| Subject: Hollywood Whippings |
Author:
Stan
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:32:19 11/08/17 Wed
In the "good old days", whippings were carried out in public. In our modern era, they still are. The only difference is that current-day whippings appear on the theater screen or the TV screen, but more importantly, they are NOT FOR REAL!
Judging by the frequency of whippings in the movies and on TV, I think there is a much greater interest in corporal punishment than most people would care to admit. What movie that takes place aboard a British naval ship is complete without at least one sailor getting flogged with a cat-o-nine-tails? Even such a benign naval captain as Russell Crowe found it necessary to sentence one of his crew members to the "lash", albeit with much regret. What sword-and-sandals movie doesn't have someone receiving a brutal flogging administered by a Roman soldier as an example of "Roman justice"? And what TV western doesn't eventually have an episode where a cowboy feels the sting of the whip? On "The Big Valley", Heath Barkley's manly body was subjected to the lash 3 or 4 times during the course of the series.
However, I think Hollywood has created unrealistic expectations regarding the experience of a whipping. Most of these movies or TV programs show the victim taking his punishment without uttering a sound, or, at most, a muffled grunt (especially if he is the star). Movies showing Alan Ladd taking a whipping stoically instantly come to mind. There are some exceptions: "Midnight Express" (bastinado) and "Brubaker" (prison strap) present what I consider a more realistic response to corporal punishment, namely crying, yelling, or screaming.
I should mention one influence that Hollywood had on my early S&M fantasies. Presumably because of nudity prohibitions, most whipping scenes were shown being inflicted on the victim's bare back. So, when I was young, I would fantasize exclusively about getting a whipping on my back. It was only after I was exposed to a "pornographic" film that my fantasies (and desires) eventually shifted from whippings on the bare back to whippings on the bare buttocks. (Not that there is anything wrong with a good flogging!)
And my pet peeve is one stupid idea perpetrated in the movies, especially in Westerns involving Indians. It is the notion that a man is "brave" if he can take a whipping (or other torture) stoically and that he is a coward if he cries or yells during his whipping. The movies usually have an Indian spouting such verbal nonsense. In my opinion, a man shows courage if he willingly allows another man to put him in restraints (so he can't escape) and then submits to a whipping not knowing whether he can take the pain! Whether he takes the whipping stoically or cries, screams, or yells in response to the pain is irrelevant.
Because I've been a top, as well as a bottom, in a number of punishment scenes, it would be remiss of me not to mention that most of the guys I've administered whippings to did not cry or yell or plead with me to stop the punishment. Now, since I had met many of these guys through ads in two S&M mailings, Lashmates and The Woodshed (that was in the days before the Internet), their responses to a whipping are probably not typical of the average person with only a moderate interest in whippings. (Now, exactly what constitutes a "moderate" interest in whippings?)
However, it seems obvious to me that if most men could actually take a whipping stoically, whipping would not have become the preferred method of corporal punishment throughout history. As is evident from my post titled "The Most Painful Whipping I Ever Received", I am admittedly not one of those guys who can take a whipping stoically.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 