Obscene Display.

[Apostate]

This is a fascinating thread.

I wonder whether Obscene Display is at the heart of crux fantasies as
1.crucifixion was naked
2.crucifixion was public
3.we all seem to like the victim's struggles - visual
4.since damage, death, or even pain are not the main aim fir most members. doesn't that leave obscene display as the main feature?

I wonder what others think about this?

Peter

Short answer, yes. All of the above.

From that very first night in '02 I found the sheer, frenzied erotic impact of a naked woman nailed to a cross to be purely visual.

And also subject to overthinking. Many folks into this kink have done the research, and know precisely how horrific a Roman crucifixion was. Think about that too much, the sexual thrill fades. And when crux practitioners on the forums talk about using real nails, we freak.

 

[Peter Adams]

Short answer, yes. All of the above.

From that very first night in '02 I found the sheer, frenzied erotic impact of a naked woman nailed to a cross to be purely visual.

And also subject to overthinking. Many folks into this kink have done the research, and know precisely how horrific a Roman crucifixion was. Think about that too much, the sexual thrill fades. And when crux practitioners on the forums talk about using real nails, we freak.

Of course real nails!

You wouldn't want the cross to fall apart mid-writhe and spoil the show!

I use bolts, but then I have that dreadful social disease of being an engineer lol

Oh, and I do have openings for ctoss-testers of either gender, or even crucifiers so I can be the test "Pilate" lol! (Doesn't - I have openings for - sound strange in thus context! )

 

[Barbaria1]

This is a fascinating thread.

I wonder whether Obscene Display is at the heart of crux fantasies as
1.crucifixion was naked
2.crucifixion was public
3.we all seem to like the victim's struggles - visual
4.since damage, death, or even pain are not the main aim fir most members. doesn't that leave obscene display as the main feature?

I wonder what others think about this?

Peter

Yes to all and especially to #4.

 

[Marcius]

I know that an effective regime of any historical period manipulates laws for its own benefit - but I have a legal problem with the execution of women.

I believe it was illegal under Ronan law to to execute a pregnant woman - the obvious issue being the death of the foetus.

It was, Dig. 48, 19, 3:

The execution of the penalty imposed upon a pregnant woman should be deferred until she brings forth her child. I, indeed, am well aware of the rule that torture must not be inflicted upon her as long as she is pregnant.​

It was also illegal to execute a virgin - a useful technicality which led to gang rape by the executioners just to be sure. (now THAT'S what you call a job perk!)

It most likely wasn't. The idea stems from Tacitus’ comment on the fate of Sejanus' daughter, who 'was was violated by the executioner, with the noose beside her'; however, this recent article [PDF] argues against the existence of some general law:

Although there are no references in the law codes concerning the illegality of the execution of virgins, most of what we have in the way of written law is much later. My sense is that it was the case that executing a virgin was merely without precedent, not that there was any explicit written law against it: Dio describes it as ‘‘unlawful’’ (οὐχὄσιον), Tacitus as ‘‘unheard of’’ (inauditum); Suetonius, for his part, writes that ‘‘ancient usage made it impious’’ (more tradito nefas esset). In addition, the choice of words in the Latin clearly expresses the obscenity of the deed: first, Sejanus’ daughter was raped by the public executioner, ‘‘a carnifice...compressam.’’
​

My personal opinion: there was no law forbidding the execution of a virgin, but it at least in this case it was regarded as bad juju, to be avoided by rape if necessary. It might have been thought as such in the City of Rome only; in Britain, Egypt or Syria people might've had no qualms about putting a maiden to death.

 

[mp5stab]

Short answer, yes. All of the above.

From that very first night in '02 I found the sheer, frenzied erotic impact of a naked woman nailed to a cross to be purely visual.

And also subject to overthinking. Many folks into this kink have done the research, and know precisely how horrific a Roman crucifixion was.

Hmm, due to my extensive research on the internet, I think I know quite a bit about crucifixion now. Discarding first with the religious art, which is obviously focused more on romanticized and sanitized versions of the act for the beautification of saints, and probably has very little historical accuracy behind it, I am left with mostly contemporary descriptions and illustrations from other researchers. I have determed that crucifixion was almost always performed naked, using nails in the wrists, often accompanied by a sedile or cornu, which were very frequently used; conversely, only occasionally crowns of thorns appeared, and even rarer was the loincloth. The victims were almost always young women, every one of them beautiful. Crucifixions could last for days, despite how severe the injuries likely were, and the complete lack of anything antiseptic in Rome besides vinegar. Rape was almost always involved, or at least tastefully implied. The Romans carried out about three million crucifixions, mostly girls, lots of them involving buxom celts, and each was attended by a sadistic crowd that wasn't at all turned off by the horrific violence. At least, that's what I've seen so far here.

Everything you read on the internet is true, especially if it's sexy, and especially if it involves Romans.

