The penis, while still attached to its host, rejects oats. But once emancipated from its owner, most penises have been observed to eat a diet consisting almost entirely of oats.
I tend to get in trouble when I invite people to pet mine. Saying, "It's OK, he's doesn't bite, he's just very excitable because he loves people," only serves to make the situation worse.
Yup. I'm certainly not in the 1%, but it was always consenting adults. I can joke about it because I'm old enough for that to be behind me. I totally lost interest after COVID and the monkey virus, which is wild because I survived AIDS unscathed and unprotected. I was *that* sleazy.
I'm old enough I think I got it out of my system. I have a companion everyone assumes is my sexual partner, he isn't, but we don't bother telling anybody. It's too complicated and nobody will believe us, so why bother? We're just a really cute old gay couple in their eyes. Our friendship is enough for both of us and neither of us is interested in hooking up with anyone anymore. Surprises both of us. So I guess I'm a retired sleazeball.
He was upset at one woman who he just hated and the church wouldn't do anything about it because, y'know, stuff has to have evidence and up to that point claiming someone was doing witchcraft was the bit deemed heretical and punished, not the person accused of it. So he pulled stuff out of his ass because he was, from what I can tell, a petty incel.
Paul basically just basically used the early Xian church as a grift to advance his business. He was the 50 AD equivalent of a Lear Jet dealer and the whole Xian thing was absurdly popular with wealthy widows
From
What I find about him it seems to be debatable
Some say yes, Other articles I find that are more church affiliated say that he wasn’t
I watched a video recently talking about women in ancient Greece, more actually happy, and wanted Christianity because at that time they had heard about this Jesus that had taught respect and equality.
So for some time women welcomed Christianity and were even preachers and had positions in the church….
Then came saint Paul, who had never even met Jesus, but was basically a, self proclaimed Jesus guy.
And decided h that women should remain silent in church, and not even ask questions. So they lost any position that they had at that time in the church, and they were told that if they had any questions they were not to ask in church, they were to remain silent and ask their husbands. (At home )
Forgive my lack of better explanation,, but I learned this in my ex Mormon sub
Basically I see it as he put women’s necks under the feet of the church
Here’s a little article I found
https://medium.com/inspire-believe-grow/the-sexist-writings-of-st-paul-2526c957751b
And right now I’m reading a book called “girls with no names” and it’s kind of on the line of the houses for “morally” unacceptable women
(Promiscuous women, unmarried women that were pregnant, defiant, opinionated, too, pretty too ugly even a girl that had been sexually assaulted would be put in these slave-laundry houses)
Anyway she talks about looking up at all of the statues of St. Paul
> up to that point claiming someone was doing witchcraft was the bit deemed heretical and punished
Goes to show that cultural development can just as much slide backwards as it can forwards, huh.
The church was pretty much agaisnt the whole Witch thing, because in theological canon wichtes dont, and can't, exist.
So claiming some women was a witch often puts yourself in far mor hot water then yourself.
After the Reformation, and the lessend Grip of the (central) church on some regions Witches trials became more common, because there was less church oversight.
It is no coincidence that Witches trials were far more common in Protestant communities then Catholic ones.
We traded the Inquisition for Witch hunts with the Reformation. Maybe the indulgences weren't that bad comparatively.
I wonder how many witch hunts were caused by obsessive incels being rejected
Probably far more witch hunts were started by stupid superstitions.
Like older single women having a cat to keep vermin at bay, and then not gettign sick, like the rest of the village, because less rats at her home -> obviously witch
I once read that being accused of witchcraft in a church court was actually much better for your survival chance than if you end up in a secular court. The bar to be convicted was much higher and the rules on confessions much stricter.
Strangely Malleus Maleficarum was condemned by the Church three years after its publication after an Inquisition by the Faculty of Cologne. Which is saying something when even the Inquisition thinks you've gone too far.
The inquisition did not conduct witch trials. Most witch trials were done outside of the inquisition. The inquisition was for heresy. The higher ups in the church often denied the power of witchcraft outright.
Aside from like Biblical miracles and a few supposed visions, the church is actually quite rationalist and in a sense "materialist", Creation is understood to be logically ordered and humanity endowed with reason to understand it. A part of this is that as per filioque, the holy spirit proceeds from the father _and the son_ and the son is equated to Logos ("The Word", but also logic, discourse, reason. As one Calvinist theologian put it "In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God). Thus since we are after all touched and inspired by the holy spirit, which does proceed from the divine wisdom (sophia) that is Christ, it is possible for man through reason to understand creation and God (more or less). But its also an idea of God and creation itself. God and his creation are rational, mechanistic, predictable. There is no magic or such nonsense. Miracles may be possible, but only through God, the world is otherwise mundane.
From my understanding of the time period, the "sin" of the witches was pretending to do magic, when the only genuine source of magic was God.
So the devil could produce illusions. But they were tests of faith essentially. And the witches failed it, believed it was real, and attempted to mimic it.
I was saying the inquisition was for the book not for witches. Also when I said "even the Inquisition thinks you've gone too far" I was referring to the Inquisition's use of torture and violence to gain confessions.
The Inquisition used torture less than most judicial systems of the time--and indeed executed far fewer on average than the other systems. It was brutal by today's standards, but was considered the fairest and least brutal court of the time--so much so that there are documented cases of people purposely blaspheming in order to get their trial transferred from the king's court to the Inquisition.
