#choice

“Strict,” really? I tend to think of myself as being a lot of fun. Yes, that fun is enforced, but it’s still fun.
Two more weeks of chastity for being so obtuse.
Now make my bed as I crop your ass.

He knew he wasn’t supposed to ask for his release date, but he did.
So I tied him down, unlocked his cage, and used a sounding rod to extract a month’s worth of cum.
Then I locked him back up.

I love claiming a man, to capture him & cage him. I find restraints so perfectly erotic. For both mind & body I want to restrict and confine you.
I love the mind-body feedback. Chastity confines your mind in a sexual context. I hurt you…you read it as sex.
I’m going to put you in this cage now. Come out whenever you want. Just know I’ll be kicking you in the balls when you do.

Just try it for 3 days. How bad could it be?
*click*
I’ll take that key now.

3 days went so fast. …one more day, for me?

I think you… kinda like it when I tell you “No.”
So let’s keep you locked, just a little longer.

I’m so impressed! You made it a week! I’ve heard… interesting things happen to a guy locked 10 days.

I know you’re desperate for release. That’s what makes denying you so fun!

Chastity really is starting to change you, darling. I like it. I know I said 10 days, but… No.

What am I doing to YOU? What about what you’re doing to me? I’ve never been so wet and needy. Get your tongue back down there!

Yes, I know I promised release after 3 days, then at 7 made it 10. Now you’ve been locked for over two weeks. Why?

Asking for release again? Silly thing, you know I’m just going to deny you again.
Oh, unless hmm… Do you just want to hear me say it again? No.

A month ago you locked your cock and gave me the key because you thought we were playing a little game.
Now you’re a broken slave. I can let you out of chastity for a couple days, but it’s too late now. You’ll NEED the cage. You’ll beg me to lock you back in. And I will.

I’m not a monster. I let him out of chastity to masturbate in front of me. …I also shock his balls, starting at a higher voltage each time. Will he learn to cum from pain? Stop asking for release? I don’t have a plan. Just want to be entertained.

Fine. Don’t eat your cum for me.
Stay caged instead.

Shame on me for saying “two days” when I meant two weeks…or two months.
But shame on you for giving me your key.

This game will be 1month long. Right before it start he must make a choice.

He can have a maximum of 5 orgasms and a minimum of 0 orgasm. The less orgasm he accept to have, the more dare she will have to perform. She is the only one who’s going to decide when he is going to cum.

The number of dares she must perform is decided by the number of orgasm he will choose to have, but she’s the one choosing which dare she want to perform and when she want to perform them.

Her dare list:

• Masturbate fully naked in front of him following his instructions
• You must be fully naked outside for at least 2 minutes (you choose when and where)
• Be his personal stripper for 2 songs
• Go to a strip club with him and pay him a lapdance
• You must wear a remote controlled vibrator and give him the full control of it while you are going out
• He can choose which underwear you are going to wear(or not wear) for 4 days of his choice
• You must flash him your pussy or boobs while in a public place 3 times in the month
• You must be denied orgasm for 4 consecutive days, he will have the full control of the stimulation of your pussy.
• For a full day you will have to be fully naked at all time at home and if you have to go out, you will have to wear only one article of clothing depending of the season or where you are :short dress, a coat or a bikini bottom
• You must do anything in your power to give him a boner at least 3 times while you are in a public place (talking, light stimulation…anything you have in mind)
• You must make sure every time he will leave the house without you he will be horny during all the month
• You must tease him for at least 2 hours before making him cum(or denying him if he have no orgasm left)

His choice:

• 5 orgasms, she must perform 1 dare
• 4 orgasms, she must perform 2 dares
• 3 orgasms, she must perform 3 dares
• 2 orgasms, she must perform 6 dares
• 1 orgasm, she must perform 7 dares
• NO orgasm, she must perform 9 dares

Obviously, during all the game she can tease and deny him whenever she want to and she can make him cum at the moment of her choice(if he have an orgasm left). If he choose to have 2 orgasms or less, she will have to perform harder dares… the list only have a few easy dares.

good-omens-meta-library:

wolfiejimi:

runawaymarbles:

wolfiejimi:

wolfiejimi:

I’m so surprised that so many people are reading Aziraphale’s “I’m so sorry to hear it” in response to Crowley’s “I lost my best friend” as him being a totally inept moron with zero ability to read people, when that couldn’t be farther from the truth, as far as I can see???

