A GOOD Ace article for once!? Two Women Redefine What it Means to Marry Your Best Friend

Transcript Transcribed by Laura M.

Courtney: Hello everyone and welcome back. My name is Courtney. I am here with my spouse, Royce, and together we are The Ace Couple. And I promised you all that we would cover a good, happier, more lighthearted article, so that is what we are here to do today. This is from the Vows section of the New York Times entitled: “Two Women Redefine What it Means to Marry Your Best Friend; After 32 years of platonic friendship, Sheri Cole and Beth Moore decided to marry for the security and legal protection.” This story is just so happy. And I am so happy for them. And I’m happy for our community to see this human interest piece published and celebrating them.

Courtney: But before we get too deep into the article and their specific story, I think I want to talk just a little bit about the media trope of, like, making a pact to marry your friend, because I’ve always found it to be very at odds with the way society actually responds to what they view as like friends getting married. Because in media, it’s kind of shown to be, like, romantic, like rom-commy, like, “Oh, if we’re not married by the time we’re 30 or by the time we’re 40, like let’s marry each other.”

Courtney: But now that I think about that I feel like that was really common in, like, the 90s and 2000s and I don’t think I’ve seen a really, really modern version of that. So maybe this is a very specific period of time where it felt like it was all over the place.

Courtney: But at least some of the examples I’m thinking of, like legally speaking, like gay marriage was not universally legal at the time, so it was almost always a straight couple. So it was like a straight man and a woman who, at least at first, do not actually have romantic feelings for one another but still end up making a pact. Like, if we don’t find other people – which we want to find other people – but if we don’t, let’s marry each other anyways. And that’s just such a weird trope and that’s also not how people– Like, in the media trope it’s celebrated, and it’s kind of cute, and maybe it even turns romantic.

Royce: You know, I hadn’t really thought about how long it’s been since I’ve seen or heard something like that, but I also remember just being around people as a teenager who would say things like that.

Courtney: Yeah, people did that in real life. People would say that.

Royce: And the thing is I always remembered it feeling, whenever I saw it depicted, as like, on one hand, you’re agreeing to settle into a safety net, basically. And I don’t think it was uncommon for it to be a, like, partially romantic, like, maybe there’s something there a little bit but not enough to act on, or potentially unrequited love kind of situation.

Courtney: I kind of– I guess the most modern example, which– It wasn’t the focus, which is why it doesn’t stand out that much to me, but was actually Todd and Yolanda in Bojack Horseman. Because after they break up and realize they are not actually compatible, the only thing they have in common is that they are both asexual, they have this really, like, depressing final, like, “If we don’t–” Did they say a hundred? Like, “If we don’t find anyone by the time we’re a hundred”?

Royce: Yeah, it’s a hundred.

Courtney: But it wasn’t seen as, like, a cutesy thing. And the context, it was very somber. Almost like the look on Todd’s face, the really heavy situation of a breakup, almost gave the air of like he doesn’t want this but this is a thing people say, this is a thing people do. And also almost feeling like because I am asexual and it will be harder for me to find a partner that is actually compatible, then there is actually a chance that I will just never find somebody and that I’ll be alone until I’m 100.

Courtney: So it was a very not glamorized or romanticized at all version of that trope, which I of course appreciate.

Courtney: But in earlier examples, and like we were saying, people did actually in real life say this with people. For as kind of common as it is, or at least was, broader society really still does not actually accept that at all.

Courtney: Like the expectation and the reason why I think people like to see that trope in media is because they think, like, this will force them into romantic feelings and they will become what I deem is a functional married couple by the end of it. They just had to take some twists and turns to get there.

Courtney: But the way people talk about sexless marriages, or asexuals who get married, people in queerplatonic relationships, like a lot of people are really kind of cruel about it. And you’ll get the comments that’s like, “Oh, you’re just roommates and this isn’t a real relationship,” or accuse you of having a sham marriage and put way too much weight on a marriage needing to be consummated, especially in religious settings. That’s a thing you hear. And that’s why I think it’s so important to have articles like this that are shining a spotlight on real life people, real life relationships, and posing it in a positive light. Because it’s gonna take more than just one article, but several of these over time is eventually going to help normalize different types of relationship structures. And we will, of course, put a link to the article itself in the show notes if you would like to read it all verbatim yourself.

Courtney: And according to this article, their friendship began in 1992 where they met at the University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati is the weirdest place I’ve ever been in my life, but I’m not going to tell that story right now.

