When I Was A Child, I Knew That Boys Grew Up And Married Girls, And Vice Versa. And This Was Simply The

The wardrobe source post

Have had several Asks about where I get my clothes, so here we go.

My general style:

My build: I am 5'10", around 155-160lbs. I am a trans man, so that means some fit challenges. 36R tops, 32x32 bottoms, 8ish shoe.

My preferences: I adore 1930s/40s outdoor "country gentleman" and work wear -- I am building a wardrobe here. I love texture and mixing patterns. I try to stick to natural fibers. I am spending more money on pieces that last longer and shrinking my closet to a modern capsule and a vintage capsule. (Though I will sometimes mix eras.) Brown is my favorite color.

Online thrifting:

Unclaimed baggage. Really great for giving higher end brands a shot at huge discounts.

Gem App. Fantastic for searching multiple sites like ebay, poshmark, etc.

Modern clothing:

Taylor Stitch. Standouts are sweaters and wool trousers. Sizing runs trim - I size up to a 38 here instead of my usual 36. This means it's a great source for smaller trans mascs.

Yiume. Shirts a bit thin, but fun prints and frequent sales.

Imperfects. Small range, but fun, higher waisted fishtail trousers.

Taft Boots. Comfy right out of the box. Great at making small feet look elegant. Men's sizes start at a 6.

Schott. Fantastic pea coats. Recommended by Derek Menswear.

Vermont Flannel. Super thick plaid, flannel shirts. Very warm.

Sterkowski hats. Range includes flat caps and captains/fisherman.

Spier & MacKay. Great winter coats, run a bit trim. Their trousers look hideous and despite a bit of a vintage look, everything else in the catalog is too low waisted and skinny.

LLBean. Great for sweaters. I love my grey commando style one.

Banana Republic. I like a lot of their older stuff, so a brand to watch on Poshmark.

New Vintage:

Cathcart London. Sweaters and jeans are great. Hit or miss fit on the rest. Frequent sales, small runs.

Darcy Clothing. Great all across the board. They are a film supplier, so restocks are regular. Their suspenders are hard to find, fyi, so search under "braces".

Revival Vintage. Dipping into poly blends, but a great selection of fairisle sweater vests.

JoBear boots. Great prices and styles, requires breaking in.

Focusers. Vintage glasses. They will replace lenses. Love the Peabody gold wire frames.

Old Glasses Shop. Frames you won't find at Focusers. You can try on frames before committing to an Rx, but have to pay for the return. Love their round tortoise shells.

being a self-taught artist with no formal training is having done art seriously since you were a young teenager and only finding out that you’re supposed to do warm up sketches every time you’re about to work on serious art when you’re fuckin twenty-five

parents were amazed how well the dogs walked on leash so in case this trick is more uncommon than I thought here’s my training technique

If a dog pulls on the leash just stop and stand there

that’s it that’s the trick you become a seat belt it works real fast. Start walking again if they stop pulling & even better if you wait until they look at you first (sometimes u might have to call them back to stop pulling if they are a bit dumb)

Hey kid, look at me.

I want you to T-pose. Turn your right thumb up and your left thumb doen and look at your right thumb. Move your arms up and down a bit until you feel a nerve running from your armpit to your palm. Now turn your right thumb down and your left thumb up, and look at your left thumb. Keep your chest facing forward and your shoulders back. Move your arms again until you feel that nerve again. Keep alternating between these two for a minute, or look at each thumb thirty times each.

Now sit down. Put your left hand firmly under your left buttock, palm down. Keep your shoulders back and put your right hand over the crown of your head, very gently pulling it to the right. Do this for thirty seconds, then do it again but with your right hand under your right buttock.

These are stretches for the nerves in your arms, and are very good for people who sit behind a computer a lot, or fibre artists, or you name it. Do them daily. They will hurt in the beginning, but keep doing them, even after the pain has gone, or it will return and you'll have to start all over.

Look, I am not Jewish – I was raised Catholic and am now agnostic/atheist (I don’t know what there is but I know for a fact it’s not the Christian God) – but I think it is important to point out that being a leftist, socialist/communist, anti-Semite is absolutely like carefully picking out a gun to protect your family with and then carefully and deliberately lining it up with your foot and pulling the trigger.

Anti-Semitism has been used for at least the last 120 years to deflect the working and impoverished classes’ absolutely justifiable rage against the wealthy elite into attacking another oppressed class, which does nothing at all to improve their situation and, in worst case scenarios, feeds the corporations  blood money. (IBM sold 1940′s-era computers to the Nazis.) By conflating “wealthy elite” (most of whom have always been Christian, in Europe and the US) with “Jews” (most of whom are not wealthy, although their strong emphasis on getting a good education and pursuing careers in fields where the demand is always strong, such as medicine and law, means that they are probably statistically more likely to be middle class than people who were allowed to own farmland, which for centuries Jews were not, who are now suffering because big agribusiness ate all the farms), the actual wealthy elite get to redirect the peasants with pitchforks off their doorstep. We can see it very, very clearly nowadays, where idiots like Marjorie Taylor Greene repeat misinformation about Jewish space lasers instead of demanding accountability from the giant barely-regulated utility that actually caused the California fires, thus attempting to preserve that utility’s stockholders’ fine dividends.

If you exist anywhere left of center in your beliefs, then anti-Semitism is a tool of your ideological enemies, and only helps them. You are not going to improve the situation of the Palestinians by conflating “the government of Israel” with “the Jewish people” (and if you’re American or British you’re a massive fucking hypocrite for doing so, given what Americans and what British colonialism in general has done to indigenous peoples worldwide.) All you are doing is feeding the misinformation machine that keeps poor white Christians – and for that matter, middle-class white Christians – from recognizing who the actual wealthy elites are and what they’re doing. In fact, you make it really hard to even talk about wealthy elites because of the extent to which “wealthy elite” has become an anti-Semitic dog whistle.

The Left can be, and often is, as anti-Semitic as the right… but the problem for the Left is that anti-Semitism is, in itself, a tool of corporatism and right-wing beliefs. Anti-Semitism, like racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc, is wrong because it’s wrong, because it’s morally bankrupt, incorrect, accomplishes nothing positive and causes enormous human misery, etc… but anti-Semites don’t care about that. Well, care about this. If you’re on the left, expressing prejudice against Jews, conflating Jews with the capitalist 1% (or hell, even the bourgeoisie), or conflating Jews with the government of Israel, is actively harming your cause. Actively. Harming.

So get the fuck out of your own way and stop clinging to anti-Semitic beliefs, expressing them, repeating them… just fucking stop, okay? It alienates your allies, it gives aid and comfort to your enemies, and oh yeah, it also makes you a bad person. But even if you don’t give a shit about being a good person, try to at least be a good Leftist, or liberal, or progressive, or whatever you define yourself as.

Something that’s been very interesting to me, in this new wave of post-miniseries Good Omens fandom, is the apparent fannish consensus that Crowley is, in fact, bad at his job.  That he’s actually quite nice.  That he’s been skating by hiding his general goodness from hell by taking credit for human evil and doling out a smattering of tiny benign inconveniences that he calls bad.

I get the urge towards that headcanon, and I do think the Crowley in the miniseries comes off as nicer than the one in the book.  (I think miniseries Crowley and Aziraphale are both a little nicer, a little more toothless, than the versions of themselves in the book.)  But maybe it’s because I was a book fan first, or maybe it’s because I just find him infinitely more interesting this way–I think Crowley, even show!Crowley, has the capacity to be very good at his job of sowing evil.  And I think that matters to the story as a whole.

A demon’s job on Earth, and specifically Crowley’s job on Earth, isn’t to make people suffer.  It’s to make people sin.  And the handful of ‘evil’ things we see Crowley do over the course of the series are effective at that, even if the show itself doesn’t explore them a lot.

Take the cell phone network thing, for instance.  This gets a paragraph in the book that’s largely brushed off in the conversation with Hastur and Ligur, and I think it’s really telling: 

What could he tell them?  That twenty thousand people got bloody furious?  That you could hear the arteries clanging shut all across the city?  And that then they went back and took it out on their secretaries or traffic wardens or whatever, and they took it out on other people?  In all kinds of vindictive little ways which, and here was the good bit, they thought up themselves.  For the rest of the day.  The pass-along effects were incalculable.  Thousands and thousands of souls all got a faint patina of tarnish, and you hardly had to lift a finger.

In essence, without any great expenditure of effort (look, I’d never say Crowley isn’t slothful, but that just makes him efficient), he’s managed to put half of London in a mental and emotional state that Crowley knows will make them more inclined to sin.  He’s given twenty thousand or a hundred thousand or half a million people a Bad Day.  Which, okay, it’s just a bad day–but bad days are exhausting.  Bad days make you snap, make you fail at things, make you feel guiltier and more stressed out in the aftermath when you wake up the next day, makes everything a little worse.  Bad days matter.

