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

Obscene Display.

Go to CruxDreams.com

bobinder

ARTISAN
Now four from the frightenly prolific Jastrow.
Thanks Apostate - many of these Jastrows are new to me and I think I 'missed him first time around.' He really does some expressive and dynamic figures. I am most impressed by the steaming breath in this one - she must be feeling cold!

Jastrow image (22).jpeg
 

Peter Adams

Assistant executioner
This is a fascinating thread.

I wonder whether Obscene Display is at the heart of crux fantasies as
1.crucifixion was naked
2.crucifixion was public
3.we all seem to like the victim's struggles - visual
4.since damage, death, or even pain are not the main aim fir most members. doesn't that leave obscene display as the main feature?

I wonder what others think about this?

Peter
 

Apostate

Administrator
Staff member
This is a fascinating thread.

I wonder whether Obscene Display is at the heart of crux fantasies as
1.crucifixion was naked
2.crucifixion was public
3.we all seem to like the victim's struggles - visual
4.since damage, death, or even pain are not the main aim fir most members. doesn't that leave obscene display as the main feature?

I wonder what others think about this?

Peter

Short answer, yes. All of the above.

From that very first night in '02 I found the sheer, frenzied erotic impact of a naked woman nailed to a cross to be purely visual.

And also subject to overthinking. Many folks into this kink have done the research, and know precisely how horrific a Roman crucifixion was. Think about that too much, the sexual thrill fades. And when crux practitioners on the forums talk about using real nails, we freak.
 

Peter Adams

Assistant executioner
Short answer, yes. All of the above.

From that very first night in '02 I found the sheer, frenzied erotic impact of a naked woman nailed to a cross to be purely visual.

And also subject to overthinking. Many folks into this kink have done the research, and know precisely how horrific a Roman crucifixion was. Think about that too much, the sexual thrill fades. And when crux practitioners on the forums talk about using real nails, we freak.

Of course real nails!

You wouldn't want the cross to fall apart mid-writhe and spoil the show!

I use bolts, but then I have that dreadful social disease of being an engineer lol

Oh, and I do have openings for ctoss-testers of either gender, or even crucifiers so I can be the test "Pilate" lol! (Doesn't - I have openings for - sound strange in thus context! )
 

Barbaria1

Rebel Leader
Staff member
This is a fascinating thread.

I wonder whether Obscene Display is at the heart of crux fantasies as
1.crucifixion was naked
2.crucifixion was public
3.we all seem to like the victim's struggles - visual
4.since damage, death, or even pain are not the main aim fir most members. doesn't that leave obscene display as the main feature?

I wonder what others think about this?

Peter

Yes to all and especially to #4. :p
 

Marcius

Governor
I know that an effective regime of any historical period manipulates laws for its own benefit - but I have a legal problem with the execution of women.

I believe it was illegal under Ronan law to to execute a pregnant woman - the obvious issue being the death of the foetus.
It was, Dig. 48, 19, 3:

The execution of the penalty imposed upon a pregnant woman should be deferred until she brings forth her child. I, indeed, am well aware of the rule that torture must not be inflicted upon her as long as she is pregnant.​

It was also illegal to execute a virgin - a useful technicality which led to gang rape by the executioners just to be sure. (now THAT'S what you call a job perk!)
It most likely wasn't. The idea stems from Tacitus’ comment on the fate of Sejanus' daughter, who 'was was violated by the executioner, with the noose beside her'; however, this recent article [PDF] argues against the existence of some general law:

Although there are no references in the law codes concerning the illegality of the execution of virgins, most of what we have in the way of written law is much later. My sense is that it was the case that executing a virgin was merely without precedent, not that there was any explicit written law against it: Dio describes it as ‘‘unlawful’’ (οὐχὄσιον), Tacitus as ‘‘unheard of’’ (inauditum); Suetonius, for his part, writes that ‘‘ancient usage made it impious’’ (more tradito nefas esset). In addition, the choice of words in the Latin clearly expresses the obscenity of the deed: first, Sejanus’ daughter was raped by the public executioner, ‘‘a carnifice...compressam.’’
My personal opinion: there was no law forbidding the execution of a virgin, but it at least in this case it was regarded as bad juju, to be avoided by rape if necessary. It might have been thought as such in the City of Rome only; in Britain, Egypt or Syria people might've had no qualms about putting a maiden to death.
 
Last edited:

mp5stab

Hair and Nails
Short answer, yes. All of the above.

From that very first night in '02 I found the sheer, frenzied erotic impact of a naked woman nailed to a cross to be purely visual.

And also subject to overthinking. Many folks into this kink have done the research, and know precisely how horrific a Roman crucifixion was.

Hmm, due to my extensive research on the internet, I think I know quite a bit about crucifixion now. Discarding first with the religious art, which is obviously focused more on romanticized and sanitized versions of the act for the beautification of saints, and probably has very little historical accuracy behind it, I am left with mostly contemporary descriptions and illustrations from other researchers. I have determed that crucifixion was almost always performed naked, using nails in the wrists, often accompanied by a sedile or cornu, which were very frequently used; conversely, only occasionally crowns of thorns appeared, and even rarer was the loincloth. The victims were almost always young women, every one of them beautiful. Crucifixions could last for days, despite how severe the injuries likely were, and the complete lack of anything antiseptic in Rome besides vinegar. Rape was almost always involved, or at least tastefully implied. The Romans carried out about three million crucifixions, mostly girls, lots of them involving buxom celts, and each was attended by a sadistic crowd that wasn't at all turned off by the horrific violence. At least, that's what I've seen so far here.

Everything you read on the internet is true, especially if it's sexy, and especially if it involves Romans.
 

Barbaria1

Rebel Leader
Staff member
Hmm, due to my extensive research on the internet, I think I know quite a bit about crucifixion now. Discarding first with the religious art, which is obviously focused more on romanticized and sanitized versions of the act for the beautification of saints, and probably has very little historical accuracy behind it, I am left with mostly contemporary descriptions and illustrations from other researchers. I have determed that crucifixion was almost always performed naked, using nails in the wrists, often accompanied by a sedile or cornu, which were very frequently used; conversely, only occasionally crowns of thorns appeared, and even rarer was the loincloth. The victims were almost always young women, every one of them beautiful. Crucifixions could last for days, despite how severe the injuries likely were, and the complete lack of anything antiseptic in Rome besides vinegar. Rape was almost always involved, or at least tastefully implied. The Romans carried out about three million crucifixions, mostly girls, lots of them involving buxom celts, and each was attended by a sadistic crowd that wasn't at all turned off by the horrific violence. At least, that's what I've seen so far here.

Everything you read on the internet is true, especially if it's sexy, and especially if it involves Romans.

I have determed that crucifixion was almost always performed naked, using nails in the wrists, often accompanied by a sedile or cornu, which were very frequently used; conversely, only occasionally crowns of thorns appeared, and even rarer was the loincloth. The victims were almost always young women, every one of them beautiful. Crucifixions could last for days, despite how severe the injuries likely were, and the complete lack of anything antiseptic in Rome besides vinegar. Rape was almost always involved, or at least tastefully implied. The Romans carried out about three million crucifixions, mostly girls, lots of them involving buxom celts, and each was attended by a sadistic crowd that wasn't at all turned off by the horrific violence.

Whether it's alt-history or true ... I LIKE IT!!! ;)
 

jedakk

CARNIFEX MAXIMUS
It was, Dig. 48, 19, 3:

The execution of the penalty imposed upon a pregnant woman should be deferred until she brings forth her child. I, indeed, am well aware of the rule that torture must not be inflicted upon her as long as she is pregnant.​


It most likely wasn't. The idea stems from Tacitus’ comment on the fate of Sejanus' daughter, who 'was was violated by the executioner, with the noose beside her'; however, this recent article [PDF] argues against the existence of some general law:

Although there are no references in the law codes concerning the illegality of the execution of virgins, most of what we have in the way of written law is much later. My sense is that it was the case that executing a virgin was merely without precedent, not that there was any explicit written law against it: Dio describes it as ‘‘unlawful’’ (οὐχὄσιον), Tacitus as ‘‘unheard of’’ (inauditum); Suetonius, for his part, writes that ‘‘ancient usage made it impious’’ (more tradito nefas esset). In addition, the choice of words in the Latin clearly expresses the obscenity of the deed: first, Sejanus’ daughter was raped by the public executioner, ‘‘a carnifice...compressam.’’
My personal opinion: there was no law forbidding the execution of a virgin, but it at least in this case it was regarded as bad juju, to be avoided by rape if necessary. It might have been thought as such in the City of Rome only; in Britain, Egypt or Syria people might've had no qualms about putting a maiden to death.

Excellent reply, Marcius. I'm going to save these references for future use, maybe in a story. I might have characters from Rome and other places in the empire talking about the condemned virgin, the Roman saying that "everybody knows you can't crucify a virgin" - an offense that the gods will not take lightly. One of his Celtic buddies laughs at him and tells him he "never heard of any such thing, sounds like you're just inventing a reason to try out that tight virgin cunnus. "
 

Apostate

Administrator
Staff member
Hmm, due to my extensive research on the internet, I think I know quite a bit about crucifixion now. Discarding first with the religious art, which is obviously focused more on romanticized and sanitized versions of the act for the beautification of saints, and probably has very little historical accuracy behind it, I am left with mostly contemporary descriptions and illustrations from other researchers. I have determed that crucifixion was almost always performed naked, using nails in the wrists, often accompanied by a sedile or cornu, which were very frequently used; conversely, only occasionally crowns of thorns appeared, and even rarer was the loincloth. The victims were almost always young women, every one of them beautiful. Crucifixions could last for days, despite how severe the injuries likely were, and the complete lack of anything antiseptic in Rome besides vinegar. Rape was almost always involved, or at least tastefully implied. The Romans carried out about three million crucifixions, mostly girls, lots of them involving buxom celts, and each was attended by a sadistic crowd that wasn't at all turned off by the horrific violence. At least, that's what I've seen so far here.

Everything you read on the internet is true, especially if it's sexy, and especially if it involves Romans.

Can you imagine a world where not everything you read on the Internet is true???

The mind reels.

Steve Cordero brought us a typical Roman crucifixion. Some assembly was required.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    58.5 KB · Views: 1,079
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    530.5 KB · Views: 1,034
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    327.2 KB · Views: 1,042
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    301.6 KB · Views: 2,804

Peter Adams

Assistant executioner
It was, Dig. 48, 19, 3:

The execution of the penalty imposed upon a pregnant woman should be deferred until she brings forth her child. I, indeed, am well aware of the rule that torture must not be inflicted upon her as long as she is pregnant.​


It most likely wasn't. The idea stems from Tacitus’ comment on the fate of Sejanus' daughter, who 'was was violated by the executioner, with the noose beside her'; however, this recent article [PDF] argues against the existence of some general law:

Although there are no references in the law codes concerning the illegality of the execution of virgins, most of what we have in the way of written law is much later. My sense is that it was the case that executing a virgin was merely without precedent, not that there was any explicit written law against it: Dio describes it as ‘‘unlawful’’ (οὐχὄσιον), Tacitus as ‘‘unheard of’’ (inauditum); Suetonius, for his part, writes that ‘‘ancient usage made it impious’’ (more tradito nefas esset). In addition, the choice of words in the Latin clearly expresses the obscenity of the deed: first, Sejanus’ daughter was raped by the public executioner, ‘‘a carnifice...compressam.’’
My personal opinion: there was no law forbidding the execution of a virgin, but it at least in this case it was regarded as bad juju, to be avoided by rape if necessary. It might have been thought as such in the City of Rome only; in Britain, Egypt or Syria people might've had no qualms about putting a maiden to death.
If you live in Kent, the waste of a good virgin by putting her to death would be intolerable! !!!
 

nailed nude

Assistant executioner
This is a fascinating thread.

I wonder whether Obscene Display is at the heart of crux fantasies as
1.crucifixion was naked
2.crucifixion was public
3.we all seem to like the victim's struggles - visual
4.since damage, death, or even pain are not the main aim fir most members. doesn't that leave obscene display as the main feature?

I wonder what others think about this?

Peter


Crucifixion for me is like death fetish's greatest hits, especially in the public display of the dead victim and the pain this caused to their loved ones as they had to walk past their bodies. All their dignity ripped away like their life.
Here's my take on obscene display.
 

Attachments

  • SHEBA'S death .jpeg
    SHEBA'S death .jpeg
    314.3 KB · Views: 910

mp5stab

Hair and Nails
Whether it's alt-history or true ... I LIKE IT!!! ;)
It's both! I call it the "alternative facts" of female crucifixion! For instance: Crucifixion was all about display -- beautiful women nailed up like fine art. The inability to hide or conceal the breasts or labia once nailed into the cruciform position properly played into its widespread appeal as the primary means of execution for women.

In this artist's reconstruction of a pair of Patrician sisters crucified, we see a common crucifixion pose, with the victim's exposed breasts and sex clearly visible while on the cross:
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1242.JPG
    IMG_1242.JPG
    337.9 KB · Views: 988
Last edited:

Peter Adams

Assistant executioner
It's both! I call it the "alternative facts" of female crucifixion! For instance: Crucifixion was all about display -- beautiful women nailed up like fine art. The inability to hide or conceal the breasts or labia once nailed into the cruciform position properly was played into its widespread appeal for the execution of women.

In this artist's reconstruction of a pair of Patrician sisters crucified, we see a common crucifixion pose, with the victim's exposed breasts and sex clearly visible while on the cross:
So beautiful!
 

Barbaria1

Rebel Leader
Staff member
It's both! I call it the "alternative facts" of female crucifixion! For instance: Crucifixion was all about display -- beautiful women nailed up like fine art. The inability to hide or conceal the breasts or labia once nailed into the cruciform position properly played into its widespread appeal as the primary means of execution for women.

In this artist's reconstruction of a pair of Patrician sisters crucified, we see a common crucifixion pose, with the victim's exposed breasts and sex clearly visible while on the cross:

Soooo ... this means a massive re-writing of history. The Christ figure on Golgotha was actually a Christa, and the two criminals were women. And the Roman mass crucifixion following Spartacus' revolt was not of the vanquished rebels but of their wives and daughters! And the games in the arena featured female victims exclusively. And what else?
 

Apostate

Administrator
Staff member
Soooo ... this means a massive re-writing of history. The Christ figure on Golgotha was actually a Christa, and the two criminals were women. And the Roman mass crucifixion following Spartacus' revolt was not of the vanquished rebels but of their wives and daughters! And the games in the arena featured female victims exclusively. And what else?

Those tens of thousands of Jews crucified by Titus outside the walls during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.? All naked pretty girls.
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    102.9 KB · Views: 756
Last edited:

mp5stab

Hair and Nails
Those tens of thousands of Jew crucified by Titus outside the walls during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.? All naked pretty girls.
At first, it was believed that couldn't be possible, but new archeological evidence suggests that more girls may have been crucified than was originally claimed. There is actually an excellent series of foresic reconstructions of the countless anonymous women that died, complete to near-photorealism:

https://bobnearled.deviantart.com/gallery/?catpath=/&edit=0&q=Ivdaea+Capta
 

Apostate

Administrator
Staff member
Ah, yes, I remember that huge write-up in the Crux Street Journal. But the Biblical Babes Archeological Society blasted the report as "fake news."
 

jedakk

CARNIFEX MAXIMUS
Those tens of thousands of Jews crucified by Titus outside the walls during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.? All naked pretty girls.

Those three Jewish victims rescued from the cross by Josephus? His fiance' and two of her sisters. The sisters died, but his fiance' survived. He married her afterwards despite the stigma of so many men having seen her displayed obscenely during the hours that she hung on a cross beside the road. I read something, don't remember where now, where a visitor to his house described that the scars of the nails were still visible years later and how he had to keep himself from staring at them when she poured the wine, and that she limped slightly on her left foot.
 
Top Bottom