Courtney: And I actually think this is very cool because it says here in the year 2000 they bought a home together. Which I just think is neat because I have seen more and more articles in recent years about how it’s getting more common to buy a house with your friend. And sometimes people will chalk it up to like a younger generation thing, like millennials are buying houses with their friends, or Gen Z are buying houses with their friends. And I don’t actually have the numbers to corroborate whether or not it is getting more common, but I think in general, alternative lifestyle choices that aren’t get heterosexual married, have kids, buy a house in the suburb, like anything that isn’t that very American nuclear family concept is just getting a little more acceptable, a little more common. So I wouldn’t be surprised. But I like seeing examples of people who did this a couple of decades ago. It’s not a brand new concept and these two, they just seem really delightful.

Courtney: It talks about the early days after they met and they had a lot of similar interests, one specifically being Duran Duran. And I thought this was really cute, because there’s a line in the article that says: [reading] “The two recognized in each other a kindred spirit.” And the fact that they’re bonding over music, and Duran Duran, and MTV, it just– The– the word kindred spirit paired with liking the same music just really reminded me of our conversations with Yilin recently. Because in those Chinese poetry translations we were discussing there is a word meaning a kindred spirit who cherishes your same songs, and Yilin Wang, as an aroace translator, sees a lot of queerplatonic value in that word, in that translation. And also talks about just like the stage in their friendship where they were speaking on the phone literally every night. And that kind of got me thinking about all of the friendships I’ve had where we’ve spoken on the phone every single day. Because I’ve had a few of them in my life.

Royce: There was a period of time, like the pre cell phone landline era, where it was actually not uncommon for me to be on the phone for like an hour or more, and that basically doesn’t happen anymore. Or basically at the point where texting started, that communication started getting more asynchronous.

Courtney: Yeah.

Royce: There were some times when I’d still be, like you know, on a video call for a long period of time or something like that, but it started to drop off as time went on.

Courtney: Yeah, there was definitely a period of time for that. It actually, you know, it kind of reminded me of when I had a friend who we spoke on the phone every day and we also had a very similar taste in at least certain types of music. I think I had a wider variety of music that I listened to than she did, but we had a really strong interest in, like, one arena of music tastes. And in the early, early days of YouTube, when it was still like YouTube is a thing, but there’s also still a culture of calling people and talking on the phone, and it was before there were like customized YouTube algorithms where, like, everyone’s recommended videos are different. Like if you clicked on the same video, then the next, like, recommended videos on the sidebar were all the same for everyone. We’d sit here talking on the phone and pull up YouTube and we’d, like, pull up and click on the same music videos so that we could have, like, the same music going on in the background. So we’d, like, both decide on a song, both put it on, and then, based on the recommended videos on the sidebar, we’d be like, “Oh, which we listen to next? Oh, let’s listen to that one.” And then we’d click on that video at the same time. And it was very strange. That was such a period of time that we are never going to get back. But we would do that for hours on the phone every single night.

Courtney: But in reading their story there, there are a lot of things here that I think resonate with me. Part of it is just of the time period, but another part is kind of like Midwestern [chuckles] About the culture of where they were living, it says here that Moore invited Cole to move in with her and move to New Jersey after defending her thesis in ’94. And so [reading] “She was taken aback by the invitation — not because she didn’t want to live with Ms. Moore, but because Ms. Cole, who had grown up in Kettering, Ohio, had never considered leaving.” And the quote here is: [reading] “People don’t leave Ohio. You got married and you stayed there. Ms. Moore joked that there was another part of Ms. Cole who fantasized about becoming the next Andrea Dworkin, the feminist writer and anti-pornography activist.” Andrea Dworkin’s complicated and I don’t feel like commenting on that complicated nature today, so I’ll leave that there. But it’s really endearing because the quote attached to that is: “I showed Sheri a middle ground,” and the middle ground is: [reading] “Sharing a home with her best friend and having fun together.”

Courtney: And then we’ve got some photos of them. The photos in this article made me so happy. First of all, just representation-wise, it’s so important to hear real stories of people, but it’s important to see them as well. I mean, we talked so much about fictional representation in media, which is also important, but we’ve got to also be able to see the real life stories. And there’s a photo of their hands showing off their rings and it looks like also some friendship bracelets. But like one of them here, I’m not sure whose hand this is, otherwise I would say, but she’s just got, like, purple and black nail polish. This is so asexual and I love it. Because then there’s a photo, it’s a side profile of Ms. Cole showing that she’s wearing, like, a veil, just a short veil over her hair. But she’s also got this beautiful asexual pride earring. It’s a crescent moon with the colors of the Ace Pride flag on it.

Courtney: And there’s another photo. The photo seems to actually be of the vows. They’re standing next to each other, reading from a paper. Friends and family are surrounding, watching. And it is so funny because I recognized this little plushie that’s in this picture. There’s a guy standing off to the side, like where if this was a conventional wedding, like, where a bridesmaid would be standing, and he’s holding a freaking plushie Dreadful Ace Rabbit. And it is so funny! Because I have seen these Plushie Dreadfuls before, I’ve seen every one they had, and I knew that they had an Ace Pride flag, one with like a heart on its stomach that has the Ace Pride colors and buttons for eyes, and then like purple spades on its big floppy ears. And I have, at multiple times over the last several years, considered getting one of these. And so I just started cackling when I saw that there was a picture of this Plushie Dreadful who seems to be their bridesmaid. [laughs] It’s so good, I was so happy to see that.

Courtney: So it talks a little more about sort of the trajectory of their relationship before it goes into identity. But it talks about how, in 2000, when they bought a home together, that that was sort of the first major step toward everyone in their life considering them to actually be a unit, like a pair. A college friend of theirs, for example, said: “It’s like one word, ‘Beth-and-Sheri,’” because they live together, they bought a home together, they do everything together, they travel together.

Courtney: [reading] “Ms. Moore and Ms. Cole are not lesbians, though they say everyone in their lives — gay, straight, transgender and cisgender — has long assumed they are. But their self-described “tragically codependent” relationship more closely resembled the enviable iconic cinematic friendship between Romy and Michele from “Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion” than, say, Bette and Tina on “The L Word.””

Courtney: I like the self-description of tragically codependent. And I like this quote from their vows; quote: “You are my soul mate, and the person I want to grow old with, even if we don’t share a bed.”

Courtney: I think there are a lot of aces out there who can still relate on some level to the concept of a soulmate, even if it’s not in a traditional sexual or even in a traditional romantic way. I think there are just certain personality types that do actually or can do really well in a unit type of relationship or a codependent type of relationship.

Courtney: [reading] “While both women have had boyfriends in the past, neither is interested in dating or romantic relationships. Both women identify as asexual. They have always had separate bedrooms. And they are fully devoted to each other.”

Courtney: I like the word devotion. Because sometimes the word codependent has a really bad rep because there are people who can be codependent in very unhealthy ways.

Courtney: But when people in the very allo-cis-het way might look at an asexual marriage, a queerplatonic relationship, or something that they view as being unusual and outside of the norm, they always go like, “Oh well, you’re just friends or you’re just roommates or that’s not a real relationship.” because too many people think the sex is what makes the relationship. In fact, the last article we covered, that was not as happy as this one, talked about how sex is how we defined romantic relationships. I think devotion is just so much more apt. Because you don’t have traditionally the kind of devotion and unit taking on the world together kind of mentality with a casual roommate. But you could with a lifelong friend, you could with someone you’re romantically attracted to but not sexually attracted to. So I think devotion is a better way to define committed, like, long term relationships. But when it comes to these two, they sometimes say they’re in a Boston marriage, [reading] “a 19th-century term used to describe a household with two women who lived together independently of men or male support.”

Royce: That is not something I’ve heard of before.

Courtney: Are you kidding me? That really shocks me. I feel like I’ve said Boston marriages before.

Royce: I don’t think so.

Courtney: Have I not in a conversation with you before? I’ve absolutely talked about the concept of Boston marriages, because the thing is– So, it’s kind of like you at least recognize the trope of looking at a historical, probably romantic, relationship and being like, despite all evidence to the contrary, they were just roommates, like that kind of trope.

Royce: Yeah, I’m familiar with this, but why Boston?

Courtney: Victorian era book? Like, like a lot of other phrases that just become part of a common lexicon. There was a book called the Bostonians. And the interesting thing about, like, Boston marriages, especially in like a modern ace interpretation– People will so often look at historical examples of what you could call a Boston marriage, like two women living together during a specific period of time, and like the modern lens is like, “Oh, they’re lesbians. They’re, they’re– they’ve always been lesbians. All of them are lesbians. They are– they are gay women.” And undoubtedly sometimes that was the case. But this, like, queer community joke about, like, historians who wouldn’t know a gay couple are always going to say like, “Oh, they were just roommates, they were just roommates,” when clearly they were gay. I always find myself, like, reaching for the nuance.

