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!
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?
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.
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.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?
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.
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.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.
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...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.
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).
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.
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...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.
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.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.