• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Worried about ethics? Don't derail the thread, post here instead!

Go to CruxDreams.com
I see being a part of this forum as a psychological release. I mentioned this before in my first posting in this discussion. I feel that this subject of crucifixion is a part of me and being able to release it allows me to not feel guilty about this. I went to counseling about my sexual desires and the psychologist I talked with told me that it is better to express it in a non harmful way. That is how I see and use this forum. I do not discuss it with others I know because they do not share my interest in this forum. I also think they would have a more difficult time understanding why I am involved with this forum because they would see it from a different viewpoint.

I agree with this--one needs a way to blow off steam, to get one's fantasies out of the way in a harmless manner. There are all kinds of secrets one wouldn't want to share, not all of them about sexual fantasies. There are very violent video games, which make violence anonymous and make the (imaginary) people being hurt abstractions. I assume that in some ways they allow the players to see the results of violence and actually build up a revulsion to seeing it happen to a real person. It is only when the fantasy is coupled with hate and lack of empathy that it becomes dangerous.
I have never liked hunting (although I have fished). I assume that most people who do it are motivated by the chase and the skill involved. But hunting too can lead to pointless cruelty.
 
If everyone in the canteen was talking about the latest threads on Cruxforums....? :confused:
:BoredSmiley::BoredSmiley::BoredSmiley:

"A sexual fetish may be regarded as a non-pathological aid to sexual excitement, or as a mental disorder if it causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life."
Yes ,but for the majority of us, there is not the case , I hope ...

...99 of those adults would identify the crux porn as the most extremely offensive
And then, we've nothing to do with them ... Let them in their quiet live and us in our so much attractive life ...
 
I've not a great family and I dont think that I'll tell them my participation here , but it's not a shame , only it's because they're not in this way and for me, it's not interesting to talk of that with them ...
Concerning my lover girl Judith, of course that she knows and is coming (though she's not member) to view what are my manips ...

I agree love.

I have one brother who would understand (it's his books that got me interested). I don't think my other brothers would care one way or the other about the forum but they would be worried that their "little" sister was getting herself into something she can't get out of.

MY mother (father and step-dad) when they were alive would never be able to understand it. It is too foreign to them.

However, for professional reasons, I couldn't let my attendance here (or at the club) come out. I'd be ruined. The PC world I live in just isn't tolerant (although some of the attorneys I work with I KNOW would get into whipping, etc me). I'd never get another job, not because the people at the firms necessarily condemn it, but they just don't want to deal with the howling SJW crowd.

My services just aren't special enough to warrant the potential lost business from the bad press.

kisses

willowfall
 
I agree with this--one needs a way to blow off steam, to get one's fantasies out of the way in a harmless manner. There are all kinds of secrets one wouldn't want to share, not all of them about sexual fantasies. There are very violent video games, which make violence anonymous and make the (imaginary) people being hurt abstractions. I assume that in some ways they allow the players to see the results of violence and actually build up a revulsion to seeing it happen to a real person. It is only when the fantasy is coupled with hate and lack of empathy that it becomes dangerous.
I have never liked hunting (although I have fished). I assume that most people who do it are motivated by the chase and the skill involved. But hunting too can lead to pointless cruelty.

I think this hits the nail on the head (or on the wrist or foot, in our case
smile.png
). I agree wholeheartedly in terms of psychological health, but I still would like to hear form anyone who is, like myself, fighting guilt/shame/trepidation at participating in crux activities. (It occurs to me as I write this that those feelings may be akin to what an LGBT person may feel when being subjected to "cures" for his/her identity, although certainly only a fraction of that trauma. Except that, in my case, the feeling emanates from within! Doctor, heal thyself, no?)

