#also the fact that it was undeniably queer

[gayfurina]

I miss fer.al. It wasn’t the best quality game in that it could be glitchy and the gameplay could grind on, but it was beautiful, and it was obviously a labor of love. The music and landscapes were beautiful and some days I find myself missing the layered mysteries of the lore. I feel bad that it never made it out of its beta stages because its attempts at accessible gameplay meant it didn’t make enough money to keep going. It really did deserve better as a game and as a world.

[what-thisiscrazzzy]

Its only episode 4 and Merlin has drank a poison to Dave Arthur which then makes Arthur put his life at risk to save him. People still believe they aren’t insane for each other?

[todayisafridaynight]

Another thing I forgot to mention is that these people often pull the "It's actually up to interpretation, but my interpretation is the correct one." It's bullshit on both grounds. Although, this isn't the only duo or single character that they get up in arms over. Notably, both have many instances in canon nudging the audience towards queerness. Gotta deny, deflect, and do gold medal mental gymnastics to feel correct and comfortable 💀

‘it’s up to interpretation unless your interpretation deviates at all from societal norms than fuck you 🥴’ but like literally, that’s how it goes down all the time; ‘it’s up to interpretation’ is just a cop out and is just a way to say ‘sure you can think that but because it wasn’t explicitly stated despite the fact it was in this case then it’s not a valuable take but like. You’re Free To Think It you’re just wrong‘

on that note though i hate this steady progression Society seems to be taking where things have to be put in neon lights and bright letters for people to accept it as fact: the art of subtext and subtly is dying i swear even if in mine’s case it really is neon lights and bright letters- its just that those signs are Unfortunately still subtle in some cases i.e. his tattoo

like at that point it’s just more sad than anything to be so vehemently against something even slightly, sincerely queer in fiction that for once isn’t taking a jab at an identity

[thatbuddie]

"eddie isn't queer/gay," you say. "he is straight in canon, so him being gay is just a head canon. it's ok for others to think of him as straight because that's what he is."

let's ignore for a second the fact that eddie has never ever ever ever not even once, said in canon that he is a heterosexual very straight guy. seriously!!! he has never once said it!!! if i am "assuming" he's gay then you are also "assuming" he is straight even though he has never once said it!!

how do you think we got bi buck as canon? like i am serious right now, answer the question. how do you think we go bi buck canon? evan buckley was never conceived to be a bisexual man at the beginning of 911. the reason we have evan buckley as a canonically bisexual character today is because us, queer fans of 911, interpreted him and headcanoned him as bisexual. i would go even further and say that it was us, BUDDIE FANS, who interpreted him and headcanoned him as bi. even before the writers were explicitly writing him as bisexual. we read his actions and his story and his identity and said: "this is a bi character!" and the writers looked back and realized that it made sense! and so they started writing him explicitly and canonically as bi.

was it wrong of us to headcanon a character as bisexual then? like for all intents and purposes we were reading a "straight" character as bi. were we doing something wrong? how come you are not complaining/chastising us/shaming us for how we took evan buckley, an otherwise straight character, and saw him as bi? is it because it now serves a purpose to you that he is bi?

also, taking characters that aren't confirmed queer and reading them as queer is what the queer community, and specifically the queer fandom community, has been doing for DECADES. look up the history of queer coding, i am begging you. it has been through the means of queer coding and the perseverance of people that are engaged in it that actual queer representation in media has increased. and let me tell you right now, eddie diaz is, undoubtedly and undeniably, one of the most queer coded characters there is. whether you think this queer coding is conscious by the writers or not. eddie diaz is queer coded.

and i want everyone who says things like "eddie diaz is not a queer character. he is straight in canon. it's wrong to assume a character is queer without the character saying so" to know that this is exactly what straight and homophobic people say. you are using the SAME rhetoric that has been used to shame queer fans for decades for seeing themselves and their experiences in fictional characters of all types. in fact, us, queer fans (and again BUDDIE FANS), were told so many times by straight fans that we were wrong for reading buck as bisexual. and where are we now? where did reading buck as bi take us? oh yeah, to having bi buck in canon.

so please just stop with the "eddie isn't queer in canon" comments. if you don't want to interpret eddie as queer then that is your prerogative. i will be judging why that is, for sure, but it is your right. but be honest about it. it has nothing to do with whether or not he is straight (which hasn't been said) or queer coded (which he so obviously is seeing as so many of us can very easily read him as queer). it's a personal preference and you're not engaging with canon better because of it.

[mazzystar24]

Hi guys and welcome to Addie’s research spiral into the gay moustache:

Moustaches have always been a symbol of masculinity, sexuality and social standing

Like legit dating back to the 1800s we had the whisker and beard movement which started pushing the idea that facial hair can be masculine and sophisticated and not just a sign of lacking in morality and uncleanliness like the victorians used to think and you can actually draw a direct line to men feeling threatened to the patriarchy in those times and the prevalence of facial hair- this assertion of dominance and masculinity being seen similarly in ww1 soldiers, where facial hair became the accepted norm then post ww1 it went out of style again then this cycle repeats again with most wars.

There is also within the later 1800s and early 1900s links to sexuality and rebellion because younger men not having a full beard and instead having clean shaven faces or moustaches was seen as a sign of rebellion against older generations , also the need for maintenance of this style made it viewed as effeminate

Someone put it as the moustache has always been tied with the three fs: fops, foreigners and fiends meaning it was perceived that men would need to be well groomed or gay, foreign (particularly from Latin countries) or lacking in morals and evil to have a moustache

Okay so the origin of the gay moustache aside from the connection to the well groomed element

So post stonewall riots the gay moustache became a real thing like one qoute I found that was funny was arnie kantrowitz saying it was a requirement in the gay community, you needed a a flannel shirt, mustache or beard, bomber jacket, jeans and boots. We were dressing like the blue-collar men that turned us on." And a lot of it stemmed from what was dubbed the Castro clone look

Okay so Freddie was not in fact the originator of the Castro clone look

The castro clone look basically took all the really masculine and macho staples and made it extremely gay

The look originally being inspired by the men of the Castro neighbourhood in San Francisco in the early 60s and THAT actually comes from the “greaser”/hood look inspired by the 50s Italian American men and Latinos who also their subculture was born from their stereotypes

The Castro clone look doesn’t have one distinct origin but its popularity was fuelled by gay artists like Tom of Finland, and musicians like the village people and Freddie and gay pornstars like al Parker

And Parker was one of the big names in the Castro clone look this in particular not only explains the reason for his look well but also peep the “pouring beers over eachother” line and let me take you back to bachelor party buddie

And now I hear the republican man and Gerrard mentions and to that I say that’s the whole point of it

Like the hypermasculinised look was meant to not only play the macho aesthetic and be a form of queer signaling but it was also meant to subvert gay men stereotypes by instead doing this like extreme portrayal of masculinity

It’s drawing from straight men but making it’s undeniably queer

Like wife beaters, moustaches, denims and flannels were so tied to het males that they took that and still found a way to make it so undeniably queer that it became a form of queer signaling

Thus taking the power away from the macho hets and forming a new subculture

The gay moustache only started seeing its end around the 80s AIDS epidemic because the moustache aimed to make a person look older but as queer communities became more sick or perceived as unclean or sick the need to look clean and young grew and clean shaved faces became the trend again

So Eddie having the moustache isn’t some tie to Gerrard or straight people it’s actually so queer coded and a form of rebellion

And btw this isn’t even a niche thing it’s like a widely known queer thing to the point that one show got slammed for having a gay club scene set in that time and not having any Castro clones in it

[a-bit-of-a-queer-one]

I loved Wild Blue Yonder, I thought it was a great episode. But if I see one more person proclaiming that the Doctor saying Isaac Newton was "hot" made the character "finally queer", I'm gonna set fire to sth.

For one thing, since they changed into a woman, the Doctor has, depending on one's definition, been canonically genderfluid/trans/nonbinary/genderqueer. That was made even more explicit last week in Star Beast. So saying that the Doctor as played by a man and using he/him pronouns calling a man "hot" somehow made the character queer is stupid in and of itself.

And secondly, the Doctor has long been regarded as aro and ace-coded by people of those communities and guess what? Aro and ace people really do exist and we are queer. And it would be lovely if other queer people could stop excluding us by saying that characters who provide what little, mostly accidental and incidental representation we get "become queer" by expressing same-sex attraction. It happened with Good Omens and it seems to be happening again with Doctor Who and I am so fucking tired of it

Edit (6th Dec 2023): Several people have pointed out in the notes that there have been quite a few instances of the Doctor ambiguously or indeed unambiguously expressing 'same-sex' attraction and exploring their gender identity/identities in the past, both in the show and in extended media. I just wanted to be absolutely clear on the fact that I was in way trying to diminish the importance of those moments by emphasing the aspect of asexuality and aromanticism in my post. That is not to say that I think anyone was implying that I was doing that, in fact everyone's been lovely (which is why I also wanted to thank everyone for their input, I learnt a lot, especially about the novels!!)

Of course, as an asexual, aromantic and agender/nonbinary person, that is the lens through which I watch the show and relate to the character of the Doctor. This does not make my reading of them any more or less valid than anyone else's. In fact, I absolutely love the fact that the Doctor is a character who speaks to people of so many different queer identities and I am so happy that RTD is exploring their queerness more explicitly, building on what he and so many other writers and also the actors have already established. I just hope that the fandom will respect the aro and ace aspects of the Doctor's queerness the same way they do their gender identities and other sexual and romantic orientations. Part of the reason I was initially quite worried about this was because of my experiences in the Good Omens fandom, particularly post series 2, as indicated in my original post. The other is that I doubt the show will explore the aro and ace aspects of the character as much as they may other queer identities - unfortunately aspecs have a history of being left behind in this regard...

