Some thoughts on why and how I believe Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship would incorporate sex/why I do not read them as wholly asexual:
This is something I've seen the most discourse about in this fandom, and I've had a few thoughts of my own that I really wanted to expand upon in a full meta/character analysis post. I do understand that this can be a contentious topic, so first, let me clarify a few things:
First of all, this is going to be long. Tbh it probably won't be that organized either. I ramble and I'm not very good at editing, so just... you know. Be warned. (*Hi, it's me from 2 days after writing this; I'm really not kidding, it's LONG)
These are all my own thoughts. They might not be hot takes, because recently I've seen more than a few people come to the same conclusions on a lot of these points as I have. But I've also had these notes in my drafts for about a week and a half now, and have been continuously adding to it as things have occurred to me. This post is essentially just somewhere for me to collect the separate but related meta I've been kicking around in my head.
I fully respect anyone who does see and prefer an asexual reading of this relationship. These are my own thoughts and interpretations as someone who is not asexual. I am in the LGBT+ community, so while I do know a few things about the asexuality spectrum, I am by no means an expert.
This is NOT something I expect, need, or even necessarily want the show (or, God forbid, Neil's tumblr ask box) to address. Tonally, it's just not that kind of show. Newt and Anathema's sex scene was very much played for laughs, and it worked for that reason. If the show found a way to address it in a way that was both appropriate for the tone of the show and ultimately satisfying, then great! But there is so much more to this relationship than sex, and I didn't need a kiss to confirm their love, so I certainly don't need a sex scene. As immortal beings (as I assume they'll stay) there is so much of the rest of their lives we'll never get to see. You can headcanon them as asexual and potentially be right. I can headcanon them as not and be equally potentially right. Again, these are just a collection of my own thoughts, because I think the question of sexuality (or lack thereof) is just as interesting a facet of these characters as any other.
Note: Tbh I've been second-guessing this whole post and debated deleting the whole thing several times for being silly or unnecessary, bc I don't want anyone to think that this is the only thing I care about when it comes to this story/characters. But if nothing else, it's inspired me to write in a way that nothing has in a very long time, so I've decided it's worth continuing, if for no other reason than that.
This is going to be a mixed bag of textual reading, subtextual reading, and a full-on reach or two. It's been a while since I've been in an English class, but if my teachers expected me to find a deeper meaning behind blue curtains, you can expect me to read too deeply into the symbolism of a loaded rifle or an ox rib. (This is probably not what my professors had in mind when grading my literary analysis papers but oh well) My point is, if it feels like a reach, I'm as aware of it as you are. I am in no way saying that all (or even any) of my points made were deliberate on the part of Neil or the actors or the writers or the directors. I am no longer the delulu Apple Tree Yard child of my youth, I promise.
If anything said here is in any way offensive or hurtful to anyone in the asexual community, please do not hesitate to message me or comment and let me know exactly what it was. I promise you it is not my intention to do so, and am happy to clarify or outright edit anything that reads that way.
With all that being said, let's talk about why I think Crowley and Aziraphale would absolutely fuck nasty incorporate sex into their relationship.
Note: I am out of practice with essay writing, so I think I'll just go down the bullet points of notes I have been making, and expand on each as best I can
Food
Where better to start than with Aziraphale's introduction to Pleasures Of The Flesh? (Just a heads up, this entire post may feel very Aziraphale-heavy, and with good reason).
This might be the least hot take here. We've all seen the Job minisode. We've all seen That Scene.
Whether this was intentional or not, the symbolism here is off the charts. Eve was tempted by an apple. So why not go a similar route and tempt Aziraphale with another fruit, or cheese, or bread, or literally anything else for his first experience with food? Instead, we go with a huge, glistening slab of fresh meat that he proceeds to absolutely go feral upon, moaning and gasping into his meal while Crowley watches with what definitely doesn't look to be disgust or even satisfaction with a good temptation. There's surprise at the ferocity of Aziraphale's appetite, certainly. But ultimately he looks to be intensely fascinated by it, while the thunder crashes, the music crescendos, and the earth literally shakes around them.
(It's also interesting to note how very little it takes for Crowley to tempt him with the ox rib. One murmured suggestion, a bit of unwavering eye contact, and vavoom Aziraphale immediately meets him in the middle.)
Cut to Aziraphale devouring the rest of the meat with Crowley splayed back on a makeshift bed, drinking wine and continuing to watch him indulge through half-lidded eyes. Outside a thunderstorm rages while they're learning secrets about each other in warm flickering firelight. It's cosy, it's intimate, and if they'd thrown in a bearskin throw blanket, it might as well be a post-coital scene straight out of Game of Thrones.
The next time (chronologically) we see them discuss food is when Aziraphale "tempts" Crowley with oysters in Rome. So Crowley first tempts Aziraphale with meat and then Aziraphale tempts Crowley with what is widely regarded to be an aphrodisiac. Interesting.
And then chronologically after that, the Arrangement begins to form, which has always reeked of a friends with benefits situation. Just to throw that in there.
It's What Humans Do
In the very first episode, we're shown Gabriel's obvious disgust and bewilderment towards Aziraphale eating sushi, calling it "gross matter" and being proud of the fact that he does not sully his body with it. Aziraphale initially tries to defend his own enjoyment in it, before passing it off as something that humans do, as something he simply has to do in order to blend in (which we know very well is not the case).
He does this again in season 2, passing off Nina and Maggie being in love as "something humans do". But it isn't, is it? Angels are beings of love, and can sense it, and understand very well what it is... up to a point. Even romantic love is obviously within their wheelhouse, given what we now know happened between Gabriel and Beelzebub (we'll come back to them).
What the "humans do" that angels wouldn't understand is messy, physical forms of love.
But here's the thing: Aziraphale and Crowley love doing what the humans do. They love drinking, they (or at least Aziraphale) love eating. They love music. Crowley loves driving and sleeping and watching rom-coms and sitcoms. Aziraphale loves reading and doing magic and earning little licenses and certificates for achievement in his various hobbies. They love to playact at being human so much that they've stopped playacting and started building a genuinely human lifestyle for themselves and with each other.