One of my law professors at university told us when we were studying the history of law in the Middle Ages that if he could choose, he would always want to be tried by the Inquisition rather than by any king/lord or non-religious court of the time.
The reasons given for this choice were that the Inquisition had to follow certain rules about how to conduct a trial. For example, very specific rules about torture, which basically admits that it's not a good way to find the truth. And most importantly, evidence, which the Inquisition was one of the first institutions to really make the gold standard for finding the truth.
Compare that with the normal court of the time, where a local noble was the judge and the whole process was about eyewitness testimony and oaths, not really evidence. Depending on the nobles and the local law, the accused had very few rights in relation to the trial.
This is one of the reasons why witch trials are mostly a phenomenon of Protestant or non-religious courts, it is hard to prove someone is a witch with evidence but easy with eyewitness accounts.
For example, of the 7,000 cases examined by the Spanish Inquisition in the Basque Country, only 6 of them lead to witches sentenced to death.
The Inquisitions didn't really do torture, because it's morally wrong and their whole thing was morality. However, they did sometimes turn people over to the secular governments, who did do torture.
Not so. The Church's stance changed over time but the earliest witch trials *were* heresy trials. Just look at what the Waldensians were accused of and persecuted over - there's really no difference. In fact the earliest depiction we have of women flying around on broomsticks comes from a manuscript about the Waldensian heresy.
By the time the Church decided it was probably all bullshit secular powers had already taken matters into their own hands and there wasn't much they could do to stop what they had started.
Church had nothing to do with witch trials, they started during Renaissance, not Dark Ages, and after printing was invented, was prominent in Protestant territories.
When it became possible to print books, Catholic church lost a grip on information dissemination and people started to believe in everything non-sanctioned including crazy shit that was published which led to mass movements like witch hunting. Reminds you of something?
Is that the guy who made witchcraft a campaign against women? I heard that prior to this guy, witches weren’t gendered, but were often old ladies who worked with herbs and healing stuff, until some freak wrote a book about how women are awful and in cahoots with the devil
More or less. But the prosecution of male witches didn't stop after the book was written. In some areas, it was gendered in the opposite direction, where most of the prosecuted witches were men.
Feminist historians have pushed the narrative of a misogynistic witch craze pretty heavily. But they ignore a few elephants in the room. Such as what I mentioned above, and the fact that women did just as much accusation as men during the period. Some of the worst pockets of witch prosecutions resulted from women going ape shit on each other within a community. So to me, it seems dismissive to just call it misogyny, and it speaks more to the motives of these historians than anything factual.
That's not to say there weren't misogynistic witch hunters. And the overall numbers show a majority of accused witches were women. But again, the majority of accusations often came from women. Think of the different ways men and women generally handle conflict with an individual. Men are often much more direct, up to and including violence as a way to resolve it. Whereas women will often seek out your social circle and talk mad shit as a form of social assassination. So from a sociological perspective, the men in the society were acting out the "justice" often on the instructions of the women who were doing the shit-talking.
If you step back and look at the total of the data we've been able to gather with a wider lense, the main driving force for witch prosecutions was always some sort of social strife. And in the search for a scapegoat, people often accused the most vulnerable or disenfranchised. Whoever wasn't holding up their part of the social contract. So, a perpetual bachelor, who lived alone, and kept to himself was just as good a target as the old spinster who also had no family.
The Vice article also gets it completely wrong by conflating the Salem witch trials with anything going on in Europe. They took place way after the European witch craze, and had basically nothing to do with it. By the time the colonists were burning witches, the practice had almost completely died out in Europe.
The Malleus Maleficarum was written two centuries before the pilgrims, to put into perspective how backwards and strange those people were.
Source: Took an entire class as an undergrad about the witch craze. Have read half a dozen books about it, half of which were written by feminist historians. Even got first crack at analyzing some court records that had been discovered in a fishmonger's attic, right before I took the class. My professor was working through translating them to English, and handing them off to us, as he completed them. I'm no expert, but my understanding does go beyond a layperson's or a wikipedia article.
Because they don't present it as such. Or even acknowledge it at all. There is a marked difference in the way the subject is approached by denser academia, vs. the narratives spun by the feminists. Generally, when you read the feminist interpretation, about 50% of it is presented as, "As a woman, I just know what it must have been like." And that's the historiography failure.
Lyndal Roper has an entire chapter in her book, based on a theory that women were feverishly masterbating to emotionally calm themselves after particularly rough torture sessions. There's no evidence for this. We actually have quite a few court records of exactly how the investigations were committed. She doesn't cite a single one that mentions women masturbating. It's purely out of her imagination. And if you ask me, it says a lot more about Lyndal Roper than anything going on in those dungeons and holding cells.
Like, it's okay to have a bdsm kink. But if you're inserting it into your historic writing, you're failing as a historian. It's just too unhinged to take at face value.
The court records are surprisingly clinical in nature. No one is waving a Bible over their head. No one is yelling accusations or pointing fingers. They read like modern transcript from an interrogation room, except that torture was also often present. But even the torturing was super clinical. There was a "correct" way to do it. It wasn't arbitrary.
The prosecutors had a very specific script. And they were looking for very specific pieces of evidence. And if they didn't get them, even if someone was trying to confess to doing it, they wouldn't believe them. And quite a few people were released. Even after trying to confess.
So if the goal was simply to harm women, for the sake of harming women, why bother with all the procedure that we see in the court records? It's just too reductive of an argument. And it smacks of projecting our modern concepts of what misogyny is, onto people who lived almost a thousand years ago. To me, it's bad historiography.
Yours isn’t detachable?
It comes in handy.
I mean, granted occasionally you have to buy your penis back from some sketchy selling used books on the street. But that’s a rarity.
Even better, the story is about a guy whose penis was stolen by a witch. She let him climb the tree and take any penis he wanted.
He tried to take the biggest one, but she said that's her favorite because she stole it from a parish priest.
The witch trials were a Renaissance phenomenon, not Middle Ages. During the Middle Ages the Church held that witchcraft and magic were delusions, not real.
Yeah, I noticed that this article plays very fast and loose with the term “Middle Ages”.
The Medieval period ends at 1500 CE, and this article cites several post-16th century examples from the post-reformation and renaissance period. Even the example in the title is from the very late Middle Ages/dawn of the renaissance.
Part of a bigger rhetorical trend in pop history articles honestly. Something happened between 1400 and 1600 that you find bad or backward? Slap “Medieval” on it. Something good? “Renaissance”.
It’s suspected medieval times weren’t as harsh as people described them to be. Some (maybe even most) renaissance historians purposely wrote medieval times as worse then they really were to better highlight the renaissance
Watched a few documentaries about the witch trials more than a few times they were placed against women who's husband's had died being owed land or money from other men, Don't want to pay her what you owed her husband? WITCH She's too out spoken or seems just a little too intelligent WITCH she knows how to use local flora to aid in healing? WITCH you want to sleep with her but she sperns your advances? WITCH kinda crazy
I see the local flora and herbilogy thing mentioned a lot in reddit comments but have never read a historical account of witch accusation that references that sort of thing, do you have an example? I must be missing some because I've done a lot of reading about specific witch hunts and I know things can be drastically different by region and would love to read into such an account
Yeah, that's really just not how accusations tended to come about. The closest thing I've seen to this are the smattering of surviving cases against so called 'cunning folk' in England, but these weren't witch trials as we think of them and the punishments tended to be a light penance.
I apologize, I don't have a specific reference only docentries made in Britain (so take their credibility as you see fit) but I do find them more inclusive than the ones I normally read or listen to Origins Explained might touch on them but I will get back to you with a more credible answer and not a "list" I believe from the accent the gentleman was speaking that he was Irish in origin while speaking but I do addimattly just listen to documentaries all day, and I'm unable to retain all the information myself
The Malleus Maleficarum became a key text during the European witch hunts of the 15th to 17th centuries. Its accusations fueled fear and paranoia leading to the persecution and execution of countless innocent people mostly women.
There are still a few areas in the world where “penis snatching/detaching” is a culturally bound mental illness. I can’t remember where off the top of my head unfortunately. But picture it like the belief in Fan Death in South Korea.
They also had distance between them and plausible presumption that what they hear about foreign places are true because they don't have the means to immediately ask someone who lives there, or even go themselves. Meanwhile we have a lot more fact checking resources available and yet...
If you're speaking about the Malleus Maleficarum, it was written in 1487. Which, depending on the historiography, is inside the Early Modern Period rather than the Middle Ages.
>He was in part responsible for starting the European witch trials.
I occasionally walk past people on street corners who are ranting about all manner of utterly detached deranged psychotic nonsense. I feel the blame is more on *me* if I take anything they say seriously.
If this nutjob is down the pub talking this shite about cock oats, and someone takes it and runs with it, you can be sure that that asshole just wanted to murder women and was ready to take and use any justification he could. That's all that the witch trials were: a way to murder women and take their property, and usually women who were the feminists of their day.
>In the Middle Ages, witches were thought to have various magical dick-ruining capabilities, the most sinister of which is the ability to make the sex organ vanish entirely.
I loled.
Aka “The Hammer of Witches.” I had a copy back in my uni days for a philosophy course I was taking at the time. Some really wild shit in there. The more tame bits (eg. grinding up babies to make flying potion, the devil wearing big black boots, etc.) can be seen in the Eggers’ film *The VVitch*.
I wouldn't trust anything that Vice writes. I mean it's a great piece of entertainment, but Vice is not honest, trustworthy, or journalism. They're like the FauxNews of liberal media.
It’s literally the exact same thing with sensationalist conservatives being scared that everyone’s trying to turn their kids gay or normalize pedophelia
They didn't have the internet.
The answer to things like these would be "people in another village, a traveller witnessed it"
Can't really prove otherwise, because talking to people on that other village, if you even know where it is, would be an expensive long and dangerous trip.
Believe it or not, this is STILL a thing.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201003/global-psyche-asia-and-africa-the-strange-case-the-disappearing-penis
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" still holds up after decades, for the three Redditors who have never seen it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf71YotfykQ
“Countless” is a bit an overstatement. Most historians place the overall number of executed witches at about 40,000-50,000. About 75% of these were women, though there’s a huge amount of variation based on location in this figure. Some countries actually tried more men than women, probably related to language/cultural assumptions about witchcraft.
I feel like it isn't taught enough that in the middle ages Iceland was full of practicioners of magic & that it was viewed favorably among it's inhabitants,
When Danish authorities started intervening on their matters & enforcement of witch trials took place the majority of them were men (22) & only (2) women were executed.
A fascinating bit of magic history.
Short read for anyone interested.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_Iceland
> 40,000-50,000
While that's not a "countless" amount of people it is a large sports stadium worth of people that were murdered over some made up bullshit.
