Look - Grandpa Santa's coming...........

 

,,,,,,,,,,and he got plenty of the white stuff in his sac just for us. Send a spunky blizzard to cover us deep, Silver Grandaddy!

Man-milking - solo hand-jobs to mechanised mass production.

 

Consider how much precious male spunk is wasted and disposed of every single day. Worldwide it must run into hundreds of gallons of the stuff  -  maybe even thousands of gallons! And hardly a thought is given to all this profligate waste. With probably 99% of men (and adolescent boys) tossing themselves off most days, perhaps several times daily for many, all that valuable ejaculated cum is looked on as useless and readily disposable. (Even those men who are married or are in a stable relationship - with either sex - will need their own time to indulge in their own masturbatory fantasies, I'm sure).

Aside from a man having sex with a woman with the primary purpose of conceiving another life - surely a minority motive for having sexual intercourse in any case, even among heterosexuals - there is negligible alternative 'use' made of the expelled jizz. 

But there are some of us who like to take it further. Even now as I type this I'm quaffing from a mug of coffee that's been laced with cum - though on this occasion only my own, unfortunately. But this is not so unusual, even if it as yet remains a minority 'taste' -

Some guys will add their spunk to the ingredients when cooking. I myself habitually incorporate shots of my cum into an omelette mixture before I start whisking. 
 

One more valid use of cum is when we've all watched videos of medical examinations in which the 'patient' is asked to produce a sample of his sperm, either with or without the assistance of the presiding doctor, which will be sent to the laboratory for further examination........

On all these occasions the spunk is produced for a valid reason. Or you may have enjoyed, as I do, watching a guy having his eager mouth filled with fresh cum straight from other guys' cocks........

Beautiful isn't it? Here again spunk has been produced by three men for a particular purpose, namely to provide the sustenance precisely for which the lucky recipient craves. As a one-time cum-addict myself I can only look at this pic with envy of the guy getting more than the mouthful he can manage, but knowing that little of it will be wasted. I myself could never get enough of it to gobble down greedily, warm and fresh, straight from the 'tap'. 

But what is the demand for spunk, and to what uses can it be put? In the first place it's long been known as a healthy foodstuff, nutritious and rich in protein and can be consumed either directly from its source or added to most beverages, usually coffee - or added directly to salads as dressing or mayo, to desserts as cream, or added to drinks such as cocktails, wine, even lager and beer. Furthermore, a quantity of it from multiple man-donors, might be swallowed as a refreshing health drink. Frozen spunk might be served up as ice-cream or ice-lolly, or at least incorporated into their ingredients. For non-consumable uses it might be introduced into soap, shampoo or skin-oils. There are great untapped multiple uses for spunk, easily enough to justify mass production on a factory scale.   

 

                  ------------------------------------

Now we come to a sequence of illustrations of man-milking in increasing numbers and intensity right up to enforced, mechanical industrial-scale cum-producing in significant volumes.

First, men are individually subject to a doctor's or scientist's method of cum extraction........

Above - note the implement inserted anally into the man and up into his rectum, presumably to massage his prostate and excite him to climax.  

 

The above 'scientist' makes this look like a case of alien abduction!

This last pic features a comically and fiendishly sadistic scientist revelling in his client's discomfort.

Here two young men are subject, perhaps as a time-saving measure, to having their semen extracted simultaneously :-

These guys above have their mouths gagged, one assumes to lessen any loud exclamations or expletives many of us can't refrain from making on orgasm. 

Or three men together...........

Four......

Or even SIX!..........

Until we come to what a mass-production unit would look like, donors arranged in multiple tiers, the only sounds being the quiet hum and chug-chug-chugging of the sucking machines, punctuated by the ecstatic moans of any ungagged men approaching and experiencing climax as they shoot out for the umpteenth time the contents of their balls.