It was a super British reaction to an unabashed emotional outpouring. It’s an I can’t deal with this right now stiff upper lip keep calm and carry on error message of the brain. 

He knows exactly what Crowley means. And when I say exactly, I don’t just mean that Aziraphale knows that Crowley is saying he is his best friend. That much he already knew. That’s par for the course by now. What he realises is that Crowley is essentially saying that because he lost Aziraphale, his life just stopped being worth anything. That he had given up, decided not to save himself by running away, and couldn’t even try to save the world, because without Aziraphale the world didn’t seem worth saving. Without Aziraphale, he didn’t have the strength or capacity or will to save the world, or himself. That because he had lost Aziraphale he was just going to sit in a bar and drink himself into a stupor and wait to die.

Aziraphale knew exactly what Crowley meant, 100%. And he was in no state whatsoever to even begin to deal with that. So he said “So sorry to hear it”, and took a second to put his heart back in his chest, and then kept calm and carried on, because he had a world to save. He had a Crowley to save.

I’m as much of a fan as anyone for  affectionately calling Crowley and Aziraphale idiots, but in actuality neither of them are, at all. Aziraphale is very intelligent, including emotionally intelligent. He’s wilfully naive which manifests as idiocy sometimes, but that’s not the same thing. He wasn’t being a dolthead with no understanding of anything, in this scene. He was being his deeply emotionally-intelligent self, and just not having the time or mental space to deal with what he read in Crowley’s words. And Crowley responded to that accordingly, too. They know each other too well, and they are both too clever for any such misunderstanding.

“@blackwhitemc do you think you can elaborate on what “willfully naive” means? It sounds so striking. :o”

Hi!

What do I mean by “wilfully naive”? I’m not good at explaining myself very well so if this makes no sense at all, I’m really sorry ahhaha.

Okay, so, like, naivete is a form of ignorance, perhaps even unintelligence, especially when you are as long-lived, well-read, and extensively-experienced as Aziraphale is, right? And, when it comes to Heaven, Aziraphale absolutely behaves naively. Time and time again he is faced with Heaven, and God, doing things that he doesn’t like. The Flood. Soddom and Gomorrah. The crucifixion of Jesus. Armaggeddon. And doubtless a whole lot more on top of that. Yet he always brushes it off, always goes back to the dogmatic hardline of “Heaven is Good. Hell is Bad. Angels are Good. Demons are Bad. God knows Best. It’s all just ineffable.” 

He acts stupidly, not because he is stupid, but because he ignores rationality, he ignores what he can see, he ignores what he feels, and thinks, and knows to be true. Things like “killing kids probably isn’t good” and “raining fire and destruction on an entire city isn’t really that nice” and “torturing a really nice, wise guy isn’t actually very acceptable” and “Yeah, no, Heaven definitely does want to destroy the world, because they have explicitly told me that on at least three occasions”. 

But he isn’t stupid. Aziraphale is categorically not stupid. He’s very clever. And not just book-clever, although he is book clever, he’s also crafty. He weasels his way around rules enough, always finding ways to rationalise bending them enough to get what he wants. He is wise, and just as wiley as the Demon he adores. 

So why does he act so naively when it comes to heaven? As Crowley says, heart-breaking-ly:

“You’re so clever. How can somebody as clever as you be so stupid?”

It’s because Aziraphale chooses to be naive to Heaven. He is wilfully naive. He keeps the blinkers on, he turns away, he shields himself with “ineffability”, because the truth is too scary. It’s too much. 

