That awful feeling when you’re reading something that you know is good, that you know is well written, maybe you’ve even read this author and loved their stuff before, and it’s not like this particular story is less quality or anything, you just
don’t
care
and halfway through the story you just push it aside and go nope, you could not give any fucks about their war or their relationships or even their adorable loyal pet. It is more emotionally disconnected from you than the most boring story about a cousin’s husband’s coworker and you cannot inflict it on yourself any longer.
“Anonymous asked you:
What term or terms do you think Tolkien would have used in describing cocks? Do you think, were he to ever write smut, he would have Elessar or Thorin say the word “cock,” or perhaps something different, more flowery, more imaginative? And no I’m not talking “rose crowned wiggler” or anything like that, but something less…oh I dont know, modern. How old is the term cock anyway? :|”
—
‘Cock’ is actually a pretty damn old euphemism. It appears in some middle English poetry as ‘cok’, if that tells you anything. Officially it doesn’t enter widespread use until as late as the seventeenth century, but that doesn’t stop poets and monks as far back as the eleventh century from alluding to the way a fighting-cock’s wattles turn red and stiff during a battle.
Depending upon the character, I imagine Tolkien could have got a lot of variety in his dingdong discussions. Archaic terms for ‘penis’ are not only richly varied but highly regional— see the ‘langer’ in Ireland, or the ridiculous-sounding ‘todger’ in the UK/Australia. And I do believe Tolkien came up with not one, but several Elvish words for penis: gwî for poetic use (elves writin’ porn yeeeah) and gwib for daily use, plus puntl in case you need to contrast two elves’ differing backgrounds. (I don’t believe we have a Noldor ‘penis’, but having variety in slang is always good for characterization.) [Source]
As for the dwarves, I have shamelessly used Khuzdul-sounding English terms like pud and lome (fifteenth-century slang referring to a ‘loom’). I can also see the dwarves using terms like ‘tool’ and ‘shaft’ much more readily than most other races, since they are workin’ dudes.
Humans can go with damn near anything. I prefer to give them more modernized, recognizable terms for ‘penis’, since we’re supposed to share genetic material anyway and we might as well communicate with each other. (And by ‘modernized’ I mean ‘sixteenth century or later’.) ‘Cock’, ‘prick’, ‘tool’, and perhaps ‘dick’ all work here. (If you’re not writing erotica, ‘pizzle’ and ‘piece’ are common terms. We’re also now treading on Shakespearean grounds, where spontaneous euphemism has become much more widely bandied and recognizable.)
Hobbits are a little tricky. On the one hand, the roly-poly provincial way Tolkien portrays his hobbits makes me shrug and think, okay, ‘todger’ it is. On the other hand, I don’t particularly want to write all my hobbits as shy violets who use polite euphemisms for everything. So lately I’ve been trying out some of the simpler archaics: ‘pin’ (or ‘pyne’), ‘yard’ (as a stick, a unit of measure), ‘stud’, and (of course) ‘cock’. (Most of these are farming terms, too, which fits with the style of the hobbits.)
I just like cock, okay? *shrug*
A few more archaic curiosities: ‘erection’ often becomes ‘pride’, ‘stand’ (as in ‘cockstand’), or even ‘tend’ (from the Latin for ‘stretch’); ‘cod’ is often used in preference for the scrotum rather than the entire external male genitalia, thus ‘codsack’; and the further back you go, ‘balls’ becomes ‘bollocks’ becomes ‘ballocks’, and also ‘baubles’, ‘knappes’, ‘cullions’ from ‘sceallan’ (shells), and ‘herthan’ (with the ‘herthan-belig’ or testicle-purse). Feel free to Tolkienize the most archaic terms— the -an ending denotes a plural, so change it as you see fit.
One of the best sources I can give you is this excellent book, the sample of which should keep you writing archaic smut for ages before you even consider buying it (which I suggest, if you like these things). I have used it gratuitously here as a source.
Thanks for the interesting question, by the way— and, uh, sorry for sprawling it out into an essay. You might say my answer became… engorged.
Was gonna post this on Facebook but I don’t think anyone would understand me. But on here, no one would even respond to me :(
So I just watched mysterious skin for the first time yesterday… Why is it more accepting that young male actors can play slutty angered teen gay guys (JGL and I’m sure Leo decap has) but when a young Disney starlet plays a troubled teen + sex kitten it’s the most shocking and terrible thing that’s to happen to them? ;[ /random movie thoughts (that being said, I’m still sad I haven’t seen Selena Gomez in spring breakers yet Y_Y)
because women developing from innocent disney teen to an actress with more grungy and adult themes is apparently offensive to people’s delicate sensibilities. Also I think people generally take an actress’ career as a reflection of her character whereas an actor can play someone immoral with no backlash because, duh! he’s just acting
but idk really, I’ve never seen the movie your talking about and I’m bad at examining this stuff in general
subway??? no man this is domway. we tell you how you want your sandwich and u shut up and eat it.
This is domway, where we pre-negotiate how the sandwich will be made with your full understanding of the ingredients and their usual consequences. If the worst happens and you don’t like the sandwich you can use a safeword, we’ll remove it and immediately stop lunch. Then we’ll remake it for you the way you like, with plenty of communication to avoid those ingredients in the future. That way you can build a foundation of trust with us, and enjoy yourself by safely giving yourselves into the hands of other sandwich-makers who have proven their responsibility and compassion with your dietary needs.