A random pic from my collection (I've been at this for 40+ years--wish I could find all those manips I did on Brigitte Bardot, etc., in the 1970s):
LKTB034.jpg
 
I agree with this--one needs a way to blow off steam, to get one's fantasies out of the way in a harmless manner. There are all kinds of secrets one wouldn't want to share, not all of them about sexual fantasies. There are very violent video games, which make violence anonymous and make the (imaginary) people being hurt abstractions. I assume that in some ways they allow the players to see the results of violence and actually build up a revulsion to seeing it happen to a real person. It is only when the fantasy is coupled with hate and lack of empathy that it becomes dangerous.
I have never liked hunting (although I have fished). I assume that most people who do it are motivated by the chase and the skill involved. But hunting too can lead to pointless cruelty.
I dont know if people here are like me but, from time to time, I need of violence against my body, I need of to be horribly tortured ...
Is it not inherent to our quest here ?
 
Life is strange, you know...
Four years earlier I left the forums without notice because I was unable to answer this single question : is it ethical to make such pictures? By "such pictures", I mean depictions of women crucified with nails. Easy, you tell me : don't make them! The problem is : these pictures are also the most compelling. I stop making then one month... six months... and then come back making them again. And what is the point making such pictures if I'm not sharing them? During the last three years, I opened and closed at least three Deviantart accounts. For the very same reason... Ridiculous... I had to find a way to go on. And I found : that's why I'm writing here today. I am what I am and I'll die with that mind. Struggling is worse than let coping with it. Sorry for speaking so much of myself.

Generally speaking producing and sharing such pictures might raise ethical problems. Not that long before, I received a slap to have shown a too young Eulalia at the foot of a cross. And I was totally unaware that I had crossed the border. Just to say that we cannot evacuate all ethical considerations. I am not always at ease when I see pictures of girls raped or molested by black or arab-like men. More often than statistically p)redictable, in my opinion. It may be an ethical problem as well.
 
Just to say that we cannot evacuate all ethical considerations.
In my opinion, we dont evacuate ethical considerations : perhaps only that we've not exactelly the same than other people ...
But I say that we've not to share with them elsewhere than here ! If they're interested, they can come with us, here ...:D


I am not always at ease when I see pictures of girls raped or molested by black or arab-like men.
Me too ,but it's due to my life ... But never I'll impede anybody to share them if it's their tastes : nothing into our rules is going against that ! Only, I avoid to see them ... ;)

 
I am not always at ease when I see pictures of girls raped or molested by black or arab-like men. More often than statistically p)redictable, in my opinion. It may be an ethical problem as well.
That is one area where I do see potential ethical issues. More so than the perpetrators, I see issues with the girls depicted almost all being white, whereas the victims of slavery or crucifixion were largely not. Yes, the Romans certainly crucified slaves from Europe, but probably a great many of those crucified, including Jesus, were at least brown. And certainly, while the Barbary pirates did seize European slaves (I believe Barb and I wrote a story about that;)) the majority of those enslaved all over the world and over time were not white.

So I show this picture by Jucundus which shows a more historically accurate situation. 20 lashes.jpg
 
That is one area where I do see potential ethical issues. More so than the perpetrators, I see issues with the girls depicted almost all being white, whereas the victims of slavery or crucifixion were largely not. Yes, the Romans certainly crucified slaves from Europe, but probably a great many of those crucified, including Jesus, were at least brown. And certainly, while the Barbary pirates did seize European slaves (I believe Barb and I wrote a story about that;)) the majority of those enslaved all over the world and over time were not white.
That's about the strangest plea for equal racial opportunities I ever read.;)

Honestly, I do not see any ethics about that. just the possibility of historical inaccuracy. But why bother? That's artist liberty!

And I admit, I have the same questions for myself about me being here, with the same concerns as many other members posting here. As I have mentioned earlier elsewhere on CF, I see our fantasies as a particular way of erotisation of death, in the first place.

But has anyone considered to look things from the viewpoint of liberty, freedom, rebellion? We discuss ethics here, but a lot of our stories here are inspired by a setting of power abuse, legitimated by enforced morality. Just take the currently running story 'Barb behind bars', where the lead character is the victim of a judge's, a prosecutor's and a warden's power abuse, hidden behind the cover of law, 'higher' values and morality. People and institutions that claim the supreme right of their 'ethics', and hence claim absolute and arbitrarily power over others. That kind of things makes our own concerns about ethics concerning pics and stories look small.