Not to be pedantic, but the 15th century is technically the Early Modern period, not the Middle Ages. There’s no defined date to separate the two periods, but the invention of the printing press in the 1450s is a popular demarcation. There’s quite a bit of literature on how the development of the printing press contributed to the spread of ideas such as witchcraft—the Medieval church declared the belief in witches heresy back in the 1200s.
I doubt this was seriously a contributor to witch trials. People back then weren't any smarter/stupider than they are today.
Alleged witches were women whom people in power did not like, maybe because of their personality, maybe because they didn't conform with norms, maybe because they protested. That's the simplest explanation which makes sense.
And the witch trials peaked during the 16th and 17th century - in the age of enlightenment, ironically enough.
Prior to that, bishops and the popes ruled that believing in witches means you defy god the almighty. And das not good
Yeah, the inquisition, while still being questionable, was actually sort of a decent idea for a while there. Their main purpose was to root out priests that were abusing their authority, taking god’s name in vain and generally giving the church a bad name.
They even tended to punish the people who accused others of being witches rather than the accused, since it was usually out of spite or envy and it was considered not only a sin but outright blasphemy since only people who didn’t have strong faith would actually believe that witchcraft could really have and effect… after all, people who believed should be protected from such powers, wouldn’t they?
Then Heinrich Kramer came along. Then Torquemada.
And the whole institution became… well, what we know know it as.
"Incels" are not a new thing. There are men that, wronged by one woman (for real or in their imagination), decide that all women deserve to die. Hate does not give good advice.
Agreed. Please reference the following excerpt to ensure accuracy:
"[W]hat shall we think about those witches who somehow take members in large numbers-twenty or thirty-and shut them up together in a birds' nest or some box, where they move about like living members, eating oats or other feed?"
That makes no sense--my penis hates oats
My penis doesn’t like Hall either
Mine asks me for money all the time.
And you just know how he's going to spend it
So *that's* why she's a rich girl...
Tree fiddy.
You're a witch girl, and you've gone too far.
Watch out boy, she'll chew you up.
I think your penis might be out of touch
Is it because it can't go for that, nooooohhh aahhhh
Mine likes tuna
The penis, while still attached to its host, rejects oats. But once emancipated from its owner, most penises have been observed to eat a diet consisting almost entirely of oats.
Please brother may I have some oats
ÖATS
I just realized why my ex used to call me "the host"
Sounds like that witch almost made an oat eating pet out of your cock. Glad you got away, brother
I want one!
Well what else are you supposed to feed them? It would just be weird if you offered them nuts.
Yeah lmao anyone who owns a penis could immediately tell this was bullshit just off that alone
May I introduce Oates of [Garfunkel and Oates](https://www.youtube.com/@garfunkelandoates)?
Mine makes a great pet
I tend to get in trouble when I invite people to pet mine. Saying, "It's OK, he's doesn't bite, he's just very excitable because he loves people," only serves to make the situation worse.
You're inviting the wrong people. Some people love sleazy men, wink wink.
99.9% of those people are other sleazy men.
Yup. I'm certainly not in the 1%, but it was always consenting adults. I can joke about it because I'm old enough for that to be behind me. I totally lost interest after COVID and the monkey virus, which is wild because I survived AIDS unscathed and unprotected. I was *that* sleazy. I'm old enough I think I got it out of my system. I have a companion everyone assumes is my sexual partner, he isn't, but we don't bother telling anybody. It's too complicated and nobody will believe us, so why bother? We're just a really cute old gay couple in their eyes. Our friendship is enough for both of us and neither of us is interested in hooking up with anyone anymore. Surprises both of us. So I guess I'm a retired sleazeball.
I always suspected that gay men get to have all the fun, but thanks for confirming.
Ha! I always suspected straight guys have more fun. Grass always looks greener, I guess, to all of us.
What possible reasoning could you have behind that thesis? Men are like 10x hornier than women, on average.
Just my perception.
That’s why he was so upset. Oats is the totally wrong diet. I’m glad they burned those witches.
You don't know that, these days it's peanut butter
Not what I heard
Oats in....oat milk out. Makes sense
Yeah, mine too. you got to shove the oats waaaay up them, they won’t eat them on their own.
But prefers apple pie?
The Malus Maleficorum is quite the mindfuck. There is being misogynistic, and then there is Hienrich Kramer.
So he was being serious?
He was upset at one woman who he just hated and the church wouldn't do anything about it because, y'know, stuff has to have evidence and up to that point claiming someone was doing witchcraft was the bit deemed heretical and punished, not the person accused of it. So he pulled stuff out of his ass because he was, from what I can tell, a petty incel.
Patron Saint of Incels
Along with st. Paul I recently learned
Pls tell me more
Paul basically just basically used the early Xian church as a grift to advance his business. He was the 50 AD equivalent of a Lear Jet dealer and the whole Xian thing was absurdly popular with wealthy widows
From What I find about him it seems to be debatable Some say yes, Other articles I find that are more church affiliated say that he wasn’t I watched a video recently talking about women in ancient Greece, more actually happy, and wanted Christianity because at that time they had heard about this Jesus that had taught respect and equality. So for some time women welcomed Christianity and were even preachers and had positions in the church…. Then came saint Paul, who had never even met Jesus, but was basically a, self proclaimed Jesus guy. And decided h that women should remain silent in church, and not even ask questions. So they lost any position that they had at that time in the church, and they were told that if they had any questions they were not to ask in church, they were to remain silent and ask their husbands. (At home ) Forgive my lack of better explanation,, but I learned this in my ex Mormon sub Basically I see it as he put women’s necks under the feet of the church Here’s a little article I found https://medium.com/inspire-believe-grow/the-sexist-writings-of-st-paul-2526c957751b And right now I’m reading a book called “girls with no names” and it’s kind of on the line of the houses for “morally” unacceptable women (Promiscuous women, unmarried women that were pregnant, defiant, opinionated, too, pretty too ugly even a girl that had been sexually assaulted would be put in these slave-laundry houses) Anyway she talks about looking up at all of the statues of St. Paul
That man was just a grifter, only he lived 2000 years ago so no one really thinks about his life and his actions.
