Letters Never Sent

[vulgarweed]

Dear Tolkien Society,

I have combed all the Letters and HoME notes for this and have yet to find a definitive answer to this question; if it's in there and I missed it, please forgive me. During a sexual encounter, would the penis of the penetrator or fellatee disappear upon entering an orifice of someone wearing the One Ring? (Assuming this person is neither Sauron nor Tom Bombadil)

Sincerely,

V, who needs to know Because of Reasons, and when I tried to contact the Professor over the Ouija board, he hung up on me.

~~~

Dear Christopher Tolkien....

NOPE. You guys will have better answers anyway.




[Poll #1906920]



This is the kind of question that keeps me up at night. Perhaps I should look at my life choices.

*looks*

Yup, they're fine!

Comments

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Well, it's canon in The Hobbit that neither Elves nor Dwarves can see Bilbo when he's wearing it, so the effect definitely works in that direction - now, would a powerful Elf turn invisible while wearing it? I don't know - but I think it's implied that the fact that Bombadil doesn't is something very shocking and weird. Has any Elf or Dwarf ever even tried it on? Maybe not. That's an unknown factor, then.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Yeah, ouch. Not good fun sexy times. I'm leaning towards your view now, whereas I was truly on the fence before.

[elluvias.livejournal.com]

This brings up the question, though of whether or not ejaculate would remain visible or invisible? Going by the rules if it landed on Bilbo or uh remained inside it would be invisible but maybe it wouldn't. Maybe it'd be like the usual foil to invisible but tangible people and throwing mud or water on them.

[athena799.livejournal.com]

Apropos to nothing, I'm reminded of a story I read once, might have been a fanfic (I wish I could remember) that had a character going in depth into the exact extent of an item like the One Ring as far as invisibility went. It included experiments like - If I wrap my hand around a cup it stays visible, if I lift it it goes invisible. If I wear clothing they're invisible, if I touch someone else's clothing they remain visible. The ultimate conclusion was that if the individual was supporting an item off the ground, it was invisible (which brings up the interesting question of shoes, though not pertinent to Bilbo).

So if I were to give my somewhat scientific answer it is this - the One Ring is controlled by the will of a sentient, living being (who knows about animals, I really don't). Therefore, it can only effect 1 individual at a time who is wearing it, hence why it changes its own shape to match 1 individual. It takes in also any inanimate objects the individual is supporting from the ground, ie clothing and weapons. If an item is dropped, it becomes visible again. So Sting would have been visible when Frodo dropped it on Weathertop, but not when it was in his hand.**

We actually DO have an example of someone having a part of their body inside someone who is wearing the Ring. Get your mind out of the gutter - it was Gollum biting off Frodo's finger. Since he didn't go invisible with Frodo's finger in his mouth, I think we can assume it goes both ways. I can only imagine the good Professor's reaction to learning how that scene would be interpreted by our depraved little minds.

** A note on Sting. As noted above, Bilbo actually does cast a shadow while wearing the Ring in the Hobbit. Personal headcanon is that the Ring was relatively "dormant" during that period, and so didn't extend quite as much invisibility power as it did with Frodo. But that does mean light interacts with him somehow. Without going into all the problems of actually being blind if you were to ever be completely invisible (because light would pass through your eyes) I'd like to suggest that Sting is SOMETIMES visible, and sometimes not. Namely, when it is glowing, because then it is putting off light. I think the blade itself would still be invisible, but there would be a faint glow in the air unless it was sheathed. This could be problematic during the BoFA?

-Avelera

[athena799.livejournal.com]

I think it would allow you to see his outline. To reference my post below, if Bilbo's body is keeping the ejaculate from touching the ground, it would be invisible because it would be under the same effect as clothing. But you would be able to see any ejaculate that fell to either side of him and where part of it is suddenly missing. That was always my interpretation of the mud or water thing, the parts that hit them go invisible, and all you see are the parts that don't go invisible around them.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Apropos to nothing, I'm reminded of a story I read once, might have been a fanfic (I wish I could remember) that had a character going in depth into the exact extent of an item like the One Ring as far as invisibility went. It included experiments like - If I wrap my hand around a cup it stays visible, if I left it it goes invisible. If I wear clothing they're invisible, if I touch someone else's clothing they remain visible. The ultimate conclusion was that if the individual was supporting an item off the ground, it was invisible (which brings up the interesting question of shoes).

That sounds like some serious D&D Rules Lawyering right there, testing the limits of a magic item to a ridiculous degree. Which is exactly what real people would do with a magic item, I think. XD

Convenient that a big question centers around shoes, when the Ringbearers we spend the most time with are all hobbits, who don't wear them! (I call a common sense clause on this one - what good is a ring of invisibility if everyone can still see your shoes walking around?)

