#sometimes an oxrib is not just an oxrib

[bil-daddy]

I feel like I owe you many thanks for gifting my friend group the best, most unhinged and beautiful catchphrase ever. I cannot explain to you the joy we feel every time we get to say "have an ox rib (platonic)" and earn a very pronounced ???? face from an unfortunate onlooker. it's an endless supply of free serotonin 🍖

This warms Bildaddy's non-demonic, very human (but angel-stolen) heart. Have another ox rib (platonic)

(it’s also an endless supply, no oxen harmed in the making of these ox ribs)

[neil-gaiman]

Hi Neil,

I know you likely won't see this since I know you have a ridiculously large amount of asks right now, but I do have a question about how people are perceiving one of the scenes in season two...

I'm seeing a lot of people referring to the ox rib scene as sexual subtext, and while I guess I can kind of see it, it isn't at all what I picked up on when watching it. My understanding of Aziraphale and Crowley is that sexual things are earthly pleasures and angels and demons don't partake in those most of the time, so they wouldn't even have those feelings unless they tried them out, just like with food, dancing, kissing, etc. So I wanted to get some clarification from the best source, which would be you.

Was that scene meant to have sexual undertones, or was Aziraphale just hungry?

Aziraphale was discovering food and eating for the first time. And discovering how much he liked these things. It's the first of the Earthly pleasures we've seen him enjoy.

[drconstellation]

On Furfur's Stag

I have been musing on Furfur's winged stag for a while, and even though its origin is from the Ars Goetica there was still something niggling at the back of my mind that I had to chase up.

You see, my first connection to the stag was "horns" and the old expression of describing someone as being "given horns" when they have been cuckolded, or cheated upon.

I first learned of this expression while reading the Aubrey-Maturin novels 20 years ago, another grand M/M fandom 'ship', (although a much more platonic one) in all senses of the word. I ducked back aboard the Gunroom of the HMS Surprise to check the references and the erudite members of this old list did not let me down.

They pointed out that the tradition of giving 'horns' for cheating on one's partner came from the observing the mating practices of sheep and goats (hello, Job minisode again!) where rams do not tolerate a sexual rival and will fight to protect their females, whereas the billy-goat is a bit lazy in that regard and doesn't mind if another male mates with his nanny-goats. As such, the ram is held up as a Christian ideal, as it is seen as monogamous, but in reality it is just as polygamous as the goats! (If I find the meta on the goats in the Job minisode again I'll try to link back to it. Here it is!)

They also found this neat little video on the two-fingered "rabbit ears" people like to make in photos, and perhaps why you shouldn't be doing that (worth watching, the stag antlers make an appearance!)

I could be off track (I think was definitely off track thinking about the goddess Diana turning Actaeon into a stag and hunting him down, wrong mythology! That was why I had to do my homework) but it might be food for somebody else's thoughts.

[apocalypse-friend]

Wait, I actually wrote something super funny

[bil-daddy]

Everybody vote ox rib!

[bil-daddy]

Aziraphale ate too many ox ribs and now his tummy hurts...

Thanks a lot guys. I did what 61.3% you voted for and tried to seduce Aziraphale with a rack of ox ribs. And you wanna know what happened? This angel ate so much he made himself sick. Classic beginner's mistake.

So. There go all my plans for the rest of our date* night. What should I do now?

(*he still doesn't know it was supposed to be a date.)

[thealogie]

not neil saying in a recent ask that "sometimes an oxrib is just an oxrib" like why is he trying so hard to erase the (almost textual) sex subtext of that scene 😭

The only person who is legally allowed to have an opinion on the oxrib scene is Michael Sheen though so it doesn’t matter

[actual-changeling]

I have tried to find a way to word this that isn't accusatory because that is not my goal here, but after writing and rewriting this a dozen or more times I've given up. I'm just upset about it all but I don't intend this to be taking it out on you specifically. I am truly sending it in good faith!

It's been incredibly difficult to be an ace fan with ace headcanons lately because of constant "Let. Them. Fcuk!" shouts from all corners, as though A/C must have sex on screen for their relationship to count. There are many posts insisting all headcanons are valid followed immediately by more posts insisting they have to be sexual creatures because of this or that reason and any thought to the contrary is just wrong. My "favorites" are the ones arguing that because they love human things so much then of course they must want to have sex because all humans want to have sex!

Needless to say as a human who has never once in my life wanted to have sex I find that incredibly othering. It's not the only argument that's been verging hard into acephobic and exclusionary rhetoric lately either.