Crowley Fell because he asked questions. That’s all you had to do, ask questions, and that was enough. And there is no indication, as far as I can see, that suggests being Fallen doesn’t suck. Crowley isn’t there like “Oh hey Aziraphale, you know, you should just Fall, cos this is awesome. Way better down here. Basically no difference at all, just no nagging angels on your case all the time.” It’s implied (in my view) that Falling actually is pretty horrible. Crowley  doesn’t want Aziraphale to Fall, and Aziraphale doesn’t want himself to Fall. 

And, even aside from that (more than that?), asking questions, facing up to the reality staring him in the face for as long as he’s been on earth, that’s difficult. The truth can be a bitter pill. To accept that Heaven maybe isn’t that great, that demons like Crowley are better than some of the Angels? More compassionate? More kind? More worthy? What does that mean for Aziraphale’s entire existence? His loyalty to Heaven, his Toeing The Party Line, his allowing atrocities like The Flood to be committed in the name of Holiness? (I could write a whole other essay on that alone, it’s so interesting, but I’ll stop myself cos this is too long anyway and I’m sure you get the point haha). Once you start pulling at that little thread of truth, the whole tapestry will unravel, and who knows what lay behind it.

And on top of that again, Aziraphale is so full of self-doubt. The interactions we see him having with Heaven aren’t exactly wholesome. They’re pretty damn toxic, in fact. Gabriel puts him down, is passive aggressive, condescending, patronising, belittling… And in his presence Aziraphale constantly fiddles with his bow-tie, straightens his jacket - tries to measure up to impossible standards. So on top of being afraid of Falling, on top of being afraid of what will unravel once he begins to pull at that thread of Reality, Aziraphale can’t even trust that he would be right. He has so little faith in himself, he constantly doubts himself, constantly second guesses, constantly questions himself. 

No. It’s easier to just… not. To ignore the alarm bells, ignore the warning signs, close your eyes to all of it. Just… play along. Keep the Faith. Don’t ask questions. Don’t think about it. Pretend that you don’t think about it. Forget about all of the times you think about it, and all of the times you talk about it with Crowley, and all of the times you come so close to agreeing that it’s all bullshit, that “Good and Evil […]are just names for sides. Weknow that.”  Be naive. Choose to be naive. Force yourself to be naive. Do it wilfully, and stubbornly, and desperately. 

That’s what I mean by “wilfully naive”. Hahahaha >.< Sorry. Essay. Aziraphale is just so interesting to me [*coughcough* because I relate too much and project too much *coughcough*

I just want to add though, in his defense, that all of these years of wilful naivete contribute to his snap-180 rebellion once he is pushed so far that he can’t doubt himself, or Heaven’s not-Good-ness anymore. That must have been a jug of cold water to the face for Heaven. Aziraphale has millenia of pent-up anger, thousands of years worth of examples of Heaven being dickheads, all of this knowledge that he’s been locking up in a drawer in the back of his mind. Then suddenly whoosh Pandora’s Box opens and you have this Righteously Furious Angel, this Rebel-With-A-Serious-Cause on your doorstep, and he’s ready to throw down hands. He’s ready to possess humans, and to openly side with a demon, to stand against the supposed representatives of God Herself, and face down Satan Himself, flaming sword in one hand, Crowley’s hand in the other. It takes him a long time to be able to face the truth, but when he does, he does it wholeheartedly, and 100%. 

I think it’s also worth noting that the demons as a whole aren’tbetter than the angels. While the angels aren’t great, on a day to day basis, the demons are worse. Aziraphale was sent to earth to Do Good: he’s helping bring peace to the land, trying to trap Nazis, and what have you. Crowley, on the other hand, was sent to Do Bad: destroy peace, ruin everyone’s days so that they take it out on each other, etc. 

And while some of the angels are definitely doing bad things in the nameof Good (the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc) Aziraphale is actually doing blessings and healing hurts and whatnot. If he questions God, he falls (or at least he would have in the old days) and not only is falling painful, but: 

a. he probably wouldn’t be on earth anymore, since Crowley already has that job, so he’d lose both Crowley and everything he enjoys 

and b. he would have to stop helping people and start hurting them. Because, while it’s downplayed in the TV show, that’s Crowley’s job and he’s quite good at it. 

So from his perspective, the stakes are very high for him if he allows himself to doubt Heaven at all. And as someone said up there, he’s good at rationalizing! He can convince himself that working with Crowley is fine (the job will get done anyway!), that it’s OK to have Jean-Claude executed in his place (he killed 999 people!), that he can get himself tables at the Ritz whenever he feels like it. If he can convince himself that that’s all part of his job description, then of course he can convince himself that Heaven really is looking out for everyone’s best interests. 

This is a really excellent addition, @runawaymarbles and I agree wholeheartedly with all your points!!

There is definitely a tendency to… perhaps downplay Crowley’s bad side? He is good at causing trouble, serious trouble, and at getting people to cause trouble for each other. But there is, also, some super interesting nuance to that, which I’d really like to get into a bit.

Like Aziraphale justifying Heaven (and himself) doing morally questionable things for the sake of Good, in a way I think we see Crowley doing this too, but for the sake of ChoiceandKnowledge. He justifies the things he does, philosophically, with the idea that people need to know that they can be bad, that they have the choice to be bad. In the book, we see Aziraphale’s argument that “people couldn’t become truly holy unless they also had the chance to be definitively wicked”. 

I think that’s the most important factor in Crowley’s behaviour and world view, too, but from a different angle than Aziraphale. For Aziraphale, the goal is that  people should be Holy, should be good. For Crowley, I think, the goal is that people get to choose whicht they are.

 Just as the user above argued that Aziraphale can convince himself that the outcome justifies the act (e.g. working with a Demon might not be exactly copacetic in Heaven’s eyes, but if the job gets done properly, in the end what does it really matter?), for Crowley the act justifies the outcome. It doesn’t matter if bad things happen because of the existence of choice, because the choice is all that matters. The act of being able to choose supersedes the consequences of choosing. If people choose to be awful, that’s just the cost of choice. 

 In a way it could be argued that Crowley is just as dogmatic as Aziraphale, only rather than being dogmatically loyal to his “Side”, he is dogmatic about the absolute centrality of Choice and Knowledge. 

I want to write about this more fully, but just for the sake of this little rant here (lmao) I think we can see a good example of this when Crowley suggests to Aziraphale that Aziraphale could kill Warlock. This is notable for a couple of reasons (and hella interesting, and full of biblical metaphor, and one of these days I’m going to write a fuck-off essayon that scene, but not right now pahah).

Firstly, I find it super interesting that Crowley doesn’t ever seem to suggest he kills the boy. Of course, this is no doubt in part because he is the Demon and killing the boss’s son probably wouldn’t look great on the CV, but I’m not sure this is a full account of why he doesn’t. Because Crowley doesn’t really care about the rules, and he could definitely find a way of killing the kid somehow without leading the trail back to him. The stakes are high enough, and he is smart enough. 

If that argument is strong enough, I’d lead it further and say that, therefore, Crowley doesn’t suggest killing Warlock himself because he’d already decided that he would never do that. That’s something he just can’t do. After all, he raised that kid. He has shown serious aversion to killing kids generally, let alone killing one that he is personally invested it. Crowley wouldn’t kill Warlock - and this makes his one life, for the whole universe speech even more interesting (and oh my god it’s so interesting anyway, so much to unpack… Not now Wolfie, jesus, stay on topic!). It’s interesting in this context because it’s almost like Crowley is saying to Aziraphale exactly the same arguments he made to himself, before deciding against killing the kid.

So, Crowley won’t kill Warlock, doesn’t want to kill Warlock, arguably doesn’t want anyone to kill Warlock - the fact that he really doesn’t push the point with Aziraphale strengthens this argument, I think. But then why does he bring it up at all? If he’s already decided against killing Warlock, if it’s something he doesn’t want, then why would he suggest it to Aziraphale?

