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

Crucified males

Go to CruxDreams.com
dismasdolben said:
This article consists of the fullest explanation of all aspects of crucifixion that I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

A good article about the viewpoints on the punishment of crucifixion in the time crucifixion was actually used.
Thanks for finding and sharing it !:thumbsup:
 
PhilX said:
In ancient Rome I believe that wealthy Romans, both men & women used to like being completely hairless on their bodies, of course it was a sign of status. They would regularly have depilatory sessions at the baths where slave girls would remove all the pubic, chest & underarm hair with tweezers while they made business deals or chatted about the state of the empire.
So if wealthy women happened on the crucifixion of a common slave or gladiator the unusual sight of copious body hair would have underlined the difference in social class, it would also have been either a personal sexual turn-on or a turn-off.
In the unlikely event of a wealthy Roman citizen being crucified the sight of a smooth body would have been well ridiculed by the unwashed masses watching, but I believe it would never have happened, St Paul made much of being a Roman citizen after being whipped, scaring the district governor who ordered the punishment.

Good to see these self crux photos, let's have more!
Click to expand...
At least that was depicted in the TV series Rome (James Purefoy), but remember roman citizens are not crucified.unnamed.jpg
 
Eulalia said:


I do find attitudes in modern Western societies - and in other, very different societies -
fascinating mainly for their sheer inconsistency and irrationality -
e.g. if it's so important in Christian teaching that Jesus was in all respects a "real" (male) man,
why does "decorum" prohibit showing he was one?
​
Click to expand...
I think the reason is actually "devilish" if you go to a christian point. It might on first thought to make sense that you use a loincloth at a public display, say a also on crucifix, since everyone, also underaged ones can see. But then it is used to hide the suffering and therefore twist the story. There was this work of a Prof. Tomb who insists on the rape and impalation of Jesus at the and it was connected by others that some of the abuse problems in the Catholic Church have its origin there. My point is to show all or nothing, else you might miss to understand the meaning of Jesus suffering. Naturally one can hide it without problems with clever cutting. On the other hand, when many stars "leak" there home movies, mostly not well done ones, showing all, why then not showing all, including nudity, cornu penetration, erected penis and ejeculation of Jesus when hours of flagellation are depicted. Only reason I see is to hide the meaning of the story.
 
Naraku said:
This is one of my pet peeves.
Although circumcision has a history going back thousands of years, within the Roman Empire the only circumcised people were Jews, Jewish Christian coverts, Egyptian priests & Nabateans - a trans-Jordan Arab people who may have picked up the idea from the Jews.
Because of it's prevalence in the modern West, especially in the US, it may be hard to find live models with foreskins. But, a lot of our artists (sorry, Jedakk) depict circumcised men in times & places where they should have been a rarity.
(Is this the default setting for penises in Poser & DAZ?)
One area outside the Empire where circumcision was common is sub-Saharan Africa. Many tribes use the procedural as part of the rites of passage into manhood. It is not know when the practice began, but it seems to be very ancient. Therefore, the black men above may be historically correct.
Click to expand...
Good reasoning. I also once read that some of the historic jews, may have been against sport because they then have to show their circumsized members, so that would be part of the humiliation to be nude crucified and missing already some skin ;-).
 
A sequence by Homoeros, interesting pose

265_02_by_homoeros-das11h8.jpg265_03_by_homoeros-das11c0.jpg265_04_by_homoeros-das1171.jpg265_05_by_homoeros-das112s.jpg265_06_by_homoeros-das10y8.jpg265_07_by_homoeros-das10ub.jpg265_08_by_homoeros-das97p9.jpg265_09_by_homoeros-das97n2.jpg265_10_by_homoeros-das97kb.jpg
 
dfg42 said:
I think the reason is actually "devilish" if you go to a christian point. It might on first thought to make sense that you use a loincloth at a public display, say a also on crucifix, since everyone, also underaged ones can see. But then it is used to hide the suffering and therefore twist the story. There was this work of a Prof. Tomb who insists on the rape and impalation of Jesus at the and it was connected by others that some of the abuse problems in the Catholic Church have its origin there. My point is to show all or nothing, else you might miss to understand the meaning of Jesus suffering. Naturally one can hide it without problems with clever cutting. On the other hand, when many stars "leak" there home movies, mostly not well done ones, showing all, why then not showing all, including nudity, cornu penetration, erected penis and ejeculation of Jesus when hours of flagellation are depicted. Only reason I see is to hide the meaning of the story.
Click to expand...
I strongly recommend this book for all interested in this subject of representation of Christ's nudity: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/pope-francis-and-the-naked-christ

A logical extrapolation of Leo Steinberg's theory of the absolute importance to late Medieval and Renaissance artists and intellectuals of the display of the Christ's genitalia is that this prurience you are referring to has nothing to do with Christianity per se, and everything to do with Protestantism's puritanical hatred and fear of sexuality; the Jews of Christ's time didn't have it, medieval and Renaissance artists didn't have it, and, until Luther and the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter Reformation came along, Catholic theologians (even, according to Steinberg, preachers of the papal household) were glorying in the importance of Jesus's display of His genitalia on the cross! It was deemed an appropriate part of the branch of theology called "Christology," I strongly urge you to take a look at the work of the great art historian.
 
dismasdolben said:
I strongly recommend this book for all interested in this subject of representation of Christ's nudity: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/pope-francis-and-the-naked-christ

A logical extrapolation of Leo Steinberg's theory of the absolute importance to late Medieval and Renaissance artists and intellectuals of the display of the Christ's genitalia is that this prurience you are referring to has nothing to do with Christianity per se, and everything to do with Protestantism's puritanical hatred and fear of sexuality; the Jews of Christ's time didn't have it, medieval and Renaissance artists didn't have it, and, until Luther and the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter Reformation came along, Catholic theologians (even, according to Steinberg, preachers of the papal household) were glorying in the importance of Jesus's display of His genitalia on the cross! It was deemed an appropriate part of the branch of theology called "Christology," I strongly urge you to take a look at the work of the great art historian.
Click to expand...
thanks, very informative will look for it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom