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

Crucifixion With Whip Marks And Bruise Or Not (poll)

Do you prefer a crucifixion scene with the condemned (victim?) to be whipped and bruised or not?

  • Keep the body intact (except fot the nailing)

    Votes: 48 21.2%
  • The body can have whip marks and bruise

    Votes: 178 78.8%

  • Total voters
    226
Go to CruxDreams.com

malins

Stumbling Seeker
I can see the wealthy observers bribing the Romans to whip or burn the crucified
That's one way. Another is to organize everything as a kind of public offering.

Auction off every step of the process.
If you can offer only a little bit of money, maybe you can fling the whip a few times at the victim.
If you have a bit more, maybe you can hammer in a nail or two.
If you can afford it and feel like spending, you can run the whole execution as you wish.
At the same time you are supporting the budget! All such contributions can be deducted from taxes.
I think that is how they often do it in the Garden of Unearthly Despairs that lies at the heart of the Despotate of Deliria.
There's just one thing to warn of. Every now and then a rich mindless fool falls in love with a condemned, outbids everyone and pays the sum for 'running the procedure at their whim', they think it's a grand idea for that whim to be taking the delinquent as their love-slave. The problem is that any transgression of that slave may have the Despot now seize the owner for crucifixion also. After all they took responsibility!
 

Barbaria1

Rebel Leader
Staff member
YES WHIP MARK , REMBER TO CROSS COVER NIPPLE , ARMPIT, NOT THE FACE THOUGH

That's actually a good point... There is something erotically exciting about a whip mark on the body that crosses the breast to catch or graze the nipple. I have always liked the way that is portrayed on the girl who graces the Cruxforums masthead.
 

frost

Assistant executioner
I'm in the minority on this one. I want my victims clean and unmarked. I really enjoy the fact that they're clearly in terrible agony, but it's not obvious why—the nails in the wrists and ankles are barely visible from any distance, and I suspect that most bleeding would be stopped by the nails, or would quickly clot around them.

Also, I want to watch the working of the muscles in my victims as they struggle on their crosses. A potentially great video (Dream Boy Bondage's "High School Wrestler, Part 9"; it's been linked a few times, though I can't find it right now) is marred by this. Model Colby has a great body, but in part 8, he was whipped across the chest and stomach, so the lines of his muscles are obscured by the weals.

Also also, I'd forgo flagellation altogether, even if it could be done without leaving marks. In my judicial crucifixion scenario, the crucifixion-day torture is all psychological, up to the moment that the first nail is driven. A victim who's being whipped is thinking about how much the whipping hurts, and that distracts him from thinking about how much the crucifixion is going to hurt. If he's been whipped across the back, then the pain of lying on his back on the rough wood is going to distract him from devoting his full imagination to the impending nailing.
 

Repertor

Artifex Imaginum
It all depends upon the story behind the image, be it explicit, implicit or imagined by the viewer.
Generally I prefer whip marks to be rather subtle, unless the artist wants to emphasise the brutality of the whipping.
Also seeing an artist experimenting with different kinds of marks or a sequence of pictures showing the progression of the whipping can be interesting.
 

KvK

Tribune
I am also in the minority. I say do not whip her.

Instead, strip her naked, blindfold her, suspend her by the wrists from the ceiling and bind her ankles to a spreader bar.

Then, go over every square inch of her bare, exposed flesh with freshly powered-up Oral B toothbrushes until she, in her helpless screaming, shits and pisses herself. Put on some gloves, take some of her shit and dab her tits and face in it. The shitstains on her flesh are part of her humiliation as she writhes on the cross.
 

Barbaria1

Rebel Leader
Staff member
I am also in the minority. I say do not whip her.

Instead, strip her naked, blindfold her, suspend her by the wrists from the ceiling and bind her ankles to a spreader bar.

Then, go over every square inch of her bare, exposed flesh with freshly powered-up Oral B toothbrushes until she, in her helpless screaming, shits and pisses herself. Put on some gloves, take some of her shit and dab her tits and face in it. The shitstains on her flesh are part of her humiliation as she writhes on the cross.

Ewwwwwwwww ... I don't know what to say about this one, other than it's certainly original :rolleyes:
 

KvK

Tribune
Sometime the anticipation is more exciting :) then the marks to come.

Nice!

I imagine the guard being smitten with the naked girl. She tells the naked girl she is so beautiful that she, the guard, is willing to forgo whipping her if the naked girl allows the guard to have sex with her. The naked girl is naive. She has never been with another girl before.

Without waiting for an answer, the guard licks the girls lips and plays with her clitoris. The girl is aroused. Just as she is about to cum, the guard shoves the handle of the whip up her ass and laughs a cruel laugh.

:Only way you'll be able to come from now on, bitch, is with something shoved up your ass!"
 

cire

Magistrate
To be stripped and whipped is, I think, an important part in the roman crucifiction procedure.
The Officer in charge has to monitor the whipping closely, to make sure that the victim keeps enough
strength, to carry the Crossbeam to the crucifiction site.
Also the victim has to have enough power left, to suffer the full horror of the cross and to be fully aware of what is happening around him/her.
But as always, I think there can be exceptions,
and then somebody is raised without the whipping.
 

Apostate

Administrator
Staff member
The discussion has played out, but I wasn't around in the summer of '16 to chime in, so better late than never.

There's a school of thought that holds that, not only should lashmarks be mandatory, but that flogging should not be confined to a pre-crux activity. As these examples by Cordero and Jedakk show.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    310.2 KB · Views: 364
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    745.6 KB · Views: 399

huckle

Assistant executioner
The condemned Victims in Roman Time have often been whipped, tortured , before and during suffering on the cross.
Parts of their bodies have been also cut off
a extremly cruel death !
 

Ramengmawiaaa

Magistrate
I'm truly torn on this as I'm a fan of both whipped and un-whipped bodies hanging from a cross. Whipping is supposedly customary and it adds an element of realism to the art but then again too much of it takes away said realism as it would nullify the whole point of crucifixion - to make the condemned suffer for as long as possible. This is only my personal preference but for a real human model to hang on a cross, I would like her body to be free of whip marks, and if that isn't possible, then at least let there be minimal blood. Of course, whip marks carry with them a certain aesthetic appeal but for me, a smooth unblemished body (apart from the nailed parts, of course) is as erotic as it gets.
 

cavalera

Executioner
We just prefer first choice, because we loves beautiful skin. Beside, since the victims didn't got flogged, then the victims may still has energy for their useless resistance...
images(11).jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ianwarrick

Spectator
It all depends upon the story behind the image, be it explicit, implicit or imagined by the viewer.
Generally I prefer whip marks to be rather subtle, unless the artist wants to emphasise the brutality of the whipping.
Also seeing an artist experimenting with different kinds of marks or a sequence of pictures showing the progression of the whipping can be interesting.
surely the crucifixion is th
Like most comments, I like the whipping but not so brutal that it destroys the beauty of the body. And continuing the whipping , or burning, after the crucifixion is carried out would keep the victim active and moving. I can see the wealthy observers bribing the Romans to whip or burn the crucified to keep it interesting.
surely the crucifixion is the end result of interrogation where the slave has been whipped until she can take no more. This would result in a fully striped body when taken to the cross
 

ShadowWolf

Tribune
There are two parts to this in which I both support. I like the whipping to a point. If the whipping goes to the point where it disfigures the graceful and strong body I think ruins the appeal of the crucifixion. It could also ruin the activity of the dance on the cross. However without the whipping you can have the body littered with sweat and blood dripping from the spikes off the toned body slowly. Just thinking about that gives me chills.
 
Top Bottom