Denouncing such mechanisms of power abuse by putting things to the extreme (crucifixion) is one way to express freedom of speech. All it takes the mental ability to move into the mind of the condemned at the cross. Being onlooker and victim together in one mind. It may sound a little bit strange, but that's the way it works for me.

Of course, there are issues here on CF which I rather distaste , but here I submit to the judgement of the administrators to Judge about what is allowed or not, and I just stay away there.
 
Just take the currently running story 'Barb behind bars', where the lead character is the victim of a judge's, a prosecutor's and a warden's power abuse, hidden behind the cover of law, 'higher' values and morality. People and institutions that claim the supreme right of their 'ethics', and hence claim absolute and arbitrarily power over others.

Yes!!! Quite right! I like that!
 
That is one area where I do see potential ethical issues. More so than the perpetrators, I see issues with the girls depicted almost all being white, whereas the victims of slavery or crucifixion were largely not.

That is virtually an untrue statement.

Modern propaganda aside the ENTIRE Mediterranean basin was occupied by populations who were genetically Indo-Europeans. That is not to say you didn't have people from Sub-Sahara there and you would have also had a small number of Asians (Rome had trade relations with India whose trade relations went all the way to China) there.

But overwhelmingly the population was, for lack of a more precise term, WHITE.

And the slave population was overwhelmingly WHITE.

Facts aside, when you are an artist you make art that both appeals to you and your audience. The number of people on this site who would not be considered white (I hate the dumb terminology used by PCs) is small compared to the number who are.

And that being said no one has ever objected to the posting of pictures of people of other races.

Please leave the modern American (mis)interpretations out of the conversations.

kisses

willowfall
 
That is virtually an untrue statement.
I'm not sure what "virtually untrue" means.

My statement said "the majority of those enslaved all over the world and over time were not white." Slavery in history was by no means limited to Rome. The numbers involved in the Atlantic trade alone (of which the US was only a small part) likely dwarfed the entire population of the Roman Empire, simply because world population was considerably larger in 1700 than in 100. And that's not to even speak of the slaves in Africa enslaved by both blacks and Arabs and slaves in the pre-Columbian Americas and other places. So I stand by my statement, though if you have references, not assertions that say otherwise, I will glad to retract it.

Facts aside, when you are an artist you make art that both appeals to you and your audience. The number of people on this site who would not be considered white (I hate the dumb terminology used by PCs) is small compared to the number who are.
I don't doubt the statement about the membership of CF, but why does the race of the victim matter to the enjoyment of the reader/viewer? Would the render I posted above be more appealing if the slave being flogged were European instead of African? Not IMO. I wrote several stories in which the main character was of Indian ancestry, though born in the US, and many of the other characters were Southeast Asian. A lot of readers here seemed to like it just fine...
 
I'm not sure what "virtually untrue" means.

My statement said "the majority of those enslaved all over the world and over time were not white." Slavery in history was by no means limited to Rome. The numbers involved in the Atlantic trade alone (of which the US was only a small part) likely dwarfed the entire population of the Roman Empire, simply because world population was considerably larger in 1700 than in 100. And that's not to even speak of the slaves in Africa enslaved by both blacks and Arabs and slaves in the pre-Columbian Americas and other places. So I stand by my statement, though if you have references, not assertions that say otherwise, I will glad to retract it.

My apologies as I miss read your statement. The fact is that slavery is a universal constant across all cultures.

That being said crucifixion is not. It appeared predominantly in cultures centered around the "western" ancient world (of which west Asia including Iran is part of) with China, Japan and Korea being exceptions I know of. To the best of my knowledge their is absolutely no evidence of cruxing occurring in Africa, the Americas, any Pacific cultures or the vast majority of Asia. That covers more than 1/2 the people in the world. If you have documentation of such activity pleas post it.