Ace people can and do have sex. Ace people can also be sex repulsed or just uninterested. Aziraphale and Crowley could easily be any of those things just as easily as they could be sexual beings. What we see in the show and the book are two beings who canonically have demonstrated nothing about their thoughts on sex and sexuality. There are things some take as hints at a sexual nature but those same things can be read as something entirely nonsexual. As Neil said, sometimes an oxrib is just an oxrib. Canonically and textually all that scene shows is the birth of Aziraphale's hedonistic (in the philosophical sense of the term) desires. And yet, as hedonistic as that scene is, it is still not inherently sexual. It's one possible valid reading of the subtext to be sure but also not the only possible valid reading. You can take that scene to mean Aziraphale's gonna screw Crowley's brains out the second they avert Apocalypse 2.0 or you can take it to mean he's gonna drag him on a whirlwind tour of the dessert trays of every good restaurant in town instead. Both are valid interpretations of what Aziraphale going to town on that rib could be representing and neither is more correct. Both readings fit under the hedonism umbrella but true hedonism does not and has never mandated sexual activity. Aziraphale is a fine example of an ethical hedonist and yet his canonical hedonism is not concrete proof that he must want to have sex, as I have seen argued. Hedonism can include sex but it can also be entirely focused on food and drink or art and music or philosophy. Yes, you can be asexual and a hedonist, they are not contradictions in terms.

As a final note I just want to add my own stance on it. I personally think they may be idly curious about sex, perhaps enough to indulge now and then, but it's not something either feels they need in their relationship to feel valid and loved. I also feel I must say that I don't agree with the faction that says they'd be too pure as non-humans to even consider sex as an option. I find that just as othering, in a different way, as saying they must want sex because all humans do.

And so finally I come to my question at the end of all the rambling. If every headcanon is valid as canon does not show their thoughts on sex one way or the other, then why is it fine to see them as sexual and insist it has to be in the show and yet worthy of mocking to see them as ace and to not want a sex scene?

Good faith recognized and accepted, so no worries on that front.

I'm glad you felt comfortable enough to send the message in the first place, it's one of the reasons I always have anon asks on. I don't mind playing middle man (gn) for fandom discussions.

Edit: I just realised I might not have made it clear enough, but I'm alloaro myself, so same hat and all.

If every headcanon is valid as canon does not show their thoughts on sex one way or the other, then why is it fine to see them as sexual and insist it has to be in the show and yet worthy of mocking to see them as ace and to not want a sex scene?

The short answer is that it is not fine to mock or attack people for their headcanons, and I really wish I could tell you that it's simply a matter of kindness or working through some aphobia, but it's so, SO much more complicated than that.

I will try my best to explain my interpretation of why the above happens, but if I lose anyone at any point, don't hesitate to ask questions! Hopefully my red string will hold though.

The problem you describe is not specific to this fandom, it will pop up in literally every single one at some point or other, and in some corners it turn into queerphobia on all sides just being thrown around.

With Good Omens in particular, the canon Neil gives us is incredibly pliable, everything and nothing can apply, and you are not restricted by gendered subtext or implications. It's great! It really is! BUT it also means that people start projecting heavily on a character, headcanoning their specific labels for them, etc. which by itself isn't a problem.

It becomes one when a headcanon that does not align with theirs suddenly feels like a personal attack—as if headcanoning that character as something you aren't is invalidating your identity through that character. I hope that makes sense, simple version is people project a lot, and it gets very messy very fast.

Queer sexuality has a long and complicated history, and I really recommend to everyone to read up on i at least a little. In the media, you usually get one of two depictions of it: predatory or pornographic. Both suck, both are bad representation, both further already existing stereotypes.

However, that means any depictions of queer people that are not one of the above tend to be non-sexual to a point where the intention behind certain choices is very clear. Queer sexuality is bad and dirty, it should be hidden away, and is only allowed to exist if it can be consumed by cishet people or used for their amusement.

So where does that leave us with Good Omens?

Many people are desperate for good representation, myself included, and with the way Neil is writing the show, everything is possible, and some things even likely. He said himself that one of the reasons for the kiss was the destruction of deniability of their relationship.

We need to have queer sexuality on our screens because otherwise it will always be seen as other, and queer relationships will be denied on the basis of a 'lack of intimacy'. It sucks, it is completely inaccurate, and unfair, but that is where we are.

If we take this information and tie it back to the projection issues I talked about in the beginning, I think it's possible to understand the point I'm trying to make.

Suddenly it is no longer the character's sexuality that is not shown but their own, and that opens Pandora's box for all kinds of difficult emotions.

Everything above also applies to aspec people, just that most of us are usually looking for a lack of something rather than a presence, which is not better or worse than wanting queer sexuality explicitly shown. People end up butting heads—and it gets incredibly personal way too quickly—because you have group A, who want to see a sex scene because of above reasons, and then you have group B, who would prefer for that not to happen.