But we will see, maybe I'll be proved wrong! For the time being, I just hope the queer community can celebrate all the different facets of the Doctor's undeniable queerness, including the aspec ones. And as the reactions to this post have been overwhelmingly supportive (I don't think I've seen a single outright negative response), I think this hope is far from unfounded.

(Sorry, this edit turned out to be longer than the original post...)

[0daylighthours0]

Just started ST s4 with my Mama, we're halfway through episode 3, and gosh are her opinions noteworthy.

Firstly, she has been very pissed at Mike and the way he's been treating El. Y'know that scene at the dinner table, the one where Joyce or someone was asking about what happened at Rink O' Mania, and Mike makes a comment over how the girl El schmacked with a skate "didn't look fine" - single handedly escalating the ready sensitive situation? My mother, quote:

"Oh- shut up you! Y'know if [insert my father's name here] did that I'd smack him."

"You'd dump his ass?"

"I'd dump his ass."

I've now asked for her thoughts on milkvan's relationship (she's oblivious to my ulterior motives) and she told me that it doesn't seem as if Mike loves El anymore, that he isn't treating her like he does.

She also reads the way Mike is acting towards Will as very strange. She can't fathom a reason as to why they'd seemed so close previously, yet now have Mike pushing Will away and being distant. Why he's treating him strangely.

"It's very weird."

This is made all the more prevalent as we're watching these seasons back to back, the difference in Mike's behaviour being night and day.

Now listen up listen up. My mother, is NOT a fan of queer things. She'll try and evade this being a possibility for any movie or show character until the fact of their gayness is outright confirmed. This is why, at this second, Mike is very confusing to her. I don't even think she's put two and two together about Will's sexuality yet. But man when I tell you she is catching on. Like she doesn't know what's up with Mike, but her only ways for describing his act have been synonyms to the word 'weird'.

Can you just imagine if we didn't have a closeted explanation for this guy? What even would his character excuse be???

Man I can not wait to get to those undeniable byler moments. If she, my mother, think that Mike seems gay? then, guys, he is gay.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for saying my family shows favoritism towards my baby cousin?

(This is copied from my Reddit drafts because my partner told me tumblr would be better for this and I trust them)

Okay this is a long one so I’m just gonna throw out fake names for everyone and everyone is white middle class Americans

I, Op, 20M, I’m a trans man not accepted by my family. This is relevant

Renee, 20F, my twin sister

Bea, 16F, my younger sister

Lee, 35F, my aunt on my father’s side

Lucas, 2M, my cousin, son of Lee

Suzie, 5F, my cousin, daughter of Lee

My father, 44M, the patriarch of our whole family

My mother, 45F

Grandpa, 76M, paternal grandpa, previous patriarch

Grandma, 74F, paternal grandma

So I’m sending this in on Christmas Day of 2023. For some context, I still live at home, but it’s more of a roommate situation now that I’m an adult. Renee lives on her out-of-state college campus but visits for holidays, and Bea is still a high schooler. Lee, her children, and her husband who isn’t relevant to this (I love my uncle, we just literally never talk) live across the country. My father is losing the battle with cancer and can’t travel, so we had two separate christmases this year, one with my immediate family and one with Lee. Grandma and Grandpa went to Lee’s, which was awesome for me because that meant I got to avoid them this year!

As the character list above states, I’m (one of) the oldest of the five grandkids with my cousins being born a lot later than me and my sisters. My family is a traditional WASP family and staunchly conservative with Aunt Lee actively being a cop right now while my parents and Grandpa served in the military. Growing up undeniably queer was hilarious, I know. But the family dynamic wasn’t as bad as it could’ve been, my family did a good job of trying to hide the fact that Renee was the favorite child lol, but that was more on the basis of her having the same traditional values that they do until Aunt Lee had Suzie, then she obviously became the favorite. Fine by me, she’s an adorable girl and I love spoiling her. Also, ACAB does apply for Aunt Lee for being complacent in this system, it’s not just the most relevant part of the story besides explaining how she fits into the family dynamic

But then Lee had Lucas a few years later and the focus in the family shifted to him. At first, it was baby fever making everyone dote over him (and I’m guilty of this too) but after a while, I realized that the fever hasn’t died down. If we had family reunions, everyone would flock to Lucas and I would be the one watching Suzie. For a toddler, she’s a great conversationalist, but it was still sad to see all her aunts and uncles and cousins showering her baby brother with attention and not her. And then the comments started. That my father would only refer to Lucas as “my nephew” even when talking directly to Lee (unhinged to witness in person). That Grandpa was so happy to finally have a grandson (felt great). The lady-killer comments and guessing what profession he’s gonna go into based on how chubby of a baby he is (the money’s on Linebacker, little dude is built like a truck). Stuff like that

None of these comments were ever made about Suzie when she was born, and I really don’t want to admit that it’s because Lucas is a boy, but thats the only answer I can think of when trying to understand the favoritism. Lucas is showered in gifts and love and while I know newborns need that, Suzie received nowhere near this much attention. Lee’s husband doesn’t go to family functions because he works full time, but I heard Suzie mumble at Thanksgiving last month that she wanted to go home to daddy. It broke my fucking heart, so I called him and she got to FaceTime with my uncle until my phone died

At this point, I’m not even upset that the family ignores my obvious trans-ness as I’m over a year on T (paid for by myself too) in favor of my boy cousin. I’m upset that Suzie is getting left out of the fawning while she’s still super young and she could grow up resenting Lucas because of it.

Anyways, so this morning we opened gifts as an immediate family and I got to FaceTime my significant other as they unboxed their gift from me and we were having a good time until my dad FaceTimes Grandpa. Grandpa answers and Dad immediately asks how his nephew is. Lucas is pushed in front of the phone and all I can hear is asking about how Lucas is, is Lucas talking yet, is Lucas reading yet. I manage to squeeze my head in and ask about Suzie and Lee’s voice off camera says that “oh she’s fine, just snobbish.” Snobbish? A five year old?

And here’s where I’m probably the Asshole. Honestly, I’m looking between ESH and JAH here, but would perfectly understandable if tumblr decides YTA. My response to Lee’s comment was: “well maybe she wouldn’t be if everyone didn’t pick Lucas as the family favorite.”

My dad smacked me upside the head, Renee and Bea got really pissed off, and the FaceTime went quiet until it was cut off and Grandpa called back to talk to Dad privately. Bea called me an asshole and while my Mom got onto her for her language, Mom agreed that I was.

My dad came back from the phone and did the silent point towards his bedroom, y’all with shitty parents know the one. Because I’m twenty fucking years old and pay RENT here, I shook my head, grabbed my keys, and went to go hang out with my significant partner and work friends. We had a great time and I’m currently in the car with my significant other while typing this. I’m gonna spend the night at their place and go back in the morning to see how bad the damage is. My significant other says I was justified in what I said, but two of my work friends (one who’s a Cishet guy who grew up in a similar household and another who’s a new dad with his own son) say that what I said was uncalled for and rude. They explained that I had no right to weaponize Lucas and Suzie like that and I understand that. I’m just tired of Suzie being neglected and, selfishly I know, I’m tired of how my identity is ignored as well

So, tumblr, AITA?

TL;DR, My two year old cousin is the “only” grandson in the family. The family ignores my male identity and my baby cousin’s five year old sister to fawn over the two year old. Am I The Asshole for pointing this out point blank in front of the whole family on Christmas morning?

What are these acronyms?

[demigodpolls]

Why do you think Frank gets so little attention from the fandom at large?

although I don't fault anyone individually for not having interest in a given character, I do think it's pretty sad that not much mind is paid to frank. it's not the best metric to measure things by, but on AO3, frank has the fewest fanfics of the prophecy 7 by a pretty wide margin.

there's no point in comparing him to the likes of percy, annabeth, and nico, who have existed for way longer, but the lost hero trio have well over 10k works for all three individually, while hazel has 8.7k (her popularity is surely bolstered by her relation to nico, the second most popular pjo character on ao3) and frank has about 7k. interestingly, will solace has over 15k fics--and that of course has to do with the popularity of solangelo (the second most popular pjo ship on ao3, as you see above), but considering how recently tsats came out (and how little material/information about him existed before that), I still think that number is pretty remarkable.

with all of this in mind, here are some of the reasons why I think frank doesn't get a ton of attention from the fandom below the cut.

- part of it probably has to do with shipping. while frazel is a well-accepted canon ship, I don't think it actually garners a ton of real interest. when a pairing is very popular, its individual parties will inevitably share that popularity; i.e., will solace, as observed previously. furthermore, frank doesn't really have any popular non-canon ships. online fandoms heavily favor mlm pairings over any other kind of pairing (this is just a very neutral, well-observed fact, so I hope no one is bothered by this acknowledgement), but if a male character is not popularly shipped with other men, they tend to fall to the wayside. to be honest, I think it's a little surprising that frank/leo doesn't get more favor; maybe it's because people just don't like to acknowledge the love triangle they were in, but the enemies-to-lovers material that people usually enjoy is right there, you know? jason/leo is fairly popular on tumblr at least, but no one really ships its SoN counterpart percy/frank either, which is interesting.

