i can only assume this is paul

PAUL: People always assume that John was the hard-edged one and I was the soft-edged one, so much so that over the years I’ve come to accept that. But Linda said, ‘You’ve got a hard edge, it’s just not on the surface. I know, living with you all this time.’ It’s true, I can bite, I certainly have a hard side, and she said, ‘And John had a very soft side too.’ I think that’s a much better analysis of it than most people have. John, because of his upbringing and his unstable family life, had to be hard, witty, always ready for the cover-up, ready for the riposte, ready with the sharp little witticism. Whereas with my rather comfortable upbringing, a lot of family, lot of people, very northern, ‘Cup of tea, love?’, my surface grew to be easy-going. Put people at their ease. Chat to people, be nice, it’s nice to be nice. Which is the common philosophy for most people. But we wouldn’t have put up with each other had we each only had that surface. I often used to boss him round, and he must have appreciated the hard side in me or it wouldn’t have worked; conversely, I very much appreciated the soft side in him. It was a four-cornered thing rather than two-cornered, it had diagonals and my hard side could talk to John’s hard side when it was necessary, and our soft edges talked to each other.

            John was more introverted and much more willing to hurt someone in order to try and save his own neck, but this had never been a requirement for me, except running away from guys who would hit you physically. Mentally, no one could say much to hurt me, whereas with John: his dad wasn’t at home, so it was 'Where’s yer dad, you bastard?’ And his mother lived with somebody and that was called 'living in sin’ in those days, so there was another cheap shot against him. John had a lot to guard against, and it formed his personality; he was a very guarded person. I think that was the balance between us: John was caustic and witty out of necessity and, underneath, quite a warm character when you got to know him. I was the opposite, easy-going, friendly, no necessity to be caustic or biting or acerbic but I could be tough if I needed to be.
—  paul mccartney: many years from now, barry miles
TF2 Merc Ages

After seeing more posts about how old all the Mercs are I finally went and did research. I’m basing everything here from the comic books and I may have missed something so if I did please let me know and I’ll adjust the age range accordingly.

Sniper is 30. Miss Pauling mentions New Zealand was put under water 40 years ago, but when Snipers real dad is talking to the council he says he warned them to go under water a decade ago (and they did) Sniper is a baby at that time so it means he can only be 30.

Scout is also a little older than people usually think and about 29 or 30. The track terrorizer (assuming Scout wasn’t working for RED) says he was 23. In the comic A Cold Day in Hell he talks to imaginary Pauling and mentions knowing her for 6 years. If that’s how long they’ve been working together he could be 29 or 30.

It’s late 1972 in the comics and Soldier started his Nazi killing spree in 1939 and it went till 1949. He had to at least have been 18 to try to get in the military. That means he’s 51????

That doesn’t seem right to me especially since Zhanna is supposed to be like I’m guessing 30-32? If she was the oldest girl in Heavys flashback who looked like 10-12 and it has been 20 years since she’s seen another man like…

Engineers dad was working for Blu in 1930 and the picture of him and his dad puts Engi at the time to be like 13 maybe? He looks really young but his face is mostly covered by the goggles. So he’s like 55????

And wait I forgot Heavys flashback. I can’t really tell how old he is. I would say 18-20 because he has hair and his chin looks a bit smaller. It’s been 20 years since the flashback so he’s like 38-40.

I don’t know about Demo. His mom said “No Demoman worth his sulfur ever had an eye in his head past 30!” I’m assuming that was in insult so he’s over 30 I guess.

Valve is practically screaming Spy is Scouts dad in your face so he’s at least like 50 or something.