Everything you say makes complete sense. But in your example, when Frodo's finger was inside Gollum (*twitch**squick*), Frodo was the one wearing the Ring at the time, not Gollum - and he and his finger both became visible when Gollum bit it off. Which totally fits - that was the moment when the Ring changed ownership again.

I agree with your headcanon about the Ring's varying tides of dormancy and "sentience," or at least something like a Will, and that could totally account for a lot seeming inconsistencies (at the very least, as a retcon, it's no worse than Tolkien's own). But at the time Bilbo was fighting the spiders, Sting wouldn't have been glowing, because there weren't any orcs or goblins around. Could well be accounted for by the Ring being weaker, though.

Ugh, that could be VERY problematic during the BoFA. Or almost any other battle, come to think of it. Good thing Frodo never used it in Mordor, and Sam only did when he was able to win.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

I think - inside the invisible person, it would be invisible. It's something that's taken totally inside, like food. On someone - eh, negotiable.

I think the ejaculate of the invisible Ring-wearer would become visible the moment it left his cock.

[athena799.livejournal.com]

Perhaps since a portion of shoes, for example the top of them, are lifted from the ground then they count as being "on" the person? I can't imagine shoes would be that big a deal, but I am a bit braindead right now. And oh yeah, I'm totally squicked out by the Gollum example, but my treacherous brain jumped up like Hermione with answer just before I wrote "we have no example of a body part inside another etc. etc." and went "NO AVELERA WE TOTALLY DO" and the realization was followed by a full-body shudder. But you are right, it would make sense if it goes both ways but it's not NECESSARILY so. I guess I'd just go back to how the Ring changes size, since it's clearly trying to be effected by only 1 sentient Ringbearer at once? If it stayed Sauron-sized two hobbits could conceivably both wear it (uncomfortably) at the same time, by shrinking to their size it prevents that. Hence even if someone were topping enough to fulfill the rules of inanimate objects, the fact that they're living beings means they don't go invisible? Someone being carried off the ground by a Ringbearer would just appear to be floating, because they're a living person, and insertion would follow the same rule. The One Ring is one-passenger only (thank you very much, the Ring says haughtily. Ain't no Ring-threesomes for this old dame.)

As to the Ring's dormancy - wouldn't YOU tune out a bit after 500 years in a cave with Gollum? There's only so many solo riddle games and muttered conversations with "precious" that I think even an evil magical artifact can take before it makes a run for it. The next 60 years was just the Ring slowly waking up out and glancing around furtively to make sure Gollum is REALLY gone this time.

I'd also like to mention that I like the idea that, as an elven blade, the fact that Sting may not be wholly effected by the Ring is a very cool theory. It's like battle of the Elven smiths, whose hunk of metal is better.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Perhaps since a portion of shoes, for example the top of them, are lifted from the ground then they count as being "on" the person? I can't imagine shoes would be that big a deal, but I am a bit braindead right now.

The person is wearing the shoes. As long as they're still fastened around the person's feet, I think they count as clothing, and become invisible as all clothing items do.

And oh yeah, I'm totally squicked out by the Gollum example, but my treacherous brain jumped up like Hermione with answer just before I wrote "we have no example of a body part inside another etc. etc." and went "NO AVELERA WE TOTALLY DO" and the realization was followed by a full-body shudder. But you are right, it would make sense if it goes both ways but it's not NECESSARILY so.

No worries, my brain does that too. But my point was it's not completely analogous because Frodo was invisible and Gollum was visible when Gollum took Frodo's finger into his mouth, so the position of visible/visible and inserting/inserted are reversed.

If it stayed Sauron-sized two hobbits could conceivably both wear it (uncomfortably) at the same time, by shrinking to their size it prevents that.

True, true - but is that really the reason the size changes? I think it changes just to choose a bearer or abandon one, selectively. And maybe Sauron didn't just wear it on his finger...

As to the Ring's dormancy - wouldn't YOU tune out a bit after 500 years in a cave with Gollum? There's only so many solo riddle games and muttered conversations with "precious" that I think even an evil magical artifact can take before it makes a run for it. The next 60 years was just the Ring slowly waking up out and glancing around furtively to make sure Gollum is REALLY gone this time.

*spittakes* Oh god yes, truth. I almost feel bad for it. Worst roommate ever.

I like that idea too. Sting has kind of a will of its own as well. I think it really enjoys being borne by hobbits. It's refreshing.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_silverfox/]

"You are rogering an invisible arse. Does your cock disappear?"
Um ... only once I actually find the hole? ;P

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Sense of touch. You know this body, you might have been there before. Your partner is helping and guiding you. Your hands and your mouth have been surveying the landscape, and you've been humping against each other for a little while now, in different positions, kissing and stroking and playing. Your body is fitted to theirs, and you know exactly where you are in relation to them; even the size difference has been accounted for.

You don't need sight to find anything, as long as you've got the other four senses in full strength.

[shadowvalkyrie.livejournal.com]