To give him thechoice. To make him aware that the choice exists. To make sure that he has all of the knowledge available to him, so that he can make an informed decision. Even if that decision ends up being one that Crowley categorically does not want to happen. Something that Crowley, arguably, believes would be A Bad Thing.

Of course, this is all very reflective of the whole Garden of Eden thing, too. Crawly let Eve know that she had the Choice to disobey. God had not given Adam and Eve all of the information - even in the Bible that’s canon, cos God tells Adam and Eve that they shouldn’t even touch the tree, because if they do, they will die. The serpent knows that this isn’t all of the information, and so he just tells Eve what the tree actually is. The serpent didn’t manipulate, or coerce, or force Eve to eat from the tree, he only made her aware. He gave her knowledge, and he gave her choice. If that meant God would get hella pissed and fuck up humanity forever because of it, well, it was still worth it. Crowley unlocks gilded cages and let’s the birds decide whether or not to fly into the storm.

… This thread is getting more an more unrelated to my original rant, isn’t it? Haha! Oh well. I should probably re-write this as it’s own standalone post, but… *shrugs*

The discussion of “willful naivete” and subsequent points in this part of the reblog chain had departed far from the original topic, but constitutes its own excellent meta, and thus warranted a separate post. 

Traditionally I come from a country where coffee is a staple moment of everybody’s routine at home or outside. In Italy you start the day heating your moka and waiting for that unique sound ready to serve two small cups; if you’re on the go, your espresso and a Nutella croissant with the newspaper under your arm depict the average bar goer in the morning. Plenty of cafes placed here and there that offer this important drink at any time of the day.

In Italy there isn’t that status-quo of tallorgrande paper cups to carry around while going to work or while driving to get the kids from school. However, the market for coffee in North America is a well established business that in the last twenty years managed to go beyond the beans, entering a whole new dimension of corporate branding and personal status.

Today sporting a cup in your hands is not about taste anymore, but about who you are. That cup is a beacon sending a subtle message to others about your life style and preferences. Corporate identities acquired a more powerful aspect when designers begun working with the experience element to be used in the equation. Advertisers could only go so far in convincing people to buy this or that product, that’s why understanding the user was essential to the business.

Famous brands like StarbucksandTim Hortons are the two essential names in coffee consumption in Canada. The former constitute a different brand loyalty from customers than the latter which attracts a different crowd. Starbucksis not just coffee but a way of life. Those who hold that large white paper cup with the green logo on it are not just drinking their beverage, they are telling others around they belong to another plain of society, usually a middle class and above, and they enjoying being seen with something in their hands that is a totem of status-quo: I can afford an expensive coffee and I belong to a circle of people similar to mine (usually the white collars).

On the other hand the Canadian chain Tim Hortons is a business which belongs to a broader percentage of the population; it encompasses the average Jane and Joe which rise early in the morning to go to work, who hold a trade which involves labor and specific manual/technical skills; I’m thinking about your neighbor carpenter, your middle school teacher, the plumber who just repaired your sink, the road worker with the yellow vest. It’s essentially a blue collar coffee for it’s accessible price and quality.

Two distinct cups for two distinct brands. Starbucks focuses more on the logo to visually engage those around the cup in suggesting status; Tims sports a different interaction with the user to engage a larger crowd through cost and quality accessibility.

The behavior of these two brands is visible everyday at any moment, whether at the mall, outside offices, while doing groceries, at the bank. Those who spend twice as much for coffee at Starbucks want to be seen, and that’s why the cup is designed to stand out: white with the bright and visible logo that is unique and easy to identify. It never changes. Whereas Tim’s has its cups shifting throughout the year in style with different seasonal themes and prize winning months (Roll Up The Rim contest).

So, in this quick analysis of coffee, the choice of cups goes beyond the beans; it’s not just the quality but a way of expressing one’s personal status and kinship to a specific mindset or group of people. There are other brands that might have worked too making the comparison; however, in Canada this polarization of brand choice offers an outstanding window of user behavior just by looking at a cup of coffee.