I don’t think we’ve gotten ANY info about Medics past so I don’t know. And no one knows about Pyro…

So summary

Scout- 29-30
Soldier- 51
Pyro- ????
Demo- over 30
Heavy- 38-40
Engineer- 55
Medic- ????
Sniper- 30
Spy- 50

Zhanna- 30-32
(Her sisters are a few years younger than her but I’m not sure by how much)

Accidental Fusion 2 (aka the continuation) a fic

Hello! If you didn’t catch before I am the original author of the first Accidental Fusion and since there was a (surprisingly for me) high demand for a continuation I decided to go for it! I thought it would take me a month with the amount of time I had everyday but apparently I proved myself wrong. Go me. Firstly though I want to prep this fic:

1. Being unable to write the Soldier/Demo sequence just from I couldn’t clearly write it as well as I want it to so I had to scrap it. This takes place the day after fusion was discovered. The Solly/Demo fusion have managed to unfuse now after Ms Pauling forced them to come with her for experimenting purposes. Again I was unable to write that as well. So I hope you can forgive me, but I did want the mercs to experience a different fusion this time and the aftereffects of a fusion and how fusing/unfusing could work on and off battle. Don’t worry their fusion is mentioned but cannot be part of this fic because writing is hard.

2. there is one scene where a bit of gore happens, because this is TF2, but I just wanted warn any unsuspecting people.

3. Also this is a very VERY long read. Like twenty pages lonog. Good job me. And the poly ship is so completely obvious here. So let the gay commence. I hope you enjoy! My apologize if I miss any mistakes on my numerous read-throughs or awkward sentences I was unable to catch.


Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Do you like Paul? This is a serious question, because after reading your fic and then some of the stuff you post in here, I feel you don't really like him? Like you have some of a love-hate relationship with him/his image? This is an honest question, with no intention to start an argument as the ones going on lately. I just need some reassuring because lately I feel everyone hates Paul and it makes me sad :/

oh my god, no, i love paul. like in a way he and john are both my favorites, and i just feel an extra special little connection with john. i’m not sure what i might have posted here to give the impression that i hate paul? i’d be really interested in hearing what made you think that. 

as for my fic (and i assume you’re referencing dear friend specifically, since it’s the only one that intentionally delves into some darker sides of him), it’s incomplete, so i see how that can make it a bit difficult to see where i’m going with him/his character. but for me, when i like someone, that doesn’t mean i’m blind to their faults. paul can be manipulative, bossy, and egotistical, just to name a few. with that story in particular, i wanted to explore that side of him. in fics he’s often portrayed as the angelic good boy, so i thought it made for an interesting story concept. it goes along with the saying that “absolute power corrupts absolutely;” even the saintliest of people will be tempted to misuse that kind of power if it’s just dropped in their lap like that. 

honestly, it’s these little character flaws that make me love him even more. if he truly was a “pure angelic precious smol bean” or whatever, he’d be a lot less interesting imo. but no, he’s a real person. he could be petty and jealous just like everyone else. he could be as nasty as john, as he’s said so many times himself. i love that. he’s real

i honestly… can’t think of a single person off the top of my head who hates paul. i think there’s been this mindset lately, where people feel like, in order to defend john or paul, you have to shit on the other. and that’s just not true. history has treated paul very badly, and i would love to see more posts that shine a light on the good things he has done and give him the credit he so rightfully deserves (i saw a great one the other day about a letter he’d written to a government official for some reason… i can’t recall the details at the moment, but it was something i didn’t know about him and it was wonderful to see). what i don’t like to see is john being villainized in order to uplift paul, and that’s when i’ll say something, especially if negative conjecture is being presented as fact. i don’t care what people think about john on a personal level, people can hate him all they want, they can believe he was an absolute abusive monster to paul. they’d be wrong, but they’re free to believe that. the issue is presenting it as fact. 

what i’m saying is: despite the trend of burning down john to defend paul, me defending john does not mean i hate paul. if i saw a similar post portraying paul in a nasty light in order to praise john, i would refute that, too. 

George Harrison, holding his niece Leslie, with his siblings Lou and Peter, Benton, Illinois, September/October 1963 (Photo courtesy Acclaim Press, via Riverfront Times)

“[S]o it was that George Harrison, along with brother Peter, stepped off a plane at Lambert Field in St. Louis and became the first Beatle to set foot on American soil.
And no one cared.
There were no throngs of screaming, frenzied young girls, no gang of reporters, no legions of police, no limo. Instead, there was a twenty-year-old British traveler with a strange haircut holding his bags, standing at his designated meeting spot beneath a replica of Lindbergh’s Spirit of St. Louis, waiting for his ride.
Five short months later he would step off of another airplane at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport and enter the national zeitgeist, where he has remained.
Louise, then-husband Gordon and their son and daughter brought their foreign uncles back to the house in Benton where ‘our German shepherd Sheba greeted him,’ which George loved, says Harrison. ‘We could never afford a pet when we were growing up. In Benton we had a five-bedroom house, and one bedroom was made into a playroom and they had train sets. When George grew up we never had any toys like that, so he and Pete spent hours playing with the kids.’