Perhaps at some future time it will be mandatory for all males - say, for a start, all between 16 and 30  - to attend one of these industrial mass-production units annually to 'donate' their nourishing, protein-rich sperm for food production, either directly for consumption or processed into a food additive, for the public at large. Those young men attending for the first time will already know through hearsay that the obligatory four-hour procedure involves enforced multiple ejaculation while necessarily restrained by continuous stimulation and excitement of the penis inserted into an airtight, transparent tube which will perform the the required sucking action, initially mild, then increasing in force and aggressiveness until an ejaculation is achieved and recorded at which point the process will begin over again.....and again, multiple ejaculations without pause until the four hours are over, by which time as he emerges exhausted, each guy's cock and balls will, no doubt, feel painfully raw. Their consolation will be that it's in the noble cause of cutting down waste, as well as helping feed the world. So next time you have your healthy cum-drink, put mayo on your salad, enjoy an ice cream, or merely put cream in your coffee, spare a thought for the generosity of the donor who supplied your wants. 😋😄

 

Roman crucifixion, painful beyond belief yet so sexy.

 If you think you might be offended by some of my comments (and illustrations) in the following post on this subject, do not look any further - because, believe me, you will be!

It hardly needs saying that I'm perfectly aware that crucifixions are still being carried out right up to today, and as far as I know, exclusively by factions within the militant Islamic terrorist movements. Is there any need to mention that in no way am I including such appalling and unforgiveable atrocities in this article. No sane person could ever maintain that such hideous contemporary crimes are in any way 'sexy'. No, I'm referring here exclusively to the historical Roman practices, refined over time to such a sadistic 'art' as to maximise and prolong the suffering of the unfortunate victim right up to and even beyond the normal human endurance of most mortals.   

There'll also be a number of passing comments on what was the most famous crucifixion of all by far, but only where relevant. However, for the most part, the following will be comments offered in general terms.

I don't believe anyone can seriously deny that crucifixion in the days of the Roman Empire was easily one of the most barbarous methods of execution ever devised, though I am aware of others which I'm not going to describe here. Crucifixion as a means of execution in the Roman Empire lasted until the fifth century (C.E., of course) and was practised on both men and women, although it's those of men, and sometimes boys, that are of concern here, these having a unique undertow of homo-eroticism, never openly acknowledged, at least publicly - an aspect which right up today refuses to be recognised by religious authorities (of all persuasions), yet has been alluded to either by inference all down the centuries especially in art - and occasionally explicitly, though this last rarely mentioned until recent decades.  

There's no doubt that the primary aim of the execution was to cause maximum excruciating pain and over a long period, often lasting over several days, by keeping the victim conscious the whole time as much as possible and, if he should have fainted away, or mercifully despite his agonies, falling asleep. reviving him with the pungent odour of sour wine (referred to as 'gall' in the Gospels) soaked into a sponge and shoved under his nose by being raised on a stick - quite likely to have been the very same sponge that the Roman soldiers habitually shared with each other, used to wash their shitholes with (and kept in salt water) after taking a dump - this being before the 'invention' of toilet paper as was to become widely used in the West. So when Jesus, very near the end, cried out "I thirst!" was the Roman soldier's response to his cry by raising a soaked sponge on a stick to his lips an act of clemency and sympathy or was it the final ignominious act of cruelty perpetrated on him? An open question, perhaps.

The list of crimes which 'merited' execution was a long one, though the group most frequently condemned to this means of execution were slaves who were re-caught after having escaped from their 'masters', or even just having plotted to do so. One extra level of cruelty was that it was the practice to execute not only the individual(s) in question, but also the entire group of slaves who worked in that particular household, both men and women even if completely innocent, also by crucifixion. 

As to the lead-up to the crucifixion itself, it was harsher for the men in a number of ways. Once condemned, all men were subjected to being scourged i.e. whipped in a naked state, the 'whips' having a number of flails, each with a multi-pointed metal shard at the end specifically designed to dig into the flesh and, the whip then being withdrawn, actually to tear out lumps from the body of the scourged. I don't know if it was laid down just how many strokes were to be administered but it's not too surprising to find out that this pre-crucifixion punishment was so severe that surviving records show that it was far from uncommon for the unfortunate man to expire at the post to which he was roped or chained, never making it to the ultimate penalty on the cross. Indeed, it's said that if the guy doing the scourging had had a shit day, or was just being 'playful' or plain outright sadistic, he wouldn't stop the number of scourge strokes at the allotted number but would carry on and until the white bones of the poor guy's spine or rib-cage began to show.  

I've not found any satisfactory illustration of an actual scourging, and if there are some available on the 'dark web' I shouldn't like to show them anyway. So here's a few cleaned-up art versions, the second with sticks rather than proper scourges.......and the last two, with Jesus looking bored stiff,  probably created by an artist with a hard-on! (I sure would like that compact, tight-muscled, bare bum in the final painting - lovingly painted to resemble two blushing peaches -  to be plonked down on my face. (Lick, lick, slurp, lick! 😋)

Now we approach the vexed question of whether or not nudity was part of the punishment (I'll come to nudity on the cross a little later). There's no doubt that one of the purposes of the sequence of punishments was not only to maximise physical pain but to make the mental anguish as extreme as possible as well - and that was best achieved by public humiliation and degradation - and what could be more forceful for a man, along with his terribly bloodied body, to also having his genitals publicly exposed? Of course we know from the scriptures that Christ had a purple cloak put on him to mock his claim of being a king - as well, of course, and possibly uniquely, of having that 'crown of thorns' pressed down onto his head. Also, prior to being nailed to the cross, the gospels tell us that Jesus was "stripped of his garments", so we can assume that he wasn't entirely naked when having to suffer the horribly painful trek to Calvary, carrying the cross - or more likely, carrying just the crossbar part of it, no doubt tremendously heavy on its own anyway. However, I'd expect most men condemned to be crucified to have appeared something like this......

On the crucifixion site there'd already be a number of vacant, 're-useable' vertical wooden columns already planted, onto which the cross-beams having arrived with the 'criminal' awaiting his execution and now having had his arms nailed to it through the wrists, he is raised and the cross-beam with him attached is slotted into the already standing piece.

Now to the question of whether men were crucified in a state of stark naked-ness or whether they were allowed a loincloth to wear. It seems that it depended on the geographical location of the execution - and its occurrence was probably half of all such executions. So although we can't know for sure what happened when Jesus met his death I very much doubt if there were hard and fast rules as to what was to happen in particular cases - though of course I may be wrong about that. I'd only say that as Jesus himself claimed to be 'King of the Jews - or, rather, didn't categorically deny the claim when pressed by Pilate - it would only have been logical to have raised him up on the cross showing him as a man who was a Jew, otherwise it would have made little sense regarding Pilate's own super-scriptive description of the man attached to the cross above Jesus' head. If his skinned cock hadn't been shown exposed then he need not necessarily have been Jewish at all!

As to any actual loincloths used, I really don't think they'd have been of luxurious length and spotlessly clean as depicted in many artworks down the centuries. Much more likely they'd have been covered by any old rag which happened to be around which served the purpose of reaching around the waist, soiled or not, probably fairly skimpy while still being adequate enough to cover the wearer's privates. I don't think there'd be much attention given to tying it around his loins securely, especially since the whole point of the punishment was to take away any last vestige of dignity he may have left. If it slipped down or was dislodged by the man writhing about in the little movement he could manage in his nailed position, or if it became unravelled as a result of any boner he got, too bad. He'd just have to stay exposed for the perhaps short remainder of his tortured life.  

(Notice that between this guy's legs there is something attached to the cross. More of that in a moment.)

