were studies at the time that concluded that people can in fact be attracted to both sexes, even if it did not conclude that this attraction can be equal. I believe there are many more recent surveys and studies that refute this and show that equal attraction is beyond possible and even common. A point that is not made here is that research geared towards bisexuality receives almost no funding whatsoever, so there are in fact very few studies at all. I can't recall the actual numbers, but I saw a statistic someone shared last Bisexual Day of Visibility, which showed that research geared towards male homosexuality receives many times as much funding as female homosexuality, and that both of those receive an outlandishly large amount of funding compared to bisexuality. This is puzzling since the B in LGBT is, in fact, the largest group under that umbrella. When a book like this then uses the lack of evidence that comes from the fact that hardly any studies are being performed as proof that bisexuality doesn't exist, I think vexation is a natural and appropriate reaction for those of us who identify as such. Of course, the problem with this review is that it too dogmatically presents a definitive answer to a complex question. I don't believe there is any such thing. And, as I've already stated earlier in the thread, I don't think it matters. Why is this so important? Why are we dying to know? Can't it just be a thing that is?

Sounds like a frustrating situation. I'm sorry.

Hope you feel up to it. Also hope you won't push yourself if you don't.

Enjoy your dinner. Oh, you poor thing! A lot of that going around... Only just starting to get over the cough I've had since early December. Hope you feel better soon!

Hey, Hunter. Not bad, getting some writing done. You?

Yeah, I know. At least I'm writing, so that's something. In related news, I found the perfect solution for writing while my flatmate is watching stuff. I struggle with having words coming at me from more than one place at a time, so when there's talking it's hard to focus on writing, and music can be a problem there too, BUT! I started listening to Indochine, which is a French band, and they sing in French, and I have no idea what they're saying! Yay!

Yeah, Stephen and Lewis will be a big help for Daniel, for sure. Thank you for reading and commenting!

Here's hoping. I wish you the best of luck. Thank you.

Here, have something French: