Flogging Authority

In a comment to the Dec 23 post, “Military Flogging—Humiliation?”, Richie asks “…was there some kind of hand book detailing punishment? Who decided how many lashes were to be inflicted, and what kind of whip was to be used?”

The answer depends on which Army/Navy you’re dealing with.  It is my understanding that in the Eastern European armies of the 17^th-19^th Centuries, all officers had the unquestioned right to order the punishment of any enlisted man.  I believe in the British Army/Navy, that “right” was reserved for the officer in command of the unit, so subordinate officers had to “bring charges” for the commanding offer to adjudicate.

In British history, the Articles of War were the basis of the law authorizing flogging—but the upper limit of a dozen lashes prescribed for many offenses was rarely adhered to at sea or on campaign (and officers guilty of ordering violations of these limits were never prosecuted).  I remember reading that George III of England had once declared that the maximum a man could receive was 1,000 lashes!

In War and Peace, Tolstoy describes the flogging of a Russian deserter during the Napoleonic Invasion.  The offender was ordered to walk a gauntlet comprised of 8,000 men.  After the deserter had received somewhere around 1,200 lashes he collapsed and could not be revived.  He was taken to the hospital and took nine months to recover.  Once he was declared fit for duty, his officers reassembled the gauntlet and forced him to begin walking it again—he reportedly died with the first stroke.

For the most part, even if there were protections for offenders as to the upper limits, the soldiers were often not aware of them and accepted that the officers had the right and authority to punish as harshly as they desired.  The only choice a man had was to strip off his shirt and endure the punishment as best he could.

Flogging As A Challenge

Richie thought he had pushed me too far in his comment to the “Severe But Safe” post yesterday.  Not so.  We are a small enough community already without me blocking users.  This is the only place on the internet that I have found that lets like-minded people talk rationally about flogging without spiraling down into BDSM.  I want every opinion about flogging expressed.  People get very excited about this subject, and I understand why.  As point-in-fact, by expressing his concerns, Richie gave me a great opportunity to explain my position in deeper detail.  I appreciate his—and everyone’s—involvement here.

Richie also posed a question: “how about you telling us why or how you decided on taking up the whip across your bare back as a challenge.”   Answer:  I have always been fascinated by flogging.  Even from my youngest memories, I remember watching the Mutiny on the Bounty flogging (the old one with Brando) and being affected by it.  I wanted to watch more!  There have been some truly outstanding flogging scenes in movies, such as “Starship Troopers” and the flogging scene in 1994’s “The Bounty”, where Liam Neeson shows what was probably the most accurate dramatic reaction to a realistically brutal flogging in the Eighteenth Century Royal Navy.  But most flogging scenes fall very short.  I know what I want to see, but I haven’t yet seen it, so I am trying to create it with my videos.

Flogging as a punishment means putting someone under the lash who is unwilling to endure it.  But we punish people by incarceration all the time—and I would say that no one wants to endure that, either.  It is easy for someone to say, “bring back flogging” (those that say that probably want it more for the entertainment value than the retributive nature of the punishment—but that’s OK since voyeurism is a very deep part of the American psyche).  But to say that, it is important to understand what the “offender” will actually endure.  I cannot yet say that I am a proponent of bringing back flogging, but with each passing personal experience with the whip, I am beginning to believe that it could go a long way to easing overcrowding (especially for petty offenses, like minor parole violations) and would be a serious deterrent if some young gang member were humiliated by being unable to take it and devolves into screaming and begging for mercy—other gang members will think twice about facing that sort of humiliation themselves.  And by ensuring no scarring, he would be deprived of the “cred” that would come from permanent stripes on his back.

I have wanted to understand not only the physical pain associated with a punishment flogging, but also the psychological aspect of it:  The fear and desperation of awaiting that next stroke—after the overwhelmingly painful one you just felt—and not being sure you can endure it.  And knowing the only way for it to end is for the last stroke to be applied to your bare skin.

In having done this, I have come to understand that flogging doesn’t just have to be used as a punishment:  For those that are willing, it can be viewed as a test of courage (or manhood, if you like).  The problem I had, until recently, was finding someone who could—and would—lay it on hard, but at the same time ensures that no damage would be done.  When I finally did, this gave me the best of both worlds:  A painful test which is worthy of being called a "flogging" and the knowledge that it would be done safely.  Once that combination had been found, I wanted to give the world something that I had always wanted myself:  to watch a brave man expose his back to the lash!

Now that I have some experience with several different instruments on my back, my personal challenge is to see how much I dare to take with the different kinds of whips—it’s a personal test that I hope is enjoyable for others to watch.  

Severe But Safe

Richie referenced a website that shows severe whippings in a comment on our Jan 1 post “Two Dozen Lashes: Discussion of New Video”.  He mentioned that the site was brutal and often showed the “Prisoner” (which I prefer to use instead of “victim”) being whipped bloody.  Personally, I think that blood is a real turn off.  The idea is that it should be safe--and a beating that draws blood is never safe (for several reasons).

The rules for our videos are:

1.   No Blood.  The Punisher will stop if it looks like we are getting close to drawing blood.  We want to make sure that there is no permanent scarring (you can't guarantee that if blood is drawn): the real test is the test of pain and the bravery it takes for a man to put himself through it.  Permanent proof of the ordeal can be found in the videos, it doesn’t need to be sported on his back at the beach.

2.   No nudity.  The only skin you will see on our videos is that found on the shirtless backs of men, which cannot be considered nudity.  We have this rule because we feel that flogging is not a sexual experience—it is a challenge.  We do understand that some people derive sexual pleasure from receiving or inflicting pain—or watching it be inflicted—but that’s not what we’re about: We are in this for the challenge.

3.  Only men will be whipped.  We have discussed the reason for this rule before on the blog.  Flogging is a traditional public punishment for men.  Men need discipline and the whip often provided that.  Testing ourselves against the ordeals we know many of our forefathers endured is a way for us to understand how men have lived throughout human history.  Flogging has been an acceptable form of punishment for far longer than it has been banned—and maybe we will see it come back.  However, flogging a woman is barbaric.  Besides, as Mike noted in a comment to the Jan 1 post, “severe whipping is what we male animals need”.  We couldn't agree more.