- part of it probably has to do with the fact that, compared to others, frank does not appear to be a very angsty character. fandoms tend to prefer characters who have tragic backstories and/or highly-animated personalities, and while frank undeniably has his individual struggles, they probably seem quite small compared to the bulk of the principal cast. for reasons like this, a lot of people will likely tell you that they don't find frank (or his powers) very interesting, and prefer to devote their attention to other characters.

- part of it probably has to do with frank (in my opinion) being neglected by HoO books. I wish he had gotten to do so much more! but of the things that he did do, I don't think many people consider them to be very memorable.

- I think there's also no point in ignoring the fact that frank is a chubby POC, and well, these types just aren't often so beloved by fandoms. that his only popular ship is with another POC probably doesn't help matters, to be honest...! it's just a well-documented phenomenon that, unless they're anime characters, POC characters and POC x POC ships tend to be much less popular in online fandoms than their white counterparts (i.e., 2010s star wars comes to mind). of all 10 percy jackson POV characters on ao3 (I'm including will in this figure and excluding apollo, who I consider an outlier), piper, leo, hazel, frank, and reyna make up the bottom 5 in that order in terms of popularity. this page is a great resource for more data on race, queerness, gender, etc on ao3. (unrelated - fascinatingly, percabeth is the 8th most popular m/f ship on ao3 of all time, and jiper is 96th!)

that's just my two cents as to why I think frank doesn't get a ton of attention. I hope no one is upset by my observations, I mean all of them in a pretty neutral, analytical way. to anyone else reading this, here is a reminder that character hate and ship hate is not tolerated on this blog. if you post unkind things, your comments will be deleted and your account will be blocked. we don't need to bash other characters or ships in order to uplift others. save it for your own blogs, please!

thank you for asking and engaging with this blog!

-demigodpolls

[autolenaphilia]

Farrell's Fallacy

One of the most common forms of antifeminist arguments is something I'm now going to call Farrell's Fallacy. I've discussed it before in this essay, but now I have a snappy name for it and what I said bears repeating. Farrell's fallacy goes like this.

"Feminists say we live in a patriarchy and men have male privilege. But look at this group of men undeniably experiencing marginalization and oppression. Where is their male privilege? Checkmate, feminists!"

It's named after Warren Farrell, "father of the men's rights movement." This is admittedly partly for alliterative reasons, but also because he used an early version of it in his 1993 book The Myth of Male Power, where he used the fact that working class men are exploited by capitalism and are drafted to die in wars to argue that, well, male power is a myth and in fact "men are the disposable sex."

Yet you can substitute any group of marginalized men in the argument, and the argument is pretty much the same. The "group of men undeniably experiencing marginalization and oppression" can be non-white men, disabled men, gay men, trans men, and so on, sometimes all of them at once. It's therefore very popular here on tumblr as a way to sell antifeminism to social justice people who have a poor grasp of feminist theory, because it appeals to their understandable desire to support marginalized groups.

And it is a fallacy, because it relies on a strawman. It presumes feminists are doing the most simplistic analysis possible of patriarchy and male privilege, where only gender is taken into account and complicating factors like class and race are ignored. In reality intersectionality has been an important part of feminist analysis for over 30 years.

And while Farrell's Fallacy uses real oppression as part of its argument, it dishonestly contextualizes that oppression. It ignores that the oppression is not on the basis of these men's gender, but on other factors. These men are oppressed, yes, but it's because of systemic injustices based on class, race, disability and queerness and so on.

This often means their male privilege is severely curtailed, but it doesn't remove it. Women also suffer from these forms of oppression and they are often worse for women because they often intersect with the misogyny of patriarchal society, which is why we have terms like misogynynoir, lesbophobia and transmisogyny. It is in comparison with similarly marginalized women that we can see the male privilege of marginalized men.

This is one of the most common antifeminist arguments, especially here on tumblr. And i hope this post helps you recognize it for the nonsese it is.

[dekusleftsock]

Dekus no good, very bad, faceplant into masculinity and internalized homophobia

I made this a thought post from chapter 402 originally, but I can’t let these thoughts fester any longer. Gotta be correct about it 🫶🫶🫶

Alright so when I originally talked about this on a couple of platforms (not just tumblr, tiktok too and a bit on Twitter that has no connection to this account lmao) I feel like people told me that I was “stretching” with my assumptions.

But then Toga’s backstory being told to Ochako was… directly referenced to a queer allegory. And in 394, she directly says that she likes girls. It’s the thing said last, implying it’s something she’s still ashamed of feeling.

This chapter basically confirmed in my mind that Himiko’s blood quirk was the equivalent to the homophobia that was probably in her own household. And in my mind, that means that blood quirk = metaphor on her queer experience.

And then suddenly, the pieces clicked into place.

In 348, Izuku disagrees with Himiko and Ochako’s ideals—not only at the idea of girly romance, but also at unconventional romance.

Ochako has distanced herself due to Izuku’s inability to confront his own feelings. Shown both physically and metaphorically.

Ochako took all the steps to walk away because from Izuku. Because Izuku held her back.

Or more rather, she realized that Izuku was no allmight, but rather just an average boy in need of saving as anyone else. He is someone who’s flaws cannot align with Ochako’s own ideals for a relationship.

Because ochako is weird.

Izuku holds her back. She can’t be everything she needs to be while around him.

And that’s something Izuku’s not going to understand, not like how she needs him to understand.

And Himiko knows who Ochako is on a more fundamental level than Izuku ever will, and that’s okay.

I feel like whenever I talk about these character flaws having to do with Izuku, it almost sounds like I’m bashing him? I swear, I’m not, it makes complete sense as to why he is this way. And there are people (Katsuki) in the world who can have this in a relationship under the right communication, and some people can’t. And that’s just how we exist. That’s okay. We don’t all have to be compatible with everyone.

Back to the main point, the pieces and the people putting those pieces together were starting to see their parallels.

Even the manga placement parallels them, especially with how clever I feel horikoshi can be with his paneling.

Looking down, looking up. Both three quarter angles. Small mouth expression, big mouth expression. And that blush.

Fake smile when unhappy. Falling for someone who is dying, who you’d do anything for, even toe the line of death defending them, fixing them—just because you can’t help but love someone you wish had walked into your life sooner (or in Izuku’s case, accepted into your life sooner).

Someone you’d sacrifice for. Someone you’re violent for. Someone you’d kill for.

Someone you’d rather let an entire population of people die for than live without.

Someone you’re undeniably, unequivocally, selfish for.

And yet Izuku doesn’t recognize his same symptoms of love through Himiko Toga as Ochako does.

Himiko must be dehumanized to Izuku, because if she’s a person, then she is him.

(What’s even more interesting about this panel, is that if the characters were reversed and it was about Izuku’s violent feelings over protecting Katsuki, danger sense would be going off constantly. So toga is the perfect counter, but Izuku is the ultimate weakness.)

So, okay, how exactly do these things matter? How does this have to do with Izuku’s own personal struggle over his masculinity?

I think what’s important to clarify here is that when I say “internalized homophobia”, I don’t mean that he necessarily is beating himself up over the fact that he likes a boy instead of a girl.

I think it’s connected to his fear of rejection, and his own personal issues having to do with remaining a “strong man” instead of a “weak man”.

Izuku may not believe that liking men is anyone’s business but his own, but does Katsuki think that?

Izuku has called his feelings of admiration gross. Not that he himself is an awful person for feeling them, but that Katsuki will be the one to think they’re gross. And he’s worked so hard to get to this point in their relationship, he doesn’t wanna let it go over some stupid feelings.

And this is where toga comes into the picture, his parallels between her, because just how is Toga supposed to know that Ochako isn’t judging her for her feelings? Technically, all of the things she’s said before the final fight between them have only proved the inevitable. That Toga is gross, a freak, a predator, a danger, because she loves a woman.

How is Izuku supposed to interpret being called a stalker by Katsuki? How is he supposed to interpret when people call him creepy for his muttering and analyzation? How is he supposed to interpret being called a crybaby by his idol, Katsuki, and everyone else when he cannot control that?

How can he handle feelings that are out of his control, and still believe that they’re okay?

And at the very least, even if homophobia doesn’t exist in mha, heteronormativity does. Especially shown through Ashido, a straight girl.

None of that is necessarily Allmight, Katsuki, or even Ochako’s fault, because of course they’re just teasing him—but it doesn’t change the fact that it affects how he perceives himself.

So when I say that Izuku has problems with internalized homophobia, I mean that he is afraid of how the people around him will perceive him, than a constant feeling of self hatred due to not liking women.

And when I say that his internalized homophobia is an extension of his masculinity, I mean that because he has no confidence in himself and his more vulnerable emotions, he is unable to accept what or who he is. This ofc affects the people around him, like saying that Ochako CANT be weird because she’s just “so amazingly normal” without realizing that he’s just downplaying who she is and what she thinks, or dehumanizing the most openly queer character in the series because it benefits the perception he has of himself, or even silently rejecting Katsuki’s feelings simply out of a need to “control his heart and control his quirk”.

In Izuku’s mind, the only way to keep Katsuki is to not be the weird kid he was in his childhood. In a way, Izuku is still performing for Katsuki.

[vidavalor]

Ah, I remembered!

My question was: what are your thoughts on Crowley saying ‘I lost my best friend’ when he’s directly talking to Aziraphale’s non-corporate ghost in season 1? I always thought that line was strange. Is it that he can’t say ‘I lost you directly’ because others might be listening?

Hi @procrastiel ooh, nice! I *love* this scene so I'm super happy to share an opinion on it. Thank you. :)

Meta on the meanings behind what they call each other, what they intentionally *don't* call each other, how they actually said they loved each other and came up with a shorthand for it in 1941, and why they still don't just use those damn words already...

This goes everywhere, just FYI lol. I think I started with "no nightingales" and took a scenic route through 1600, 1941 and bits of S2 before coming back to the scene you asked about but I've been told it makes sense. Thanks for indulging me. :)

There are certain things that Crowley & Aziraphale feel that they can't call one another and can't say to one another directly. It's not just because they could be overheard if they're in public, though that's always a concern. They don't say them when they're alone, either.

It's because it hurts too much.

They've always tried to be optimistic about surviving Armageddon and being able to be together somehow but they're terrified that they won't and the odds, in their minds, aren't great, being that it's the whole will of God and all. As a result, they've lived their whole relationship expecting it to end in tragedy. They could both live for all of time, forced apart by Heaven and Hell. One of them could die and leave the other alone for eternity with nothing but the memory of the other. Meanwhile, in the now? It's not a great situation, either.

They can't really be together. They are together but not openly and they can't promise each other everything and they absolutely would if they could. Heaven and Hell could literally murder them if they got caught together so they have to be careful and keep it a secret. This means that even as the human world they live in opens up and starts to change to a point that queer humans like them are living more open lives with one another, Crowley and Aziraphale still cannot at this stage in the story.

So, it all becomes then an unspoken question of: what would make this easier? (As if it could ever really be made easier?) They don't wish to cause each other any additional pain. What would make it easier, they think, is if they don't say certain things so that what they can't have now or what might be lost to them in the future is and will be easier to bear.

This is delusional but they're doing it anyway because it gives them some measure of control over things they can't totally control.

They think it is easier to deal with not being able to be together if they just never say directly aloud what they are in terms that are surface-level undeniable. They speak in a coded language with one another and they say all the things in those words. But the doublespeak gives them some cover. Not to ever deny any of it but it softens the edges of it.

It's also because they live with the fact that they can't fully be together but they also both are fundamentally optimists and want to think that maybe, someday, they could find a way to have what they want to have with one another. That's also why they don't say the things fully. A part of them thinks that if they just don't right now and they wait until some time comes when it seems like they could have a life together, then they still get to have those moments. They're almost saving some of it for a life they hope they get to have but aren't sure if they will.

As a result, they are romantic as all fuck towards one another but they don't use words like romance or love aloud. If they do find they have to talk about it, they've shorthanded it in a way that they both understand because it's based on their past together. We already can see bits of it uncoded-- nightingales, dining at the Ritz-- but there are more than that that we can see if we deep dive a bit here so let's do that...

What's evident in the scene in 2.06 wherein Crowley decides to try to abandon the doublespeak is how deeply ingrained this way of speaking is for both of them. Also, how they don't abandon it when they're alone (the 1967 scene also illustrates this.) Crowley actually reverts back to their doublespeak *three sentences* into his proposal. He doesn't get much further than establishing that they've both been on this planet for a long time before he starts evoking coded messaging. He flicks his hands between them during the "you and me" line in a way that is echoing how Aziraphale gestured at him to mean "couple" in 1941. He winds up using coded language all over the place, peaking with the "no nightingales" moment that is actually coded language twice over because of "nightingales" being their word for romance and the asking Aziraphale to listen for birds evoking the Job minisode and the moment in the courtyard when they came up with the doublespeak.

Part of why Crowley can't get through the proposal without it is because he doesn't want to do it like this. Both the doublespeak and the idea of someday loosening it a bit mean things to them. They like their private language. Maggie and Nina are not exactly correct in assuming that they never say how they really feel. They're not wrong, either, but they're not fully right. Crowley and Aziraphale do talk. They just do it in a way that hurts them less because they can't bear to hurt each other because they're batshit crazy in love with each other. Maggie and Nina are correct in saying that Crowley and Aziraphale don't say how they truly feel if saying how you truly feel means using traditional language but they are wrong to say that they don't express these feelings at all because we have literally been watching them do so this entire time.

Notice how Crowley, even risking more with breaking their code in 2.06, still doesn't say some things. Amazing how he said all of that and he didn't say I love you, isn't it? He could have. He is, in what else he's saying, but the words they don't say are still there on the table. Aziraphale, later in the scene, almost does. He almost does because he is a mess over the situation and he wants to give Crowley something but then he doesn't and he spits out a self-aware I forgive you instead. That horrid, complicated version of it that he's used before and is code they both kind of hate. He's angry that this is all happening the way it's happening because it's taking some of the things they leave unsaid for hopeful, better days and it's saying them in a less than ideal moment.

That they both leave out that I love you, though, is the most I love you thing they could have possibly done.

They think it will be easier to not be free to be together and unafraid in the present-- and to maybe lose one another in the future, if they eventually have to-- if they pretend they're not a team or a group of the two of them and one way to do that is to never say words like the one we were all silently screaming at Crowley to say in that scene in 2.06 lol: "couple."

Are they a couple? Yes. Are they lovers? Yes. Are they partners, the term Nina used? Yes. Do they refer to their relationship using any of the terms in this paragraph? Oh God no...

That is why Crowley freaks out when Nina tries to get him to use uncoded, normal, human person language to help her understand what Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship is. She calls them partners and this is Crowley:

We're in agreement with Nina then when she responds with:

Nina isn't wrong here. She's just from a different world than Crowley. Nina lives in a world like ours in the year 2023 and she's puzzling Crowley and Aziraphale out through that filter. She doesn't know at this point that they are an angel and a demon who could be murdered by Heaven/Hell for being together. Her best rationale for why she's never seen Crowley and Aziraphale in her cafe together and didn't know until this week that the bookseller has a fella is her theory that Crowley is married and that he and Aziraphale are having an affair. To her, it explains why they've got chemistry for days but they're secretive. Crowley denies that-- defending Aziraphale's honor like the good old fashioned lover boy he is :)-- but the reason why he quickly denied that he and Aziraphale are partners, even if they absolutely are, is twofold. They are used to hiding it, it's dangerous for them to get caught out, and he probably feels uncomfortable with the idea of telling someone what they are exactly without talking with Aziraphale about it first-- that's all one reason.

The other reason is that he and Aziraphale don't use that word. It's not that it's an inaccurate one; it's probably the most accurate one, actually. They have a word, as we'll see, but partners isn't it because partners is the same thing as a couple and these are embargoed words to them. They don't use those phrases, even if that's what this is, just as they don't say I love you because if they don't call it love directly, they'll never lose that love, in their minds. If they don't know what it's like to hear the other say it, they don't ever have to bear the pain of never hearing it again. Better to hold those words back and only use them if they ever can somehow really be fully, openly together without fear. If Crowley doesn't use those words with Aziraphale, then he's not about to use them with the Coffee Shop Human he's only just recently met.

Along these same lines, they refrain from traditionally romantic terms of endearment on the surface. No my love, no darling, no sweetheart. Angel was there at the start and it stays because while it's always really angel (romantic), it's also angel (species/occupational), so it works well enough with their code. But its equivalent in reverse is Crowley. It's intimate, in the sense that only Crowley and Aziraphale know what it means. Only they were there in Job's courtyard. That's the coded layer of it-- it's Crowley's name to everyone else on the surface but it's that and a pet name to Aziraphale. It's why Aziraphale just calls him that constantly. Crowley changed his name to something only Aziraphale also really understands, making the use of it by Aziraphale then a way of expressing affection. When Nina asks them both separately about their relationship, both Crowley and Aziraphale actually revert to using what they call one another in an effort to explain it, even though they know that it doesn't translate fully in human terms without more words. Crowley says Aziraphale is an angel he knows; Aziraphale says:

Ironically? They are actually making it all *more* intimate by speaking in their own, private, coded language. They can't give each other everything but this they can, right? The language is their own, little world and not being able to explain their relationship to humans that well in 2023 doesn't mean they don't know what they mean to one another, which is more important. Since they can't make each other promises of forever that they can't keep and they can't have a life in the present that they'd choose for themselves, something they can do is use their little language to be sweet towards one another and they do. By having to work a little harder at conveying meaning through doublespeak, they wind up with something ironically actually at least as romantic as the traditional words, if not more so.

Anyone can call a lover darling and it can be lovely but can just anyone make my dear fellow romantic? Aziraphale can. This one was all him. He loved standing there in front of a dozen deadly human soldiers in the Kingdom of Wessex in 597 A.D., getting away with a pet name under the guise of stealing the "old sport"-style of male, moneyed, British speak and turning it romantic. This scene is great with the pet names because it opens with Aziraphale being a bit of a tease with "is that you under there, Crawley?" which he only does so that Crowley will roll his eyes and correct him. Aziraphale loves that Crowley changed his name to something coded between them based off of the moment they started their doublespeak. It was very romantic and this scene shows that Aziraphale sometimes, in earlier days, would call Crowley the old name just to get Crowley to correct him, which is all just a coded way of getting Crowley to say that, yes, he still feels the same way and yes, he still wants Aziraphale to call him that. This same scene, a few sentences later, then has Aziraphale's my DEAR fellow-- heavy emphasis on the 'dear'-- which is then answering Crowley's admission by just skipping any and all of Crowley's names entirely lol and calling The Black Knight my dear in front of a bunch of bloodthirsty soldiers and mercenaries.