[/QUOTE]I don't doubt the statement about the membership of CF, but why does the race of the victim matter to the enjoyment of the reader/viewer? Would the render I posted above be more appealing if the slave being flogged were European instead of African? Not IMO. I wrote several stories in which the main character was of Indian ancestry, though born in the US, and many of the other characters were Southeast Asian. A lot of readers here seemed to like it just fine...[/QUOTE]

I never said or implied that you shouldn't post it. I myself immensely enjoy for example Japanese renditions. "IMO" doesn't count because it is exactly that "IMO" everybody has at least one but that doesn't make any of them right.

Again that being said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are renditions of male cruxing, notice it draws a lot less attention than female cruxing. Very simply that means the majority of the audience prefers to see female renditions. If there was a huge demand for 'non-white' crxuing then artists would produce it. To take it out of the realm of cruxing and moving it into porn there is massively more white girls in porn and it sells very well than there are other girls. There is a great deal of black guys doing white girls and a much smaller set of white guys doing black girls.

So obviously being there are more depictions of white girls getting than any other kind circumstantially indicates to me that (1) artists prefer producing that version and (2) since the audience isn't going away or shrinking or getting more hits on 'non-white' girls it obviously DOES matter to the consumer and producers.

Your IMO is irrelevant to those groups.

Post whatever you want, enjoy whatever you want, don't assume what you want is what the majority of people want or even are interested in.

Or that either your opinion or mine matters to them one damn bit.

kisses

willowfall
 
A different tack, if I may...

It seems that folks who engage in our particular (perhaps peculiar?) fetish (fantasy?) --i.e., crucifixion of women-- fall into two groups vis-a-vie their attitudes toward females. One group seems to relish the suffering of the women on the crosses from a sometimes ill-disguised misogyny. I base this on their diction ("slut" "whore" etc.). Now, I may be misreading their role-playing of such an attitude. In other words, they may be only acting like they hate females. That may be a macho thing. (Only their therapists know for sure!)

The other group seems to appreciate the female form and even the suffering from an aesthetic perspective, albeit mixed with a hefty serving of lust. A good example of this view would be Tarquinius Rex's "Beauty of Crucifixion" essay on the home page of Crux Dreams (http://cruxdreams.com/main.html).

I'm obligated to strongly disagree. I am not a misogynist. I am a sadist. (And occasionally an all-around misanthrope, but that's another matter.) I quite like women. Broadly speaking, I would probably say that I enjoy the companionship of women more often than I enjoy that of men- in part because some men feel a need to prove their superior status to fellow males, which I tend to find tedious and which makes it more difficult to lower barriers and create intimate bonds.

The characters in my fantasies and stories might well describe women disparagingly- but that should come as no surprise, because those characters are torturers and rapists, and, on occasion, murderers. For a human being to put themselves in a position where they can wantonly inflict harm to another human being requires them to justify themselves- to think themselves, in some respect, superior to the person they harm, and not to put themselves on an equal footing. This is well documented by the inevitable propaganda of wartime, up to and including the present era. If we are compelled to think of our enemies as thinking and feeling beings with motivations and ideals as meaningful as our own, it becomes much more difficult to wage war.

Portraying this is not pathology. It is simply a recognition of psychology. It would be far stranger to populate a story where women are tortured and murdered with torturers and murderers who go about their business while musing without horror about what Judith's family will make of her sudden absence or how they'll miss her sunny sense of humor about the office. Or equally, with "aesthetes" who regard nailing someone to a cross as nothing more than a purely aesthetic act like painting a canvas or wallpapering a room.

Moreover, this assumption does a broad swath of creatives and their work a gross disservice. Should any author be assumed to imitate the mental state of their most despicable character? What would that do to the reputation of someone like J.K. Rowling, let alone someone like Stephen King? Should we refuse to examine ideas and fantasies, even in scenarios and images that are entirely fictitious? Should we make our creators afraid to examine our and their darker impulses, for fear of just such assumptions?

I will state right now with categorical certainty that doing so would make us as worse off as a society. What I see, over and over again, is that the suppression of the ideas that some find distasteful does not make them go away. It either gives them the thrill of the taboo or makes those who cannot purge themselves of them so isolated and miserable that they end up destroying themselves or others. In the latter cases, it is often preceded by an alienation so intense that they start to think of themselves or others as something other than human- alien and unknowable, and thus they are no longer bound by the restrictions of human kinship.

