Forced Nudity as punishment

[DaleHenry30]

I’ve noticed there’s a difference in perspectives on nudity. Fetish nudists feel empowered and want to be seen nude in public. However, for most people being nude in public would feel humiliating. It would feel like inferiority to others who wear clothes. Consider the famous “Shame! Shame! Shame!” public nudity punishment scene from Game of Thrones.

I like the story theme of criminal or civil court judgments that sentence the guilty person to forced public nudity. The judge might announce that the guilty has lost public clothing rights for 5 years.

Sounds too cruel? I think masochistic readers would enjoy the humiliation of imagining themselves as the guilty person enduring forced public nudity.

During the punishment time period, the guilty person could hold only nude employment.

It sets up unique narratives for individual lives. Once the guilty’s punishment time was complete and they were wearing clothes again, they’d want other people to forget the shameful years they were nude.

Former coworkers showing up with old nude photos of them would guarantee that the shame wouldn’t necessarily end with the end of the judge’s punishment time.

A husband and wife might lie about their past not wanting people to know that they met when she was still nude in public paying for her crime.

A financially corrupt or criminal underworld family might have only one member still wearing clothes, the rest all nude.

The biggest sign of a high social status family would be all family members having clothing rights in public.

 

[tnhardon]

I’ve noticed there’s a difference in perspectives on nudity. Fetish nudists feel empowered and want to be seen nude in public. However, for most people being nude in public would feel humiliating. It would feel like inferiority to others who wear clothes. Consider the famous “Shame! Shame! Shame!” public nudity punishment scene from Game of Thrones.

I like the story theme of criminal or civil court judgments that sentence the guilty person to forced public nudity. The judge might announce that the guilty has lost public clothing rights for 5 years.

Sounds too cruel? I think masochistic readers would enjoy the humiliation of imagining themselves as the guilty person enduring forced public nudity.

During the punishment time period, the guilty person could hold only nude employment.

It sets up unique narratives for individual lives. Once the guilty’s punishment time was complete and they were wearing clothes again, they’d want other people to forget the shameful years they were nude.

Former coworkers showing up with old nude photos of them would guarantee that the shame wouldn’t necessarily end with the end of the judge’s punishment time.

A husband and wife might lie about their past not wanting people to know that they met when she was still nude in public paying for her crime.

A financially corrupt or criminal underworld family might have only one member still wearing clothes, the rest all nude.

The biggest sign of a high social status family would be all family members having clothing rights in public.

The year is 2040 and justice reform has finally come to a head. Prisons are overflowing with inmates and the government has to make radical changes in order to get out of their problem. Prisons now will only be reserved for the most major of crimes. Anything beyond life in prison or the death penalty will now be punishable by “old school methods”, public nudity being one of them.

The judge in the town the story takes place, reserves the nudity punishment only for people they find attractive (male and female). Instead of fines for traffic tickets, he issues week long nudity sentences to beautiful women and men, while less attractive are subjected to other punishments. Suddenly, all of the beautiful people in this town are almost always naked.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

The year is 2040 and justice reform has finally come to a head. Prisons are overflowing with inmates and the government has to make radical changes in order to get out of their problem. Prisons now will only be reserved for the most major of crimes. Anything beyond life in prison or the death penalty will now be punishable by “old school methods”, public nudity being one of them.

The judge in the town the story takes place, reserves the nudity punishment only for people they find attractive (male and female). Instead of fines for traffic tickets, he issues week long nudity sentences to beautiful women and men, while less attractive are subjected to other punishments. Suddenly, all of the beautiful people in this town are almost always naked.

Now, that has definite possibilities!

 

[LupusDei]

The year is 2040 and justice reform has finally come to a head. Prisons are overflowing with inmates and the government has to make radical changes in order to get out of their problem. Prisons now will only be reserved for the most major of crimes. Anything beyond life in prison or the death penalty will now be punishable by “old school methods”, public nudity being one of them.

The judge in the town the story takes place, reserves the nudity punishment only for people they find attractive (male and female). Instead of fines for traffic tickets, he issues week long nudity sentences to beautiful women and men, while less attractive are subjected to other punishments. Suddenly, all of the beautiful people in this town are almost always naked.

I would call it "Disciplinary Dresscode Doctrine" and claim that the original sponsors of the legislation did not intend forced nudity to become part of it, allegedly didn't foresee such at all. Their idea was to introduce harsher variations of soft punishments like house arrest and various probation regimes by publicly marking those people with purposefully introduced uniforms mandated by their sentencing.

Yet, in effort to keep the wording broad and flexible, the law said something along the lines "persons sentenced under the DD Doctrine are not allowed to wear any clothing other than the select attire ordered by the court," so... It's possible to interpret it in a way that all and any punitive court ruling default the sentenced person to mandatory nudity, unless a selection of clothes is explicitly ordered.

The Doctrine is adopted and becomes universal default without realization (or at least without publicly acknowledging) this possible peculiarity. The typical rulings as written at first only issue preset standard uniform in the aforementioned cases where a punishment between "stealthy" impeded mobility or house arrest regime and full on prison term is sought, as per the explicit intention of the original authors of the law.

Until, that is challenged, sooner than later. I see several vectors of attack that may or not occur in near unison without coordination, but taking inspiration from one another.

One, a mismatch could occur out of simple technical error. A person could end up erroneously prescribed with non-existent uniform, out of a simple typo in the ruling. Or alternatively, while the uniform is indicated correctly, but somehow that scheme is new to the municipality, or there been some changes and the contents of the uniform aren't defined. There's perhaps several more possibilities of similar. The convict may attempt to wear the apparently intended uniform, or some "known" variety of similar, but, let's say their accusers are extra vindictive and challenge that, or some such happen, and so they end up naked.

Second, some persons with nudist or exhibitionist leanings may willingly seek confrontation claiming that since their ruling didn't indicate any specific clothing, they should be nude, and allowed anywhere while so. I could even imagine it to be almost accidental defense of someone caught in indecent exposure. Alternatively, opposition to the new doctrine could issue just such a challenge deliberately, thinking they will prove the law absurdly erroneous. Uniting people with different, even diametrically opposite aims this can lead to spontaneous broad grassroots movement of "nude convicts" or some such.

Third, of course, a creative or particularly perverted judge may just explicitly sentence someone to nudity, because they obviously can now. Perhaps especially if they're amused or annoyed by the absurdity of "nude convicts" activities.

In any case, the law stands, even though the interpretation changes in what one might say a radical way. There's second order consequences that can be of particular interest: now every termed conviction has to assign clothing, accordingly to "what's not allowed is prohibited" principle, so, even if it says that "general clothing of their choice" is allowed to a particular convict, are they allowed to wear a swimsuit? Perhaps not, and even underwear could be challenged.

 

[ThanksForAllTheFish]

I could imagine a world where public nudity is bought in to punish anti social, but not dangerous, crimes. Arson, insurance fraud, perjury, etc.

Then we could have an unassuming, generally law abiding citizen, who works as a university lecturer, therapist, or maybe even police officer. When she was in her twenties her sleazy ex boyfriend encouraged her to engage in some tax avoidance, which now, a decade later, has just been discovered after he was arrested for more serious crimes.

Offered the choice between a short prison sentence or three months without clothing, our unfortunate heroine must now adapt to living her previously respectable and unassuming life completely naked.

 

[LupusDei]

Even a very liberal, nudity positive society where it's technically allowed and tolerated (but still likely not very common, simply for various practical reasons) to be nude anywhere anytime could find use for such a disciplinary measure. Actually, it's such a society that could be even more likely to implement some form of Disciplinary Dresscode Doctrine explicitly including nudity, I would believe.

Even if it's considered to be no biggie and just akin mandatory social work or similar, taking the clothing choice away is a punishing restriction on one's freedom. And when talking about prescribed clothing choices, nudity may not be the worst. Especially if it's something people are free to, and at least some people may occasionally choose out of free will.

Unique to status, clearly marking and perhaps intentionally humiliating uniform could be much worse, at least in theory. Yet, for every their own, some would still find the nudity the most dreadful.

 

[Np81la]

I’ve noticed there’s a difference in perspectives on nudity. Fetish nudists feel empowered and want to be seen nude in public. However, for most people being nude in public would feel humiliating. It would feel like inferiority to others who wear clothes. Consider the famous “Shame! Shame! Shame!” public nudity punishment scene from Game of Thrones.