The my [] fellow is perfect in their little language because of how it sounds all "I say, old chap!" on the surface but contains words that are romantic to them in their doublespeak. It's intentional that it's *not* "old chap" or "old sport" that they appropriated for their own purposes, it's my [] fellow. Fellow as in human, which is how they see their relationship (because it is) and that's something that comes up when Crowley uses a variant of this in 1941, which we'll get to in a second. My adds an intimate element to it of admitting that they are each other's in whatever ways they can be.

Aziraphale, like we said a moment ago, will sometimes sauce Crowley with the pet names a little and he does in S1 when he calls Anathema my dear when reassuring her in a scene in which he and Crowley are having a playful coded argument over Crowley's driving. Aziraphale miracles a bike rack onto the back of The Bentley and unnecessarily codes the word "bicycle" ("a perfectly normal velocipede"), smirking when Crowley grumbles "bicycle" at him. It's joking with him a bit at the lunacy of their little language *in* their little language. (Crowley playing back during this sequence is also calling Aziraphale angel (romantic) in front of Anathema, which was also a strategic decision to signal to her that he might look like a murder hornet but he's really just long-suffering gone on the sunshine-y one. Very we're just an old gay married couple, hen. We won't hurt you. in tone.) Anyway, Aziraphale using my dear with Anathema-- and his little smirks towards Crowley around it-- was really just underlining the way he uses my DEAR fellow with Crowley by using the same core phrase with a human in normal, uncoded, human conversation.

Other than this and the big one we're going to get to, there are really only two other things we've seen them use to refer to one another. In S1's Eleven Years Ago/2008, there's the moment when Crowley and Aziraphale have arrived back at the bookshop and Aziraphale is flirting with Crowley and says this, tongue firmly in cheek:

I mentioned this in another post about the wall slam in Tadfield but this is a very much intentionally blasphemous specific sexual request that is more at home in the sex meta post you all have me working on lol but for the purposes of this conversation, "foul fiend" is Bible for "wicked demon", so this is Aziraphale just kind of flirtily, jokingly calling Crowley a wicked demon in the one area in life where Crowley would probably happily own that description lol. It also has the other layer of humor in it in that Crowley calls Aziraphale angel (romantic) all the time, more often than he uses Aziraphale's actual name, and you'd think he wouldn't want to because Heaven hasn't exactly done right by Crowley and he's not especially fond of it. By calling Aziraphale angel with love behind the meaning of it, he's calling Aziraphale a good angel. He's saying that Aziraphale is what an angel is *supposed*to be, something that Aziraphale struggles with. It's both sweet and reassuring at the same time. As a result, Aziraphale has never just started calling Crowley "demon" for the same reasons-- he thinks if being a demon is being demonic and truly evil, then Crowley is a terrible demon because he's a lovely person. He is, however, positively wicked in bed, and Aziraphale likes to mock their whole situation with blasphemous Bible innuendo when requesting a little hellfire.

The other thing to briefly mention before we get into the friend discussion is a scene not long after the one we just talked about, when they're both smashed in the bookshop in S1. When he's drunk and attempting to say "bouillabaisse", Crowley gets distracted staring at Aziraphale for a moment and calls him baby before going back to his attempts at saying a word (in French, their romance language, per S2) and we get the "fish stew-- anyway!" segue back into the rest of the scene. Aziraphale was too drunk to notice enough to react so this opens up the question of whether or not the rules can get slightly more lax in bed. Does Crowley call Aziraphale baby in more intimate moments or does he just want to and it slipped out when he was drunk? It's a fairly normal phrase so it both would and would not be a surprise either way but it's still something of a question mark by the end of S2.

But there's one thing that they use that pertains to your question from the Discorporated!Aziraphale scene (told you we'd start to get here eventually lol) and that's how they use the word friend.

The rules of their language apply-- what is said on the surface is what one of the meanings of what they are saying is. It has to be what it sounds like on the surface to also be a coded thing. Aziraphale is Aziraphale's name and angel is what he is and Crowley is the name Crowley chose for himself. That angel and Crowley have hidden meanings-- that angel is given a tone that turns it from referring to Aziraphale by his species and more into angel (romantic); that Crowley is the name everyone calls Crowley now-- from angels to demons to humans alike-- but only Aziraphale knows that it's an in-joke referencing Crowley having to playact at being demonic and evil to hide his truer, sweeter nature... this is what makes these terms acceptable in their mutual language. My [] fellow is then also meeting the rules of the language because of the humor of taking a non-romantic phrase and using it for this romance of theirs that they don't refer to as one. It sounds like a perfect common thing for British men of any kind of relationship to use in conversation on the surface but it's romantic to them underneath.

So when they say friend, by their own rules of this language, it has to first contain the surface meaning. It has to be true on that level to reoccur in their language. So 'friend' does mean 'friend' in a friendship sense. They are friends. They are good friends-- best friends. Using the word is an admittance that they are each other's closest friends, which is both lovely in its own right and healthy in a romantic relationship. You want to be friends with your romantic partner. It doesn't mean you can't have other friends, of course, but if you're not friends with your partner, it's not really going to be a terribly satisfying relationship and since that is what they are-- the longest-running of long-term relationships lol-- that they are friends is important and a good thing. It's also a big deal for them to admit to it, since they are actually *supposed* to be mortal enemies. Their whole enemies-to-lovers thing never really got off the ground because they adored each other on sight but that they're friends despite the danger and the conflicts is a big thing in its own right.

But that's not the *only* meaning of friend to them, so let's look at how they evolved that bit of their language.

From what we've seen so far, it started in 1600 in The Globe Theatre scene with this:

In 1600, Burbage drops some human, queer coding into the secret language. Friend, the way Burbage is using it, is something that's actually implying lover. The surface word is technically related to friendship but the tone changes the meaning of friendship in this context to be that of a sexual relationship. Burbage's tone implies that he thinks Crowley and Aziraphale are fucking (which Crowley, laughing, silently agrees with is obvious, since he's been ignoring Burbage in favor of buzzing around Aziraphale and clearly trying to flirt his way into his bed).

Burbage is pissed that these two-- who, as we know, are basically the entire audience-- have been ignoring his monologue in favor of flirting with each other so when Aziraphale tries at a modicum of politeness (that somehow is even bitchier subtly than Burbage lol-- "I love all the... talking" is the best he can come up with), Burbage slings back by trying to drag Crowley into it by calling him Aziraphale's friend, with that loaded tone that makes the question really: 'and what does your lover think?'

Aziraphale gets the innuendo-- he's not exactly a novice at this in 1600-- but his immediate response is just to panic at the idea of anyone noticing him and Crowley together and, as Aziraphale does when stressed, he lies in increasingly absurd levels of untruth. (See also: the scene with Shax in The Bentley in S2, when he spirals up into ludicrously claiming to *not even know who Gabriel is* in an effort to say that he has nothing to do with his disappearance.)

Crowley is bemused by Aziraphale's increasingly desperate attempts to deny what is abundantly obvious to everyone around them and by Burbage's attempt to make a thing out of them to try to assuage his bruised ego. He chooses a little violence with this particularly amusing bit of go fuck yourself, you insecure little twerp:

Anyway lol what this scene then does is give us a moment in the story wherein we see them in a situation where friend (loaded) is defined as friend used euphemistically for lover and they both know it. This isn't coding they came up with but that they will wind up appropriating from the humans around them and repurposing for themselves, though they won't for awhile still to come yet.

What's worth noting here is that friend (loaded) in this human code is euphemistic for a pretty wide array of loaded friend relationships. There's no separation in it for friends with benefits versus someone you're seeing but aren't comfortable admitting that versus someone you've been with for awhile versus the person that is basically your secret spouse, etc.. All of these things are friend (loaded) in human code because the main purpose of it is to identify a pair of people who are involved as such without directly saying so on the surface, even if it's implied heavily via tone.

So what happens when Crowley and Aziraphale eventually decide to repurpose it for themselves?

They've got to be clear on what it means. They'll need to define it more specifically amongst themselves in order to use it.

For awhile still after 1600, they just aren't defining their relationship. They don't need friend (loaded) because they have things they call each other, right? They've got angel and Crowley and my dear fellow and the like. They're not usually around a lot of other humans together that are going to do what Burbage did and try to force a definition of it. (This changes, as we know, in the modern era-- especially S2-- but back in the day, it was true for them.) As a result, they've never had to define this and that's absolutely fucking perfect, as far as they're concerned.

Not defining this? Lovely. Yes. More of that. Makes the fact that they can't just call each other my love hurt a lot less, they're convinced. It helps now for sure and it'll make it less painful if they lose each other. They totally will not at all continue to spend thousands of years wondering what it would sound like if they said the things. They don't each have fourteen million fantasies about being able to use the traditional words and how they'd do it-- absolutely not lol. *Not* using the traditional words isn't at all making both the allure of those words-- and the ones they *do* use-- hotter and more romantic or anything. Not in the slightest...

So then we eventually get the Holy Water Arc, right, and in the middle of that scene, we see them run into a definition problem. In 1862, what actually causes them to fight isn't the holy water request. It's Aziraphale giving it all a word and that word being "fraternizing." First rule of We Don't Say It Club is that we don't say it... but it's also that if you're going to say a word that means the two of you and what you have, maybe don't use the one that Heaven would-- the one that means 'socializing with the enemy.' In Aziraphale's defense, they're both a mess and half-broken up in this scene and there's more going on it than we're going to get into here but the point is that suddenly not having a word caused big drama and caused the whole holy water conversation to de-evolve into an argument that broke them up for the eleven or so minutes that they can stay broken up.

