Male Crucifixion To Castrate Or Not?

[Joker14]

Now I'm straight and i love women on the cross but a good male execution can be sexy to. Especially when you fantasise its you!

So i thought i would ask a question.

When a male is crucified in your fantasies are they castrated? I like to imagine being on the cross facing castration by the beautiful female (or male) guards after they have shamed me into a public orgasm. A double spectacle for the crowd as i am publicly punished doubly so!

Any preferances?

 

[mp5stab]

Definitely chopping off the humiliating erection he has while he's on the cross. Removing it while its flacid is just anticlimax.

 

[DarkAngel]

I admit I haven't spent much time thinking about male crucifixions. In my fantasies I'm always the one being crucified. I've never been an executioner, and the only time I'm a spectator is if I'm watching someone else get raised up first before it's my turn.

All that being said, I say cut if off erect. Make him go through the humiliation of having an erection in front of people while hanging on a cross, then cut it off.

 

[Naraku]

First, castration doesn't fit into my fantasies at all.
As practical matter, if the cross is the instrument of execution in itself, castration would be counter productive as it would accelerate the death of the condemned. If the cross is being used to display the condemned prior to some other form of execution, such as beheading, burning or quartering, then it would make more sense. Castration was often part of the process of execution for treason.

 

[Deleted member jedakk]

Just to be clear, castration is cutting off the testicles, while slicing off the penis would be a penectomy. The penis is well supplied with blood, so cutting that off would probably require cauterization to prevent the victim from bleeding to death.

I don't write much about male crucifixion, but as an executioner, I'd tend to leave castration until the last thing, a final shame for the victim. There are so many things that can be done to testicles to punish the victim for his crimes that he might beg for castration long before you'd employed them all.

 

[Naraku]

Just to be clear, castration is cutting off the testicles, while slicing off the penis would be a penectomy. The penis is well supplied with blood, so cutting that off would probably require cauterization to prevent the victim from bleeding to death.

I don't write much about male crucifixion, but as an executioner, I'd tend to leave castration until the last thing, a final shame for the victim. There are so many things that can be done to testicles to punish the victim for his crimes that he might beg for castration long before you'd employed them all.

You are correct. People do commonly tend to use the term castration to refer to the amputation of the penis. Based on Joker's poll, I believe he is actually referring to penectomy.
In historical references, the term is used loosely - sometimes on the whim of a translator - and it is not clear the penis or testicles are removed or both. In the English punishment of being hanged, drawn and quartered; the sentence called for the "members to be cut off and cast in the fire", followed by disembowelment, beheading and quartering. The use of the plural seems to indicate full emasculation was intended.

 

[JimOregon]

In my fantasies I am the one being crucified but not castrated. But, as the crucifixtion proceeds, the observers become bored and bribe the Roman solders to stir me up if I have been hanging there not moving much. The solders might start whipping me starting at the chest and working down to my thighs with particular attention to privates and inner thighs. Then the solders might pull a red hot iron out of the fire and torture the same areas. Slicing me with a sword is done but not enough to hasten my death.

 

[phlebas]

When a male is crucified in your fantasies are they castrated? I like to imagine being on the cross facing castration by the beautiful female (or male) guards after they have shamed me into a public orgasm.

It's not a key fantasy of mine, but the picture you paint of a helpless crucified man facing castration by his female guards is pretty powerful. Imagine that final touch of a female hand, prior to the kiss of the blade.

Just to be clear, castration is cutting off the testicles, while slicing off the penis would be a penectomy.

Yes, castration has a pretty clear meaning, and so does penectomy. Cut the lot off and you can call it emasculation. Words are important

There are a few gruesome pics out there on this topic. This is a less graphic one of mine from 2002. There were two versions, this is the one with a caption giving some context.

 

[Cella]

As I write this the vote is 50% for no castration and 50% for several other varieties of castration/emasculation.
(Are we voting for castration (just the balls) or emasculation (balls and cock)? Not sure.)

Regardless, for the poor guy hanging there utterly vulnerable, it's just one more horror to endure. I say let him keep his junk. He's crucified for crying out loud. His life is bad enough. I don't favor castration/emasculation any more than I do cutting off a woman's breasts (ugh!!!).

I mean, what if there's a cute girl hanging across from him? How else will he be able to show his, umm, appreciation for her?

Aren't dangling semi-erect or erect cocks on crucified males one of the more erotic aspects of crucifixion?

True, having one's pecker and/or balls cut off would be extremely humiliating, and might be quite appropriate in certain situations. Still, I favor leaving the poor guy intact.

Think of all the fun when the local whores turn out to fellate him as he hangs! Plus, there's all sorts of cock/ball torture to be inflicted.

 

[DarkAngel]

I don't favor castration/emasculation any more than I do cutting off a woman's breasts (ugh!!!).

I just happened to be sitting here thinking that guys seem to like comics of women getting their breasts ripped/cut off while on the cross, but cutting off a penis is a no-no and would rather talk about medical technicalities.

I don't get turned on by the idea of cutting off a guy's junk but I voted yes because I thought some guys here might be turned on by the humiliation of it. I guess I was wrong.

 

[old slave]

Four-day cricket matches don't attract the crowds like they used to, so a much shorter game was invented lasting about four hours, which is quite popular.
So what if the guy dies soon after he's cut? The crowd gets a wonderfully gruesome spectacle, all the men get a lesson they wouldn't like to try, some of the women get to see something they have probably wanted to do.
And it's still a hideously painful, humiliating execution, finished in time to go home for tea.

 

[Eulalia]

Fancy that, I've just commented in quite another thread that modern spectators have a limited attention span,
even when watching crucifixions!

 

[AlexArts]

guys seem to like comics of women getting their breasts

I don't like this comics...

But i have some CBT fantasies...

 

[phlebas]

Four-day cricket matches don't attract the crowds like they used to

Pity. Or the 5 day version. Australia has just beaten SA inside 4 days though , it restores some pride after a disaster of a series. Emasculation would have been less painful or humiliating!

I don't like this comics...

But i have some CBT fantasies...

The cross offers lots of possibilities there - not really my thing, I'm not so much into the damage.

 

[Joker14]

You are correct. People do commonly tend to use the term castration to refer to the amputation of the penis. Based on Joker's poll, I believe he is actually referring to penectomy.
In historical references, the term is used loosely - sometimes on the whim of a translator - and it is not clear the penis or testicles are removed or both. In the English punishment of being hanged, drawn and quartered; the sentence called for the "members to be cut off and cast in the fire", followed by disembowelment, beheading and quartering. The use of the plural seems to indicate full emasculation was intended.

I said castration at no point did I say penectomy. What I mean is the male is hung on a cross a sexy lady then in front of the crowd wanks him off until him cums. Then they castrate him (removing his balls). For me the cross is less the execution method and more a way to display someone. To show them aroused would be humiliating then for them to lose their balls even more humiliating. But also highly erotic for the crowd.

 

[AlexArts]

The cross offers lots of possibilities there - not really my thing, I'm not so much into the damage.

No, no...
Nothing like this.

 

[Joker14]

As I write this the vote is 50% for no castration and 50% for several other varieties of castration/emasculation.
(Are we voting for castration (just the balls) or emasculation (balls and cock)? Not sure.)

Regardless, for the poor guy hanging there utterly vulnerable, it's just one more horror to endure. I say let him keep his junk. He's crucified for crying out loud. His life is bad enough. I don't favor castration/emasculation any more than I do cutting off a woman's breasts (ugh!!!).

I mean, what if there's a cute girl hanging across from him? How else will he be able to show his, umm, appreciation for her?

Aren't dangling semi-erect or erect cocks on crucified males one of the more erotic aspects of crucifixion?

True, having one's pecker and/or balls cut off would be extremely humiliating, and might be quite appropriate in certain situations. Still, I favor leaving the poor guy intact.

Think of all the fun when the local whores turn out to fellate him as he hangs! Plus, there's all sorts of cock/ball torture to be inflicted.

The erection on the cross as well as the whores enjoying it was kind of what I was getting at. As well as all the tortures that could be performed! It's just once the male comes he loses his balls! just think of it as a game you have to try to get him off as he tries his hardest to resist you, his shaking tormented body heaving against his bondage trying not to cum so that he is not castrated!

 

[Joker14]

Four-day cricket matches don't attract the crowds like they used to, so a much shorter game was invented lasting about four hours, which is quite popular.
So what if the guy dies soon after he's cut? The crowd gets a wonderfully gruesome spectacle, all the men get a lesson they wouldn't like to try, some of the women get to see something they have probably wanted to do.
And it's still a hideously painful, humiliating execution, finished in time to go home for tea.

Finally someone gets it!!!

 

[PhilX]

Pity. Or the 5 day version. Australia has just beaten SA inside 4 days though , it restores some pride after a disaster of a series. Emasculation would have been less painful or humiliating!



The cross offers lots of possibilities there - not really my thing, I'm not so much into the damage.

View attachment 438722 View attachment 438723 View attachment 438724 View attachment 438725

That first image with the rocks hung from the rocks reminds me of a scenario I thought of once where male victims had a couple of heavy mallets and all the nails hung from their scrotums in the same way as they bore the patibulum through the streets. Not as drastic as a heavy stone but gave the irony of the condemned carrying all the things necessary for their own punishment, painful enough with added humiliation. The nails would cause minor but painful injuries to the inner thighs and knees as they swung about.

I am not at all in favour of any parts of men or women being cut off, victims should hang on the cross displaying everything to those watching.

 

[phlebas]

That first image with the rocks hung from the rocks reminds me of a scenario I thought of once where male victims had a couple of heavy mallets and all the nails hung from their scrotums in the same way as they bore the patibulum through the streets. Not as drastic as a heavy stone but gave the irony of the condemned carrying all the things necessary for their own punishment, painful enough with added humiliation. The nails would cause minor but painful injuries to the inner thighs and knees as they swung about.

I am not at all in favour of any parts of men or women being cut off, victims should hang on the cross displaying everything to those watching.

I can go with that, PhilX. Not into cutting bits off or inflicting bloody injuries. Having to walk through the streets with hammers hanging from his balls, painful and humiliating. Not only naked and exposed, but his male parts explicitly highlighted, every spectator knowing that he was suffering torment. Like the cross itself, suffering in public, private pain and shame offered for entertainment.