Hello 
I'm Siobhan Curran/Kisa Naumova, and this is my weblog. I tend to write about stuff like crossdressing, Macs, code, cats, wine and Second Life, but in general it's just an ongoing conversation about all sorts of stuff. If you'd like to know a little bit more about what this all is, I recommend starting on this page which has a little bit of info on who I am, and what I'm trying to do — or you could dive into my five years worth of archives if you like.
Otherwise, feel free to close this box and explore...
Drama! Excitement!

Firemen! ![]()
That was rather fun
There's been a small fire out the back of my house all afternoon. Cause for alarm, you'd probably think, but we've just had some new guys move in up the road and it seemed that they were just burning some rubbish left over by the last tenants.
But some kids knocked on my door a little while ago, and told me they'd seen some lads setting stuff alight earlier — and could they use my phone to ring the Fire Brigade.
Somebody must've done so already though, because suddenly our backstreet was full of blue flashing lights and industrious men running around with hosepipes.
Industrious men in uniform, running around with hosepipes.
Keeping composure was hard, let me tell you ![]()
Deuteronomy
Must just mention Selina's post on the subject of Deuteronomy 22:5. I never really broach the subject of religion, but I have to confess that when that passage was first pointed out to me, my heart sank.
I found it hard — impossible really — to understand why something that I had to do, was considered "wrong".
One of the first things I remember talking to Selina about — when I found out what she did for a living — was that passage. She sent me some info (which I think is the same as the link on her blog today), and it put my mind at rest.
As much I enjoy a bit of cerebral-debate and discussion, I'm probably out of my league on biblical interpretations compared to Selina. So I'll just mention my favourite bit from the article she links to:
A single Old Testament verse is a very weak foundation for a theological and pastoral judgement
Lovely
I wish more people in the Church took that view.
Faces
I'm not a geek. Really.
OK, I am a little — but I'm nothing compared to those Trekkie guys.
Having said that, I'm not averse to watching the odd episode whenever I happen upon it. And Channel 5 five are running the first series of Voyager at the moment.
(Thank God they made it all the way home in the end. Does anyone else share my frustration at the fact that Sam in Quantum Leap didn't make it back before they cancelled his show?)
Anyway, before I descend into sub-Doctor-Who realms of nerdiness, I just wanted briefly to talk about transvestism — or at least, the bizarre Duality of Self that goes on when you spend a lot of your time pretending to be someone you're not.
When I was ranting about Transformation the other day (which I'm starting to wish that I hadn't, really
), I spent a good part of the day searching round the house looking for an old journal of mine. One that contained a rather odd page.
The relevence to what I was talking about lay in the fact that I'd sellotaped an old advert for Transformation into one of those pages — but the relevence for what's currently running through my head is what's on the facing page.
It's a rant — a diatribe — by me, to me. It's my girl-self shouting at my boy-self.
At the time I was having a particularly rough time of things — crippled by feelings of self-doubt, self-loathing, and Too Much Pot™ — and this page is an odd wake-up-call to myself.
Damm. I wish I could find it. When I do, I'll share.
Me talking to myself is not an infrequent occurance. I do it all the time. But it's rare that there's any real sense of seperation about it. Mostly, when I talk to myself, it's just like this weblog — in fact, I'd argue that this weblog (except when there's comments) is just me talking to myself.
But the odd thing about that particular page in that journal is I've (that's boy-me) no recollection of writing it.
Granted, I was drunk at the time (natch), and there's a lot of things I don't have a recollection of doing whilst in a similar state. But that particular moment has always stood out for me.
I know I've rattled in the past against the idea of 'separate selves' — and I stand by that. But sometimes, I think it would be nice to confront myself — have a "Siobhan shouts at Graham" moment (and equally — and arguably more needed — a "Graham shouts at Siobhan" moment).
Of course, recently I did that self-interview thing. And while that was fun (and I believe it worked well — "well" in the sense that you can actually believe it's two people talking rather than just one), it's not really the same thing.