But they still hadn't really resolved the whole holy water argument debacle by 1941, even if there is evidence in the show that they saw one another between 1862 and 1941, and the reason why they haven't is because holy water is irretrievably linked to defining what they are.

Crowley asking for it meant they had to consider what they are to one another and talk about it and 1862 proved their language didn't have words for that at the time. There is a level of panic to it because the request contains a certain level of acknowledgement about how they feel about each other. Aziraphale jumps onto holy water being a suicide pill not just because he's terribly worried that that's why a visibly anxious and depressed Crowley wants it but because if it's not what Crowley wants it for, then Crowley is saying he wants it for defense and whose defense, right? Not just his own, potentially. It's very much saying that he wants it to protect not just himself but Aziraphale from Hell and now we're talking about Crowley being willing to risk the wrath of Hell and maybe get himself killed trying to protect Aziraphale from harm and now, we're closer than ever to that I love you under the surface and they panic and they avoid it for 80 some odd years entirely until World War II...

...and then we arrive at The Blitz in 1941. We are now a scant one hundred years or so until 6,000 years being up since the creation of Earth and Armageddon was always going to happen in "*about* 6,000 years" so, for all they know, this is it... and Crowley in 1600 told you how he feels about sad endings:

So while rescuing Aziraphale is nothing new, Crowley turned up in 1941 with the intent of making a better ending, in case they had now found themselves at the start of the end of the world. They were almost out of time either way and he didn't want it all to end without them having said the things but also they didn't know *for sure* if this was it... and they still can't be together if it isn't... so Crowley can't just show up and be like so, angel, I've been meaning to tell you in the actual words for the last six millennia-- I'm madly in love with you. He has to find a way to do it in their language of doublespeak. And so, here's Crowley using friend (loaded) in front of the Nazis in 1941:

By using my friend in the church, Crowley is then actually euphemistically calling Aziraphale my lover by calling back to The Globe Theatre and stealing the human coded term that Burbage used. Crowley does not care what the Nazis think. The comment isn't for them; it's for Aziraphale. So is letting Aziraphale find out about his first name, which is also calling back to The Globe Theatre. ("Anthony", pronounced "Antony", as in Shakespeare's 'Antony and Cleopatra', the play in which Shakespeare put the love poetry he stole that Crowley wrote for Aziraphale.) So is referencing the unguarded holy water in the church, which is then trying to talk about it a little by connecting it to this romantic grand gesture here and acknowledging why they panicked over it all those years ago. It's all saying I'm in love with you in their little language in the best way Crowley can in this moment.

But what did we say about friend (loaded)? We said they have to define it, right?

Because it can mean different things. Crowley isn't wrong to use it and Aziraphale understands it the way he does in the church. He understands it to euphemistically refer to them as lovers, which they are. It's just that all of this combined with Crowley saving the books then makes Aziraphale realize that it's one thing to say my friend (loaded) but if you say it and then there's holy water referencing and then there's more of the Shakespeare scene in there with Anthony and the little "you don't like it?" pout and then there's the entered a church for you and... you put all of that together with little demonic miracle of my own and saving the books...

...and Aziraphale realizes that Crowley is taking the thing that they always were-- my friend (loaded)-- and using it in the middle of saying that he's in love with him.

Crowley is trying to give it a word.

The word he's using meets all their language rules. It's from a moment in their past. It has a true surface meaning and a loaded undertone and subtext for days. He's not asking Aziraphale to use it. He's not saying the actual thing, as that would be breaking their rules, but he is absolutely saying it in their language.

He's not asking Aziraphale for it in return. He's just saying that this could all be over soon and he needed Aziraphale to know and in some ways, it's an apology of sorts. He's sorry they fought. He's sorry they lost years over it. He's sorry for the pain of it. He was in love, you see. The sex while pining got to be a lot. All of this got to be a lot. You get it now right, Aziraphale? Yes? Good. Lift home...

The phrase my friend (loaded) takes on a different meaning after Crowley saves the books and after their conversation inside and outside The Bentley. That's the point of the two "shut up"s-- the one from Part 1 and the one right after it where Part 2 picks up. Why have this conversation twice? Because it's actually two different conversations.

The first one outside The Bentley is Aziraphale in a love stupor, just telling Crowley that saving the books was a nice thing and Crowley responding with a half-effort "shut up" while he cleans his glasses. It's the only scene in the entire series to date in which Crowley is cleaning his glasses and he is in this moment to give Aziraphale his eyes for a moment. But The Blitz, Part 2 shows us this again... and then gives us the scene in The Bentley with what starts out sounding like the same conversation on the surface to start. It is, though, not the same conversation *under* the surface...

There's a reason why Aziraphale says a second time that saving the books was a nice thing. They're now in The Bentley, which is a little more private, and Aziraphale can't let this drop because he needs to know for sure what Crowley is saying with this and if Crowley's sure he wants to be saying what it seems like he's saying. This is basically Aziraphale's version of Crowley's "are you sure? are you sure you're sure?" in the magic shop later on. Aziraphale knows Crowley just said he's in love with him but Aziraphale also knows *Crowley*, right?

He's been with Crowley for a long time. He knows him very well. He knows that Crowley is anxious and emotional and hopelessly romantic and that the world is literally ending around them as they're driving through bombs raining down over London and part of Aziraphale is thinking of the fact that even in this seemingly apocalyptic Armageddon that could be starting here, Crowley was coded in what he just did. He left the traditional words on the table. He said the things in their language and that is, in some ways, even more romantic, but he's left them the things they leave out of hope for a better future, just in case. There's a caution to that and while Aziraphale appreciates the caution, he also can sense that Crowley was nervous about doing this. He is a little concerned that Crowley's going to have said he loved him and then regret it and pull away from him again and Aziraphale can't do the first bit of the Holy Water Arc all over again. He's really wanting to start to move into a lighter era here lol. He also really wants to be sure that he's understanding what Crowley is saying entirely.

And he wants to hear it again.

If Crowley isn't going to shut down on him entirely now, Aziraphale very much liked all of this and would like more of it but he first has to be sure he knows for sure what Crowley means and he can't just ask directly or he's both saying the things they leave unsaid and he'd be undoing Crowley's effort so he has to find a way to ask without directly asking and in such a way that an already sensitive about all of this Crowley won't take offense or be embarrassed and that gives them a way back from this if Crowley shows signs that he feels like he might have gone too far.

So Aziraphale offers Crowley an out.

He tells him again that it was such a nice thing Crowley did for him. He means this and it was a nice thing but this is also saying that he heard that I'm in love with you that Crowley was saying by saving his books and that he liked hearing it, that it was nice, that it was okay that Crowley did that, but that it's also okay if he feels like he made a mistake with it.

Crowley's response to again being told that it was nice is to again tell Aziraphale to "shut up", this one a bit more emphatically than he did outside The Bentley a few moments before. It's unclear to what extent this language, at this time, is sexualized, but by 2019/S1, this back and forth of Aziraphale calling Crowley "nice" and Crowley responding with some bite is a self-parodic sex game that they're playing in Tadfield.

Much of what happens in Tadfield is playing on other parts of their story-- think about the paintball bit with the gun but now with knowledge of The Bullet Catch in The Blitz, Part 2-- and there is a big difference in the ways Aziraphale calls Crowley "nice" in 1941 and in 2019. In Tadfield in 2019, Aziraphale is literally smirking in a way that implies that this is a little game they play and he's saying a series of things that he knows will prompt this intentionally outsized reaction from Crowley, who is playing it with him. The game is likely tied *to* this bit of 1941 that we see in The Blitz, Part 2 in S2, in that it's referencing it a bit (if very obviously going in a different direction lol), but also because Aziraphale's phrasing and tone in 1941 is not smirking. It's softer and quieter and not designed, through their language, to prompt a certain response out of Crowley. It's not yet a sex game, it's still a kind of conversation they've had in the past that will serve as inspiration for said sex game in the future.

While it's a bit unclear if a version of this already existed in 1941 or if 1941 is part of the evolution to what it becomes by 2019, there's a tone to it in The Bentley in 1941 that says that, at the least, Crowley suspects that Aziraphale is trying to lure him towards sex by calling him nice and that's reinforced by the next thing Aziraphale says, which continues it, but is also doing so to provide Crowley with an out to his confession of love, in case Crowley wants to take it.

Aziraphale's out comes in the form of offering him sex, which is absolutely what this is:

Oh, gee, Aziraphale, whatever could you do in this moment here in The Bentley? You aren't at all telling him you'd do literally anything he says he wants right now, right here, in his damn car, are you?

But while Aziraphale would so absolutely yes because lawd, 1941 Crowley is sldjwkejele... look at what he's *really* saying as well...

What he's saying here is we can pretend you just did all of that for sex, if you want to. I know you didn't and you know you didn't but we are good at pretending and if you're silently having an anxiety attack behind your glasses over there, we don't have do this...

Crowley's response?

The quiet "forget it, will you?"

Meaning: I don't want to take it back. I'm in love with you. I wanted to say it. I meant to say it. Everything might be going to go pear-shaped and I wanted to have said it somehow. I don't need you to say it. I don't know what I expected but I also maybe kinda didn't want the response to be 'aww, you're sweet... do you want a blowjob?' so maybe let's just drop this. We're going to never speak of this again now. Moving onto spreading the demon drink...