While that's a perfectly fine headcanon to have (and it SHOULD be respect, every hc should be), some people from A will see a post about them never having sex and interpret it (mostly subconsciously, I presume) as an attempt to repress queer sexuality from being shown.

The 'solution' (easier said than done) to the problem is learning when to step back and how to recognize when one is getting too caught up in their character(s)—or simply how to not be an asshole and scroll past something. Tumblr has great blacklist and blocking features, use them, people.

Bottom line, harassing people for their headcanons or other fandom ideas is rude, inappropriate, and makes you an asshole that needs to log off and go on a fucking walk.

[bil-daddy]

From ox ribs, of course. Where else would they come from?

You've heard ot the TRANS FATS

Meet the

Badum tss

[naturallyteal]

Writing Game: Decision Tree chapter 2

>> “Just fell from heaven did you?” The demon snorted at his own joke. “Not read your letter? We’re dissolved…” << ~ (quote from chapter 2)

This story is being created by playing a Collaboration Game of Ping Pong Writing 🏓🏓, where two authors write chapters alternately, picking up the thread where the other left off. It’s a bit like improv theatre, and the story develops as we go, so we can only really give a summary when it’s finished. If you’re curious what will happen next, as are we: stay tuned!

~~~

For the details and rules of this game, Ping Pong Writing, see details here on AO3. Maybe you want to play too, sometime?

~~~

chapter overview with word counts:

(~100): Abyss

(~200): Hell of a Day to Fall

(~300)

(~400)

(~500)

(~600)

chapters 1,3,5 by NaturallyTeal on AO3, chapters 2,4,6 by Jean_kimberley on AO3 @kimberleyjean

Tagging List under the cut

Let me know if you want on it for future posts of mine!

Let me know if you want off the list:

@echogracebeloved @oxribs @copperplatebeech @thescholarlystrumpet @simonezitrone79

@siriosa @captainblou @alphacentaurinebula @ineffablefool @ashfae

@fellshish @vidavalor @thindarkdukewrites @crowleys-bright-red-hair-streak @kimberleyjean

@dragonfire42 @lickthecowhappy @ineffablenlghtingales @turquoisedata @di-42

@dierama-mojo

[tonydaddingham]

Ah, but you must remember Neil didn't write the oxrib scene. His interpretation of someone else's writing isn't the same thing as trying not to turn something he wrote himself into a bad entendre. 😉

very true, good point i had very much forgotten this, thank you (my kingdom for an opportunity to shake john finnemore's hand. and while im at it, now that ive bothered to consult imdb - andy nyman and jeremy dyson too, i am but your humble 1941 servant)

but i still think there's validity in that if the man is able to recognise sexual undertones in the majority of possible responses to "i just need to find a receptive body", he has some gall to look us in the virtual eye after giving the thumbs-up to ep2, and expect us to believe "sometimes an ox-rib is just an ox-rib" (/lh)

[crowleys-dark-sunglasses]

Neil tagging "sometimes an oxrib is just an oxrib"

NO SHHH LET ME LIVE IN DELUSION PLEASE I BEG YOU

[moonyinpisces]

ok i know we're moving past 'do they fuck nasty' to 'the ways in which they fuck nasty', but i'm sorry i'm new here and not over the "HOWWW are people seeing sexual context everywhere" and "i'm dyyying like sometimes an oxrib is just an oxribbb" - folks even in the literal text of the show the oxrib isn't just an oxrib!!!

literally: crowley and aziraphale use the oxribs as a means to trick the angels about job's kids

which symbolically: represents the growing bond between the two of them on earth vs their assigned sides

which is (textually for these two, not as a statement about the validity of other sexual identities): intrinsically tied up in their physical desires for the pleasures of earth and for each other

anyways, back to the matter at hand, i used to think aziraphale was a power bottom but i'm now a convert to him topping most of the time.

that was like both mine and my girlfriend’s FIRST instinct after seeing neil on his bullshit too. like an ox rib isn’t even JUST an ox rib like. textually in the show. but also i think an author implying the curtains are simply blue + not to look into things is like. hilarious so i’m letting it slide for the bit

and you’re right to think that re: aziraphale. personally i just think power bottoming is a vessel for topping so the intent is still there, which is all that matters.

[mycenaae]

"sometimes an oxrib is just an oxrib" yeah cool did anyone tell michael and david that though, because they played that ox rib as a sex scene

[bil-daddy]

Thanks for thinking of me, @o-lord-heal-this-bike. Have an ox rib (platonic)

(which is the only kind now, apparently, at least according to the Gayman)

[bil-daddy]

Sometimes an ox rib is just an ox rib...

...but now is not one of those times