My initial instinct was that since clothes etc disappear as well, I'd say that in the case of ring-invisibility, anything ...inserted into the ring-wearer would disappear, too, seeing as the ring works as a sort of cloaking device. If the invisibility was induced by some other means that make the wearer translucent instead, the cock in question would remain visible.

However, someone above rightly mentioned that the ring actually works differently from both variants, seeing as the wearer is actually (partially?) transported to a... close parallel dimension? Layer of reality? Which would argue in favour of cock-visibility, but mostly makes me wonder whether successful fellatio/fucking would even work at all unless you happen to be blowing, say a Nazgûl (unf, yes), which exists in both spheres simultaneously. On the other hand, things in both realities can be touched/manipulated, so maybe it would still work. But then, the transportation to the other place can't be entirely responsible for the invisibility, or that too wouldn't be complete, so additional cloaking would have to occur (I think we can rule out transparency), so that we're back to invisible cock?

Tl;dr: I have no fucking clue. XD Really good question, though!

And yep, your life-choices look flawless from where I'm standing. :D

[shadowvalkyrie.livejournal.com]

No worries, the hole will find you... :D

[persephoneflame.livejournal.com]

I have no answer for you, but this discussion is a perfect example of why I love fandom so.

[hopita.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure which I'm more tickled by --

The questions themselves, or the fact that (thus far) there are 39 replies of earnest discussion on the matter.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Never underestimate the power of dirty-minded nerds.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Same here. It's how we roll.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

I think part of the problem is the inconsistency of Tolkien's own writing about the Ring - in The Hobbit, when he didn't yet know the ring was The Ring, it seems very handwavey "it's magic" just like you'd expect in a children's book. The deeper explanations came later.

I think enough of the wearer remains in this dimension that sex would definitely be possible. They're still physically present - they can eat (and steal food, keys, gold cups, etc.), they can be hurt or killed (or knocked unconscious for a whole battle) or hurt or kill someone or something else, they still make sounds and give off scent (that a dragon can smell even if he can't identify it). I don't really see any problems with having sex, assuming one's partner can cope with the sheer weirdness.

I think in the case of Nazgûl-blowing, it's probably better not to have a Ring - maybe you don't want to be able to see what you're doing.

[quartzpebble.livejournal.com]

So my question is, if the penis does become invisible, what does the end look like during this process? I feel like the end of the cock-stump would be most likely to look like the cross section taken at whatever point along the shaft that crosses the entrance to the, ahem, sphere of the Ring's influence, which just seems wrong.

[sirius-luva.livejournal.com]

That wasn't Krishna's mum, that was the demoness Putana who was trying to kill him - some versions say her breast milk was poison, others say she smeared poison on her breasts, and still others say she showed up in the form of a cow. Unless you're talking about an entirely different story?

[sirius-luva.livejournal.com]

... I hadn't even considered that but GOOD GODS, this is beginning to sound like a horror movie. D:

[sirius-luva.livejournal.com]

At first I assumed that the Ring worked something like Harry's invisibility cloak, except centred around the wearer's body; if the wearer wrapped zir hand around a cock nothing would happen (I think?) but if the wearer took it into zir orifice of choice it would be inside zir body and thus inside the Ring's invisibility cloak, so to speak, and hence also invisible.

Also, when Bilbo stole and consumed the Wood-elves' food and drink in The Hobbit they didn't notice bread and wine sloshing around in mid-air, slowly being digested by invisible stomach acid. ... although now I'm wondering how he stole; wouldn't the stuff be visible, bobbing along in mid-air, if he had taken it and snuck off? Did it become invisible once stuck in his pocket?

But after seeing the comments above, especially the one about the cross-section of the penis being visible, I've changed my mind. D: Perhaps it's still visible, just a little... indistinct, like when someone who wears glasses of a high prescription takes them off.

(And the first time I read your post I had to stop, go back and reread because I couldn't quite believe what I'd just read. XD)

[hsavinien.livejournal.com]

Uhhhh. Entirely different story.

Krishna was incarnated as a human(ish) baby. His human mother was scolding him one day for putting dirt in his mouth and pulled his mouth open to look inside, as you do. Inside his mouth was baaaasically the cosmos. She, understandably, freaked out. He made her forget about it. She continued breastfeeding him. The heebie-jeebies were mine when considering the implications.

[sirius-luva.livejournal.com]

Ohhh, that story! Mea culpa. I actually have a print of some lovely art of that moment in my room back home. I first read that story when I was very young and was hence pretty 'meh' about the implications for Yasoda (also, in all the versions I read he was already too old for breastfeeding, hence the lack of heebie-jeebies on my part), but now I am picturing the universe, and then a giant nipple appears amongst the various stars and planetary systems and milk starts gushing out into the cosmos. <_<

[hsavinien.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's how partial invisibility usually works out. Disgusting, yet scientifically interesting!