Crowley turns down Aziraphale's offer to make it about sex and, in doing so, Crowley says indisputably that it's about love. If he had taken up Aziraphale's offer in that moment, then it would have been agreeing to pretend that he's never said he's in love with Aziraphale and to instead pretend that the romantic-looking things were all an effort to get into Aziraphale's pants. When he turns down sex, Aziraphale smiles softly because, to him, *this* is then really the moment that Crowley said he loves him.

Aziraphale knows for sure now what Crowley was saying and my friend (loaded) now has a definition between them that means the whole deal. Since Crowley said the thing that meant lovers euphemistically as part of saying he's in love with him, then my friend (loaded) is now forever part of the night during The Blitz in 1941 when Crowley said he was in love with him, which means that they can't use any version of friend (loaded) with each other without that being part of it. Friend (loaded) always meant lovers (sexual partners) but now it also means lovers (romantic partners) as well. It's not that they just suddenly became romantic partners because it's been a romance all along but now they're acknowledging it in a way they can't go back from and they do so by giving what they are to one another a word in their secret language.

Aziraphale then wants to return the feeling. Crowley is saying that he doesn't need him to by telling him to forget it about it and wanting to move on from it but Aziraphale can't accept that. Crowley might be right-- this could be it-- and like Aziraphale's going to let Crowley potentially soon go to his grave without telling him he's not alone in how he feels. That's not happening. However you think the events happened to give Aziraphale the opportunity to rescue Crowley from the wrath of Mrs. H-- divine fate, Aziraphale miracling the bottles broken, The Bentley shipping it and helping Aziraphale, all of the above, etc..-- he gets the chance not ten minutes later and he takes it... and, of course, what does he use?

My good friend (loaded af lol).

They've already just redefined my friend (loaded) by this point, so to turn around and use it is to tell Crowley I feel the same way. I love you, too. This is Crowley's change in expression in reaction in that above gif. It's one thing when Aziraphale volunteers to help-- that is sweet and Crowley's all eyebrows raised in intrigued surprise. His whole expression then slips from that into being stunned when he hears my good friend and he realizes that Aziraphale is now grand gesturing *him*. He's realizing that the bit in the car really was just an offer of an out, not just that plus Aziraphale saying he was uncomfortable with what Crowley had said and needing it to stay a lot more hidden beneath a cover of sex. It was Aziraphale needing to be sure he understood and needing to be sure that Crowley was sure he wanted to make this change in how they are but now that he's sure on those things, Aziraphale is actually all in for it.

Worth mentioning that my good friend (loaded) is a mashup of my friend and my dear fellow, which makes it extra sweet. Just as Crowley started this by calling back to The Globe Theatre by using my friend (loaded), Aziraphale is calling back to the my dear fellow rhythm of what he's called Crowley for centuries. It says I love you and every 'my dear fellow' was not just fondness but an 'I love you', if you didn't already know. I've loved you forever.

It's also quite literally calling Crowley 'good', which is not something that he really believes about himself but is something Aziraphale believes about him. His good friend, as in close friend, but also his good friend, as in good person. He also does nothing to discourage Mrs. H's inevitable understanding that he and Crowley are a couple. He gestures between them to indicate it. He uses my good friend in such a way that it's just the same thing queer humans of the time would have said to someone low-risk (a theatre person) in London during WW2. It's completely inverted from his response to Burbage in a different theatre in 1600, in the moment this whole friend thing became a thing for them, which is also intentional. It's telling Crowley he understood all the things Crowley was saying in the church and he feels them, too.

Then, there's this, once they're back the bookshop:

Here, we're acknowledging what friends means now by pausing and emphasizing it. "That's what friends are for" is not a phrase that would require the pause and the tone on friends if friendship was all "friends" meant to them. It's not now and this is acknowledging that.

Note Crowley's little lip twitch/almost-sad-smile at what Aziraphale is saying. It's agreement. It's assent. This is them confirming that they understand what the other is saying and giving this new word a home in their language.

This is then what they call each other now when they need to talk about it and it's my friend on the surface and it's my love underneath.

There's a sadness to it. How nice it would be to just be able to say it... It's also a moment of realizing that they aren't sure they can use this word all the time. It's good to have a word and a shared understanding of what it means and they have no desire to take back these confessions of love here but while it's lovely to have said this now, it's also a bit heartbreaking.

Aziraphale's heartbreak, his little Crowley move of putting on his (transparent lol) glasses, his brave smile, and then how quickly they both transition from this conversation into The West End, The West End and I'm a lonely G.I... and The farthing *has vanished*! It shows you how accustomed they are to burying the pain under trying to live in the moment for one another.

A few moments after this, Aziraphale will be showing Crowley some of his human magic tricks in preparation for performing on stage and when they get to the point where Aziraphale is telling Crowley about Goldstone's Magic Shop, he then tells him that it's not for him because it's "for professional conjurers only."

This is somewhat unintentional metaphor on Aziraphale's part that Crowley then acknowledges and turns into coded language in his response. Aziraphale's love of human magic is metaphorical for his love of humanity and living in a way as to indulge his humanity in a way that angels have been taught not to do. The reason why Aziraphale's love of magic is this metaphor and not, say, his love of books or music or food, is because all of the other things that Aziraphale likes about the human experiences can be dismissed by him as relating to understanding the human experience *so as to be a better angel.* He's really not a student of humanity just to learn how to better guide them. He admits to Adam in front of Crowley in S1 that he thinks that humans are the ones who get it when he tells him that he hoped Adam would be good and worried he'd be evil but that he's something better than either of those-- he's human incarnate. Aziraphale can justify most of his indulgences as being related to learning human ways to relate to them to help them-- food, books (his home and his book collection can be justified as necessary cover for his angelic embassy), music, etc.... but the love of human magic?

Aziraphale just loves it. It's for him. It's his hobby. He thinks it's a little selfish and probably a lot unbecoming of an angel. He'd completely just want this for a job and he's not supposed to want a job other than to be an angel, which is supposed to be the bestest job imaginable lol. What kind of angel wants a silly human job? What kind of angel with actual magical powers is obsessed with human magic? Aziraphale is. He's endlessly fascinated. It makes him happy. It brings him joy. It's the part of living as a human that he's done in such a way that it's just for him and in such a way that it conflicts a bit with his role as an angel. The only other way Aziraphale loves like this, in this human way? The only other thing he studies at to be a better human over being a better angel?

Crowley.

So when Aziraphale says that he can't go to Goldstone's because it's "for professional conjurers only", Crowley knows that what Aziraphale is really saying is that the shop is "for actual humans only". He knows Aziraphale is admitting that he's sometimes insecure about his ability to be human because of how his humanity is tied to being an angel. Crowley knows that they're talking about Aziraphale and his human magic love on one level but that they're also talking about them and their relationship on another level. This is Aziraphale saying that he loves human magic with a passion but he's not sure he's as good as it as he could be or as he wants to be because maybe he doesn't know everything about being a human in the way that the "professional conjurers"-- humans-- know... and everything we just said he's unsure about with relation to human magic is also how he feels sometimes about loving Crowley.

This conversation is happening in an overlapping way with their friend confessions and Crowley hears that Aziraphale is saying in there that he loves Crowley with a passion but he's not always sure that he's studied enough, that he knows enough, about being human to be what Crowley deserves. He would love to go to this magic shop but he's afraid that it's not meant for him. He struggles, as Crowley already knows, with how he's not supposed to want it but oh he wants and he can't help but love magic and he can't help but love Crowley... all of which prompts Crowley to reassure him, using a now-familiar bit of their language:

"You, my Nefertiti-fooling fellow, are about to perform on the West End stage. If that doesn't make you a 'professional conjurer'... I don't know what does."

Meaning:

You, my human-passing man, are so good at this that you fooled the Ancient Egyptian Queen. You're about to perform your human magic on stage-- to make yourself vulnerable in a way that scares humans. You are always willing to take risks like that and try something new and learn more about being human and that makes you human. It's human to not totally know how to be human, I think. You're doing all of this tonight because you love me. It doesn't matter if you're a good magician or not. This love of ours is human and you're very good at it. You love me very well. If loving me doesn't make you a 'professional conjurer'... I don't know what does.

Crowley uses my [] fellow to emphasize my friend (loaded) by using the term of endearment that Aziraphale himself started that has human connotations to make the point that their love makes them human and to tell Aziraphale that he's very good at their love.

Aziraphale, understandably melting over that:

And then? They just keep using my friend. For decades. Through S2.

What makes it work for so long is the fact that it's human-coded in origin so if they run into a situation where they need to refer to one another like this, they can use it and it doesn't get a lot of questions. After the partners scene with Nina, Crowley uses my friend without thinking twice about it, telling her that she'll be safe in the bookshop because "my friend would never let anything happen to you." Nina already gets that they're friend (loaded) and she doesn't know what using friend means to them because only they know about 1941 but it's a phrase that they can use with the outside world if they need to but that mostly stays between them because only they know that, in their language, my friend = my love.

So when Crowley says I lost my best friend in the Discorporated!Aziraphale scene in S1, he means that he lost his best friend but he *also* really means I lost the love of my life.

The first thing my best friend means is just the actual, uncoded definition-- what the words really mean as they are. Aziraphale is Crowley's best friend. Whatever else they are to one another, they've always been that. The idea that he'd have to go through the end of the world and whatever came after without his best friend devastated him. In a lot of ways, it's sweeter than saying anything else, even if they weren't in a public space, because it's saying that what he'd miss the most is just having his partner in crime in life. The other layer of it is the coded layer. Since they are a couple that uses my friend in an euphemistic way for my love, then Crowley's my best friend in 2019 is the same thing as Aziraphale's my good friend was in 1941. It is my best friend on the surface and it is that but it's also my love beneath it.

