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

[tyellas.livejournal.com]

It is my considered opinion that, because wearing the ring puts the wearer into some "other" zone, the cock/strap-on wearing rogerer's appendage would NOT disappear. *UNLESS* they were wearing a Ring of Power themselves (dwarf ring, maybe?) which would put them in, or close to, the SAME zone, although they themselves were not invisible. Indeed, is the One Ring wearer invisible to a Ring of Power (elf/dwarf) wearer? The One Ring wearer doesn't seem to be invisble to the Nazgul, who are wearing Rings of Power.

Also, the rogerer might experience some very disturbing sensations indeed. But or minds probably think alike on this one.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

I think if the other party is wearing a Ring of Power themselves, of any kind, that would change the dynamic a lot, yes. The Nazgûl could see Frodo just fine when he was wearing it--and just as significantly, he could see them. If he'd put it on in Lothlórien, I wonder if Galadriel could have seen him. The Nazgûl might be a special case, though, since they're undead creatures who've been so utterly transformed by their Rings that they exist in that otherworldly zone all the time. That didn't happen to either elves or dwarves in the same way.

For the purposes of this question, let's assume the other partner is Ringless.

[tjs-whatnot.livejournal.com]

Now I'm just going to be over here imagining a shimmery cock and the body--fully visible of course--pumping its hips against air...

Thanks.

♥

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

You're so very welcome. :D

Ring or no, I assume the sight of anyone having sex with an invisible partner is going to be pretty bizarre to any third-party observer.

[alchemine.livejournal.com]

I don't think so because if you look at transparent sea creatures, for example, you can see food they've consumed passing through their digestive systems, right? (It's been a long time since that college marine biology class...) So an object inside an invisible person would continue to be visible.

Also, Rogering an Invisible Arse sounds like the title of a dissipated former glam rocker's autobiography. :D

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

True, but in Tolkienverse, we don't see, say, Bilbo's latest meal floating around in his stomach in mid-air. Clothes and things carried by the person become invisible as well when someone puts on the Ring.

I would totally read that autobiography. The title would call to me from the shelves. XD

[winter-hermit.livejournal.com]

It seems like if a coat the person is wearing becomes invisible, or the sword they're carrying, then something completely surrounded by the Ringbearer's body (because it's in their mouth, rectum, vagina, what-have-you) would be invisible too?

I expect you could argue it either way. ...seeing as we're currently arguing it both ways.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Yes, there's a lot of logic in that point - see comments above about how we don't see, say, meals in a Ringbearer's stomach floating around.

But it wouldn't be completely surrounded. It would still be attached to one's owner (one hopes) so retain a quality of not being completely in the Ring-wearing person's possession.

Maybe. You totally can argue it either way.

[htebazytook.livejournal.com]

My friend is reminding me that String was visible when Bilbo was fighting the spiders? idk

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Wow, yes - I just checked and that's true. The spiders could see it. Iiiiinteresting. (Also, kind of silly)

Are there any other cases of someone with the Ring on using a sword? Weathertop, maybe? Could any of the hobbits see Frodo's sword? Where has my copy of FOTR got to? Questions, questions.

[furius.livejournal.com]

I think, like all things in Tolkien, it depends on a matter of will. That is, possession of such. So we don't see clothes/food etc because Bilbo unthinkingly consider them as *his*; furthermore, inanimate However, we do see Sting, because at that point Bilbo's still very much aware of its elven heritage (also possibly lingering elvish awareness? Tolkien swords can be a bit sentient?). However, someone ELSE'S anatomy is necessarily someone else, so it would be like Boromir reaching for Frodo- his leg doesn't disappear Frodo kicks him etc. However, if maybe the POSSESSION seems obvious and matter in fact(required for certain dynamics perhaps), only then would I argue for disappearing cock.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

That's a very sensible explanation, and I think I'm coming around to the "no" way of thinking, or at least the "probably not, BUT..." side. I think it's also worth considering that treatment of the Ring itself isn't consistent at all between The Hobbit and LOTR, so there's another dimension of wiggle room there.

However, if maybe the POSSESSION seems obvious and matter in fact(required for certain dynamics perhaps), only then would I argue for disappearing cock.

Oh, now this is interesting! Bit of a D/s dynamic, perhaps? Does it make a difference if the Ring-wearer is aware of what it is and what it really does, and is using that power? (as opposed to: cool! magic ring! makes me invisible!)

[hsavinien.livejournal.com]

I would say invisible on both counts as the cocks would be within the Ring's sphere of power. Which, personally, I would not *want* to stick sensitive body parts into. Sort of like the story with baby Krishna's mouth and his mom's nipple; heebie-jeebies ensue.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Something that might make a difference that I hadn't considered until this comment: how "active" is the Ring itself at that time? Is it just sort of "laying low" and pretending to be just an innocent little magic ring of invisibility, or is it trying to assert itself, corrupt people, and get back to its Master?

[tehta.livejournal.com]

I think it depends on whether you are trying to write humour or not.

(IMO, the whole ring-invisibility thing was not thought out fully, anyway.)

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Yeah, this might be a case where the Rule of Funny and the Rule of Sexy are in conflict. (Disappearing cock? HILARIOUS).

No, it really wasn't, was it? But I'm having a lot of fun overthinking it now! :D

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I would have to say that the answer depends on one thing and one thing only - which answer do you think would make your story better?

However, if we're having the conversation purely for the sake of semantics and detail, I'd have to say that my personal guess would be that the cock would NOT disappear, because while clothing and so on disappear, the cock is part of another person and I'm fairly sure the good professor would regard the body housing a soul to be different from soulless clothing.

...And man, thank you for including the "Assuming this person is neither Sauron nor Tom Bombadil" caveat up there, because in the grand tradition of "Don't think of pink elephants," you can now guess precisely what it is I am now completely incapable of not picturing. With Galadriel in there, too, of course, just for the hell of it. And Gandalf watching while smoking his pipe. *facepalm*

[furius.livejournal.com]

And I just have to come back to this thread and read ALL THE COMMENTS. Logistics seem a bit complicated though. What about Goldberry? XDDD

[(Anonymous)]

In The Hobbit, which was the last Tolkien that I read, Bilbo still has a faint shadow when he is wearing the ring. Ergo, in my own personal and strange headcanon the penetrating organ would become faint and shadowy but still technically visible, or possible transparent.

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

True! That effect seems to have disappeared by the time of LOTR (IIRC there's no mention of it in that book) but in Bilbo's day, that's a distinct possibility.

[elluvias.livejournal.com]

Haaaaa

My personal belief is that no it doesn't disappear. Not unless it becomes completely severed from the person in question. Which does not make for fun sexy times at ALL. All the things we've seen disappear due to the Ring's power have not been connected to another object or person.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[persephoneflame.livejournal.com]

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

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

Same here. It's how we roll.

[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.

[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]

... 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)

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

HAHAHAH I try to make everybody's day a little bit more surreal. XD

I'm leaning towards the notion that anything picked up and carried by the Ringwearer disappears also, although that doesn't mesh with the scene in The Hobbit where the spiders could see Bilbo's sword.

Therefore I'm leaning towards cocks not vanishing, as it would still be in the possession of its owner (one hopes). Indistinct and a little blurry would be nicely weird without being too horrifying.