 

[Barbaria1]

Hmm, due to my extensive research on the internet, I think I know quite a bit about crucifixion now. Discarding first with the religious art, which is obviously focused more on romanticized and sanitized versions of the act for the beautification of saints, and probably has very little historical accuracy behind it, I am left with mostly contemporary descriptions and illustrations from other researchers. I have determed that crucifixion was almost always performed naked, using nails in the wrists, often accompanied by a sedile or cornu, which were very frequently used; conversely, only occasionally crowns of thorns appeared, and even rarer was the loincloth. The victims were almost always young women, every one of them beautiful. Crucifixions could last for days, despite how severe the injuries likely were, and the complete lack of anything antiseptic in Rome besides vinegar. Rape was almost always involved, or at least tastefully implied. The Romans carried out about three million crucifixions, mostly girls, lots of them involving buxom celts, and each was attended by a sadistic crowd that wasn't at all turned off by the horrific violence. At least, that's what I've seen so far here.

Everything you read on the internet is true, especially if it's sexy, and especially if it involves Romans.

I have determed that crucifixion was almost always performed naked, using nails in the wrists, often accompanied by a sedile or cornu, which were very frequently used; conversely, only occasionally crowns of thorns appeared, and even rarer was the loincloth. The victims were almost always young women, every one of them beautiful. Crucifixions could last for days, despite how severe the injuries likely were, and the complete lack of anything antiseptic in Rome besides vinegar. Rape was almost always involved, or at least tastefully implied. The Romans carried out about three million crucifixions, mostly girls, lots of them involving buxom celts, and each was attended by a sadistic crowd that wasn't at all turned off by the horrific violence.

Whether it's alt-history or true ... I LIKE IT!!!

 

[Deleted member jedakk]

It was, Dig. 48, 19, 3:

The execution of the penalty imposed upon a pregnant woman should be deferred until she brings forth her child. I, indeed, am well aware of the rule that torture must not be inflicted upon her as long as she is pregnant.​

It most likely wasn't. The idea stems from Tacitus’ comment on the fate of Sejanus' daughter, who 'was was violated by the executioner, with the noose beside her'; however, this recent article [PDF] argues against the existence of some general law:

Although there are no references in the law codes concerning the illegality of the execution of virgins, most of what we have in the way of written law is much later. My sense is that it was the case that executing a virgin was merely without precedent, not that there was any explicit written law against it: Dio describes it as ‘‘unlawful’’ (οὐχὄσιον), Tacitus as ‘‘unheard of’’ (inauditum); Suetonius, for his part, writes that ‘‘ancient usage made it impious’’ (more tradito nefas esset). In addition, the choice of words in the Latin clearly expresses the obscenity of the deed: first, Sejanus’ daughter was raped by the public executioner, ‘‘a carnifice...compressam.’’
​

My personal opinion: there was no law forbidding the execution of a virgin, but it at least in this case it was regarded as bad juju, to be avoided by rape if necessary. It might have been thought as such in the City of Rome only; in Britain, Egypt or Syria people might've had no qualms about putting a maiden to death.

Excellent reply, Marcius. I'm going to save these references for future use, maybe in a story. I might have characters from Rome and other places in the empire talking about the condemned virgin, the Roman saying that "everybody knows you can't crucify a virgin" - an offense that the gods will not take lightly. One of his Celtic buddies laughs at him and tells him he "never heard of any such thing, sounds like you're just inventing a reason to try out that tight virgin cunnus. "

 

[Apostate]

Hmm, due to my extensive research on the internet, I think I know quite a bit about crucifixion now. Discarding first with the religious art, which is obviously focused more on romanticized and sanitized versions of the act for the beautification of saints, and probably has very little historical accuracy behind it, I am left with mostly contemporary descriptions and illustrations from other researchers. I have determed that crucifixion was almost always performed naked, using nails in the wrists, often accompanied by a sedile or cornu, which were very frequently used; conversely, only occasionally crowns of thorns appeared, and even rarer was the loincloth. The victims were almost always young women, every one of them beautiful. Crucifixions could last for days, despite how severe the injuries likely were, and the complete lack of anything antiseptic in Rome besides vinegar. Rape was almost always involved, or at least tastefully implied. The Romans carried out about three million crucifixions, mostly girls, lots of them involving buxom celts, and each was attended by a sadistic crowd that wasn't at all turned off by the horrific violence. At least, that's what I've seen so far here.

Everything you read on the internet is true, especially if it's sexy, and especially if it involves Romans.

Can you imagine a world where not everything you read on the Internet is true???

The mind reels.

Steve Cordero brought us a typical Roman crucifixion. Some assembly was required.

 

[Peter Adams]

It was, Dig. 48, 19, 3:

The execution of the penalty imposed upon a pregnant woman should be deferred until she brings forth her child. I, indeed, am well aware of the rule that torture must not be inflicted upon her as long as she is pregnant.​

It most likely wasn't. The idea stems from Tacitus’ comment on the fate of Sejanus' daughter, who 'was was violated by the executioner, with the noose beside her'; however, this recent article [PDF] argues against the existence of some general law:

Although there are no references in the law codes concerning the illegality of the execution of virgins, most of what we have in the way of written law is much later. My sense is that it was the case that executing a virgin was merely without precedent, not that there was any explicit written law against it: Dio describes it as ‘‘unlawful’’ (οὐχὄσιον), Tacitus as ‘‘unheard of’’ (inauditum); Suetonius, for his part, writes that ‘‘ancient usage made it impious’’ (more tradito nefas esset). In addition, the choice of words in the Latin clearly expresses the obscenity of the deed: first, Sejanus’ daughter was raped by the public executioner, ‘‘a carnifice...compressam.’’
​

My personal opinion: there was no law forbidding the execution of a virgin, but it at least in this case it was regarded as bad juju, to be avoided by rape if necessary. It might have been thought as such in the City of Rome only; in Britain, Egypt or Syria people might've had no qualms about putting a maiden to death.

If you live in Kent, the waste of a good virgin by putting her to death would be intolerable! !!!

 

[mp5stab]

Whether it's alt-history or true ... I LIKE IT!!!

It's both! I call it the "alternative facts" of female crucifixion! For instance: Crucifixion was all about display -- beautiful women nailed up like fine art. The inability to hide or conceal the breasts or labia once nailed into the cruciform position properly played into its widespread appeal as the primary means of execution for women.

In this artist's reconstruction of a pair of Patrician sisters crucified, we see a common crucifixion pose, with the victim's exposed breasts and sex clearly visible while on the cross:

 

[Peter Adams]

It's both! I call it the "alternative facts" of female crucifixion! For instance: Crucifixion was all about display -- beautiful women nailed up like fine art. The inability to hide or conceal the breasts or labia once nailed into the cruciform position properly was played into its widespread appeal for the execution of women.

In this artist's reconstruction of a pair of Patrician sisters crucified, we see a common crucifixion pose, with the victim's exposed breasts and sex clearly visible while on the cross:

So beautiful!

 

[Barbaria1]

It's both! I call it the "alternative facts" of female crucifixion! For instance: Crucifixion was all about display -- beautiful women nailed up like fine art. The inability to hide or conceal the breasts or labia once nailed into the cruciform position properly played into its widespread appeal as the primary means of execution for women.

In this artist's reconstruction of a pair of Patrician sisters crucified, we see a common crucifixion pose, with the victim's exposed breasts and sex clearly visible while on the cross:

Soooo ... this means a massive re-writing of history. The Christ figure on Golgotha was actually a Christa, and the two criminals were women. And the Roman mass crucifixion following Spartacus' revolt was not of the vanquished rebels but of their wives and daughters! And the games in the arena featured female victims exclusively. And what else?

 

[Apostate]

Soooo ... this means a massive re-writing of history. The Christ figure on Golgotha was actually a Christa, and the two criminals were women. And the Roman mass crucifixion following Spartacus' revolt was not of the vanquished rebels but of their wives and daughters! And the games in the arena featured female victims exclusively. And what else?

Those tens of thousands of Jews crucified by Titus outside the walls during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.? All naked pretty girls.

 

[mp5stab]

Those tens of thousands of Jew crucified by Titus outside the walls during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.? All naked pretty girls.

At first, it was believed that couldn't be possible, but new archeological evidence suggests that more girls may have been crucified than was originally claimed. There is actually an excellent series of foresic reconstructions of the countless anonymous women that died, complete to near-photorealism:

https://bobnearled.deviantart.com/gallery/?catpath=/&edit=0&q=Ivdaea+Capta

 

[Apostate]

Ah, yes, I remember that huge write-up in the Crux Street Journal. But the Biblical Babes Archeological Society blasted the report as "fake news."

 

[Peter Adams]

Ah, yes, I remember that huge write-up in the Crux Street Journal. But the Biblical Babes Archeological Society blasted the report as "fake news."

Next to the Crossword?
And wouldn't "fake nudes" be mire appropriate? The ladies in question were unclothed!

 

[Deleted member jedakk]

Those tens of thousands of Jews crucified by Titus outside the walls during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.? All naked pretty girls.

Those three Jewish victims rescued from the cross by Josephus? His fiance' and two of her sisters. The sisters died, but his fiance' survived. He married her afterwards despite the stigma of so many men having seen her displayed obscenely during the hours that she hung on a cross beside the road. I read something, don't remember where now, where a visitor to his house described that the scars of the nails were still visible years later and how he had to keep himself from staring at them when she poured the wine, and that she limped slightly on her left foot.

 

[Barbaria1]

Those three Jewish victims rescued from the cross by Josephus? His fiance' and two of her sisters. The sisters died, but his fiance' survived. He married her afterwards despite the stigma of so many men having seen her displayed obscenely during the hours that she hung on a cross beside the road. I read something, don't remember where now, where a visitor to his house described that the scars of the nails were still visible years later and how he had to keep himself from staring at them when she poured the wine, and that she limped slightly on her left foot.

I think we are on a roll here ... more examples? Anyone?

 

[AlexArts]

Interesting...

 

[mp5stab]

That's an outstanding attention to historical detail there, Jedakk. You're putting the rest of us to shame. The Serpent's Eye may be the best description of a plausible historical crucifixion we have! (Of course, it helps that Sabina's remains were discovered with the nails fused into her nearly fossilized wrist bones, meaning we knew for certain that the young girl had been crucified. You really just filled in the details)