Courtney: Because it’s, it’s not a binary. There aren’t two options. It’s not either they were just roommates or they are lesbians. Like, that’s not the case 100% of the time. There absolutely have been Boston marriages for people that in a modern context maybe you could call it a queerplatonic relationship, if you had updated language for it. People who maybe were asexual and or aromantic before having that as common language to label oneself. But I think the broader, like, non-aspec queer community is really quick to go: gay before it was socially acceptable to be gay, done. Solved it. Every single time, every single historical person. And I have seen even before these two, I have seen other aspec people sort of claim or reclaim Boston marriage for their own living situations. And honestly? I kind of live for it. I love it. Absolutely use Boston marriage if it feels right for you. You have this ace historian’s seal of approval.

Courtney: And it says here: [reading] “The women initially rejected the idea of marriage. “That was for other people who had fought and suffered for their love and that wasn’t quite us. We were – quote – ‘just friends,’” Ms. Moore said. Then she said she realized “there is no ‘just’ about friends.”” And that is just a very ace mindset. I think a lot of folks in our community can resonate with coming to that level of understanding.

Courtney: Because we grow up with the language ‘just friends’ – just friends, you’re friendzoned is a bad thing – that before we really start sitting with it and critiquing society and digging deep to feel how we genuinely feel and how we structure relationships, it’s really common to just sort of parrot like “just friends, just friends.” And it can– Until you have that realization it can be very self-limiting too. You can limit yourself in your own relationships to these confines of what you think it should be. Because I would argue that society has just as many confines around what it deems an appropriate friendship as it does what it deems an appropriate romantic relationship or a sexual one. But once you realize there is no ‘just’ about friends, or there doesn’t have to be a ‘just’ about friends, the doors are wide open to so many more possibilities.

Courtney: And the article goes on to talk about how the women’s commitment to each other as life partners has deepened over the years as practical matters have arisen. Citing an instance of health insurance where one had far better insurance than the other, so they went through the process to get registered as domestic partners. Which I kind of wish it told me about what year that was, because how easy or difficult it is to do that has varied drastically depending on what year it was, what State you’re in, but we just don’t have those details based on this article.

Courtney: I also find it really interesting how the pandemic led to an evolution in deciding what’s best for their life and their relationship. It says here: [reading] “As they grew older, and cared for their aging parents, the friends began to consider whether they should take a bigger step. “Covid brought the issue of health care into focus,” Ms. Cole said. The women considered what sickness and death might look like for them without legal protection. They worried about not having the right to advocate for each other in times of crisis. There is “no one else who will care as much about my legacy,” Ms. Cole said.”

Courtney: Which– When it does come to healthcare and things, like, these are things we’ve talked about in the context of why many people still might want to pursue marriage. It isn’t always the only option to get those protections. There are other legal contracts like advanced directives, different things you can sort out, but there are fewer roadblocks and fewer things that can go wrong with a marriage certificate.

Courtney: And the pandemic’s a really interesting thing too, because I don’t know how many able-bodied people know this, but in the days of the pandemic, when hospitals were overcrowded, when they didn’t have enough ventilators for everyone who needed one, there were – and no doubt still are – single, unmarried, disabled people who would wear fake wedding rings, who would like get a wedding ring for themselves because in situations where there aren’t enough ventilators and doctors have to make the decision, basically, “Whose life are we going to save?” you already have, like, a quote “quality of life” strike against you if you’re already disabled.

Courtney: But if you are married, if you have a family, that’s actually a positive sign and is actually genuinely going to increase your chances of getting a spot on a ventilator. So, like it is– it is genuinely, not only: is this person going to be able to visit you if you are in the hospital? Are they going to be able to advocate for your care if you can’t advocate for yourself? It’s also: does the doctor and the hospital and the people giving your care, do they actually think that your life is worth living and are they going to fight their hardest to keep you alive? Now, obviously, this is not every single healthcare professional in the world, but it is a common enough occurrence that there are disabled people who are not married who will pretend like they are to try to get better care.

Courtney: And here’s the really interesting thing. I mean that quote I read about thinking that marriage is for people who fought and suffered for their love. They were considering this quote in the context of the Supreme Court legalizing same sex marriage in 2015. That being the year where, if they wanted to get married, they could have had easier legal access to do so. But I don’t know. That almost seems like a kind of– we talk in our community about, like, queer imposter syndrome, like some people don’t actually feel like they belong to the queer community because sometimes our stories as aspecs don’t perfectly align with stories of, well in this context, with same-sex marriage homosexual couples. But in sort of minimizing our own rights and the concerns of our own community, we are now in a situation where alloromantic, allosexual, same-sex couples actually have more legal rights than some asexual and aromantic couples do. And it sounds like, for these two, it took them some time to really internalize that. But I am so glad that they were able to and that they’re able to celebrate their relationship for what it is and seek the legal protections that will benefit them going forward.

Courtney: Because, it says here: [reading] “Over the past year, with the encouragement of friends, family and colleagues, the women came to appreciate they had a place on the queer spectrum — the A in LGBTQIA — and that they needed protection. And as they bought a new home in 2022, their financial adviser and mortgage broker also suggested they marry. “Legally the only thing that will solidify our status is something called ‘marriage.’ And that’s problematic,” Ms. Cole said. “But it’s what we have.”” Amen. And the article makes it sound like they were just going to do the, like, get married at City Hall thing, not make a big deal out of it but sign the paperwork. But it actually says here that, [reading] “much to their delight and surprise,” their friends and family wanted to celebrate and wanted to see them exchange vows. And that is just so cool! I love that they have such a supportive community of people around them that, even if their inclination wasn’t to do a ceremony, make a big fuss about it, the other people around them said, “No, this is worth celebrating and we want to celebrate it with you.”

Royce: Well, it was mentioned earlier that everyone around them saw a relationship. They saw a union. They sometimes had misunderstandings about the nature of it, but they saw two people who were devoted.

Courtney: So, yeah, it looks like they had a really cute little intimate ceremony at a baseball game, renting a box with all their friends and family to exchange vows. Being now legally married, it says, they will continue to refer to each other as partners. So that sounds like they were already calling themselves partners before this. I don’t know when in the timeline of their relationship that started happening. And, yeah, if this story is giving you the fuzzies, I encourage you to go to the show notes and read it all yourself, because they have a lot of extra details about what exactly the ceremony looked like, different quotes from the two of them, and it’s– it’s just very feel good. I love it. I want more. I want more spotlights on people redefining social norms.

Courtney: When we critique bad articles so often it’s because it’s like you aren’t saying anything new or profound and you’re doubling down on conventional wisdom that doesn’t work for a lot of people. This article says two women redefine what it means to marry your best friend. Like, yes, this is a redefinition of what that means. And it’s showing real life, people who have a beautiful relationship. And I think this article does a good job of spotlighting them carving out a life that works for them. They are utilizing the tools at their disposal that help, the tool being marriage. They’re admitting that the way marriage is set up in our society is not the best, that’s a thing we’ve also said, but it is a benefit to them. It is going to help them live their best life, so they’re using that tool. They’re going to continue referring to each other as partners, presumably that’s in lieu of saying my wife. So they’re choosing the language that feels more appropriate for them.

Courtney: And it shows a bit of an evolution in just the way that they have viewed their own relationship, and society, and their freedom to pick and choose the things that work for them. Because it really sounds like there was a period of time where they were not considering getting married at all, but over time their views have evolved. And so I think in that sense it’s also really relatable. And I hope it’s relatable not only to other aces, but I hope that by the New York Times publishing pieces like this, with relationships that have a different structure that’s outside of societal norms in some way, that it will start to normalize it. Because they look so happy in all these pictures. There’s also a picture right at the top of them with, like the Phillies baseball mascot. It’s a silly green furry creature with a snoot that I don’t think I’ve ever seen before, but he’s like holding up both of their hands and they’re cheering and celebrating. And it just looks like a blast! I am so happy for them.

Royce: The Philly Fanatic is some kind of flightless bird-esque thing.

Courtney: Why does he look like he says ‘newt, newt’? [both chuckles]

Royce: That’s an interesting way to describe a creature, but I see it.

Courtney: Do you see it? It looks like he goes ‘newt newt’! So, yeah, I hope the New York Times will post more articles like this, as opposed to– I feel like there is a New York Times article that was just bad that we talked about recently.

Royce: Oh yeah, the sexless marriage article?

