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

Some Sketches

Go to CruxDreams.com

Aedile

Magistrate
I like this idea! Not because it was the way women were crucified all the time, but because it might not have been uncommon to see crosses like that.
For some reason, the “women-facing-the cross” idea took root in the world of Christian preachers, but I’ve never found any evidence for the notion.

Some say the idea was to protect the crucified woman‘s identity and honor, but that seems to contradict the whole point of crucifixion. I also fail to see how having a woman’s naked ass hanging out while she engages in a sadistic parody of sex with a cross in between her knees preserves her honor in any way.

Others say that men could not bear to see a woman in that much pain, so they just turned her around. Once again, seems to undercut the purposes of crucifixion, and I highly doubt most men were so earnestly noble when they saw a crucified woman.

Historical fantasy it may be, it doesn’t change the appeal to my cross-as-phallic-symbol predilections.
 

Barbaria1

Rebel Leader
Staff member
Do we need more women facing the cross? According to some, that was the way women were crucified- if so seems like a good idea to me.
I like this idea! Not because it was the way women were crucified all the time, but because it might not have been uncommon to see crosses like that.
For some reason, the “women-facing-the cross” idea took root in the world of Christian preachers, but I’ve never found any evidence for the notion.

Some say the idea was to protect the crucified woman‘s identity and honor, but that seems to contradict the whole point of crucifixion. I also fail to see how having a woman’s naked ass hanging out while she engages in a sadistic parody of sex with a cross in between her knees preserves her honor in any way.

Others say that men could not bear to see a woman in that much pain, so they just turned her around. Once again, seems to undercut the purposes of crucifixion, and I highly doubt most men were so earnestly noble when they saw a crucified woman.

Historical fantasy it may be, it doesn’t change the appeal to my cross-as-phallic-symbol predilections.
A little verse of mine from 2015 addressing this topic:

http://www.cruxforums.com/xf/threads/facing-the-wood.4804/

:)
 
Last edited:

poem21045

Governor
I like this idea! Not because it was the way women were crucified all the time, but because it might not have been uncommon to see crosses like that.
My favorite of the admittedly limited number of gals facing the music the cross would be Makar's Mila in the aptly named video, "Encyclopedia."

It's an oldie but definitely a goodie!


(Remember to turn on the sound! Video hosted on secure Imgur site.)
 

Juan1234

Governor
For some reason, the “women-facing-the cross” idea took root in the world of Christian preachers, but I’ve never found any evidence for the notion.

Some say the idea was to protect the crucified woman‘s identity and honor, but that seems to contradict the whole point of crucifixion. I also fail to see how having a woman’s naked ass hanging out while she engages in a sadistic parody of sex with a cross in between her knees preserves her honor in any way.

Others say that men could not bear to see a woman in that much pain, so they just turned her around. Once again, seems to undercut the purposes of crucifixion, and I highly doubt most men were so earnestly noble when they saw a crucified woman.

Historical fantasy it may be, it doesn’t change the appeal to my cross-as-phallic-symbol predilections.
My understanding is that the source for this claim is the Mishnah, a collection of Jewish oral traditions. It's rabbinic literature, not Roman. I assume the passage containing the claim would be describing how the Romans crucified Jewish women, because Jewish law did not allow for crucifixion the way we think of it. Not having read the actual passage myself, I imagine it could be the recollection of one event in which a witness saw women crucified facing the cross, or it could be that in that particular Jewish context, the Romans did habitually crucify women that way, perhaps as a sort of perverse concession to Jewish sensibilities? (A lot of conjecture there, I know.)
 

Aedile

Magistrate
My favorite of the admittedly limited number of gals facing the music the cross would be Makar's Mila in the aptly named video, "Encyclopedia."

It's an oldie but definitely a goodie!


(Remember to turn on the sound! Video hosted on secure Imgur site.)
My favorite crux video of all time! I send lovely Mila my thanks every time I watch it. It’s inspired several fantasies and stories of mine. On a side note, the crux simplex segment looks like it hurt!
 

Aedile

Magistrate
My understanding is that the source for this claim is the Mishnah, a collection of Jewish oral traditions. It's rabbinic literature, not Roman. I assume the passage containing the claim would be describing how the Romans crucified Jewish women, because Jewish law did not allow for crucifixion the way we think of it. Not having read the actual passage myself, I imagine it could be the recollection of one event in which a witness saw women crucified facing the cross, or it could be that in that particular Jewish context, the Romans did habitually crucify women that way, perhaps as a sort of perverse concession to Jewish sensibilities? (A lot of conjecture there, I know.)
It likely comes from MishnaSanhedrin 6:4, which is basically a debate regarding the ritual post-Morten display of criminals executed by stoning.


Even in the source document, there doesn’t seem to any agreement on a blanket rule regarding displaying executed women’s bodies.

I think a lot of “scholars” extend this passage far beyond its historical-cultura context to cover crucifixion under Roman law.. Probably a case of lazy translation and conflation of the religious and political authorities of the time and place.

That said, I think we can all dispense with the idea that a woman got any personal modesty benefit from being displayed butt naked, just turned the other way. If there was any modesty/honor protection there, it was for her father, husband, and male relatives. Instead of Miriam, daughter of Ezekiel, an onlooker would just see a naked, nameless woman.

Seems like it would be worse for the woman, but who back then cared?
 

Juan1234

Governor
It likely comes from MishnaSanhedrin 6:4, which is basically a debate regarding the ritual post-Morten display of criminals executed by stoning.


Even in the source document, there doesn’t seem to any agreement on a blanket rule regarding displaying executed women’s bodies.

I think a lot of “scholars” extend this passage far beyond its historical-cultura context to cover crucifixion under Roman law.. Probably a case of lazy translation and conflation of the religious and political authorities of the time and place.

That said, I think we can all dispense with the idea that a woman got any personal modesty benefit from being displayed butt naked, just turned the other way. If there was any modesty/honor protection there, it was for her father, husband, and male relatives. Instead of Miriam, daughter of Ezekiel, an onlooker would just see a naked, nameless woman.

Seems like it would be worse for the woman, but who back then cared?
Interesting - I had actually read that passage before and not realized that's the passage referred to when people talk about crucifying women backward. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Roman crucifixion. It has only the slightest connection with crucifixion at all, depending on how loosely you define crucifixion. Tying a corpse to a post for a few hours is not what most of us think of when we think of crucifixion. No matter how you slice it, there is zero evidence here that the Romans ever crucified a woman facing the cross.

It never ceases to amaze me how much misinformation about crucifixion is touted by the supposed experts in the historical field. Those images of the woman facing the cross appeared in a supposedly reputable history documentary, including interviews with "experts."
 

Aedile

Magistrate
It never ceases to amaze me how much misinformation about crucifixion is touted by the supposed experts in the historical field. Those images of the woman facing the cross appeared in a supposedly reputable history documentary, including interviews with "experts."
To be fair to the History Channel, the interviewee does mention that there is little evidence for *how* the Romans crucified people, with the positioning of women being one of the “controversies.” They probably decided to depict the two women crucified in that way because 1) it looks different and adds to the visual tableaux of the whole documentary; and 2) it gives the viewer someone to sympathize with.

The fully-clothed woman does a really good job of looking meek, pathetic, and agonized. Surely the audience feels sympathy toward this poor girl and her plight! The topless one kind of mails in her performance, but they had her positioned in an awkward way with a support under her diaper-style loincloth so they could get some longer shots.
 
Top Bottom