...
God. See, this is my problem. I have a vague thought about something to write about, then I start and I completely go off the plot.
You know you guys that carefully compose each entry? I don't. I just go "bleuuuugh".
...
So, trying to get back on the track ... The episode of Voyager tonight was the one where Torres get's split into two — her human-self and her klingon-self. And there was a weird moment in it that I really wish I had one of those Elgato EyeTV things set to stun on — a moment when the two halves of herself were stood facing each other.
(Minor distracting point #1: (a) I've been helping Jon try and set up a home media centre recently. (b) it's all very cool. (c) I'm trying to take it a step further, and ordered an Elgato EyeTV 410 this morning
)
And while I was watching it, I was thinking "Hey, wouldn't it be cool to have a moment where Graham and Siobhan are stood face-to-face, talking (and probably arguing) about how each other feels about each other?"
(Minor distracting point #2: I remember, ages ago seeing pictures from some trannie where she'd Photoshopped herself as a guy and herself as a girl together to create a "couple's" pose. It was really really good — and some day I'm going to try and do the same)
But really, that's beside the point. This entire wittering is just an excuse to post a Star Trek quote — one that I felt (a few minutes ago, I'm not sure now) sums up my relationship between boy-me and girl-me:
TORRES: I’m incomplete. It doesn’t feel like me. I guess I’ve had someone else living inside of me for too long to feel right without her.
CHAKOTAY: I’d have to say that you two made quite a team down there.
TORRES: I know. I came to admire a lot of things about her. Her strength, her bravery. I guess I just have to accept the fact that I’ll spend the rest of my life fighting with her.
There you go. That's how I feel about me. And God does it bother me that it took the medium of Star Trek to work that one out...
In Other News (literally)
Dear Mr Coates. That jumper? What were you thinking man?
Hi Siobhan,
I prefer the New Testament — I think the new one was needed because the old one needed an overhaul (none of the Love stuff in the old one, they tossed folk to the lions then), or at least I hope so.
By the way, after the other stuff above, I don't know if you've ever read "William Wilson" by Edgar Allen Poe.
An anonymous coward
O bugga it was Susan I forgot to put my name in again (last post)
An anonymous coward
Going "bleuuuugh" with your blog writing is what keeps me reading. It's never guaranteed that in two lines time you'll be on the same topic, and whatever you write, it's rarely dull
(although I admit I skipped yesterdays tutorial on something)
Keep up the good work ![]()
Serena Mayfly
It's never guaranteed that in two lines time you'll be on the same topic
Or the same sentence, if I'm honest.
Quality Controlled Tits
As much as I love my breasts, I kind wonder about how they were made.
Most companies have some kind of "Quality control" department don't they? If so, how does that work with companies that make fake tits?
Do they have some spotty guy called "Kevin" sat there at the end of a factory conveyor-belt, monotonously squeezing silicone-based-mammaries — and do they measure the authenticity of said products by how big a smile he emits?
And regardless of what kind of sliding scale they might have in relation to tit-authenticity — and how they might base the concept of 'rejections' (":Nope — they're just not squeezable enough"), if there is some guy called "Kevin" squeezing fake boobs for a living, then what does he think about when he masturbates?
I think this poor (ficticious) lad needs our sympathy. That (ficticious) guy suffers for us.
What makes you think "Kevin" is heterosexual?
All men called "Kevin" are heterosexual. And they all come from Essex
True Story ![]()
Selina, give Siobhan a slap for that last comment will you? Thanks.
hi!
ula
Rachel. 'Tis done.
ooop! i thought i was being clever with that last comment, as i was posting it in response to the front page which was blank and said it was some day in 1970...
ula
How to Break Your Weblog
(1) Write your own weblogging system. Frankly, if you rely on Movable Type or some such other thing, then I poo in your face ![]()
(2) Accidently copy an MP3 into your root folder.
(3) Lament accordingly.