It is far, far better for the like-minded to be able to commiserate and recognize that they are not alone, that their impulses are not so out of the ordinary, that they do not render them unknowable or unlovable. Far from making them likely to act out the most terrible versions they imagine, it reminds them of that kinship and makes their fantasies bearable.

Forgive me if I become strident and long-winded. With increasing frequency, I do indeed see people who imagine that by driving an idea or image out of the public space- out of conversation, out of entertainment media, out of notice- they are eliminating it, rather than sweeping it under the rug to fester. That punishing people who harbor them somehow means that they now agree, rather than that they now harbor resentments and wounds. That by refusing to examine something, they become more virtuous, rather than merely ignorant.

I enjoy the idea of the infliction of pain on members of the opposite sex. I am not dangerous, nor am I evil. These are not flippant conclusions; they took many years to reach. I would not see others who feel similarly- from any direction- suffer what I did in reaching similar conclusions. And I deeply resent those who would presume to make opposing conclusions with far less consideration.
 
It could be totally understood, corvid regardless that we , women, in coming here, are demanding for pain : we know well into what we're engaged in coming at CF and hopefully we can find some torturers who can satisfy our deepest fantasies ...
 
I'm obligated to strongly disagree. I am not a misogynist. I am a sadist. (And occasionally an all-around misanthrope, but that's another matter.) I quite like women. Broadly speaking, I would probably say that I enjoy the companionship of women more often than I enjoy that of men- in part because some men feel a need to prove their superior status to fellow males, which I tend to find tedious and which makes it more difficult to lower barriers and create intimate bonds.

The characters in my fantasies and stories might well describe women disparagingly- but that should come as no surprise, because those characters are torturers and rapists, and, on occasion, murderers. For a human being to put themselves in a position where they can wantonly inflict harm to another human being requires them to justify themselves- to think themselves, in some respect, superior to the person they harm, and not to put themselves on an equal footing. This is well documented by the inevitable propaganda of wartime, up to and including the present era. If we are compelled to think of our enemies as thinking and feeling beings with motivations and ideals as meaningful as our own, it becomes much more difficult to wage war.

Portraying this is not pathology. It is simply a recognition of psychology. It would be far stranger to populate a story where women are tortured and murdered with torturers and murderers who go about their business while musing without horror about what Judith's family will make of her sudden absence or how they'll miss her sunny sense of humor about the office. Or equally, with "aesthetes" who regard nailing someone to a cross as nothing more than a purely aesthetic act like painting a canvas or wallpapering a room.

Moreover, this assumption does a broad swath of creatives and their work a gross disservice. Should any author be assumed to imitate the mental state of their most despicable character? What would that do to the reputation of someone like J.K. Rowling, let alone someone like Stephen King? Should we refuse to examine ideas and fantasies, even in scenarios and images that are entirely fictitious? Should we make our creators afraid to examine our and their darker impulses, for fear of just such assumptions?

I will state right now with categorical certainty that doing so would make us as worse off as a society. What I see, over and over again, is that the suppression of the ideas that some find distasteful does not make them go away. It either gives them the thrill of the taboo or makes those who cannot purge themselves of them so isolated and miserable that they end up destroying themselves or others. In the latter cases, it is often preceded by an alienation so intense that they start to think of themselves or others as something other than human- alien and unknowable, and thus they are no longer bound by the restrictions of human kinship.

It is far, far better for the like-minded to be able to commiserate and recognize that they are not alone, that their impulses are not so out of the ordinary, that they do not render them unknowable or unlovable. Far from making them likely to act out the most terrible versions they imagine, it reminds them of that kinship and makes their fantasies bearable.

Forgive me if I become strident and long-winded. With increasing frequency, I do indeed see people who imagine that by driving an idea or image out of the public space- out of conversation, out of entertainment media, out of notice- they are eliminating it, rather than sweeping it under the rug to fester. That punishing people who harbor them somehow means that they now agree, rather than that they now harbor resentments and wounds. That by refusing to examine something, they become more virtuous, rather than merely ignorant.

