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

MALE CRUCIFIED BY FEMALES

Go to CruxDreams.com

ERIN the Brave

ELFGIRL WARRIOR
Staff member
ImageMaker said:
Yes, us have a photo and video to this subjects.
Wow,talk about having the tables turned on you!
 

willowfall

Senator
As a woman I don't find men being crucified erotic. In fact I find it a complete turn off. It is a little complicated (I'll explain below) but I actually find a crucified male pathetic. Why, because he was weak and dominated.

For me that isn't a turn on.

Biologically speaking males are the physically dominant gender. They are larger (on average) and stronger than we are.

Every wonder why the best looking guy in the room gets the female attention, or the wealthiest or the most powerful?

Biology.

My biology tells me to seek out a man who would be a good provider (wealthy), protector (strong) or attractive to breed with (and NO I don't want children but that is what my biology tells me) to protect me and my offspring. Those traits would all provide a leg up for my offspring.

A man who has been defeated by his enemies (worst of all a WEAKER woman) captured and publically humiliated does nothing for me.

And why, if I find the weak male pathetic, would I perform a submissive act on him, suck his cock?

The strong males who have dominated him may force me to be submissive to him to further my humiliation at their hands.

But of him. He is weak and pathetic and deserves to be removed.

There might be some small interest in humiliatng a weak male (to indirectly get back at the strong males who dominate me). But quite honestly once you're up there, I'd cut your useless cosk off not suck on it.

Just a girl's prespective.

And what was that noise? The crash of many submissive male fantasies was it?

Of course other girls will have different perspective.

Kisses

willowfall
 

Hammerlock

Executioner
Oooh! Vicious!! :D Actually, the fact that a man gets crucified doesn't necessarily make him weak or pathetic, in my opinion. It means he's been overpowered, or goes to his death voluntarily, but doesn't mean he's weak. The Gaulish chieftain Vercingetorix was, by all accounts, a hulking brute of a man, but he wound up on a cross in Rome anyway, as did John of Gishala and Simeon Bar Kohkba, the leaders of the Jewish revolt in 74 A.D. John of Gishala was described as a handsome, roguish sort of dude, and Simeon was a brute like Vercingetorix. Now, a male being overpowered and crucified by females, well, yeah, that could be pathetic. But a male crucified by female accomplices, as an erotic act, where the women are willing to fulfill his fantasies--hey, no problem!

And, incidentally, the male penis receives its blood supply from two quite large arteries--cut it off, and he can bleed to death within two minutes. Even if he doesn't bleed to death, what male wants to live without his penis? So don't get too excited about depriving us of our manhood, okay? :eek:
 

willowfall

Senator
Hammerlock said:
Vercingetorix

Was strangled not crucified.

Hammerlock said:
as did John of Gishala and Simeon Bar Kohkba, the leaders of the Jewish revolt in 74 A.D. John of Gishala was described as a handsome, roguish sort of dude, and Simeon was a brute like Vercingetorix. Now, a male being overpowered and crucified by females, well, yeah, that could be pathetic. But a male crucified by female accomplices, as an erotic act, where the women are willing to fulfill his fantasies--hey, no problem!

I COMPLETELY understand that some guy would love to cruxed by a bevey of attractive women. I get that point.

It is just that a defeated male is not sexy. Being overpowered or defeat means you were the LESSOR of the antagonists. History is replete with lessor forces defeating superior forces. That means their leaders were smarter or luckier or whatever.

A loser is a loser!

And a loser is not erotic.

Hammerlock said:
And, incidentally, the male penis receives its blood supply from two quite large arteries--cut it off, and he can bleed to death within two minutes. Even if he doesn't bleed to death, what male wants to live without his penis? So don't get too excited about depriving us of our manhood, okay? :eek:

Approximately 50% of the men who applied to the Chinese Imperial Court to become eunichs did not survive the procedure so I am well aware of how 'important' in both a physical and psychological sense it is to your guys.

It is precisely that reason that I'd have you castrated when hanging on the cross. In my mind you weren't much of a man to start with (you were defeated by a woman) so why pretend you were anything other than a eunich.

Besides if you were hanging on a cross as punishment by a woman who defeated you in battle, don't you think it would add to your humiliation to be castrated on her orders?

Bulls get to breed, smart steers become oxen, dumb ones become burgers.

kisses

willowfall
 

willowfall

Senator
Actaully Thinking About it

I'll use a red hot knife to castrate you.

That way we won't have to worry about you bleeding to death because it will cauterize the wound.