Keep reading

Charlie Gilmour assumed he only fancied women — until a crush on a male model in Paris changed his mind

I can’t explain exactly why I snogged Paul. Perhaps the heat had gone to my head: on the top floor of the east London tower block where our lips met, the sun was streaming in from all directions. We were drenched in it. The Thames, eight floors below, glittered in all its snake-like glory. And there was a glint in his eye, too: a challenge and an invitation. ‘I wonder,’ I thought as I leant in, ‘what my wife will think of this.’

It might seem like an odd time, aged 27 and very happily married to an incredibly beautiful woman, to start playing around with my sexuality. It probably helped that we both happened to be at Togetherness, a festival of love, sexuality and openness held last month in Docklands and featuring a series of workshops, talks and events exploring human relationships. And that Paul, a lawyer in his early 30s with sandy hair and pale blue eyes, was classically good looking in a quiet English sort of way. Still, until last month, I’d never had a proper kiss with another man — and until recently I always assumed that I was entirely straight.

But last spring something happened which made me question that assumption and set me on a journey that would take me to that sunny skyscraper kiss. I was in Paris, writing about the fashion world and spending a lot of time with male models. One in particular caught my attention. His name was Omar. He looked like he’d walked straight out of a Caravaggio painting. He had dark ringlets, rude lips and eyes like charcoal. He was in his early 20s, half Moroccan, half French.

I realised I had it bad when I was woken up in the middle of the night by a frightened squeal. I was staying in a very cheap auberge, and had been made to share a double bed in a dorm. I’d been having a dream about Omar and had clasped the poor lad I was top-and-tailing with in an affectionate (and undoubtedly terrifying) bear hug. The intensity of my feelings shocked me. This was something I’d never experienced before: a proper man crush. ‘Maybe boys don’t count?’ I wondered, guiltily, when I thought of my wife, Janina. I did my best to push my feelings away, but more crushes followed. There was Roman, a tousle-haired, sharp-cheekboned Adonis with piercing blue eyes (another model); Jacob, an unnaturally pretty PhD student with a taste for silk Gucci shirts who I knew of old; and others, too. It didn’t make me doubt my love for my wife, and I didn’t act on any of them, but it did make me realise there were hidden depths to my sexuality.

I didn’t immediately fess up to Janina — perhaps I reasoned that it was just a phase. But one evening, when we were chatting about loves gone by, I was relieved when she asked if I’d ever had any dalliances with men. She is a fantastically open-minded and compassionate person, and wasn’t shocked or even especially surprised when I told her about what happened in Paris. She was curious to see the Instagram accounts of the men I had crushes on, and admitted that they were all exceptionally attractive. If I had feelings, she said, I was free to explore them.

Still, the whole experience — from Paris to the kiss with Paul — has left me asking questions. Why, after so many years of perfectly happy heterosexuality, has all of this struck now? And how many other ‘straight’ men harbour similar secret desires? According to Professor Ritch Savin-Williams, sexologist at Cornell University and author of the upcoming Mostly Straight: Sexual Fluidity Among Men (Harvard University Press, published October 2017), more and more men — especially among the millennial generation — are coming to the same realisation as me. While carrying out interviews with hundreds of young men, Savin-Williams discovered what he believes should be a distinct sexual orientation: ‘mostly straight’. ‘Two to four per cent of men will say they’re “mostly straight” if you give them that option,’ he says. ‘But I think that’s only the tip of the iceberg.’