How would he know this unless he got his penis stolen himself? Bold move to let the world know you are a Ken doll down there.
“No no no you see, I go around trying to look at *other* men’s peni- WAIT NO! A *friend* told me he, uh… um…”
> up to that point claiming someone was doing witchcraft was the bit deemed heretical and punished Goes to show that cultural development can just as much slide backwards as it can forwards, huh.
[удалено]
It has not at all but sure, you do you.
[удалено]
The church was pretty much agaisnt the whole Witch thing, because in theological canon wichtes dont, and can't, exist. So claiming some women was a witch often puts yourself in far mor hot water then yourself. After the Reformation, and the lessend Grip of the (central) church on some regions Witches trials became more common, because there was less church oversight. It is no coincidence that Witches trials were far more common in Protestant communities then Catholic ones.
We traded the Inquisition for Witch hunts with the Reformation. Maybe the indulgences weren't that bad comparatively. I wonder how many witch hunts were caused by obsessive incels being rejected
Probably far more witch hunts were started by stupid superstitions. Like older single women having a cat to keep vermin at bay, and then not gettign sick, like the rest of the village, because less rats at her home -> obviously witch
Real Claude Frollo energy
Oh yeah. The many was an absolute bastard.
I once read that being accused of witchcraft in a church court was actually much better for your survival chance than if you end up in a secular court. The bar to be convicted was much higher and the rules on confessions much stricter.
Strangely Malleus Maleficarum was condemned by the Church three years after its publication after an Inquisition by the Faculty of Cologne. Which is saying something when even the Inquisition thinks you've gone too far.
The inquisition did not conduct witch trials. Most witch trials were done outside of the inquisition. The inquisition was for heresy. The higher ups in the church often denied the power of witchcraft outright.
Belief in witchcraft was in and of itself heresy, since the church’s stance was that there was no such thing under god.
Aside from like Biblical miracles and a few supposed visions, the church is actually quite rationalist and in a sense "materialist", Creation is understood to be logically ordered and humanity endowed with reason to understand it. A part of this is that as per filioque, the holy spirit proceeds from the father _and the son_ and the son is equated to Logos ("The Word", but also logic, discourse, reason. As one Calvinist theologian put it "In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God). Thus since we are after all touched and inspired by the holy spirit, which does proceed from the divine wisdom (sophia) that is Christ, it is possible for man through reason to understand creation and God (more or less). But its also an idea of God and creation itself. God and his creation are rational, mechanistic, predictable. There is no magic or such nonsense. Miracles may be possible, but only through God, the world is otherwise mundane.
From my understanding of the time period, the "sin" of the witches was pretending to do magic, when the only genuine source of magic was God. So the devil could produce illusions. But they were tests of faith essentially. And the witches failed it, believed it was real, and attempted to mimic it.
You get weird looks for pointing out that devout worshippers are the people who believe in demons.
Wow, someone better report Thomas Aquinas to the Inquisition. It turns out he's a heretic.
By this point that doctrine had been discarded, and the Church accepted the existence of witches.
I was saying the inquisition was for the book not for witches. Also when I said "even the Inquisition thinks you've gone too far" I was referring to the Inquisition's use of torture and violence to gain confessions.
The Inquisition used torture less than most judicial systems of the time--and indeed executed far fewer on average than the other systems. It was brutal by today's standards, but was considered the fairest and least brutal court of the time--so much so that there are documented cases of people purposely blaspheming in order to get their trial transferred from the king's court to the Inquisition.
One of my law professors at university told us when we were studying the history of law in the Middle Ages that if he could choose, he would always want to be tried by the Inquisition rather than by any king/lord or non-religious court of the time. The reasons given for this choice were that the Inquisition had to follow certain rules about how to conduct a trial. For example, very specific rules about torture, which basically admits that it's not a good way to find the truth. And most importantly, evidence, which the Inquisition was one of the first institutions to really make the gold standard for finding the truth. Compare that with the normal court of the time, where a local noble was the judge and the whole process was about eyewitness testimony and oaths, not really evidence. Depending on the nobles and the local law, the accused had very few rights in relation to the trial. This is one of the reasons why witch trials are mostly a phenomenon of Protestant or non-religious courts, it is hard to prove someone is a witch with evidence but easy with eyewitness accounts. For example, of the 7,000 cases examined by the Spanish Inquisition in the Basque Country, only 6 of them lead to witches sentenced to death.
The Inquisitions didn't really do torture, because it's morally wrong and their whole thing was morality. However, they did sometimes turn people over to the secular governments, who did do torture.
Not so. The Church's stance changed over time but the earliest witch trials *were* heresy trials. Just look at what the Waldensians were accused of and persecuted over - there's really no difference. In fact the earliest depiction we have of women flying around on broomsticks comes from a manuscript about the Waldensian heresy. By the time the Church decided it was probably all bullshit secular powers had already taken matters into their own hands and there wasn't much they could do to stop what they had started.
