My lil hideaway

my birthday “cake”

(feat poorly edited in seahorse png bc i didn’t wanna reveal my age and we js substituted the other number with a seahorse cause we didn’t have it so i figured id make it match)

i ate it with nice cheese, a plumb and blackberries it was really good^^

baguettes my beloved

Bonus: really corrupted version from when i tried to text it to my tablet and it died instead

Of course, it is still incorrect, so how about I fix the error!

"There's a gimmick blog right behind me…"

Should be:

Something about the Feanorians, very clearly fearing the Everlasting Darkness and yet calling it upon themselves during their oath. And despite at least some of them knowing after a certain point that their actions are cruel and unjustifiable they still commit one atrocity after another (to an extent out of greed and pride, but also in fear of the aforementioned Darkness). And these choices are what ultimately dooms them to meet ill ends and to be unworthy of the Jewels that they pursued with such fervor.

Source One is Burchard of Worms' Decretum, Book XIX. The Decretum was a collection of canon laws compiled in the early half of the 11th Century. Book XIX, or The Corrector, was a penitential: basically a guidebook for confessors. Here's a sin, have u done it, here's your penance.

One of the questions for women was, essentially, "Did you make a dildo, strap it to yourself and fuck someone with it?". The original text is in Latin, and there's a few translations floating around of what it said. Here's one, which I spent the past three days looking for, because I wanted a direct source:

Have you done what women are wont to do: to make a certain device in the form of a male member to the measure of your will, and to tie it to your own or another woman's genitals with some ties, and commit fornication with other women, or others with the same instrument, or with another with you? - Translated from Latin, taken from "Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche nebst einer rechtsgeschichtichen Einleitung", F. W. H Wasserschleben

Pretty cut and dry re: the use of strap-ons. And dildos, because the next question is "and did you use this device on yourself?"

The second source is from the trial of Katherina Hetzeldorfer, specifically Female Sodomy: The Trial of Katherina Hetzeldorfer (1477) by Helmut Puff, which has an analysis of the trial as well as a translation of the trial texts.

Katherina is the first recorded woman to be executed for homosexuality. There's a lot to be said about her and the way she performed gender but what I'm interested in today is the strap. So, from the court text itself:

...She made an instrument with a red piece of leather, at the front filled with cotton, and a wooden stick stuck into it, and made a hole through the wooden stick, put a string through, and tied it round; and therewith she had her roguery with the two women...

Vagina-having people have a shorter urethra, which means we’re more prone to UTIs because the bacteria doesn’t have to travel as far to get up into your bladder and cause a problem.

Which means if you’re exposing your bits to bacteria (as with sex), peeing will flush out bacteria in the urethra. (Urine isn’t actually sterile - that’s a myth - but you’re *supposed to* have a little bit of bacteria - that’s how bodies work. But it still flushes things out that shouldn’t be there.)

If you’re one of the people saying “You meant ‘women’”, fuck you. I meant “people who have a vagina, regardless of their gender or lack thereof”, and you can go fuck yourself with a cactus.

My favourite Implicit (yet most likely unintentional) thing about The Laws and Customs of the Eldar is that both those things, laws and customs, are fundamentally temporal and bound to change with the beings they apply to. The idea that they wouldn’t change when they apply to beings that have all the time in the world and are constantly improving upon the depths of their knowledge through experience, is somewhat ridiculous. The text therefore is only showing the traditions and social mores of the Eldar in Aman as witnessed and sometimes dictated by the Valar for most of the first age.

**The text says nothing about the Laws and Customs of The Avari, for example. Nor does it mention potentially differing traditions of the Sindarin and Nandor, from whom the Valinorean Eldar and the Valar have physically and temporally distanced themselves.

Note that:

A. The Valar have been shown to be mystified by The Children and all the things they can do. The Valar don’t actually know shit.

B. History has proven that the Valar can and have made an exception to basically every rule, up to and including “bringing a mortal man back to life cause his girlfriend sings pretty.”

C. We’re told that marriage for the elves (not humans) implies a sort of soul bond, which is ostensibly why the only way to dissolve said bond is thru the closest thing elves can get to true death, and yet, the very fact that it requires this clearly means the bond cannot be broken, since reembodiment of the dead spouse would immediately reassert said bond. Given that the soul is an infinite and imperishable entity derived straight from Eru’s secret fire, I can’t see what’s preventing a soul from forming bonds to multiple people at the same time, except a lack of consent from all parties involved. I.E. it is my belief that the Valar’s decision that an elf cannot have multiple living spouses is bullshit, derived from their limited capacity to understand the changeable nature of Eru’s children, and also possibly to avoid a cascade of legal ramifications regarding the children of said marriage. The Valar have been shown to actively resist and be grieved by change of any kind, whether good or bad, because as beings they are fundamentally divorced from the effects of time on matter and the soul. They are not so much complete beings in themselves but tools created by Eru to accomplish specific tasks. They each have aspects from which they cannot deviate. The Valar don’t know shit.

C. The idea that a sensual being with a body, infinite curiosity and time to match it, would not attempt to have sex with everyone and everything capable of consent in its process of discovery is hilarious to me and highlights the author’s occluding Catholic naïveté. This also highlights the basic flaw with the idea that sex between two parties immediately must result in marriage. We’re told the two things necessary for marriage are sex and words to Eru. What happens if you never mention Eru? For that matter what happens if you want to bond your soul with someone else but the very idea of sex is repulsive to you? Could you just perform the vows and have the marriage count?

D. LACE ignores that even in a Catholic context Marriage is a legal construct to provide legitimacy to the claims of close kin upon a persons’ belongings. It has nothing to do with the soul, and is fundamentally aimed at classifying access to private property and material gain.

E. The Valar don’t know shit, and as per the Author’s very own feelings about sub-creation, anyone who wants to gets to pick and choose the things they like, and discard the ones they don’t.

Thranduil, in the background: I never died, so you can have my crown over my cold, dead body!

Olwe, Ingwe and Finarfin: We never died anyway and we were given this land specifically by the Valar! So yeah, what he said!

Feanor: Do you bite your thumb at me, sirs?!?!

Thranduil: Yeah, I fucking bite my thumb at you, you murderous bastard!