Once together in an unambiguously romantic sense, why do we think they wouldn't also want to explore one of the most prominent, intimate, powerful human expressions of love and desire with each other?
Angels, Demons, & Asexuality
Here's where I really want to clarify that in no way do I mean that sex is necessary for a healthy, fulfilling, and loving romantic relationship, or that the lack of desire for sex makes you any less human. Asexuality is a sexuality as valid and human as any. What I would say is that it is definitely in the human minority compared to allosexuality.
Angels and demons, on the other hand, are predominately asexual. Sexless/genderless unless Making An Effort. (Which, btw, is a concept introduced as early as the original book; why even bring it up as a possibility? Why not keep angels/demons being sexless/asexual as a hard and fast rule, if not to open up the potential for later use? Chekhov's Effort, if you will. And isn't that something that Aziraphale in particular is shown to do time and time again? He makes an effort in French and driving and magic, doesn't he?)
And this is why I don't believe Aziraphale and Crowley necessarily need to be asexual, narratively. There is already a huge amount of ace rep within the angels and demons (and no, not just the horrible ones. Muriel also doesn't "drink the tea" and has no reason or desire thus far to Make An Effort, and there are certainly other angels and demons who aren't horrible like the archangels seem to be who likely wouldn't Make An Effort either).
The central conflict for Aziraphale and Crowley is that they are on their own side, the ones who went native, the ones who are so different in so many ways from their respective hives. It would make sense for them to also break away from traditional angel/demon asexuality.
I say "traditional angel/demon asexuality", because I would also like to note that I would absolutely not rule out demisexuality for either of them. This post is being written to as a response to people who specifically believe that they (like the rest of the angels/demons seem to be) would be sex-averse in a relationship, and that it wouldn't be a factor in their relationship. I could easily read them as demisexual, but I do think there would be no real way of verifying this, because they've never been able to form as close an emotional relationship with anyone else but each other. Certainly not in heaven, and I can't imagine they would be able to form that kind of attachment with any of the humans, who they love and emulate but ultimately regard as the separate species they are. So yes, they could either be allosexual or demisexual, in my opinion.
Then again, now that I think about it, Making An Effort itself could be a great metaphor for demisexuality, since they would be entirely sexless/asexual until they have enough of an emotional connection with someone to consciously manifest otherwise. Since the other angels and demons don't generally form those types of emotional connections with anyone, there hasn't been a precedent for it.
Except...
Brielzebub
We do have a precedent for it now, don't we? Gabriel and Beelzebub fell in love. They are a direct foil for Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship, speedrunning right through their courtship and finding their happily ever after on the other side of things.
For being such a 1 to 1 comparison, it feels deliberate that they did not kiss. They held hands, they were gooey with each other, but they did not kiss. That feels like such a deliberate thing to omit when you know what's to come at the end of the episode between Crowley and Aziraphale.
And going back to the food = sex metaphor for a moment, let's notice how even as they fell in love over the years, even when pints and crisps were there on the table in front of them, they never felt the desire to reach out for them. They didn't need to. It's a date (love story) even if you aren't eating dinner (sleeping together).
Yes, I know Jim liked hot chocolate. No, I am not counting it because I don't consider Jim and Gabriel to be the same person with the same proclivities, and Jim was highly suggestible at the time anyway.
Gabriel and Brielzebub's big happily ever after moment (as of now) was one between two asexual supernatural beings. They did not need to kiss to drive the point home. They showed what Crowley and Aziraphale could have, if they would only acknowledge it.
Crowley & Aziraphale's Dissatisfaction
But they do have that already, don't they? If you really think about it, what do Gabriel and Beelzebub do with each other that Crowley and Aziraphale don't already? They hold hands, they spend time together, they create little rituals, they give gifts, they're visibly and verbally affectionate with each other, etc. They are more or less already in a romantic asexual marriage relationship with each other, aren't they?
And it doesn't seem to be enough for either of them.
At the beginning of the season, Crowley is immediately shown to be unsatisfied with the way things are. Obviously part of it comes from living in his car, but it seems to be more than that (especially since Aziraphale makes it clear that the bookshop is just as much Crowley's as his, implying that he could have been living there the whole time and is choosing not to, for some reason?). You could argue he's feeling unmoored without Hell telling him what to do, but isn't that what he wanted? Isn't that what he still wants, by the end of the season? All season long, he's never indicated the desire for a new job, or a new project. He stopped the apocalypse because he wanted the freedom to openly spend time with Aziraphale, to spend his time on Earth however he sees fit. Until Gabriel arrives, he has exactly that (minus a flat).
So where does the dissatisfaction come from? And if it represents anything to do with his relationship, what does he want out of it that he isn't getting already?
I think Crowley only really comes to the realisation of what he's missing when Nina names it for him, not only putting them in the category of romantic, but physical (outright asking if they are sleeping together). These two posts [1], [2] go into more detail about what I mean, but I think it really pushes him into acknowledging that their relationship is more human than either of them have stopped to consider, and what that might mean as far as everything a human relationship can entail.
After all, Nina and Maggie only advised that he should talk to Aziraphale, make clear his feelings. The decision to kiss him, to tip them over the edge from nonphysical to physical, that was all him. And no, kissing isn't sex, but I wonder how taboo even that might be in the kind of all-encompassing asexuality most angels seem to identify with. (If they're disgusted by food and drink, I can only imagine what they think of snogging, much less sex.)
Aziraphale doesn't have this moment of someone observing their relationship from the outside. He loves Crowley, and as of 1941 probably even knows he's in love with him in a way that Crowley doesn't understand yet. Which makes sense, since love is technically his job, he'd be more likely to recognise it for what it is.