I like the story theme of criminal or civil court judgments that sentence the guilty person to forced public nudity. The judge might announce that the guilty has lost public clothing rights for 5 years.

Sounds too cruel? I think masochistic readers would enjoy the humiliation of imagining themselves as the guilty person enduring forced public nudity.

During the punishment time period, the guilty person could hold only nude employment.

It sets up unique narratives for individual lives. Once the guilty’s punishment time was complete and they were wearing clothes again, they’d want other people to forget the shameful years they were nude.

Former coworkers showing up with old nude photos of them would guarantee that the shame wouldn’t necessarily end with the end of the judge’s punishment time.

A husband and wife might lie about their past not wanting people to know that they met when she was still nude in public paying for her crime.

A financially corrupt or criminal underworld family might have only one member still wearing clothes, the rest all nude.

The biggest sign of a high social status family would be all family members having clothing rights in public.

The criminals could be used as live doll and or models, for anatomy classes or in art exhibits, sex education classes, etc..

 

[Anton25]

I’ve noticed there’s a difference in perspectives on nudity. Fetish nudists feel empowered and want to be seen nude in public. However, for most people being nude in public would feel humiliating. It would feel like inferiority to others who wear clothes. Consider the famous “Shame! Shame! Shame!” public nudity punishment scene from Game of Thrones.

I like the story theme of criminal or civil court judgments that sentence the guilty person to forced public nudity. The judge might announce that the guilty has lost public clothing rights for 5 years.

Sounds too cruel? I think masochistic readers would enjoy the humiliation of imagining themselves as the guilty person enduring forced public nudity.

During the punishment time period, the guilty person could hold only nude employment.

It sets up unique narratives for individual lives. Once the guilty’s punishment time was complete and they were wearing clothes again, they’d want other people to forget the shameful years they were nude.

Former coworkers showing up with old nude photos of them would guarantee that the shame wouldn’t necessarily end with the end of the judge’s punishment time.

A husband and wife might lie about their past not wanting people to know that they met when she was still nude in public paying for her crime.

A financially corrupt or criminal underworld family might have only one member still wearing clothes, the rest all nude.

The biggest sign of a high social status family would be all family members having clothing rights in public.

Check out : https://www.literotica.com/s/at-twenty-five

 

[SteelPoint]

Hmm... I don't want to be the one pouring cold water...

... but what about cold water pouring (from the sky) and other inclement weather stuff? This could be a nastier judicial sentence from a practicality viewpoint than any "humiliation" consideration.

 

[LupusDei]

Hmm... I don't want to be the one pouring cold water...

... but what about cold water pouring (from the sky) and other inclement weather stuff? This could be a nastier judicial sentence from a practicality viewpoint than any "humiliation" consideration.

All such scenarios default to mild oceanic subtropical climate with no noticeable seasonality unless specified otherwise. Light rain at 26°C isn't at all that unpleasant even if may feel weird for a first timer.

On the other end, modern urban setting minimises exposure to uncontrolled environment to near nothing. In cities with advanced subterranean systems one may not go outside for days and weeks while fully functioning in society. Not to mention a future setting may take place inside an arcology, a vertical city-in-a-supper-building. "Outside" there is a controlled atrium of the N-th floor, even if it's mile wide.

Even if that's not an option, it's at most few hundred metres runs between buildings or building and transport. Guess what, one can easily do that naked in literal snowstorm without ill consequence, even if with undeniable discomfort. Heck, there's we got guys riding bicycles in just speedos all winter through (at 56° parallel north). Sure, that requires some training.

That's probably the easiest thing to wave away of their all.

 

[Reenigam]

All such scenarios default to mild oceanic subtropical climate with no noticeable seasonality unless specified otherwise. Light rain at 26°C isn't at all that unpleasant even if may feel weird for a first timer.

On the other end, modern urban setting minimises exposure to uncontrolled environment to near nothing. In cities with advanced subterranean systems one may not go outside for days and weeks while fully functioning in society. Not to mention a future setting may take place inside an arcology, a vertical city-in-a-supper-building. "Outside" there is a controlled atrium of the N-th floor, even if it's mile wide.

Even if that's not an option, it's at most few hundred metres runs between buildings or building and transport. Guess what, one can easily do that naked in literal snowstorm without ill consequence, even if with undeniable discomfort. Heck, there's we got guys riding bicycles in just speedos all winter through (at 56° parallel north). Sure, that requires some training.