There are, believes Savin-Williams, many more who aren’t so forthcoming. The hetero-patriarchal society in which we live tends to tip the odds in our favour most of the time, but it very occasionally oppresses us too. Heterosexuality is the ‘gold standard’ to which we are all expected to try to conform. Expressing — or even acknowledging — other desires is made prohibitively hard. In England and Wales, there are 20 homophobic hate crimes every day. Women, as Katy Perry’s famous song suggests, seem freer to experiment. In one US survey, 17 per cent of women reported having had a same-sex encounter, compared with 6 per cent of men. Human sexualities may move on a spectrum, but most men make do with monochrome.

Things, however, are changing. Call us what you want — heteroflexible, fomosexual, mostly straight, partly gay or bi-curious —we’re everywhere. ‘More young men identify or describe themselves as mostly straight than identify as either bisexual or gay combined,’ Savin-Williams tells me. Indeed, according to a poll carried out by YouGov in 2015, 49 per cent of British 18-24-year-olds described themselves as not entirely heterosexual, of which only 6 per cent say they are completely homosexual.

Why now? ‘It’s really the cultural zeitgeist,’ says Savin-Williams. ‘Mostly straight guys have always existed. But I think our culture now has allowed the recognition and the awareness that these young guys have that this is okay.’ Celebrities such as The Hunger Games heart-throb Josh Hutcherson (who has said ‘I think defining yourself as 100 per cent anything is kind of near-sighted and close-minded’) and Ezra Miller (quoted as saying ‘I’m open to love wherever it can be found’) epitomise this new attitude.

Perhaps I just missed out on this new age of openness. As a kid, I don’t remember same-sex desire being anything other than something to be feared. At school in Sussex, the word ‘gay’ was only ever used as an insult — and not a single pupil was out. Indeed, according to Stonewall, 99 per cent of LGTB pupils hear ‘gay’ used pejoratively. The process was more insidious than simple bullying. A hetero-normative ethos pervaded everything from school rules about when and where members of the opposite sex could interact to games of spin the bottle. No wonder so many men — myself included — have been occluding their desires for so long.

After Paris, my crushes didn’t fade away. I still carry tiny candles for Omar and Roman and Jacob. I enjoyed kissing Paul. My wife thinks it’s sweet. We married a year ago and she knows that my heart is hers — so if it brings me joy to occasionally flirt with and kiss men, then why not? My family’s reaction was telling: the older generation were shocked that casual kissing outside of a marriage could be a conflict-free thing; my teenage sister gave an indifferent shrug.

I’m still not exactly sure what being ‘mostly straight’ or ‘heteroflexible’ or, to put it starkly, being occasionally attracted to men, means for me. The first step was simply coming to terms with the fact that those feelings exist. Now I have to work out what to do with them. I keep on thinking about that spinning bottle. It whirrs away and then slowly comes to a stop, pointing to someone at random. You briefly entwine and then off it goes, stringing you along behind it. I think desire works that way, too. It’s unpredictable, irrational and often irresistible. It doesn’t always respect the rules. It spins and it spins.

A UFC Weigh-In

Wrestling Official: Now, Emily?
Emily: Yes
Wrestling Official: I’m glad you’re here.  There’s a chance here at redemption.  People think of you as a monster–you converted people into sausages.
Emily: I put them in their casings, like they deserved.
Wrestling Official: Be that as it may, whether they deserved to be turned into cased meats or not, it’s frowned upon these days.  UFC is a different thing, people don’t think it’s all about just breaking bones and kicking people in the face anymore; they think it’s a real sport.
Emily: Are you judging me because I’m pregnant?
Wrestling Official: What?
Emily: What?  Did I…say that?
Wrestling Official: You did said it to me, I heard it!
Monster Brad: That’s an unfair advantage.
Wrestling Official: Oh, Monster Brad…
Monster Brad: That’s two against one.
Wrestling Official: Now the one’s just sort of a passenger, can’t really do much…
Monster Brad: Human life begins at conception.
Wrestling Official: Monster Brad, we are not doing this here!