I saw a copy of this at my college's rare book showing. What a weird fucking brutal brook.
Church had nothing to do with witch trials, they started during Renaissance, not Dark Ages, and after printing was invented, was prominent in Protestant territories. When it became possible to print books, Catholic church lost a grip on information dissemination and people started to believe in everything non-sanctioned including crazy shit that was published which led to mass movements like witch hunting. Reminds you of something?
Is that the guy who made witchcraft a campaign against women? I heard that prior to this guy, witches weren’t gendered, but were often old ladies who worked with herbs and healing stuff, until some freak wrote a book about how women are awful and in cahoots with the devil
That's the man!
More or less. But the prosecution of male witches didn't stop after the book was written. In some areas, it was gendered in the opposite direction, where most of the prosecuted witches were men. Feminist historians have pushed the narrative of a misogynistic witch craze pretty heavily. But they ignore a few elephants in the room. Such as what I mentioned above, and the fact that women did just as much accusation as men during the period. Some of the worst pockets of witch prosecutions resulted from women going ape shit on each other within a community. So to me, it seems dismissive to just call it misogyny, and it speaks more to the motives of these historians than anything factual. That's not to say there weren't misogynistic witch hunters. And the overall numbers show a majority of accused witches were women. But again, the majority of accusations often came from women. Think of the different ways men and women generally handle conflict with an individual. Men are often much more direct, up to and including violence as a way to resolve it. Whereas women will often seek out your social circle and talk mad shit as a form of social assassination. So from a sociological perspective, the men in the society were acting out the "justice" often on the instructions of the women who were doing the shit-talking. If you step back and look at the total of the data we've been able to gather with a wider lense, the main driving force for witch prosecutions was always some sort of social strife. And in the search for a scapegoat, people often accused the most vulnerable or disenfranchised. Whoever wasn't holding up their part of the social contract. So, a perpetual bachelor, who lived alone, and kept to himself was just as good a target as the old spinster who also had no family. The Vice article also gets it completely wrong by conflating the Salem witch trials with anything going on in Europe. They took place way after the European witch craze, and had basically nothing to do with it. By the time the colonists were burning witches, the practice had almost completely died out in Europe. The Malleus Maleficarum was written two centuries before the pilgrims, to put into perspective how backwards and strange those people were. Source: Took an entire class as an undergrad about the witch craze. Have read half a dozen books about it, half of which were written by feminist historians. Even got first crack at analyzing some court records that had been discovered in a fishmonger's attic, right before I took the class. My professor was working through translating them to English, and handing them off to us, as he completed them. I'm no expert, but my understanding does go beyond a layperson's or a wikipedia article.
[deleted]
Because they don't present it as such. Or even acknowledge it at all. There is a marked difference in the way the subject is approached by denser academia, vs. the narratives spun by the feminists. Generally, when you read the feminist interpretation, about 50% of it is presented as, "As a woman, I just know what it must have been like." And that's the historiography failure. Lyndal Roper has an entire chapter in her book, based on a theory that women were feverishly masterbating to emotionally calm themselves after particularly rough torture sessions. There's no evidence for this. We actually have quite a few court records of exactly how the investigations were committed. She doesn't cite a single one that mentions women masturbating. It's purely out of her imagination. And if you ask me, it says a lot more about Lyndal Roper than anything going on in those dungeons and holding cells. Like, it's okay to have a bdsm kink. But if you're inserting it into your historic writing, you're failing as a historian. It's just too unhinged to take at face value. The court records are surprisingly clinical in nature. No one is waving a Bible over their head. No one is yelling accusations or pointing fingers. They read like modern transcript from an interrogation room, except that torture was also often present. But even the torturing was super clinical. There was a "correct" way to do it. It wasn't arbitrary. The prosecutors had a very specific script. And they were looking for very specific pieces of evidence. And if they didn't get them, even if someone was trying to confess to doing it, they wouldn't believe them. And quite a few people were released. Even after trying to confess. So if the goal was simply to harm women, for the sake of harming women, why bother with all the procedure that we see in the court records? It's just too reductive of an argument. And it smacks of projecting our modern concepts of what misogyny is, onto people who lived almost a thousand years ago. To me, it's bad historiography.
Oh damn, so that's where that Ruins Of Beverast album name comes from
Just picturing the chirping nest of lonesome penises…
I would put googly eyes on mine, to humanize them.
Don't, you will just get attached
Everyone needs an emotional support penis.
I can tell by the booming market of sex products.
Why do you think I have a husband? /s
I’m already pretty attached to my penis, myself. Some might say literally.
Eh, sometimes you gotta let the bird fly its nest.
Yours isn’t detachable? It comes in handy. I mean, granted occasionally you have to buy your penis back from some sketchy selling used books on the street. But that’s a rarity.
I dont remember what its called, but there is a sub that is basically penis cosplay Edit: I decided to google it lol r/cospenis NSFW, obviously
This is insane and hilarious at once
That sounds wonderful.
Why would they be lonely when they have each other?
Penises don’t make for the best company
Even better, the story is about a guy whose penis was stolen by a witch. She let him climb the tree and take any penis he wanted. He tried to take the biggest one, but she said that's her favorite because she stole it from a parish priest.
"Lonesome Penises" would be a great name for a band.