However, Aziraphale's reference for romance and relationships is Jane Austen. It's chaste. It's dancing and dinner and doing sweet things for each other and roses and candles and handholding. He contextualises his love for Crowley in that soft fantasy sort of way, where it's there, it's obviously there, but it's neat and easy and unspoken. Not to quote Glee in this, the year of our lord 2023, but it's all very "the touch of the fingertips is as sexy as it gets".
Someone should tell that to Aziraphale's face, then.
I'm not going to pretend I know what Michael Sheen's script notes were, but there were definitely some Choices™ made. Because yes, there were plenty of moments in both seasons with Aziraphale looking at Crowley in a sweet, loving, smitten way. And then there were moments that were yearning.
But yearning for what, exactly? All of those sappy Jane Austen tropes already apply to the two of them. So why are there moments where Aziraphale is looking Crowley up and down like the last eclair in the window and licking his lips and visibly exhaling like he's trying to get in control of himself (see: Bastille scene + Crowley telling Muriel to ask him if they have any other questions about love)? Why is Aziraphale not only unconcerned when Crowley shoves him bodily up against a wall in s1, but staring at his lips and a beat too late in noticing Sister Mary's arrival? Why are some of his lines so suggestive? I'm sorry, but the car ride after the church explosion might as well have been the beginning of a Pizza Man porn with a really weird Blitz theme. If even my mother picked up on that vibe, I can't imagine it wasn't intentional on part of both the dialogue and the delivery.
(This section may feel like more of a reach/joke, but I'm really only 20% joking. These are writers and actors who are EXTREMELY good at their jobs; they know what they were doing here.)
More importantly, I don't think Aziraphale is even aware that there is more to what he wants. He lives in the Jane Austen fantasy and it never even occurs to him that he might be interested in anything further. It never even occurs to him that, as an angel, there is anything further to be interested in in the first place. Until Crowley forces it to occur to him. Just like I believe Nina forced Crowley to confront the idea that romantic love is what he's been feeling all along, I believe Crowley forced Aziraphale to confront the idea that physical intimacy is something he's been wanting, without even realising.
Aziraphale's Hedonism
Expanding on Aziraphale for a moment. We talked about his relationship with food, but we all know that Aziraphale is defined by his love of things that Feel Good.
It isn't just that he and Crowley love human things. Aziraphale loves the best of the best, or at least his version of it. He doesn't just love food, he loves going to fancy restaurants. He doesn't just love clothes, he loves soft, cosy, warm, plush clothes, or shiny, flashy, bougie fashion. He loves the warmth of tea and cocoa, loves getting drunk, and sitting in a comfy chair in the sunlight. He doesn't just experience, he indulges.
Given the emphasis put on things that Aziraphale loves just because they Feel Good, it feels narratively strange to assume that he wouldn't enjoy the feeling of being touched, or that he wouldn't be willing to try it, at least once, with someone he cared very deeply for. And just like the ox rib, I think that once he gets the first taste of things, he would absolutely tip over into complete and utter self-indulgence.
Dancing
I also think that dancing could be construed as a huge metaphor here. After all, we're told flat-out that angels don't Dance. Except one.
I would argue that Aziraphale, in fact, Made An Effort to learn how to Dance. He threw himself into the gavotte with delight (at a Victorian gay club; noted) and worked hard to be good at it. He's chomping at the bit to Dance with Crowley, working up the nerve to ask him with undeniably romantic intent and eagerness. So, angels don't Dance... unless they Make An Effort to do so.
We are told that demons, on the other hand, do Dance, but not well. Makes sense, since they're the ones who would want to encourage a deadly sin like lust, but have as little understanding of human love and physical intimacy as the angels. Crowley, however, is shown to be an excellent dancer at the ball, especially in his compatibility with Aziraphale.
(But Aziraphale WandaVisioned the ball so everyone knew how to dance! Yes, he did. However, the rest of the brainwashing doesn't seem to affect Crowley in any way, and they did actually live through the time period where this sort of dancing was a social norm; I'd be surprised if he never needed to learn. After all, the demons can't spell either, and Crowley is at least functionally literate, as far as we know.)
As of today, it's also been confirmed that when Aziraphale asked Crowley to dance, Crowley replied with "you don't dance." Not "WE don't dance". So going along with the metaphor, Crowley is just now discovering that Dancing is something Aziraphale is interested in at all, much less with him, and not denying that he himself is interested in Dancing. In his defense, I believe he was asleep for a few years while Aziraphale was learning the gavotte, so he wasn't exactly aware of Aziraphale's hot girl summer.
Love Languages
I want to expand on that; Crowley and Aziraphale's compatibility. Specifically in regards to their individual love languages.
We all know Crowley's love language is Acts of Service. I don't think there's any debate there. He loves it, Aziraphale loves it, they're both aware of it, we're all aware of it, God and Satan are aware of it, no surprise there.
You may disagree with me, but I believe Aziraphale's love language is Physical Touch, for a number of reasons. One of which being his aforementioned hedonism. Aziraphale likes things that Feel Good, remember? He likes soft clothes, and well-worn books. Neil himself has said that they like holding hands. And any time he is taken by surprise (Brielzebub getting together, the wave of love in Tadfield, etc.) what is the first thing he does? Reaches out for Crowley. He stops him with a hand to the chest in the pub. He leads him by the hand to the dance floor. He guides him by the waist in the graveyard. He reaches out during the entire Brielzebub scene, whether he can reach Crowley or not. Despite his own turmoil, he grasps at Crowley's back during the kiss.
The one time Crowley reaches out for him (not counting the kiss yet; we'll get there), he is aggressively pushed against a wall (by someone he loves and trusts) with a complete and utter lack of concern (and perhaps some interest, depending on how you read it).
And when he isn't reaching out for anyone, or there isn't anyone to reach out to? Well, he's wringing his own hands together, squeezing his own fingers, as if to find that physical comfort in himself.
So. With that theory in mind, we have Aziraphale (Physical Touch) + Crowley (Acts of Service). Throw in 6000+ years of deep love, cherished companionship, and forcibly repressed longing, and there is a very real potential of this combination resulting in fierce sexual compatibility. Where Aziraphale would want to touch and be touched, to indulge in physical pleasure with someone he adores, in the same the way he indulges in every other fine thing in his life. And where Crowley would want to indulge him in return, to give him everything he wants, and to take pleasure in Aziraphale's pleasure, in the same way he enjoys watching him take joy in food everything else.
So Aziraphale is an angel who is insecure about his own less-than-holy desires, who would want to treat Crowley like a luxury to be touched and cherished and adored. And Crowley is a demon who has, over the millennia, been unhappy about how they've been forced to deny even their friendship with each other, who would want Aziraphale to feel comfortable and safe and encouraged to indulge in earthly delights. That sounds like a stunning recipe for sexual compatibility to me.
"You said 'trust me'" / "And you did"
Just like the Job minisode, the Blitz is RIFE with symbolism (intentional or otherwise). This one will be quick, but I did want to touch on it because I thought it was interesting. Maybe I'm reaching at this point, but I'm assuming you read the tin.
First of all, Crowley not wanting to admit to never firing a gun before; comes off as someone who very much does not want to admit to their crush that they're a virgin ("You must have done this lots of times!" / "Umm.... yyyyyeah.")
(You could make the argument that Aziraphale having a firearms license and a Derringer in a hollowed-out book is symbolic of him not being a virgin while Crowley is. I disagree, for reasons I'll go into later, but it's a valid reading. However, I see it more like keeping a condom in your wallet; it's there in case you need it, but the opportunity has not yet risen no pun intended.)
More importantly, the theme of this entire minisode is trust. We already know they trust each other with their lives against the rest of Heaven, Hell, and the world. But specifically, this is about the importance of having complete trust in your partner in a charged, physically vulnerable, intimate moment, where the only danger is between the two of you.
Aziraphale needs to believe Crowley would never hurt him if he can help it. Crowley needs to trust Aziraphale's unwavering blind faith in him. Frankly, it all feels very symbolic of two people deeply in love losing their respective virginities with each other.
The trick is a success, and they share an intimate candlelit dinner in which they reaffirm their faith in each other. Aziraphale also begins to voice his agreement with Crowley, that maybe Heaven's rules shouldn't have to be as black and white as they are, and that there are benefits to... blurring the lines, shades of grey, wink wink (at which point even my mom was like, whoa guys, this is a family show).
Btw also: Can we all agree how much it looked like Crowley was getting ready to get a lapdance in that one scene? You know the one.
Also also: "Aim for my mouth"? Come on.
The Birds & The Bees
Now that I think of it, there's also something to be said for the fact that Crowley and Aziraphale are both obviously familiar with where babies come from (how they're made and how they're born) while the other angels aren't.
Something something Aziraphale and Crowley fundamentally understand sex and reproduction in a way the other angels (and probably demons) very much do not, nor have any desire to.
Probably not important. Just thought it was worth mentioning.
The Kiss™ & Religious Trauma
The Kiss. Where to even begin?
This has definitely been the hardest one to start, because there is so much going on here that I definitely won't be able to cover it all, and will certainly miss a few things here and there.
Aziraphale's reaction to the kiss afterwards is the most interesting to me. And I don't mean directly after, I don't mean the "I forgive you" part. I mean the way he touches his lips when Crowley is no longer in the room and he no longer needs to save face, when he is completely alone. Had it been directly after the kiss, it would have been rightfully read as horror, or disgust, a shield to discourage further action.
It's not. It isn't just a touch, it's a press. As desperate and angry and unexpected and imperfect as the kiss had been, Aziraphale is pressing it into himself, recreating the feeling as best he can. Beneath all the poor timing and shock and hurt from their fight and fallout, I think it's fair to say that it was something he enjoyed. Something he doesn't think he should enjoy, something that Feels Good that he only allows himself to indulge in when completely alone.
Remember, Aziraphale's idea of love is Jane Austen and gentleness and courtship and fantasy. If he'd ever even considered kissing an option, it might have been gentle pecks, cheek kisses, forehead kiss, hand kisses. Soft, safe, chaste affection.
Crowley's kiss turns all of that on its head. He introduces physical intimacy in a very real, very messy, very human way that I don't think Aziraphale ever even considered could apply to them. Considering what other angels are like and what they look down on, even Aziraphale's Jane Austen fantasies probably would have been considered taboo.
So for their first kiss to be rough and desperate and passionate in the way it was, of course he was confused and in shock. It was deeply physical, and as overwhelming and awful as it was in the moment, it Felt Good. Enough that he grasped at Crowley and kissed back, if only just for a moment, before stopping himself. Enough that he actively pressed it into his lips afterwards, in private, to remember.
I adore how Neil has decided to evolve these characters past the first book/season. More so in this season, Aziraphale and Crowley have both become such interesting allegories for queer people on either side of the spectrum of toxic religion. Aziraphale in particular obviously, because he is the side that so desperately wants to believe, to make a difference, and to unlearn all of the propaganda he's been fed over such a long time. Just like so much of organised religion, there is so much that he is told, time and time again, that he should not want, that he is silly or stupid or outright wrong for wanting. It reminds me so much of the severe Catholic guilt one might feel for wanting/engaging in sex for the first time, and the stigma of being queer layered on top of that.
What is so critical to Aziraphale's character is that he goes on wanting, and more than that, actively pursues. He was convinced to go up against Heaven and Hell and stop all of Armageddon because he wanted to go on listening to music and eating lunch and reading books and enjoying the simple company of the person he cares most deeply for, even if that person is supposed to be the enemy.
All this to say that if angels are as generally asexual/sex-averse as I believe them to be, narratively speaking, it would make sense for Aziraphale to be singular in that regard as well. Mirroring his first experience with food, it would make sense for Crowley to be the one to first introduce this new messy, physical, human dynamic between them, for Aziraphale to hesitate (obviously we are at the Hesitation phase at the moment), and then (eventually) for him to dive in wholeheartedly, to absolutely glut himself on this new thing that Feels Good. It would make sense for his character development to show him overcoming his metaphorical Catholic guilt and pursuing the sexual intimacy most (if not all) of the other angels would scorn.
(I can't help but remember that plot idea Neil described from the unwritten sequel, with Aziraphale in a hotel room trying to watch a full porno by way of the free 2-minute teaser clips so he wasn't technically sinning by paying for it. I so hope this is used in season 3, because gosh, I wonder why Aziraphale would suddenly be so interested in observing human physical intimacy after 6,000 years. Lonely and doing a little surreptitious research there, angel?)
Crowley, on the other hand, is the queer person who has broken free from his toxic religion. He prides himself on being his own person, on their his own side. He doesn't have the hang-ups Aziraphale does. He doesn't worry that he's going to be judged or cast aside for wanting things he's not supposed to. So it only makes sense for him to be the first one to suggest/initiate physical intimacy. It makes sense for him to be the one who "goes too fast" (another fantastic example of this dynamic beginning as early as s1; what is that conversation in the car meant to represent, if not Aziraphale being overwhelmed by the intensity of their relationship, and his fear of succumbing to it when he believes he shouldn't? It's also interesting that this is the first conversation to take place in Soho, just after watching Aziraphale realise he's caught feelings for a demon, with the red glow of lust serving as the backdrop).
Do I think the kiss in and of itself was sexual? No. I think it was a passionate and devastating last-ditch effort on Crowley's part to convey the way he feels for Aziraphale. Not just that he loves him, but that he loves him in the most human way possible. But I do think that the kiss represents how they can move forward from here, and what they might want to explore with each other once they feel free enough to do so.
In Conclusion
I am sure, deep in my bones (unless we are explicitly told otherwise), that this was both of their first kisses no, I'm not counting the gavotte, and that neither of them have ever thought to do anything else physical with the humans while they have been on Earth. Like I said before, they adore the human race and lifestyle in general, but ultimately view them as a separate species altogether, and they seem mostly happy to keep to themselves and each other, unless otherwise necessary. I just can't see either of them being drawn enough to a human to pursue anything close to sex. If Crowley in particular has had anything to do with sex in the context of temptations, I'm positive he would be inciting lust amongst the humans themselves, not involving himself directly. At least not that directly.
So, like every other human experience they've had on Earth, sex is something new that they could explore together, just the two of them, on their own side. A deeply intimate, tangible declaration of their love and everything they've gone through to earn it. A visceral finger to give both Heaven and Hell. A renewed appreciation for their corporations and for each other's. A enjoyable method for immortal beings to simply pass the time in each other's company. A new and exciting way to Feel Good, and all the variations that come with it.
You might agree with this post, or you might not. Whether this is something that is ever addressed or not, it doesn't matter to me. This is a brilliant love story either way, and I genuinely feel so privileged to witness it.
But I just can't find it in myself to imagine, given everything we know about these two characters, that sex isn't an experience they would both consume with wholehearted enthusiasm, curiosity, and profound, ineffable adoration.
___________________________________
Bonus feature: the very silly notes I made to myself that inspired this post
So, I feel like I’m losing my mind. I keep seeing metas about how Aziraphale wants Crowley to return to Heaven and be an angel again because he wants them to be on the same side/be good/change/etc., etc., etc. but I don’t see that at all. I actually see it as the very opposite.
Aziraphale loves Crowley just as he is. But there’s something more. Something huge.
Aziraphale loves Crowley and because he is an angel who is stuck in seeing things as black and white, he constantly praises Crowley for being nice. For being good. For being kind.
Aziraphale has watched Crowley on and off for 6,000 years. He watched him thwart the plans of Heaven and Hell because it was unjust. He spared the lives of innocents. He did small things that made Aziraphale happy just because (like making Hamlet successful and saving valuable books). And because Aziraphale sees things in black and white, he sees all the things Crowley has done as nice, as good, as kind.
Crowley vehemently attests he’s not nice or good or kind.
He’s not exactly wrong nor is he lying when he says this. When Crowley spares goats during a cruel bet over a righteous man and swallowing laudanum to prevent a suicide, when he prevents Armageddon by working with Aziraphale and stopping the Anti-Christ from being the Anti-Christ, he’s not doing the nice/good/kind thing.
He’s doing the right thing.
Crowley chooses to do the right thing without hesitation. He is better than all of Heaven and Hell who have callous and dispassionate view of all existence because he questions, because he makes choices. Crowley sees the world for all its messiness and he sees himself. He sees a place where he fits in. He sees the blurred edges.
And Aziraphale sees that, even if seeing the blurred edges is hard for him.
But here’s the thing that Aziraphale can’t voice.
It’s the reason why he told Crowley about being allowed to return to Heaven and become an angel again. He doesn’t want Crowley to change. He doesn’t think Crowley is flawed. Or not enough.
It’s something that is so monumental that it cannot be put into words. Because to put it into words would be more than blasphemy. It’s down right unthinkable for anyone in Heaven, Hell, or Earth to say what Aziraphale knows deep in his soul.
God was wrong to cast out Crowley.
Aziraphale believes Crowley can/should return to Heaven because he knows that Crowley should never have fallen in the first place. He wants him to be forgiven because when Crowley fell it was unjust. Aziraphale is trying to correct a mistake. He’s trying to do the right thing.
Yes, Crowley would never accept returning to Heaven. And Aziraphale was wrong to even suggest it (although that conversation is another can of worms to unpack).
Aziraphale loves Crowley. He loves him exactly as he is. He doesn’t want him to change. Aziraphale knows that Crowley the best of all of them. He wants to change Heaven because of it. Because God was wrong and Aziraphale knows it.
Aziraphale may have difficulty seeing beyond black and white, but when it comes to Crowley he sees everything crystal clear and in vivid color.
crowley must have known that aziraphale was also in love with him, he tidied the bookshop, he was planning on taking him to the Ritz after his confession, he had their song queued in the car these are not acts of someone who wasn't sure what the outcome will be.
which makes it so much more painful that he still confessed his love for aziraphale with tears in his eyes and on the verge of a full blown panic attack, he left saying "don't bother" but he still waited by his car til the elevator doors closed. all because
Hi! Your post about Crowley being one of the most Jewish characters you've ever seen helped me so much to understand my "issues" with some points made in Good Omens and made me realise that those weren't really issues at all - they were just differences between Christian philosophy and Jewish philosophy which I hadn't known about (I'm Christian). Thank you so much for making me aware of it, changing my perspective and making me more open-minded to other points of view. I'm very grateful. (1/2)
That being said, I’d be very interested if you could shed a similar light on the crucifixion scene, especially the fact that it stated it was Crowley who tempted Jesus in the desert. I found this choice peculiar, but then again, I’ve read that in judaism there isn’t such an Ultimate Evil Person that satan is for christians. I’d really love to learn something more about it to gain some perspective, I hope you don’t mind. (2/2)
I do not mind! I love me some interfaith discourse– I’m actually from an intermarried family, so I have some pastors and priests in my family and let me tell you this shit? It’s my favorite thing. I’m so glad that you felt comfortable enough to reach out to me. This is one of the longest posts I’ve ever written, so bear with me.
(A note on my expertise: I am attending the Jewish Theological Seminary, the premier Jewish educational institution in the Western Hemisphere. Of the many courses I have taken since I started here, many have been in conjunction with Union Theological Seminary– a Christian seminary– and Columbia University. I am not going to call myself an expert by any means, but I am studying ancient Judaism and the development of Christianity for my degree and can be trusted enough to have a certain level of authority. Of course, if you see anything that needs correcting, please let me know! I’d love to learn from you.)
One of my biggest pet peeves in the whole world is the word “Judeo-Christian” because the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition are fundamentally incompatible on a theological, methodological, philosophical, and messianic level. Christianity was founded with a supersessionist approach to the Brit, the Covenant, that Jews share with God– indeed, this mindset is the main reason that Paul’s Christianity had to break from the Jewish-Christianity that flourished in Jerusalem under James after Jesus’ death. Jewish thought is wildly different from Christian thought– we don’t value asceticism, we don’t believe that God can be corporal or Triune, we are a legalist tradition that explicitly says that blind faith is not enough, and, as you say, we have no “Big Bad.” Instead, Jews believe that every person has a Good/Selfless Inclination and an Evil/Selfish Inclination.* Christians believe in individual salvation from sin through receiving Jesus Christ as their God and savior**, while Jews believe in individual and collective participation in an eternal dialogue with God through tradition, rituals, prayers, and ethical actions. We also don’t have any unified afterlife narrative, but what we do believe is that Hell shouldn’t be a permanent punishment and that gentiles as well as Jews can reach whatever form of Heaven exists without having to believe in God.
So, looking at those differences between our two faith traditions, I completely see how parts of Good Omens, especially the character of Crowley, might be alien to a Christian reader. He fits into a legalist tradition and actively rejects the Christian ideas of salvation and faith.
So the crucifixion scene. I also found it interesting that it was Crowley that tempted Jesus***– honestly, I thought it was a narrative choice to emphasize the importance of Crowley within the story arc and the Ineffable Plan. But if I imagine there is a greater reason… I would argue that it was Crowley that tried to tempt Jesus away from his path because Crowley knows that Jesus is going to die and it won’t bring about the Messianic Age that Jesus had promised. In GO, we don’t have any sympathy for Satan– he’s wicked and rebelled knowingly, but Crowley we do sympathize with, since he just asked questions.
If we read Crowley as somebody who sees all the casualties of the Ineffable Plan (i.e. the kids that couldn’t board Noah’s arc) as fundamentally unnecessary, then we can see his attempt to tempt Jesus as his way of trying to save a kind man from what Crowley sees as an abuse of power by God, who isn’t telling Jesus the full story. Jesus doesn’t bring the fabled Messianic Age, at least according to what that meant in ancient Israel. Now, many Christians understand the crucifixion of Jesus through an inaugurated eschatology– Jesus’ first death was the first stage of bringing about the Messianic Age which will be finally realized during the Second Coming, but back in the ancient times? It would have looked like Jesus had died for nothing, especially considering that Christianity initially did not see him as the literal son of God.
Early Christian literature, most notably the Synoptic Gospels, started out understanding Jesus as a “Chosen One” whose Divine blessing was gifted to him when he reached adulthood not unlike the other great men of the Torah. It’s only with the Gospel of John and other contemporaneous works that we read of Jesus as Divine (“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” etc.) So, in the GO universe, perhaps Crowley tried to move Jesus away from the Ineffable Plan because he knew enough to think that his crucifixion would be meaningless, because Jesus was only understood then as a man.
Look, I could go on and on about Jewish and Christian theology and the way they play off of each other. If you want to hear more from me on the subject, drop me a line. Thank you again for reaching out and for being so open minded! I will say that if you really want to know what Jews think about anything, you’ll need to reach out to several Jews if you want a truly complete picture. Because we are a legalist tradition, many of us hold by different standards and principles as dictated by different schools of thought. For instance, Jesus held more with Beit (House) Shammai in the Sermon on the Mount when he discussed divorce but many of his most famous one-liners are directly attributed to Rabbi Hillel, the teacher of the other major proto-rabbinic power during the Second Temple period. So if you’re super interested in learning more, keep doing what you’re doing! I know that there are so many Jewish blogs on Tumblr that would be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you again for reaching out! I hope this was helpful.
* Jews believe that the Good/Selfless Inclination and an Evil/Selfish Inclination are both equally necessary for living a good life. If you are too selfish, you are obviously not a good person, but if you are too selfless, then you aren’t able to provide for your family, improve your educational prowess, or take care of yourself. Both paths are unacceptable.
** Many sects of Christianity also require good works to achieve salvation, most notably the Catholic Church, but the foundation of Christianity is centered around personal salvation via worshipping God and Jesus.
*** Jews usually understand Jesus as one of the many freelance teachers that were roaming around ancient Israel at this time. Academics see him through a variety of lenses, but one that I find super interesting is the idea of Jesus as a political revolutionary sowing the seeds for the Bar Kokhba revolt. That’s a whole other conversation, but it’s one I’d love to share with anyone reading if they’re interested.
Someone pointed out that Crowley’s listed in the book’s personae as “an angel” (who didn’t fall, so much as sauntered vaguely downwards...). But there’s another, similar reference to his nature in the song at the end—“There were angels dining at the Ritz.” What I mean to say is that if Heaven’s angels were bad angels, maybe Crowley wasn’t. Maybe he was exactly as good as he was meant to be—a match for Aziraphale, anyway. Crowley asks Aziraphale at the bus stop if everything might have happened as God had ineffably planned it after all. And Aziraphale said he wouldn’t put it past Her. Maybe they were both God’s honest angels in the most ineffable sense, by being honestly themselves.
Also this bit! They’re the same kind of thing. Crowley knows it, when he’s not thinking too hard about it. And Aziraphale knows it:
He expected Crowley to be able to sense love, too, just like he can. That’s his real, instinctive opinion of Crowley. It’s only when he’s theorizing instead of feeling that he says Crowley wouldn’t understand love.
Which means the central conflict of their relationship is summed up beautifully in Crowley’s “You’re an angel—I don’t think you can do the wrong thing” and Aziraphale’s eager acceptance being followed immediately by “it’d be funny if you did the wrong thing and I did the right one,” and Aziraphale’s horror.
Crowley can believe in his angel’s goodness long before he can begin to trust in his own again; but he still knows in his core that his misalignment with Heaven isn’t a moral failure. And Aziraphale wants to be comforted and reassured in his rightness; but he won’t ever be able to believe in his heart that Crowley is wholly wrong.
Yes absolutely, this is exactly the point. I once saw a shitpost that described Crowley's relationship to angelhood as "right species, wrong political party" and that's a perfect summary of the situation tbh. Ultimately demons are not all that much different from their Heavenly counterparts.
The difference with Crowley, though, is that he hasn't embraced bitterness like the other demons we're introduced to. He's still hurt, he's still angry with God and a dedicated up-fucker of shit, but he ultimately refuses to be soured by hatred. The other demons we see hate Heaven, hate humans, hate each other, hate themselves, and are subsumed by that. They are not evil by any inherent nature, but because they're in pain and making that everyone else's problem.
Crowley, though, has made a radical choice to love, instead. Love the world, love Aziraphale... still working on loving himself, but he's getting there.
And I use the word "choice" deliberately, because the whole point of both Aziraphale and Crowley is to prove that however much Heaven and Hell preach to the contrary, angels (fallen or otherwise) absolutely have free will. Heaven and Hell are both terrible. If Hell is loveless out of pain, Heaven is loveless out of fear (and the reason for that can be laid squarely at God's feet for failing to handle Their rebellious little shit of a firstborn with grace... but the trauma all the angels on both sides are suffering from is a whole meta in and of itself). Point is, neither of the sides have any real, substantive love for anything, but Aziraphale and Crowley choose to love anyway, and choose to act in defense of what they love. It's not so much that Crowley is closer to being a "good person" or that Aziraphale is closer to being a "bad person" than others of their kind, and more that they're both closer to being real people.
They are, ultimately, the same kind of being. Despite the propaganda of Heaven and Hell preaching that they're diametrically opposed and different from each other in every way, it's clear that neither of them has been able to look at each other and truly believe that in their heart of hearts since almost the beginning. It's the old "we're all only human" concept, but in this case the refrain is "we're all only angels." Their differences are superficial at best, and deep down, when they're not thinking too hard about it, both of them recognize that. They look at each other, and when they're not trying to cling to the lies they've been fed about "the opposition," they instinctively feel it.
It's also worth examining that, while Crowley has nothing in common, politically speaking, with Heaven, he is much closer to a human concept of what an angel should be than he is to the modern concept of a demon.
He owes something, certainly, to pre-Reformation and/or non-Christian depictions of demons as scholars and bringers of wisdom, and even perhaps a little something to trickster gods in non-Abrahamic religious traditions. But the more modern concept of a demon as a malignant entity gleefully bent on possession, death, and destruction? We wrestle with Crowley's role as a demon because that's not recognizable in him at all (and for that matter, so does Crowley, I think. "I'm just doing my job," he says, so that he doesn't have to emotionally deal with what Hell asks him to do).
But when the chips are down, we can recognize in Crowley and Aziraphale a pair of guardian angels for the whole world. Their role in Nopemageddon begins with Crowley's intercession on behalf of humanity, his pleading with God's representative on Earth to take action, to do something, anything, to save this beautiful planet that he loves so dearly. And it ends with Aziraphale convincing Crowley to put his own skin on the line, to back those words up with action and defend humanity not just intellectually but physically as well.
And that full-circle balance is worthy of a whole essay in and of itself but the point is that both Crowley and Aziraphale are more like what modern humans expect angels to be than they are like the reality of what the other angels and demons in their universe actually are.
The above touches on “non-christian aspects” of demons but I think fails to recognize that Neil Gaiman is Jewish so a throwaway line doesn’t do justice to *how much* the non-christian concept of demons may have influenced this story. Jews pick up story concepts from the common/normalized culture (aka christian culture) just like everyone else, but we have our own stories and myths that impact how we see angels and demons that can’t be lumped in with Christianity. Our stories are more closely related to what is mentioned above as “non-abrahamic” religious traditions - because Christianity and Judaism view things VERY DIFFERENTLY from one another.
