i had to look up a modest proposal bc i'd never studied/read it before, and it only suggests six ways to eat your young ("stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled...fricasie, or a ragoust")
hozier mentions seven new ways to eat your young, adding one more
so it both a large reference to a modest proposal - which is itself a satire on colonialism and capitalism - and a veiled metaphor for oral sex
691 notes
·
View notes
it's been more than a month yet thinking about how Neil said season 2 is a bridge to what was supposed to be in the book sequel still keeps me awake at night 'cause the math isn't mathing for me
you see, i can’t see how it was supposed to work, taking into consideration Aziraphale's book personality. i mean, Aziraphale's final s2 decision, in my humble opinion, wouldn’t at all work for his book!version (and radio!version, obviously. I'm still not really sure if it works for me even in terms of his show!version), since book!Aziraphale, how do i put it? yeah, i doubt he’d give a single fuck about the idea of reforming heaven and making it better and stuff. like under no circumstances whatsoever
because — though I might be wrong — I always thought the point of Aziraphale's character is that he doesn’t believe in heaven being right. it's evident from this part of the book when he interferes in a TV program while on a search for a body. he calls heaven propagandistic here and says it doesn't matter who wins, hell or heaven, because humanity loses either way
and it's not, in fact, the first time Aziraphale shows disapproval of heaven and its methods. he has already said himself that hell and heaven are practically the same before here, while discussing their head offices with Crowley
so he knows for a fact that heaven is just as thirsty for blood and cruel as hell. they are not the side of the light. he knows it from the start, and the fact that heaven wants war just as much as hell does is not an insight for him. it just reassures him of what he's known before. and he's quite strong in his beliefs, too
and i just keep trying to figure out how we were supposed to get to book!Aziraphale not only going back there but also taking up an archangel position — and if we ever were, really
i honestly can’t find an answer to this in my head, so i thought i might share it here. i can’t be the only one thinking about this on repeat, and maybe someone else has found an answer or a loophole they’ll want to share so i can find peace again
181 notes
·
View notes
It's 2 am and I can't sleep with the thought of Hobie Brown leaving kiss marks all over his s/o face
Like- Imagine it. supermodel Hobie Brown, chilling on the dressing room with his partner, just chilling with each other. Then, he just gets up, reaches for a container of dark lipstick and just... Slowly, teasingly, sets it on his lips...
S/o immediately turns away, pretending like they weren't watching practically not blinking how their boyfriend applied the paint to his pretty lips.
He chuckles, steps closer and sits beside them. Without warning, he grabs their face and just plants a big fat kiss in their cheek. Then on their forehead. Other cheek. Lips. Jaw. It goes on and on, all the s/o can feel at this point is his warm lips, cold piercing and the sticky feeling of the lipstick coating their entire face.
When he steps back, Hobie just has this absolutely smug look on his face as he sees his finished work.
"looking good, luv."
274 notes
·
View notes
I've been trying to type out a coherent post about this since yesterday but I'll just quickly summarise what bothers me (besides other things lmao): being asexual does not mean that I can't stand suggestive phrases or words. It also doesn't mean that I don't have a libido or kinks. These experiences are part of sex-aversion, which can also be experienced by allosexual people. It's something that can overlap with asexuality but first of all is an independent feeling/preference. It's so frustrating when I try to talk to my friends (who are all allosexual) about things that involve sexual themes and they shut me down bc "I don't know what I'm talking about". Like hey, maybe I do actually know bc I also have experiences? It's discouraging, because when you insist on what you know, suddenly your whole identity is questioned. "Are you sure you're asexual?" Yes, I am. It's because I don't experience sexual attraction. That's the whole definition! And yes, for many asexual people it also involves sex-aversion and that's totally fine, but not all of us.
120 notes
·
View notes
okay so for the people in the comments of this post and the other one i wrote about this: i am aware that this is something oda said (i actually don't know lmao i just saw people saying it ngl i doubt he said this and if he did y'all are misinterpreting the shit out of what he said). however, i personally think he meant it in a very specific context of "one of the mugiwaras betraying them in such a horrific way that luffy would have to force himself to say this".
the thing is, there are A LOT of things to have in mind when it comes to this statement. yeah. zoro would kill a mugiwara if luffy asked, but there's a lot going on before that even crosses his mind:
1. luffy would need a valid reason to want to kill a mugiwara (teach level of betrayal). and even then, i doubt he would ask zoro to kill them. but yeah, let's suppose hypothetically that he says that.
2. zoro would instantly assume something's wrong because luffy would NEVER say something like this. some of you act like he would act without hesitation when his devotion to luffy isn't irrational, but unconditional. he would stop, think about it, ask luffy why and if he's sure. and he would even try to stop him.
3. if stopping him doesn't work and the betrayal is bad enough, zoro would kill a mugiwara for luffy.
y'all make it seem like he would do it and kill nami (for example. he would never, tho) without hesitation when he would be the very first one to be against that idea and question luffy's irrationality. the whole thing about these two is that they trust each other bc they believe in each other, not bc they're blinded by love. it's such a deep understanding and trust that they would do anything for each other, and that also includes grounding the other and stopping them if they're wrong.
zoro's trust and loyalty is on luffy, of course, but assuming that it makes him unable to care for the other members of the crew and that it blinds him enough to kill them is just wrong.
answering the question y'all refuse to answer without thinking first: yes, zoro would kill a mugiwara if luffy asked under the right circumstances and after a long time thinking about it, but it wouldn't happen just because.
85 notes
·
View notes
"You watch me this afternoon, little Edward," he boasted, "as I rush through with the Express; that will be a splendid sight for you."
Just then his Driver pulled the lever. "Goodbye, little Edward," said Gordon, as he puffed away, "look out for me this afternoon!"
This is the politest bullying I have ever seen.
(It reminds me of "Look, there's Thomas, who wanted to pull a train but forgot about the coaches!" Like... sick burn, bro. Considering how they later became one of his signatures, it's very funny how terrible Awdry first was at writing roasts.)
39 notes
·
View notes