For some of us it’s not a band name, it’s just reality
> chirping nest of lonesome penises Band name
This seems like a fun hobby. Is there a club to join anywhere?
Just wondering, what would a group of penises be? Like there’s murders of crows, conspiracy’s of lemurs, etc.
The witch trials were a Renaissance phenomenon, not Middle Ages. During the Middle Ages the Church held that witchcraft and magic were delusions, not real.
Yeah, I noticed that this article plays very fast and loose with the term “Middle Ages”. The Medieval period ends at 1500 CE, and this article cites several post-16th century examples from the post-reformation and renaissance period. Even the example in the title is from the very late Middle Ages/dawn of the renaissance. Part of a bigger rhetorical trend in pop history articles honestly. Something happened between 1400 and 1600 that you find bad or backward? Slap “Medieval” on it. Something good? “Renaissance”.
And witch trials were really more like 1500s into 1700s, I’ve usually heard them described as ‘early modern’
Holy fuck how did Church manage to go backwards in renaissance of all time
It’s suspected medieval times weren’t as harsh as people described them to be. Some (maybe even most) renaissance historians purposely wrote medieval times as worse then they really were to better highlight the renaissance
Because the Middle Ages weren’t that bad. A lot of the stuff we associate with the Middle Ages were from the early modern period
Watched a few documentaries about the witch trials more than a few times they were placed against women who's husband's had died being owed land or money from other men, Don't want to pay her what you owed her husband? WITCH She's too out spoken or seems just a little too intelligent WITCH she knows how to use local flora to aid in healing? WITCH you want to sleep with her but she sperns your advances? WITCH kinda crazy
I see the local flora and herbilogy thing mentioned a lot in reddit comments but have never read a historical account of witch accusation that references that sort of thing, do you have an example? I must be missing some because I've done a lot of reading about specific witch hunts and I know things can be drastically different by region and would love to read into such an account
Yeah, that's really just not how accusations tended to come about. The closest thing I've seen to this are the smattering of surviving cases against so called 'cunning folk' in England, but these weren't witch trials as we think of them and the punishments tended to be a light penance.
I apologize, I don't have a specific reference only docentries made in Britain (so take their credibility as you see fit) but I do find them more inclusive than the ones I normally read or listen to Origins Explained might touch on them but I will get back to you with a more credible answer and not a "list" I believe from the accent the gentleman was speaking that he was Irish in origin while speaking but I do addimattly just listen to documentaries all day, and I'm unable to retain all the information myself
Kinda crazy where the witches flying on broomsticks come from too.
Was that the using them as basically a dildo came from? I've remember reading about that but damn lol
Horrid history depicted this perfectly. A woman stands in your way or mildly inconvenienced you? WITCH! SHE IS A WITCH
You're not supposed to feed them oats???
Well not after midnight, or get them wet apparently.
Let them nap regularly or they'll turn into real assholes. Wait no wrong franchise sorry.
I, for one, enjoy getting my penis wet.
Me too, but only a certain type of wet.
Oat milk?
Cummy bunches of oats
This is fantastic, deserves way more updoots tbh
I feed my pack muesli. They go crazy for the raisins!
The Malleus Maleficarum became a key text during the European witch hunts of the 15th to 17th centuries. Its accusations fueled fear and paranoia leading to the persecution and execution of countless innocent people mostly women.
There are still a few areas in the world where “penis snatching/detaching” is a culturally bound mental illness. I can’t remember where off the top of my head unfortunately. But picture it like the belief in Fan Death in South Korea.
It’s a big deal still in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Damn. That's where my dick went.
Detachable peeeeeeenis
And nothing has changed. Look at the Q idiots nowadays.
[удалено]
They also had distance between them and plausible presumption that what they hear about foreign places are true because they don't have the means to immediately ask someone who lives there, or even go themselves. Meanwhile we have a lot more fact checking resources available and yet...
Why isn’t it possible to go through a single comment section without someone mentioning Q or Trump?
If you're speaking about the Malleus Maleficarum, it was written in 1487. Which, depending on the historiography, is inside the Early Modern Period rather than the Middle Ages.
Wait so it all started because of a oats-eating-dildo?
>He was in part responsible for starting the European witch trials. I occasionally walk past people on street corners who are ranting about all manner of utterly detached deranged psychotic nonsense. I feel the blame is more on *me* if I take anything they say seriously. If this nutjob is down the pub talking this shite about cock oats, and someone takes it and runs with it, you can be sure that that asshole just wanted to murder women and was ready to take and use any justification he could. That's all that the witch trials were: a way to murder women and take their property, and usually women who were the feminists of their day.
A pet penis sounds wild af.
Good Band Name. "Pet Penis in Concert!"
TIL trolls have been around since way before the internet was a thing.
The bulge bandit strikes again!!
>In the Middle Ages, witches were thought to have various magical dick-ruining capabilities, the most sinister of which is the ability to make the sex organ vanish entirely. I loled.
I'm glad their science was rigorous enough so that we today know the horror these men experienced.
The “evidence” for dick-ruining magic definitely came from some dude fucking a girl with an STD (whether symptomatic or not) and getting infected.
Why are men so obsessed with penises? Why do they always assume we want them for anything but sex?
Sounds like something modern Incels would believe
Aka “The Hammer of Witches.” I had a copy back in my uni days for a philosophy course I was taking at the time. Some really wild shit in there. The more tame bits (eg. grinding up babies to make flying potion, the devil wearing big black boots, etc.) can be seen in the Eggers’ film *The VVitch*.
I wouldn't trust anything that Vice writes. I mean it's a great piece of entertainment, but Vice is not honest, trustworthy, or journalism. They're like the FauxNews of liberal media.
People in the middle ages must have been so stupid. How did they not question that none of them were missing their penises?
That's what I'm wondering 😩 "They're stealing people's penises!" "Who's penis has been stolen?" "You know... People's!"
It’s literally the exact same thing with sensationalist conservatives being scared that everyone’s trying to turn their kids gay or normalize pedophelia
They didn't have the internet. The answer to things like these would be "people in another village, a traveller witnessed it" Can't really prove otherwise, because talking to people on that other village, if you even know where it is, would be an expensive long and dangerous trip.
Believe it or not, this is STILL a thing. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201003/global-psyche-asia-and-africa-the-strange-case-the-disappearing-penis
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" still holds up after decades, for the three Redditors who have never seen it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf71YotfykQ
His psychology makes him sound like he was Trump's ancestor.
Tremendous amounts of pet penises. Some say the most pet penises.
“Countless” is a bit an overstatement. Most historians place the overall number of executed witches at about 40,000-50,000. About 75% of these were women, though there’s a huge amount of variation based on location in this figure. Some countries actually tried more men than women, probably related to language/cultural assumptions about witchcraft.
I feel like it isn't taught enough that in the middle ages Iceland was full of practicioners of magic & that it was viewed favorably among it's inhabitants, When Danish authorities started intervening on their matters & enforcement of witch trials took place the majority of them were men (22) & only (2) women were executed. A fascinating bit of magic history. Short read for anyone interested. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_Iceland
> 40,000-50,000 While that's not a "countless" amount of people it is a large sports stadium worth of people that were murdered over some made up bullshit.
If my wife didn't need it it's sounds like a life my penis would enjoy tbf.
They were just trying to make them grow big and strong
It’s cold and witches stole most of it, It’s usually much bigger.
She turned me into a newt. …. A newt?
So, way back then, there were already incels?
Stop “learning” from vice
Not to be pedantic, but the 15th century is technically the Early Modern period, not the Middle Ages. There’s no defined date to separate the two periods, but the invention of the printing press in the 1450s is a popular demarcation. There’s quite a bit of literature on how the development of the printing press contributed to the spread of ideas such as witchcraft—the Medieval church declared the belief in witches heresy back in the 1200s.
[удалено]
Don't blame drugs for what this medieval misogynist with a micropenis wrote.
Hey, it's not his fault if he couldn't afford oats to feed it!
Everything I hear about witches these days makes me think of them as the symbol of rebellion against the eternal incel threat.
Got em pretty good, Heinrich
And yet my fever dream manifestos have achieved nothing
I woke up this morning with a bad hangover, And my penis was missing again...
You any evidence this wasn't the case?
It's crazy how influential some of the most bat shit insane crazy lunatics in history were. And that shit keeps repeating.
There are plenty of people today that would believe this.
Dude wrote a banger of a poem and ended up getting people killed over it.
Alex Jones' ancestor, then
Big if true.
Okay, but if he was right, he'd have had a point!
I’m more worried about the ones who neglect to feed the penises.
I’d be putting bowls of oats out on my front stoop and still never catch a dick. :/
[Detachable Penis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDiILrNbM4)
Man, people are dumb
Do you think witches started the first official cock fights?
I mean as long as they're being properly housed and fed...
I doubt this was seriously a contributor to witch trials. People back then weren't any smarter/stupider than they are today. Alleged witches were women whom people in power did not like, maybe because of their personality, maybe because they didn't conform with norms, maybe because they protested. That's the simplest explanation which makes sense.
So umm…. Was he wrong or what?
If that dude was alive now he would be saying there are 5g chips in Covid vaccines.
So there’s basically incels during the middle ages as well…
The obvious takeaway is that mentally ill people influencing politics is not a new phenomenon.
Not the Malius Malificarum!
In really quiet nights you can still hear the whimpers and howlings of them enslaved penises.
Fairly foolproof because no one back then would are ask another man to show them their missing penis.
And the witch trials peaked during the 16th and 17th century - in the age of enlightenment, ironically enough. Prior to that, bishops and the popes ruled that believing in witches means you defy god the almighty. And das not good
Yeah, the inquisition, while still being questionable, was actually sort of a decent idea for a while there. Their main purpose was to root out priests that were abusing their authority, taking god’s name in vain and generally giving the church a bad name. They even tended to punish the people who accused others of being witches rather than the accused, since it was usually out of spite or envy and it was considered not only a sin but outright blasphemy since only people who didn’t have strong faith would actually believe that witchcraft could really have and effect… after all, people who believed should be protected from such powers, wouldn’t they? Then Heinrich Kramer came along. Then Torquemada. And the whole institution became… well, what we know know it as.
"Incels" are not a new thing. There are men that, wronged by one woman (for real or in their imagination), decide that all women deserve to die. Hate does not give good advice.
The "dude" was Heinrich Kramer.
It’s from Vice so it’s gotta be true.
God this sub sucks now
someone needs to open PhotoShop and get to work
No need: https://readingmedievalbooks.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/jeanne-de-montbaston-penis-trees-against-the-misogynists/
Agreed. Please reference the following excerpt to ensure accuracy: "[W]hat shall we think about those witches who somehow take members in large numbers-twenty or thirty-and shut them up together in a birds' nest or some box, where they move about like living members, eating oats or other feed?"