I enjoy the idea of the infliction of pain on members of the opposite sex. I am not dangerous, nor am I evil. These are not flippant conclusions; they took many years to reach. I would not see others who feel similarly- from any direction- suffer what I did in reaching similar conclusions. And I deeply resent those who would presume to make opposing conclusions with far less consideration.
Very well said, sir!

Portraying this is not pathology.

Indeed it is not.

Forgive me if I become strident and long-winded.
Indeed you did not.

Thank you, Corvid. As excellent a demolition of nannying censorship as you'll read anywhere! :clapping::clapping::beer:
 
I'm obligated to strongly disagree. I am not a misogynist. I am a sadist. (And occasionally an all-around misanthrope, but that's another matter.) I quite like women. Broadly speaking, I would probably say that I enjoy the companionship of women more often than I enjoy that of men- in part because some men feel a need to prove their superior status to fellow males, which I tend to find tedious and which makes it more difficult to lower barriers and create intimate bonds.

The characters in my fantasies and stories might well describe women disparagingly- but that should come as no surprise, because those characters are torturers and rapists, and, on occasion, murderers. For a human being to put themselves in a position where they can wantonly inflict harm to another human being requires them to justify themselves- to think themselves, in some respect, superior to the person they harm, and not to put themselves on an equal footing. This is well documented by the inevitable propaganda of wartime, up to and including the present era. If we are compelled to think of our enemies as thinking and feeling beings with motivations and ideals as meaningful as our own, it becomes much more difficult to wage war.

Portraying this is not pathology. It is simply a recognition of psychology. It would be far stranger to populate a story where women are tortured and murdered with torturers and murderers who go about their business while musing without horror about what Judith's family will make of her sudden absence or how they'll miss her sunny sense of humor about the office. Or equally, with "aesthetes" who regard nailing someone to a cross as nothing more than a purely aesthetic act like painting a canvas or wallpapering a room.

Moreover, this assumption does a broad swath of creatives and their work a gross disservice. Should any author be assumed to imitate the mental state of their most despicable character? What would that do to the reputation of someone like J.K. Rowling, let alone someone like Stephen King? Should we refuse to examine ideas and fantasies, even in scenarios and images that are entirely fictitious? Should we make our creators afraid to examine our and their darker impulses, for fear of just such assumptions?

I will state right now with categorical certainty that doing so would make us as worse off as a society. What I see, over and over again, is that the suppression of the ideas that some find distasteful does not make them go away. It either gives them the thrill of the taboo or makes those who cannot purge themselves of them so isolated and miserable that they end up destroying themselves or others. In the latter cases, it is often preceded by an alienation so intense that they start to think of themselves or others as something other than human- alien and unknowable, and thus they are no longer bound by the restrictions of human kinship.

It is far, far better for the like-minded to be able to commiserate and recognize that they are not alone, that their impulses are not so out of the ordinary, that they do not render them unknowable or unlovable. Far from making them likely to act out the most terrible versions they imagine, it reminds them of that kinship and makes their fantasies bearable.

Forgive me if I become strident and long-winded. With increasing frequency, I do indeed see people who imagine that by driving an idea or image out of the public space- out of conversation, out of entertainment media, out of notice- they are eliminating it, rather than sweeping it under the rug to fester. That punishing people who harbor them somehow means that they now agree, rather than that they now harbor resentments and wounds. That by refusing to examine something, they become more virtuous, rather than merely ignorant.

I enjoy the idea of the infliction of pain on members of the opposite sex. I am not dangerous, nor am I evil. These are not flippant conclusions; they took many years to reach. I would not see others who feel similarly- from any direction- suffer what I did in reaching similar conclusions. And I deeply resent those who would presume to make opposing conclusions with far less consideration.

Thank you for your thoughts, Corvid. You (& others) have given me much to ponder.

We may not agree, but I appreciate your opinion and how well you express it.
 
Back
Top Bottom