Maybe it’s because I’m a believer in the ripple effect of small kindnesses, and that means I have to believe in its opposite.  Maybe it’s just that I, personally, have had enough days that were bad enough that a downed cell network (or an angry coworker because of a downed cell network) would honestly have mattered.  But somebody who deliberately moves through the world doing their best to make everyone’s lives harder, with the aim of encouraging everybody around them to be just a little crueler, just a little angrier, just a little less empathetic–you know what, yes.  I do call that successful evil.

It’s subtle, is the thing.  That’s why Hastur and Ligur don’t get it, don’t approve of it.  Not because Crowley isn’t good at his job, but because we’ve seen from the beginning that Hastur and Ligur are extremely out of touch with humanity and the modern world and just plain aren’t smart enough to get it.  It’s a strategy that relies on understanding how humans work, what our buttons are and how to press them.  It’s also a strategy that’s remarkably advanced in terms of free will.  Hastur and Ligur deliberately tempt and coerce and entrap individuals into sinning, but Crowley never even gets close.  We never see him say to a single person, ‘hey, I’ve got an idea for you, why don’t you go do this bad thing?’  He sets up conditions to encourage humans to actually do the bad things they’re already thinking of themselves.  He creates a situation and opens it up to the results of free choice.  Every single thing a person does after Crowley’s messed with them is their own decision, without any demonic coercion to blame for any of it.

You see it again in the paintball match.  “They wanted real guns, I gave them what they wanted.”  In this case, Crowley didn’t need to irritate anybody into wanting to do evil–the desire to shoot and hurt and maybe even kill their own coworkers was already present in every combatant on that paintball field.  Crowley just so happened to be there at exactly the right time to give them the opportunity to turn that fleeting, kind-of-bad-but-never-acted-upon desire into real, concrete, attempted murder.  Sure, nobody died–where would be the fun in a pile of corpses?  But now forty-odd people who may never have committed a real act of violence in their entire lives, caught in a moment of weakness with real live weapons in their hands, will get to spend the rest of their lives knowing that given the opportunity and the tiniest smidgen of plausible deniability, they are absolutely the sort of people who could and would kill another human being they see every single day over a string of petty annoyances.

Crowley understands the path between bad thought and evil action.  He knows it gets shorter when somebody is upset or irritated, and that it gets shorter when people practice turning one into the other.  He understands that sometimes, removing a couple of practical obstacles is the only nudge a person needs–no demonic pressure or circumvention of free will required.

I love this interpretation, because I love the idea that Crowley, who’s been living on Earth for six thousand years, actually gets people in a way no other demon can.  I love the idea that Crowley, the very first tempter, who was there when free will was invented, understands how it works and how to use it better than maybe anyone else.  And I really love the idea that Crowley our hero, who loves Aziraphale and saves the world, isn’t necessarily a good guy.

There’s a narrative fandom’s been telling that, at its core, is centered around the idea that Crowley is good, and loves and cares and is nice, and always has been.  Heaven and its rigid ideas of Right and Wrong is itself the bad thing.  Crowley is too good for Heaven, and was punished for it, but under all the angst and pain and feelings of hurt and betrayal, he’s the best of all of them after all.

That’s a compelling story.  There’s a reason we keep telling it.  The conflict between kindness and Moral Authority, the idea that maybe the people in charge are the ones who’re wrong and the people they’ve rejected are both victim and hero all at once–yeah.  There’s a lot there to connect with, and I wouldn’t want to take it away from anyone.  But the compelling story I want, for me, is different.

I look at Crowley and I want a story about someone who absolutely has the capacity for cruelty and disseminating evil into the world.  Somebody who’s actually really skilled at it, even if all he does is create opportunities, and humans themselves just keep living down to and even surpassing his expectations.  Somebody who enjoys it, even.  Maybe he was unfairly labeled and tossed out of heaven to begin with, but he’s embraced what he was given.  He’s thrived.  He is, legitimately, a bad person.

And he tries to save the world anyway.

He loves Aziraphale.  He helps save the entire world.  Scared and desperate and determined and devoted, he drives through a wall of fire for the sake of something other than himself.  He likes humans, their cleverness, their complexities, the talent they have for doing the same sort of evil he does himself, the talent they have for doing the exact opposite.  He cares.