Fair enough?

kisses

willowfall
 

Hammerlock

Executioner
Okay. Remind me not to give up without a hell of a struggle! :D

Oh, and there are two versions of Vercingetorix's fate, depending on who you read. I chose the fate that was of more interest to this group.
 

jedakk

CARNIFEX MAXIMUS
I castrated a lot of calves and pigs when I was growing up in Texas. None of them ever bled excessively and I didn't need a red-hot knife to do it. Slice open the scrotum, cut the cords holding each testicle, throw them in the pile with the rest - it's quick surgery. It's not castration that would be likely to cause a lot of bleeding, it's cutting off the penis that would do that. There is a difference.


Jedakk
 

willowfall

Senator
jedakk said:
I castrated a lot of calves and pigs when I was growing up in Texas. None of them ever bled excessively and I didn't need a red-hot knife to do it. Slice open the scrotum, cut the cords holding each testicle, throw them in the pile with the rest - it's quick surgery. It's not castration that would be likely to cause a lot of bleeding, it's cutting off the penis that would do that. There is a difference.


Jedakk


I'm only going by what I read about the eunuchs.

I do know with stallions there is a significant risk of the bleeding to death when gelded. Of course with horses and the Chinese method of creating eunuchs the whole sack is cut off. Maybe that's the difference?

kisses

willowfall
 

Nailed4

Condemned
As a woman I don't find men being crucified erotic. In fact I find it a complete turn off. It is a little complicated (I'll explain below) but I actually find a crucified male pathetic. Why, because he was weak and dominated.

For me that isn't a turn on.

Biologically speaking males are the physically dominant gender. They are larger (on average) and stronger than we are.

Every wonder why the best looking guy in the room gets the female attention, or the wealthiest or the most powerful?

Biology.

My biology tells me to seek out a man who would be a good provider (wealthy), protector (strong) or attractive to breed with (and NO I don't want children but that is what my biology tells me) to protect me and my offspring. Those traits would all provide a leg up for my offspring.

A man who has been defeated by his enemies (worst of all a WEAKER woman) captured and publically humiliated does nothing for me.

And why, if I find the weak male pathetic, would I perform a submissive act on him, suck his cock?

The strong males who have dominated him may force me to be submissive to him to further my humiliation at their hands.

But of him. He is weak and pathetic and deserves to be removed.

There might be some small interest in humiliatng a weak male (to indirectly get back at the strong males who dominate me). But quite honestly once you're up there, I'd cut your useless cosk off not suck on it.

Just a girl's prespective.

And what was that noise? The crash of many submissive male fantasies was it?

Of course other girls will have different perspective.

Kisses

willowfall
Lovely Willowfall, Humiliation is the other half of the punishment in crucifixion. I adore women, As a hetero male, realizing that a beautiful, woman or women were watching or directing my vulnerability, flogging, screams, breaking, pathetic pleas for her mercy, perhaps at her feet during my nailing and writhing naked before her, on the cross, seeing and listening to her contempt and disdain for my inferiority and unworthiness of her would be erotic yet the ultimate agony. just my opinion.
 

dfg42

Senator
MALE CRUCIFIED BY FEMALES wouldnt that make a difference in equal rights.
That could be also a very erotic wiew...agree?? 8)
The Romans used crucifixion for showing how the "state" punishes. So if the state is represented by females it is no question, the Rome was not, so one has to invent something new. In the case of an erotic and non-lethal play, I think mutual crucifixion is interesting, probably with flip-flopping or throwing the dice upon who is in what role... However, there is one reason for using males to crucify males: That is the play with the homophobia of the heterosexual males (thought as the majority), which should let those males panic confronted with a probable anal rape, by the crucifiers or the cornu. So my conclusion is: YES, but for gay oriented males only.
 

willowfall

Senator
The Romans used crucifixion for showing how the "state" punishes. So if the state is represented by females it is no question, the Rome was not, so one has to invent something new. In the case of an erotic and non-lethal play, I think mutual crucifixion is interesting, probably with flip-flopping or throwing the dice upon who is in what role... However, there is one reason for using males to crucify males: That is the play with the homophobia of the heterosexual males (thought as the majority), which should let those males panic confronted with a probable anal rape, by the crucifiers or the cornu. So my conclusion is: YES, but for gay oriented males only.

Interesting but you have to understand that sex during classical western culture was also a matter of dominance and they didn't define sex the way we do.

So as an example Nero had his favorite 'boy toy' castrated so no one could say that the Emperor was "dominated" by one of his lovers.

And I can see, coming back to humiliation, having a defeated general castrated and raped in public by male slaves before he was executed as more proof of the dominance of the winner. But that doesn't mean that the slaves (or the general) were homosexual (in our understanding of the word). It was simply enforced humiliation on a defeated enemy, it had nothing to do with their preferences.

And I do understand (intellectually) the desire for a man to be dominated by a woman, it just isn't in any way shape or form a turn on for me.

Now all that said, over in Cruxwind for the sake of RP I will switch (I have NO interest in a strictly submissive males so unless you are willing to play Dominant DON'T ask me to dominate you) because we are short of Doms. And I can be extremely vicious (you can check with any of my victims) but then I also expect you to dom me in the next round. Personal interest is one thing, RP is a whole nother animal, it is like taking a part in a movie.

kisses

willowfall
 

dfg42

Senator
Interesting but you have to understand that sex during classical western culture was also a matter of dominance and they didn't define sex the way we do.

So as an example Nero had his favorite 'boy toy' castrated so no one could say that the Emperor was "dominated" by one of his lovers.

And I can see, coming back to humiliation, having a defeated general castrated and raped in public by male slaves before he was executed as more proof of the dominance of the winner. But that doesn't mean that the slaves (or the general) were homosexual (in our understanding of the word). It was simply enforced humiliation on a defeated enemy, it had nothing to do with their preferences.

And I do understand (intellectually) the desire for a man to be dominated by a woman, it just isn't in any way shape or form a turn on for me.
But that is just the society who defined that. As I know personally it is fun to be penetrated anally by a male or a dildo and one should not associate it with dominance. I also recommend it to all(!) try it. One can dislike it for sure, since there are different tastes, but to apply force, to use it to humiliate is a sign of mental sickness of the "top" and most likely a crime, as the mutulations...
 

Loxuru

Graf von Kreuzigung
Castration is something that, for the purpose (humiliation), rather would be inflicted to a man destined to live on, instead of one doomed to die on a cross within hours.

This said, I agree with @willowfall, that a crucified male being found erotic by a woman, is not the goal of this discussion. What matters is the psychology of the whole situation. Thereby reducing it all to empowerment (winners ('men') vs. losers ('eunuchs') is severly cutting corners. Winning is mostly a combination of chance, luck, coincidence, circumstances, a spark of good judgement,... Analyse the battles of Frederick the Great, those he won and those he lost. Furthermore, 'Der Alte Fritz' was certainly no womaniser, rather misogynist.

So, the 'winner' and the 'loser' don't exist. Fortune may switch, and history is far from having been shaped by solely the superior force. I can envisage, executions of defeated enemies could rather be inspired by fear, that they would rise again and take revenge, than out of a sense of (biological) superiority.

What's the role of women in all this? I think they are the dominant force, either openly, or, mostly, hiding behind a man's back, whom they send to war when it suits them ("I want you to come back as a victor or on a shield"). Women even have a fallback scenario, they do not grant to men, when things go wrong for them, to switch to the role of victim, having been overpowered by vicious, power-hungry men, and so trying to save their lives. That aspect, I have recently touched in by story 'The Philosophers' (defeated Queen Zenobia blaming her male advisors for having her, a 'weak' woman, instigated to rebel against Rome).

https://www.cruxforums.com/xf/threads/the-philosophers.9940/

To conclude, what about males crucified by women. I do not expect these women to find et erotic; From the male viewpoint, there will rather be interesting psychological aspects to venture (and a backstory), depending whther the executioners are female and or, the one who orders it, or other circumstances.
 

Nailed4

Condemned
Exactly Loxuru, Do not expect women to necessarily find it erotic, rather explore the psychological aspects with the women as the authority over and/or executing the male at the mercy of her whims, revenge and advantage.
 

willowfall

Senator
Castration is something that, for the purpose (humiliation), rather would be inflicted to a man destined to live on, instead of one doomed to die on a cross within hours.

This said, I agree with @willowfall, that a crucified male being found erotic by a woman, is not the goal of this discussion. What matters is the psychology of the whole situation. Thereby reducing it all to empowerment (winners ('men') vs. losers ('eunuchs') is severly cutting corners. Winning is mostly a combination of chance, luck, coincidence, circumstances, a spark of good judgement,... Analyse the battles of Frederick the Great, those he won and those he lost. Furthermore, 'Der Alte Fritz' was certainly no womaniser, rather misogynist.

So, the 'winner' and the 'loser' don't exist. Fortune may switch, and history is far from having been shaped by solely the superior force. I can envisage, executions of defeated enemies could rather be inspired by fear, that they would rise again and take revenge, than out of a sense of (biological) superiority.

What's the role of women in all this? I think they are the dominant force, either openly, or, mostly, hiding behind a man's back, whom they send to war when it suits them ("I want you to come back as a victor or on a shield"). Women even have a fallback scenario, they do not grant to men, when things go wrong for them, to switch to the role of victim, having been overpowered by vicious, power-hungry men, and so trying to save their lives. That aspect, I have recently touched in by story 'The Philosophers' (defeated Queen Zenobia blaming her male advisors for having her, a 'weak' woman, instigated to rebel against Rome).

https://www.cruxforums.com/xf/threads/the-philosophers.9940/

To conclude, what about males crucified by women. I do not expect these women to find et erotic; From the male viewpoint, there will rather be interesting psychological aspects to venture (and a backstory), depending whther the executioners are female and or, the one who orders it, or other circumstances.

In some aspects I would disagree particularly that "winner" and "loser" don't exist.

History is replete with examples of the elimination of a single person turning the tide of battle or a war or a political situation. That said I would also agree that situations are fluid today's "winner" could be tomorrow's "loser" (example Mark Anthony). However if the "winner" eliminates the "loser" there is not chance for the "loser" to come back, someone else may replace the "loser" and become tomorrow's "winner" but the "loser" doesn't get that chance.

There is also the aspect of terror as a control mechanism. When one of Sulla's enemies were driven thru the streets of Roman by being whipped naked to the site of his execution it was to make a statement. If the man's family was condemned and brutally, publically executed it was also to make a statement. The more terrifying you make the "statement" the more likely is the next person will say 'No losing is not worth the price'.

There are two different things in play here.

If I were the RL ruler of a whatever I would be as brutal and public and as humiliating as possible in the treatment of my enemies. After all I don't have to cow or terrorize thousands, just a few who have the power to oppose me (in a modern western democracy people care, in an ancient culture as long as they had food and shelter, the taxes weren't too onerous and nobody was tormenting them they really didn't care what was happening in the circles of power). There would be no eroticism about it, it is strictly about maintaining power.

Here (and in SL) it is about both the Dominant's (winner) and submissive's (loser) fantasies. You can play it either way as playmates. (1) You can let the Dominant have total control and you just react to whatever happens to you (what I do) or (2) The Dominant can decide to help the submissive fulfill some of their fantasies too (as an aside here you can be a real sadist by knowing what the submissive wants and absolutely refusing to give them any of it).

Play\Art is where the eroticism comes in and it truly is best when you play with a switch and switch yourself. One of the conversations I often have with Dominants (and I know in both RL and SL some really great Dominants) is that they get real tired of subs who want to 'back lead' and basically have the Dominant fulfill the submissive's fantasy. Dominants are about the DOMINANT, if you forget that as a submissive you are going to find yourself playing with yourself ...... literally.

So you may thinking hanging on a cross with an erection is very erotic (and you also don't understand why a woman doesn't find it so) and that is fine, that is your fantasy. But don't expect a playmate to necessarily share in it.

And to close the circle as to the 'psychological aspects' of the play (or story) if I am the Dominant (winner) in our play in no way shape of form do I want you to be able to think of yourself as a 'heroic' figure I'm going to do everything I can to grind you into the dust, And if you are the Dominant I WANT (need?) you to do the same to me.

kisses

willowfall
 

thehangingtree

Proconsul
Staff member
So you may thinking hanging on a cross with an erection is very erotic (and you also don't understand why a woman doesn't find it so) and that is fine, that is your fantasy. But don't expect a playmate to necessarily share in it.

And to close the circle as to the 'psychological aspects' of the play (or story) if I am the Dominant (winner) in our play in no way shape of form do I want you to be able to think of yourself as a 'heroic' figure I'm going to do everything I can to grind you into the dust, And if you are the Dominant I WANT (need?) you to do the same to me.

kisses

willowfall
Tree has to agree with Willowfall. Unless you are playing being crucified, the odds on having an erection while hanging nailed to a cross are slim to none. And there is nothing 'heroic' being executed being crucified...
 

Loxuru

Graf von Kreuzigung
I am not in favour of seeing things in the extreme, distinguishing ‘winners’ from ‘losers’, implicating that, if you are no winner, you are a loser, and it is your own fault, because you did not do enough to become a winner.

There was a friend of mine, who used to say, long ago : “Ultimately, you die of something!” There is a truth in it, but it would be easy to avert any ‘something’, and that would you make an immortal winner. If you die, you did not do enough to avert ‘something’, and that makes you a loser. So, I admit it is a bit extreme, all dead people are losers, because they died and hence did not do enough to stay alive, like a winner would do.

So, ‘winner’ is just a momentary perception, a self-declared status (at best confirmed by pumpjacks and others who hope a part of the power will trickle down on themselves, and satisfy their narcissist self-esteem), and being in power does not automatically make one a winner, definitely not if one needs terror to stay in power. Because what makes the winner, is the one who has achieved a position of being exempt to use intrigue or force to maintain his position in power. Yet, all rulers, even absolutist dictators, even the gods Zeus or Jupiter, still have this problem.

I know, I am a bit drifting into philosophy here.

So you may thinking hanging on a cross with an erection is very erotic (and you also don't understand why a woman doesn't find it so) and that is fine, that is your fantasy. But don't expect a playmate to necessarily share in it.
Here, I agree. It is not supposed to be erotic, an erection n the cross is rather embarassing, because it is 'useless' and a symbol of lost power (here is one good reason not to castrate crucified males). Crucifixion is neither intended to be heroic, rather the consequences of stubborn behaviour, which is then publically exposed.
 
Top Bottom