Trevor: Welcome everyone, to the fight of the decade, if not the century–not the millennium, but, let’s say of, ah, I’d probably give it, if it turns out very good, the couple hundred years–in the least.  
Audience member: Hallelujah!
Trevor: There’s a huge crowd here at the Humpback Arena to see this amazing bout between Crusher Emily, the sausage-making mom of the Cuyahoga River, versus Monster Brad, the most religious UFC fighter to date.
Audience member: I love carrots!
Trevor: Hippies are making themselves known, as are born-again Christians.
Krang: That’s right.  Trevor, it’s never been a more exciting time in personal wrestling history.
Trevor: Krang, who do you think’s gonna win this bout?
Krang: I have only been on your planet for a short time, so I can only assume it it the larger of your species.  However, it is well known that the female is has another one inside.  Shall it emerge for a last-minute reprieve?

Seems like the entire cast was on set at a cemetery yesterday. Since this prop was on set, I can only assume they’re burying someone near Sara’s marker. Which means it HAS to 100% be a Lance dying.

Also separate info from a fan on set yesterday:

So Stephen, Emily, David, Willa, Paul, Katie, and Katrina (and who knows who else) were all on set.

We can assume that Paul and Sammy, as “ghosts” were involved with Castor and became monitors to infiltrate Dyad, but likely didn’t know that they were monitoring Leda clones. (based off of Paul’s surprise when Sarah reveals it to him in s1)

I like to think that somewhere before our timeline, Beth Childs accidentally found out about Castor through Paul, and that Beth Childs was for a long time the only one who knew about both the Castor clones and the Leda clones, even if she didn’t quite know why they existed. Beth Childs was the connecting factor and she didn’t even realize it, and nobody else knew that she knew. She took that knowledge to her grave.

Beth Childs knowing everything about everything is soooo important to me ok. 

anonymous asked:

What do you know about the theory of Paul being asexual? I've heard it mentioned, but never a thorough explanation. I've also been debating about coming out to my mom (my dad already knows) and I think having that might help her understand and be ok with it.

I personally believe that Paul was asexual and aromantic, but since the Bible doesn’t actually come out and say that, we can only assume this from things that Paul has written. 1 Corinthians 7 is full of verses about marriage, sex, and remaining single. It’s this chapter that makes me believe that Paul was asexual. Many times he talks about how remaining single is a blessing and a gift since you won’t be distracted with the matters of married life and sex and, therefore, can give more time to God.. He speaks highly of those who choose to remain single and says that you should only marry if you’re burning with desire and if it will distract you from God.

1 Corinthians 7:7-9 “But I wish everyone were single, just as I am. Yet each person has a special gift from God, of one kind or another. So I say to those who aren’t married and to widows—it’s better to stay unmarried, just as I am. But if they can’t control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It’s better to marry than to burn with lust.”

In this part of scripture, Paul starts off by saying that he wishes everyone could be single like he is. Paul never married. He also mentions how it is a “special gift from God.”

7:25-28: “Now regarding your question about the young women who are not yet married. I do not have a command from the Lord for them. But the Lord in his mercy has given me wisdom that can be trusted, and I will share it with you. Because of the present crisis, I think it is best to remain as you are.  If you have a wife, do not seek to end the marriage. If you do not have a wife, do not seek to get married. But if you do get married, it is not a sin. And if a young woman gets married, it is not a sin. However, those who get married at this time will have troubles, and I am trying to spare you those problems.”

In this part of scripture, Paul is giving us his personal opinion based on the wisdom God has given him. He says marriage can bring troubles from the world and it is best to avoid those troubles. He makes a point of letting us know that it is still ok to marry even though there will be these worldly troubles.

7:32-35: “I want you to be free from the concerns of this life. An unmarried man can spend his time doing the Lord’s work and thinking how to please him.  But a married man has to think about his earthly responsibilities and how to please his wife. His interests are divided. In the same way, a woman who is no longer married or has never been married can be devoted to the Lord and holy in body and in spirit. But a married woman has to think about her earthly responsibilities and how to please her husband. I am saying this for your benefit, not to place restrictions on you. I want you to do whatever will help you serve the Lord best, with as few distractions as possible.”

Paul tells us that those who remain single can spend more time doing God’s work since they are free from the worldly concerns of marriage. Note that Paul doesn’t say anything bad about marriage. He only speaks negatively about the worldly problems that can come of marriage, things such as “earthy responsibilities” and “divided interests”. He is giving advice and not commandments.

I hope that long response was helpful to you. I wish you the best if you decide to come out to your mother.

God bless!