It’s not a story about someone who was always secretly good even though they tried to convince the whole world and themself that they weren’t.  It’s a story about someone who, despite being legitimately bad in so many ways, still has the capacity to be good anyway.  It’s not about redemption, or about what Heaven thinks or judges or wants.  It’s about free will.  However terrible you are or were or have the ability to be, you can still choose to do a good thing.  You can still love.  You can still be loved in return.

And I think that matters.

Wait, so you said that you can learn to trust others by building friendships, but how does one go about doing that? Wouldn't someone I don't know be creeped out or annoyed if I suddenly walked up and started talking to them?

Friendships are built of repeated low-stakes interactions and returned bids for attention with slowly increasing intimacy over time.

It takes a long time to make friends as an adult. People will probably think you're weird if you just walk up and start talking to them as though you are already their friend (people think it's weird when I do this, I try not to do this) but people won't think it's weird if you're someone they've seen a few times who says "hey" and then gradually has more conversations (consisting of more words) with them.

I cheat at forming adult friendships by joining groups where people meet regularly. If you're part of a radio club that meets once a week and you just join up to talk about radios, eventually those will be your radio friends.

If there's a hiking meetup near you and you go regularly, you will eventually have hiking friends.

Deeper friendships are formed with people from those kinds of groups when you do things with them outside of the context of the original interaction; if you go camping with your radio friend, that person is probably more friend than acquaintance. If you go to the movies with a hiking friend who likes the same horror movies as you do, that is deepening the friendship.

In, like 2011 Large Bastard decided he wanted more friends to do stuff with so he started a local radio meetup. These people started as strangers who shared an interest. Now they are people who give each other rides after surgery and help each other move and have started businesses together and have gone on many radio-based camping trips and have worked on each other's cars.

Finding a meetup or starting a meetup is genuinely the cheat-code for making friends.

This is also how making friendships at schools works - you're around a group of people very regularly and eventually you get to know them better and you start figuring out who you get along with and you start spending more time with those people.

If you want to do this in the most fast and dramatic way possible, join a band.

In 2020 I wrote something of a primer on how to turn low-stakes interactions with neighbors and acquaintances into more meaningful relationships; check the notes of this post over the next couple days, I'll dig up the link and share it in a reblog.

Something I'm working on lately is trying to find healthy approach when it comes to engaging with opposing viewpoints re: discourse and politics. Because yes, there are trolls and bad actors, and it's seldom worth wasting your energy on them; but particularly online, you can't always immediately distinguish these people from, say, a teenager grappling inexpertly with difficult topics, or a boomer working with outdated language and assumptions, or someone who's been given bad information - and these are all people that it can be worthwhile attempting to reach, even if you don't always succeed. I don't want to burn myself out, but I don't want disconnect, either, and so I've been thinking: what approach best allows me to remain optimistic while still drawing boundaries?

Here's my current solution: to treat potentially difficult conversations with strangers like a rewilding project. A sort of social conservationism, where the idea is to untangle what you can in passing, leave behind a few potential seeds, and then move on: a project of impact over intent. Nobody expects conservation efforts to succeed in a day, and it would be foolish to fixate so heavily on trying to plant a single tree in arid soil that you've got no energy left for more achievable goals. Inevitably, you'll encounter areas that can't be recovered - or at least, not by you - in which case, any time you spend making sure of their unviability is just due diligence, and only becomes a waste if you commit yourself to trying to salvage the unsalvageable. But by the same token, you don't want to over-engage with a healthy area, either. You want to see what's needed, give it a push in that direction if it's within your capabilities, and then keep going.

And maybe this is a strange way to think of things, but I'm finding it helpful. The fantasy of completely flipping someone's perspective if you can only find the exact right thing to say is a powerful one, but it's not a realistic expectation to carry around for 99.9% of interactions, and as such, there's a need - for me, at least - to detach the success of the exchange from the visibility of the outcome. I can't see into someone else's head, and in all probability, I'll never speak to that particular stranger again: therefore, my concept of catharsis needs to change. So instead of thinking, Did I change their mind? and considering anything less than a yes a failure, it's better to ask, Did I do my best to give them something to think about?, because realistically, this is all I can actually do. I can't control how a stranger receives what I say, but I can make an effort to be clear, calm and comprehensible, and that ought to be worth something.