I read your Graham and Siobhan interview that you linked to. Siobhan the ¿-list celebrity. I like it.I'm waydown further than that. in fact I'm not even a celebraty. hang on a sec though, my local paper did once interview me because I had a pet tirantula. they must have thought that a blindy with one of them is a really amazing thing or some such crap. so I probably am one. this comment is probably gunna go "bleuuuugh", so yeah.
I like your analagy likening blogs to a huge pub. I'm one of those who mainly sits and listens, then jumps in with some comment or other.
I did start writing this intending to ask you something I read in that interview, or was it just a comment, but can't remember what it was. oh yeah I know now. you remind me of billy connaly. Hestarts tellying something, starts another story, then another, then finally goes back to where he started. and that's about 20 minutes later.
I imagine Kevin the fake tits tester to be a brummy. and his mate who makes 'em to be called fred. I ain't got a clue why.
Stephanie Rowe
tellying? what the hell am I on about. I've gotta proofread next time.
Stephanie Rowe
| All men called "Kevin" are heterosexual.
|And they all come from Essex
Sorry to intrude, but...
Hetero -- yes.
From Essex -- no. Rather, I'm a Canuck, thank you very much. A closet T too.
Now back to my regularly scheduled lurking ![]()
comreich
Hahaha. My friend's brother is named Kevin. And we're in the US...that throws this particular theory a curve. ![]()
And my writing's always whatever my brain spews out.
As embarrassing as it can be, it is also very amusing. La.
"Does anyone else share my frustration at the fact that Sam in Quantum Leap didn't make it back before they cancelled his show?"
It did have a final episode, where Sam met "god" who turned out to be the same guy who played the Air Force psychologist in the first episode. What REALLY bugged me was that it didn't leave it open, they tagged on a simple page of text at the end, which read along the lines of "Sam kept on leaping and never did make it home". That was a total cop-out and at a stroke made the whole series feel hollow.
made the whole series feel hollow.
So true, so very very true.
The whole episode was set in a bar wasn't it? (My memory is a little shaky) That ending had the same effect as when Grandpa Simpson is reading (young) Homer a bedtime story, and finishes it off like this:
"Blah blah blah, The End"
Wasn't it great though, when Sam leapt into female characters sometimes?
I used to like those episodes...
I'd always been of the opinion that the Transvestite's Two Selves Theory™ was tosh. On the one hand you have blokes who like wearing frocks, but are still blokes nevertheless, and on the other, people born into bodies with all the wrong bits. No ‘multiple personality' confusions arise, one would think. Except I don't feel as if I really fall into either category — I'm somewhere in between. I'm not transexual (as far as I know) but within the pretense of being a girl, there's so much more going on than just putting on dresses and make-up.
Speaking only for myself, I don't think, in any clinical sense, I have two selves; just two sides of the same coin. As an analogy, however, Boy and Natasha as two separate entities bound together only by the fact that they share the same body and are, to some extent, at odds with one another, is one that works for me. My theory — within that analogy — is that it is the extent to which the boy-self or the girl-self has the upper hand in their relationship that puts us where we are within the TG continuum. That might explain why trying to put definitions on the CD/TV/TS labels is so futile.
Anyway, enough of this. If Boy doesn't get his arse round to Tesco soon, he's going to get it kicked. Then we'll see who's got the upper hand in our relationship
.
Wasn't it great though, when Sam leapt into female characters sometimes? I used to like those episodes...
I think every trannie worth their salt used to sit waiting for the final 30 seconds to see if next week was a "girl" episode..........
What about the Hallowe'en episode with the devil? One of the few genuinely scary bits of telly ever? Or the awful JFK one where Sam leaps into Lee Harvey Oswald? If you turn the last episode off 30 seconds early you can believe that Sam did something wonderful for his best friend which allows him to go home at last.
"Quality controlled tits" lmfao. inspired.![]()
Rachel T Williams




Men in uniforms Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee