My Boy is the only kid I know who can turn a Sand pit, a snow day, or a beach trip into a masterpiece. consistency is a talent, but don’t forget when 5 and 1 become a domestic dAy of rights, spoken like a prophEcy. REmember Kids spelling is fun
Honey is one of the songs that actually made my cry on my first listen. Because it was exactly 1 to 1 with my experiences with the queer community. Right down to the word "Honey" having different connotations than before.
Honey is used a LOT in the queer community, to the point that the honey emoji has been used as an indicator for gay people.
Now let's dive into what she's actually saying with this song.
What a great opener, what does it mean?
So, the muse can call her a word she has a bad history with because they mean it positively.
The muse REDEFINES what a word means to her by using it gently, earnestly.
Summertime spritz, pink skies
Wintergreen kiss all mine:
Wintergreen, like a flavor of toothpaste,
YOU GIVE IT *DIFFERENT MEANING* CAUSE YOU MEAN IT WHEN YOU TALK.
Gaylors don't call Taylor gay as an insult we call her gay as a RADICAL ACT OF AFFIRMATION, We are saying "WE CAN SEE YOU, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE CLEAR USE OF OUR CULTURE AND SIGNALS. WE CLAIM YOU AS ONE OF US."
Sweetie, it's yours, kicking in doors
Take it to the floor, give me more
Keith Haring in the showgirl DOOR displays. Keith Haring being the artist behind the coming out day image that depicts a yellow closeted person KICKING IN THE DOOR TO GET OUT.
Take it to the floor, dancing, floor shows, ballroom culture.
But you say it like you're in awe of me
And you stay until the morning
It is fundamentally different in her eyes for someone to call her something when they are saying it in awe, vs when they are saying it as an insult.
Calling her gay as an act of community and honoring queer culture is not an insult.
As for "You stay until the morning." Gaylors have long been on Daylight theory. The song Daylight has many themes about wanting to come out. We believe daylight for Taylor symbolizes when she is finally able to show her true self to the world. And be known for the things she loves. We stay with her until then, we give her queer community until then. And in doing so we also provide community for everyone else who has to live like she does. Walking the line between being visible to the community, and deniable to those who won't accept her.
Taylor's white mini dress tonight is the same brand (RETROFÊTE) that she wore back on April 25, 2019 - when ME! was announced in an interview with Robin Roberts...
💗🦋
Taylor has been working with the NFL since at least draft day of 2019 🏈
I'm sorry about watching the gaylor crash outs after the New York Times interview dropped is hilarious because y'all are acting as if she didn't fire off a huge warning shot with a 1989 prologue. She very clearly does not like the speculation anymore she might have at one point in her life but she doesn't anymore. She probably figured out that do stuff like liner notes wasn't healthy and that's why she hasn't done them in like seven albums now. People change and grow teenage Taylor in early 20s Taylor who would do the secret messages has clearly not existed for a very long time now because she likes her privacy. If you really look at shes done she's kept very consistent with what she said in new heights which is that she never easter eggs her personal life.
If you continue to speculate after Not only the 1989 prologue but now also this New York Times interview you're not a true fan because she's made it clear she's uncomfortable by it.
Ah yes, Prologue Prolapse: the way Taylor's most bigoted fans collectively show their gaping inflamed assholes by reading Taylor's prologues the same way they do their Bibles, picking and choosing the 2 lines they can twist out of context against Gaylors and ignoring the rest.
The 1989 Prologue is about the media. And y'all scapegoating Gaylors over it makes the ACTUAL PEOPLE CAUSING TAYLOR HARM-- the MEDIA-- to keep getting away with it.
If it WAS about the fans, the lines y'all ignore immediately prior would be calling out all the fans who speculate about Joe and Travis and Matty. But y'all never call it up when other segments of the fandom are talking about them, because you don't care what it says, you just wanna "win" against Gaylors.
And the 2 times shes complained about Paternity Testing... that means looking for the MAN INVOLVED IN A SONG'S CREATION, ie the assertion that men are more important to her work than she is. You have to have brain worms to believe that's in any way related to Taylor hating Gaylors.
Because yall Hetlors can't collectively rub 2 brain cells together and you ignore the ACTUAL PROBLEMS, because that would realize recognizing that Y'ALL ARE THE ONE'S TARGETED BY THE PATERNITY TEST QUOTES.
If she "doesn't easter egg about her private life" yall cant have it both ways and say that she can't be flagging queer shit but that she does flag the men. Either you accept what she says or you don't... but you only accept what she says when you think its a win against Gaylors.
But yall don't want to recognize the fact that everything you say about Gaylors includes Taylor because its HER QUEER ASS that put the symbolism there.
I'm sorry about watching the gaylor crash outs after the New York Times interview dropped is hilarious because y'all are acting as if she didn't fire off a huge warning shot with a 1989 prologue. She very clearly does not like the speculation anymore she might have at one point in her life but she doesn't anymore. She probably figured out that do stuff like liner notes wasn't healthy and that's why she hasn't done them in like seven albums now. People change and grow teenage Taylor in early 20s Taylor who would do the secret messages has clearly not existed for a very long time now because she likes her privacy. If you really look at shes done she's kept very consistent with what she said in new heights which is that she never easter eggs her personal life.
If you continue to speculate after Not only the 1989 prologue but now also this New York Times interview you're not a true fan because she's made it clear she's uncomfortable by it.
Ah yes, Prologue Prolapse: the way Taylor's most bigoted fans collectively show their gaping inflamed assholes by reading Taylor's prologues the same way they do their Bibles, picking and choosing the 2 lines they can twist out of context against Gaylors and ignoring the rest.
The 1989 Prologue is about the media. And y'all scapegoating Gaylors over it makes the ACTUAL PEOPLE CAUSING TAYLOR HARM-- the MEDIA-- to keep getting away with it.
If it WAS about the fans, the lines y'all ignore immediately prior would be calling out all the fans who speculate about Joe and Travis and Matty. But y'all never call it up when other segments of the fandom are talking about them, because you don't care what it says, you just wanna "win" against Gaylors.
And the 2 times shes complained about Paternity Testing... that means looking for the MAN INVOLVED IN A SONG'S CREATION, ie the assertion that men are more important to her work than she is. You have to have brain worms to believe that's in any way related to Taylor hating Gaylors.
Because yall Hetlors can't collectively rub 2 brain cells together and you ignore the ACTUAL PROBLEMS, because that would realize recognizing that Y'ALL ARE THE ONE'S TARGETED BY THE PATERNITY TEST QUOTES.
If she "doesn't easter egg about her private life" yall cant have it both ways and say that she can't be flagging queer shit but that she does flag the men. Either you accept what she says or you don't... but you only accept what she says when you think its a win against Gaylors.
But yall don't want to recognize the fact that everything you say about Gaylors includes Taylor because its HER QUEER ASS that put the symbolism there.
Where are the gaylor crashouts exactly? Bc I've only seen gaylors celebrating.
I'm not gonna belabor the great points made by the most recent reblog so let me add further points:
1: speculating someone-who is aggressively using queer flags/codes/symbols/signals with the enthusiasm of an autistic lesbian whose special interest is queer history and culture-might be queer is not the same as insisting every single song she writes is about a man and treating that as the most important aspect of a song.
2: Taylor doesn't Easter Egg her private life right? Then either she's lying or Travis Kelce isn't her personal life and he's a pr relationship.
How do I know this?
Let's roll back to Midnights Mayhem With Me
Promotional material for midnights and full of Easter eggs, this series presented itself as random chance but clearly was not. Why?
First track announced: Track 13 Mastermind. A song which we would later find out has the lyrics "what if I told you none of it was accidental." So I'm supposed to believe that's a coincidence? That the first one she pulled was her special number and the song about how she masterminds shit to look accidental but it's not?
Second Track: Track 8
Third track: 7 see where I'm going?
Next three tracks: 6 2 3
So her special number, his special number, then the date (6/23) that he cameo'd on the eras tour stage?
That isnt a coincidence. That's an egg. And she was still with Joe. Hadn't even had her Matty fling yet.
Then we have her going to hotel room 87 in the fate of ophelia music video. Then we have "new heights of manhood"
Travis talking about being butthurt at the eras tour? First happens in an AD FOR CONCERTS. Its showbiz babe, shes married to the hustle. She doesn't want ppl crediting a man for her work and she wants ppl to read more into the lyrics, which when you do become incredibly queer to anyone with a general knowledge of queer history and flagging.
Speculating about the meaning of a song and the personal experiences and feelings put into it =/= "this song is about (insert man here) and all I'm gonna talk about is this guy, act like he basically wrote the song, and maybe harass him on the internet. Later I'm gonna debate which muses produce better songs (real thing hetlors do)" which is what shes talking about in the interview.
In conclusion
ps: queer people dont flag as heavily as she does if they dont want speculation. Flagging is intentional invitation to speculation. It is queer survival. Stop demeaning our history, culture, and survival tools.
"In the music video [for ME!] before the song begins we find Taylor in an apartment looking out the window as a man pleads with her to “please calm down”, while she tells him that she “can’t talk to” him when he’s “like this”, all of this diaglogue and the following diaglogue being spoken in French.
The Man then tells Taylor that she is “so dramatic” which provokes our narrator to shout “how dare you” and then admonishes him for saying such a thing in front of their “young daughters” while the camera focuses on two cats. The narrator then moves to leave the apartment as The Man tells her again she “needs to calm down” which leads her to screaming “I am calm!” before leaving the apartment and slamming the door behind her.
Our narrator, hunched and forlorn, looks down at the floor in desperation. Then, as if remembering she is in front of an audience, she looks towards the camera, straightens her back and joins the chorus of voices that begin to sing “I promise that you’ll never find another like me”. The Song has begun, and once again the narrator is telling her lover and her audience all about her faults. “I know that I’m a handful baby” she croons to the camera, as she struts down the sunlit hallway, now in full Pop Music Video mode.
She continues to state that she knows she never thinks before she jumps (while jumping over steam shooting out of a broken radiator) and that her muse is “the kind of guy the ladies want”. The first verse continues the same sentiment with the narrator concluding that “trouble’s gonna follow where” she goes, and as an aside, there are a lot of other “cool chicks” out there, seeming to imply her muse has their choice of lovers.
However! One of these “chicks” is not like “the others”, she tells her “baby” that “when it comes to a lover” she promises they will “never find another like” her.
In the chorus she continues this train of thought saying “I’m the only one of me” and that, baby, “that’s the fun of me!”. While on the surface this is the echo of many a love song, I think in the context of this Album our narrator is coming to the conclusion if she is, as she claimed in Afterglow, the source of the blue days within her relationship she must also be the sunshine in the relationship. That she will love her muse in a way only she can, that she will give more than she believes anyone else would be able to or willing to give.
In the second verse a voice joins our narrator on the track, the first voice we have heard on lead vocals on this album other than the narrator. The most straightwordward assumption to make is to me to assume that this second voice is taking the place of Blue.
During this part of the song in the accompanying music video The Man finds our narrator and attempts to apologise for the fight. At first he offers her flowers, which she turns away from and refuses. Then he offers what appears to be an engagement ring, which she also refuses. This is particularly of note as in the text of this Album we have heard the narrator repeat her intention to marry her muse, yet there has been no proposal or engagement mentioned. This scene in the music video is the only textual reference to a proposal and in it our narrator rejects it, instead accepting her muse’s next offer of apology - a kitten. I think it is of note that the context in which the proposal takes place is The Man seemingly being motivated by his desire to win his lover back after an argument, rather than a desire to marry her. Perhaps it is not the absence of a proposal that has our narrator sore but the context in which a proposal occurred.
Regardless of why the narrator refuses the ring The Man attempts to gift her, she does accept the afformentioned kitten and from this point in the music video the lovers do not part ways again, as if the kitten solved whatever issue that prompted the fight.
During this part of the music video the second voice sings the first part of the second verse, in which he confesses he knows he tends “to make it about me” and that his lover never gets just what she sees with, before singing “I will never bore you, baby”. It’s left unclear whether these sentiments are coming from Blue the muse or whether they are the ways our narrator is imagining her muse sees this relationship. Or perhaps both Taylor and The Man are representations of our narrator and the entire sequence is playing out in the mind of our narrator, day dreaming about a muse who takes on equal responsibility for the dynamics in this relationship.
In the second pre-chorus the narrator confirms her own perspective by singing “living in winter, I am your summer”. She is committed to being the sunshine, the life source, the daylight in this relationship, no matter what storms approach their shore. "
stormborns
izzy806
ellievsbear
annaxmalina
jbbartram-illu
dededos
tangentwithtanner