This scene is also then the same thing in meaning:

And by S1's present of 2019, they're at a point of using it in an argument, which provides them the means to talk in a way they didn't have in 1862. Yeah, they have their dramatic little breakup spats but this is actually a marked improvement over where they were before the holy water mess. So now watch this bit of the bandstand again here below for the friend (loaded)...

Remember that Aziraphale lies increasing bits of absurdity when stressed and that Crowley knows that. He dismisses what Aziraphale says with that "you doooo" when Aziraphale tries the *utterly ridiculous* "I don't even like you" lol. They're both panicked about the end of the world here in Ineffable Divorce: Round One and Crowley's trying to get them to run away again, which is a terrible idea, but in the process of suggesting it, Crowley is calling them friends (now eternally loaded, as we just spent this meta proving lol) and...

...*how long* have they been friends does he say?

So, how long have they been in love, per their language, per Crowley in the bandstand scene?

Six thousand years.

Since the start.

Vavoom. Sorted. :)

[geekgirles]

I love the myth about Hades and Persephone as much as the next girl, but am I the only one who would like for people to focus more on Dionysus and Ariadne? From a narrative and creative standpoint, I mean.

Despite my love for it, I'm no mythology expert, but you can't deny the appeal behind a story about a woman who was abandoned/forgotten by her first love, for whom she gave everything up, meeting and falling in love with a god who loved her genuinely, never mistreated her, and went as far as making her immortal so they could be together.

Can you imagine the potential this story has for modern retellings and tropes? Fake Relationship to Make Your Ex Jealous that Becomes Real, Ladykiller in Love, Cant' Act Perverted Towards a Love Interest, Single Woman Seeks Good Man...

Or for the sake of Pride Month, given Dionysus' love for crossdressing, the fact that Ariadne didn't seem to mind about most, if not any, of his affairs with others, and the undeniable fact that practically no one in Ancient Greece was straight, it also opens up the possibility of playing with queer characters and relationships beyond the nuclear family archetype. An actual modern retelling could even feature a transmac or nonbinary Dionysus in a committed yet open or even polyamourous relationship with Ariadne.

There's also what happens after they end up together, like exploring Ariadne's possible insecurities over being a mortal married to a god and the possible power imbalance. Or her getting used to Olympus or even struggling to move on from Theseus. Oh, and from Dionysus' side, the exploration of finally meeting someone who is immune to his godly charms and chooses to be by his side because she genuinely likes him!

You can't tell me this myth doesn't have the makings of a great source of content.

[mynqzo]

Hey heard you like vampires what are your thoughts on Twilight

it gets an unprecedented amount of hate mostly for being a show with an audience of young women and girls (so therefore people think oh girls like this so ew). its also undeniable that twilight very much shows the progression of how vampires are depicted in media and is an important facet in the history of vampire mythology especially in books/movies. it being a romance movie with cliche and maybe cringe scenes doesn't take away people's right to enjoy it and by extent its version of vampires (id argue that twilight vampires are just a spiritual successor to vampires like lestate or 'romantic vamps' in general)

with that being said, it is the straightest and most mormon vampire depiction which therefore makes it less enjoyable for me! vampires, historically, existed to represent minorities and people who were considered outcasts to 'normal' society and were first and foremost used as caricatures for racist, lgbtq-phobic and sexist stereotypes, so i feel like their reclamation by queers, poc and minorities in general is the only good way to depict them. bram stoker's dracula represented the english man's fear of jewish immigrants (and immigrants in general, the visual description of dracula in that book plays into popular caricatures of jews during those times), eastern europeans, and queer people (dracula and jonathan yada yada as well as the wives of dracula initiating a saucy moment with jonathan which was a man' job because the man was the pursuer and the woman was pursued, but the roles were reversed. also, i don't think i need to tell you how fangs, blood and the extension of dracula through his wives were used as a gay metaphor). and carmilla by sheridan le fanu, depicting the imagery of a predatory lesbian hunting for innocent upper-class women. during these times vampires were not yet characters with complex personalities and values, but folklore monsters in a way, a way to show an enemy and defeat it rather than learn to understand them, which was a product of its time.

fast forward to the vampire chronicles and especially interview with the vampire by anne rice, vampires became complex people, who's oddities were considered alluring, beautiful, queer and unabashedly proud of it. descriptions of androgynous men, womens love of each other, several nods to gay culture throughout the books with the characters themselves having more to them than just being monsters (with that being said there are several critiques of an interview with the vampire, esp the original book, it is by no means the creme de la creme of queer rep in vampire literature!)

so, circling back, twilight vampires were in themselves like that, kind of. edward wasn't exactly the most macho man as was popular to faun over in media, he was, kind of, more androgenous and sensitive and a character with complex values and thoughts - but that doesn't take away from the fact that the book is lacking a lot of soul and seemingly doesn't show the true reasons why vampires became so popular (amongst young queers especially who found themselves relating to this sense of otherness because of who they were. it is a very sanitized version of a vampire romance, which doesn't mean its bad or that people shouldn't like it! but i'm just saying.

huff

[gandalfsbignaturals]

what is tme/tma? (sorry i’m cis)

they stand for transmisogyny exempt and transmisogyny affected. nominally they are supposed to label people who are targets of transmisogyny (tma) and people who are not targets of transmisogyny (tme), but in practice they are typically instead defined to mean "trans women, trans femmes, and (sometimes) gnc men" (tma) and "literally everyone else" (tme)

unfortunately, as i have tried to argue, this... isnt really how oppression works, especially considering the queer community necessarily resists hard categorization, and especially binaries

whats more, people who are supposedly tme are frequently the victims of transmisogynistic hatecrimes, something the proponents of the terms usually call "misdirected transmisogyny." i have gripes with this, though, because misdirected bigotry is... well, its still bigotry.

when sikhs (and whats more, any brown person who looked a certain way) were facing a monstrous amount of misdirected islamophobia in the wake of 911, the muslim community did not come out and say "well, they arent really muslim, so the islamophobic attacks on them dont count." nor did the sikhs and others use it as an excuse to attack islam! instead, they recognized that the bigots didnt actually care about the specific labels of the people they were attacking. all they cared was that someone was brown, and that they practiced a foreign religion, and that was enough.

likewise, when gentiles are attacked by antisemites for defending or associating with jewish people, those jewish people do not say, "you are not jewish, and therefore this doesnt count." instead, they acknowledge that, once again, the bigots in this instance dont actually care about the specifics of the lives led by those theyre attacking. i cannot imagine a jewish synagogue denying aid to a victim of an antisemitic attack, even if they are not jewish.

similarly, when a queer or gnc person is attacked by a transphobe for performing gender wrong, that transphobe doesnt actually care what particular label or lifestyle the person theyre attacking subscribes too. a trans man with some stubble in a dress is the same as a non-passing trans woman to them. a burly woman with higher than average testosterone going into the womens bathroom is the same as a non-passing trans woman to them. a masculine black woman in baggy clothes is the same as a non-passing trans woman to them. and they will attack accordingly, and no matter how the victim protests that they arent a trans woman, the bigot will not care.

this is all glossing over the fact that, by advocating that people disclose their tma/tme status in their blog description or carrd or whatever, you are effectively asking them to out themself. if you define tme as "not a trans woman," and someone has a trans flag and he/him pronouns on their profile, and you ask them to also include tme on their profile... well, then youre asking them to publicly state what their genitals are. while tma and tme are not defined exclusively based on genitals, it is undeniable that in combination with other readily available information, they can be easily used to determine what someones assigned gender at birth is.

when applied to trans people, tme/tma is just another false binary. it is a poor attempt to categorize a human experience that is simply not divisible into neat little categories, and especially not a binary.

[avephelis]

okay but can i just ramble on about how much i love camila

like she's trying so hard to be there for luz however she can, even if she doesn't understand the full situation

and as well as just. taking in four extra kids no questions asked, she's really good at validating them and appreciating their efforts even though they don't understand how things work yet (especially important with amity)

and she manages that scene of hunter kneeling at her SO WELL, like she doesn't make a scene, or make him feel embarrassed, she just kindly tells him he doesn't have to do that with her. which is super important coming from a parental/authority figure

and her being so supportive of luz being queer (and amity by extension) is so nice to see on screen. (side note: they did NOT have to go as extra as they did with the bi flags and rainbow, but they did, and i'm so happy that it's so undeniably explicit and in your face)

she also just generally handles everything they tell her really well? granted, she'd have some experience from vee, but she genuinely hears out what the kids have to say and takes them seriously, WHILE ALSO stressing the importance of taking care of themselves and resting

also the fact that it looks like she's taking the time to shop with the kids for halloween outfits? or more clothes, at least. which are things they don't strictly NEED, but rather things that make them happy, and she makes the time for that

she's so instantly supportive of vee's new look as well and that is something just. so important to me. (also the pride pin is adorable)

i also just love the wall of luz photos, and her and luz's awkwardly polite reactions to the erm. "cake"

camila is just such a greatly written parent generally. it's not like she gets everything right, or does things perfectly, but above all else she tries her damn best to be supportive of her kids, and is just generally kind. if anything, her flaws add to her depth. because there is no "perfect parent", but there sure as hell is a parent that loves very much, and tries their best. and camila is that parent.