In Judaism, demons that simply “do evil” are incredibly, extremely rare, and actually pretty modern. Collections of historic Jewish folktales (Elijah’s Violin and Other Jewish Fairytales is a great starting place) mostly show demons exactly like trickster gods. They’re more powerful than humans but sometimes they act just like humans - but with the ability to get their comeuppance if someone wrongs them (see The Demon Princess) - and sometimes they act like trickster gods who teach you lessons about yourself (see King Solomon and Asmodeus).
Judaism doesn’t have a Satan. The angel (yes, angel) who is called “the satan” in Jewish literature is often labeled The Prosecuter, as in, the lawyer during a trial.
And these roles are ones that we see Crowley filling perfectly.
Neil has actually stated explicitly that Good Omens is how it is because he is Jewish and has read the Mishnah.
I would suggest the following of the show, actually:
GOmens!G-d, “the almighty”: Catholic perception of G-d
GOmens!Satan: Catholic perception of Satan
Aziraphale and Crowley: Jewish perception of G-d and Satan.
Think about it. Aziraphale is deeply loving and welcomes questions, even when they make him uncomfortable. He doesn’t recognize Jesus as divine; when Crowley asks why Jesus has been crucified you’d expect something about the biblical prophesies being fulfilled, but instead it’s “he said to be kind to each other,” which is the whole sum of Torah, as expressed by Hillel. He delights in Earth and its people; he is a constant seeker of knowledge, and while all that can be known is known by G-d, his attitude toward books is reminiscent of the good Jewish scholar. Indeed, in his complete shunning of modern technology, we can also draw a parallel to the Jewish concept of tradition and ritual among the Orthodox, which is a pretty rare thing to see in media. We even see him acknowledge his own fallibility in debate, which is something shown time and time again in the midrash.
Crowley, meanwhile, fits this on two fronts. First, two actions the Christian canon attributes to Satan are attributed to Crowley: the temptation in Eden, and showing Jesus all the nations of the world. (Jewish tradition does not hold that the snake was Satan.) To a Christian unfamiliar with Judaism, this is a way to, for lack of a better word, Satan-code him; he’s now a stand-in for Satan in the Christian eye. Thing is, Judaism doesn’t conceive of Satan the same way; he’s a judge and trickster, basically ‘tempting’ humans because, as Aziraphale points out, you can’t truly choose good if there’s no choice to be made. It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it. And Crowley does—you could even argue that it shows subtextually in his Hamlet miracle, given that Hamlet is about the struggle between impulses. None of the truly evil stuff can be laid at his door—he’s disgusted by Nazis, depressed by Caligula and baffled by the aftermath of the French Revolution. Perhaps most central to this concept is his prayer as he seeks to leave Earth to escape Armageddon: pleading with G-d always in the form of a question, such that this is even his own description of his crimes: “all I ever did was ask questions.” Is there ANYTHING more Jewish? Indeed, the prayer itself is reminiscent of Abraham’s, pleading for the lives of Sodom and Gomorrah: “I know you’re testing them, but must you test them to destruction?” He tempts, he tricks, but he’s not by any means “evil.”
Played out on a grand scale, one could then argue the show is no less than a struggle of ideologies, as written by a Jewish man.
I have SO MANY BIG THOUGHTS about this, but I need time to process it all. I’m Jewish and have made many, many of these and other similiar observations about GOmens myself and I feel like these lovely people finally collected all the jumbles up and put them into a coherent order.
Being Jewish but navigating in a world that is entirely based in Christian mythology is really taxing and you spend a lot of time double-guessing your media input. “Is this a Jewish spin? Nah, why would it be; it’s probably something Christian I just don’t get. But man, it sure seems Jewish, amirite? Ha ha.”
Like, I could pull on so many lines of commentary here and just flap my hands around it all with “this! yes! this this this!” But I’m going to give it thought and maybe come back in a few days with something coherent. But I’m so glad I’m not seeing things, nor alone in seeing what I do see.
Recently, I watched Jill Bearup’s review of the Good Omens Amazon Prime adaptation – a video you can watch here, and even if you don’t, I highly recommend you watch any of her other videos, especially her newer stuff about fight choreography – and something she brought up set my brain rolling down a particularly interesting hill.
She compares the series (written by Neil Gaiman) to the book (written by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman), and points out how one of the things the series does differently is that it shows the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Jesus doesn’t appear in the book Good Omens, though a major part of the story’s premise is that all the events described in the Bible actually literally happened. The book is centered on the birth of the Antichrist, but it doesn’t present us with the Christ that he is “anti” to.
Bearup comments that the story of Good Omens doesn’t really work so well if Jesus’s death (and subsequent rebirth) is one of the things that actually literally happened in the world. This is because the other major part of the story’s premise is that Heaven is, in many ways, just as bad as Hell. The angels are just as much a threat as the demons are to the world, to humankind, and to our protagonists. There is no inherent, definite separation between “good” and “bad” in Good Omens; humanity, and life on Earth, is the important thing worth fighting for.
But Jesus’s death indicates that there is an inherent “good” separate from “bad.” It also indicates that Heaven is the ultimate good place, and the ultimate goal, because Jesus’s death was for the purpose of redeeming the sins of humanity so that humans could in the end go to Heaven. If Heaven is just as bad as Hell, how can there also be this objectively good “dying for our sins” thing?
I find this view particularly interesting because none of this occurred to me while watching Good Omens. I didn’t think at all about the Jesus scene or what it implied. It didn’t linger with me; it didn’t affect my interpretation of the rest of the show.
And that’s really because Jesus doesn’t matter to me. At all.
we all saw a lot of gifs and screencaps of aziraphale staring longingly at crowley right after beelzebub and gabriel vanished (honestly, same) and we all love it and scream about it every day. but i was rewatching the entire episode one day and right before that shot we get this:
then it switches to this shot, the one we all know and love:
and right after we get this... (which. wow. i don't even have the words)
i haven't seen any gifs of the shot right before and after the Longing Stare so... yeah. here you go. let's suffer together.
annaxmalina
baratheonpilled
tangentwithtanner
titsay
kaledo-art
vaporwave
andulkaphoto