The young man in the above pic is depicted as ejaculating. I don't know if it's a documented fact or plain fiction that some men in the death throes of a violent execution will not only get an involuntary erection but will also climax and shoot off, even if doing so is the last thing on their minds. A widely accepted story goes that when a man is hanged, not so much by a sudden drop which breaks the neck, but more often in those raised slowly from the ground by the neck - in effect being strangled - he'll shoot out his spunk. It goes even further, in that when hangings were done in public, certain of the more eager spectators will stand directly in front in the hope of catching some of the ejaculate either in their hands or in some convenient vessel (perhaps a large, wide-rimmed bowl?), for men to imbibe as an aphrodisiac - the belief in its concentrated potency is obvious - or for women who want to become pregnant, by their ingesting it. I have serious doubts about the veracity if this story. If true there'd really need to be someone to take the shortly-to-be-executed one's cock out so as not to be impeded by his lower garments, and if that were the case I'm sure we'd have heard about it.

But back to crucifixions. We know that despite so many artworks showing the two thieves crucified with Jesus being tied to their crosses.......

 whereas the usual practice for all was to have them 'fastened' with nails - in today's terms, huge industrial-type, heavy duty nails, hammered through wrists (through the palms wouldn't support the body's weight) and through heels or ankles. A number of these very articles have survived to this day, along with vestiges of bones they have been driven through.

It's said that sometimes the nailer-executioner got so bored with the tedium of his job that he'd sometimes nail the condemned men onto their cross in a variety of contorted positions, perhaps for his own amusement. Whether true or not the following painting illustrates the point, especially regarding the young chap, a boy in fact, on the right. 

This painting also shows another thing. They appear to be 'sitting' on something, whereas in fact what that projection from their crosses actually is is a spear-like object with a smooth, pointed head to serve as a deception purporting to support their bodies, taking just a little of the weight from their arms. It may even have been greased in advance by some sadistic Roman soldier to easier achieve what was intended - so that when the poor guys attempted to sit on it to relieve the tension in their arms - anything to even slightly alleviate the intolerable agony of their holding their body-weight through their ravaged arms -  they'd find to their outright horror that the pointed metal head penetrates into their shitholes and impales them in that position, the spearhead cutting through their innards, though mercifully hastening their deaths. Any attempt to heave themselves off from it, even if they could manage the strength needed to do so, which they couldn't anyway, would be futile as the muscles round their bumholes will have closed around the head of the grisly thing. Brings more than tears to our eyes! 😱

Of course any victims, especially if he remains alive for any length of time, will eventually need to piss and shit, but why should he care what any spectators think? (Note the stream of piss coming from this poor guy).

So, it's believed that those who survived to the stage of being nailed to and mounted on the cross, most would last anywhere between six hours and four days or occasionally even longer, so at least, Jesus having survived for around six hours on his cross, in terms of length of penalty it would have been not quite the prolonged agony as it was for some. 

So those are my thoughts on this endlessly fascinating but gruesome subject, one on which there are still so many unresolved matters, which will now, of course, simply never now be answered. 

And as to my own beliefs? I was given a strict Roman Catholic education and held to that religion right until my mid-20s when, for about a further 20 years I ditched Roman Catholicism in favour of a more nebulous, non-denominational Christianity, which I in turn also gave up on and have remained since then something like 95% convinced that there is no God - and most definitely not one who is as held by any of the institutionalised, established religions. As for if any God does in fact exist at all, then 'He' is not only omnipotent but all-loving (!) too, that's just an insult to our collective intelligence. But do I believe that the man referred to as Jesus Christ really existed in real life? Yes I do, though without categorically rubbishing anyone who argues that it's all a fiction or a hoax. Nevertheless, if Jesus did indeed exist like I think,  I'm just as convinced that he'd be totally appalled at the things which have been done, and continue to be done in his name.

Now to finish with, if you weren't offended by anything you've read or seen above, you well may be by the following, I only show them to demonstrate that I'm far from alone in regarding Roman crucifixions as being 'sexy'......

Thanks for reading - and looking.

T