Courtney: Right, that didn’t even mention asexuals. So, the thing that I just really want to drive home is that marriage is a flawed legal system and it is very unfair in a lot of ways. However, the ability to get married– marriage comes with like genuinely over 1000, like, federal benefits and privileges that you just straight up do not have equal access to if you are not married or do not choose to get married. And that’s a problem for people who don’t want to get married, who prefer to stay single. But because marriage is so heavily ingrained in so many other legal aspects of life in this country… Oh, it’ll be a long, long, long time before we can actually tear down the legal entwinements that all come along with marriage. Which is why, yes, it was important that Obergefell v. Hodges passed in 2015, because that expanded access, that gave so many more Americans the ability to access the legal institution that is marriage. That gave more people more benefits and more rights, and that is a good thing.

Courtney: But it really does just kill me to see a couple like this who, for so long, felt like marriage still isn’t for us, even though we can technically access it now. It doesn’t seem right. Because, with how many inequalities there already are for so many people, we can still advocate for better systems long term. We can advocate for an overhaul in the way marriage can function legally in society. But for now, if you have access to something that will make your life better, that will make yourself easier, you are not cheating. You are not cheating by accessing that. You are not taking away anything from other marginalized groups by doing that.

Courtney: And we have argued time and time again that with the passing of Obergefell v. Hodges, allosexual same-sex couples do currently have a stronger legal protection to marriage. There are situations where queerplatonic marriages can and have been legally challenged. There have been think-pieces written by lawyers and people who have PhDs in legal affairs like this talking about how the legal precedence for marriage that same-sex couples were able to inherit still says it needs to be a romantic relationship, a sexually exclusive relationship. It has to basically function like what society deems to be a normal, proper marriage, and sex is often a part of that. And that’s why we still have consummation laws on the books, why in so many States a marriage is legally voidable if it has not been sexually consummated.

Courtney: So I firmly believe that an allosexual lesbian couple as of right now, because uh… we’ve got an election coming up that scares me a lot. Legal rights always seem to be precarious for the queer community. But as of right now, as of the time of recording, an allosexual lesbian couple does have a stronger legal right to marriage than an asexual couple does, that otherwise could look and feel and function in the same way. In terms of – like we were discussing – devotion, commitment, shared goals for living life as a unit. And that’s why we’re not gonna shut up about the necessity of stronger legal protections for our aspec community. But yeah, otherwise, I’m really happy for Sheri and Beth. I wish them the absolute best. I know we’ve gotten so many listeners writing in to us just saying that seeing us as an openly married asexual couple gives them a lot of hope, makes them very happy. So hopefully, just seeing there are others out there, there are other asexual married couples, it’s worth throwing out even more hope and good vibes out there into the world.

Courtney: And speaking of good vibes, that will bring us to this week’s featured marketplace vendor. We are shining a spotlight today on Abi Stevens: “Colorful pins, prints, stickers and more, designed by an Ace and chronically ill artist to empower their communities.”

Courtney: There are so many really good things in this shop. There are, first of all, just Pride things. I got a beautiful enamel pin of, like, a lion with asexual pride flag colors that says: I found my pride. It’s very cute. You can get the same pin in a variety of other pride flags as well. But I also, as someone who is disabled and chronically ill myself, I loved some of these chronic illness designs. There’s one that says ‘fatigued and fabulous’. Things that say, like, ‘chronic warrior’ or ‘fighting invisible battles’. One that says fuck capitalism. Because fuck capitalism.

Courtney: But the other thing I got from this store– I love so much it has genuinely changed my, like, day to day speaking patterns, because there’s this fabulous design which you can get as a print or a sticker or even like an acrylic pin, it says, “Not today. I have a brain frog.” And it’s got this silly, demonic little frog design with, like, evil looking smoke coming out of its open mouth. And I just love it so much. I love it so much as someone who does grapple with brain fog on a number of occasions, it is now so much more fun on those days where brain just doesn’t wanna brain too good to say, “I have a brain frog.” And it’s fun to imagine this ridiculous little guy just sitting inside my skull where my brain is supposed to be.

Royce: Emitting all the fog?

Courtney: Emitting all of the fog. Yep, that’s, that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. So definitely do check out this store. Lots of really great things. I got a kick out of them, and I think you will too. As always, links to find that are also in the description. So, as always, thank you all so much for being here and we’ll talk to you next time. Bye-bye.