That's probably the easiest thing to wave away of their all.

And defaulting to the easiest, non-challenging write with scant regard for credibility is the standard default for most Lit. "writers", I can't help but noticing.

 

[Carnevil9]

And defaulting to the easiest, non-challenging write with scant regard for credibility is the standard default for most Lit. "writers", I can't help but noticing.

"Credibility" is not always that important. Jonathan Swift, Lewis Carroll, ER Burroughs, HP Lovecraft, and JRR Tolkien all wrote great classics without a shred of credibility, as have many others. Being interesting, thought provoking, and internally consistent is much more important.

 

[Rob_Royale]

I'm thinking of a society where people will walk about with their servants like we would our pets. The servants are the most beautiful and handsome of the low born masses. They are kept naked but highly decorated with jewelry and scarves and meticulously groomed and made-up. It's a source of pride to have a beautiful pet. Sometimes they use the pet in full view of the public or allow others to do so. Knowing others are jealous of what they have. "Daisy, would you please fellate the Marquis, while he's waiting for his wife to finish shopping?" Or "David please tuck yourself beneath my skirts and make me cum? I feel a headache coming on. That's a good chap."

Not so much a punishment, just an acknowledgement of social status.

 

[CuttingEdge]

I think nudity as a punishment was something that was done quite often in previous eras. An example might be, a lawless western town where a lady was accused of a crime. It was common in that era for a lady to be publicly whipped, but do you really think they did that with her dressed? Do you think in medieval times accused prisoners went to the dungeons dressed? Heck no, just as armies taken captive were stripped naked and paraded through the city, and wives of these same captives were made to be indentured servants for the wealthy. After watching a best friend get sliced open with a battle axe, do you think the conquered army wives are going to have any clothes on as they take out the chamber pot? The frilly maid outfit we know today came from something, most likely maids who normally wore nothing and made to do more than just make the masters bed.

Today we have rights granted to us by our forefathers, but San Quinton Prison still has a section (unused and just preserved) that had hooks on the ceiling where prisoners were hung naked, or put into cells with walls and ceiling; nothing to sit or lay on, no ventilation or light, and to force them to stand up, they flooded the cells with water. That was in 1850!!

For a plausible story, a writer could easy do a historic-erotica story and get this theme in.

 

[LupusDei]

I think nudity as a punishment was something that was done quite often in previous eras.

I don't think in the examples you provide (except perhaps the maid case, with is also most dubious) the nudity as such had any importance in the context. The modern nudity taboo is very very young. Back then, it meant nothing, especially the functional nudity (as opposed to sexual, those are two very different things), and most of your examples are just that.

 

[CuttingEdge]

I don't think in the examples you provide (except perhaps the maid case, with is also most dubious) the nudity as such had any importance in the context. The modern nudity taboo is very very young. Back then, it meant nothing, especially the functional nudity (as opposed to sexual, those are two very different things), and most of your examples are just that.

Maybe you're right? I am not sure, I would certainly have to research the history of nudity a little more to be swayed one way or the other.

I just do not see nudity as being a modern taboo.

I would think, even if you took a lady or a man in the deepest jungle and subjected them to full nudity before strangers, they would feel ashamed of some sort, and well aware that they are naked. I am well aware of the National Geographic images gracing their pages of African Tribesman and woman being naked, but I think some of that was for sensationalism in print. Among family and friends in an inundated area with oppressive heat; I can see them being unclothed and uncaring, but being naked before strangers? I think anyone would be aware they are naked.

To me that is just a normal human element: take our clothing off in any era and climate and there is a feeling of vulnerability and humiliation.

 

[LupusDei]

I just do not see nudity as being a modern taboo.

You're right and you're not. Nowadays we want extremely simple yes/no answers. It doesn't work like that, it's complicated.

Indeed, perhaps the closest who come (or remained, of relatively recently observed) to complete full time nudity were amazonian people where the extent of "clothes" was a string men worn to support the penis. And that was it, unless you go and classify carriage items as clothes, but nothing was designed to intentionally conceal some body parts. African Pigmey people were close to that too. Both were deep rainforest cultures. Leave the shadow of trees and need for some body armor goes up steeply. Some kind of functional clothing is ubiquitous from there on.

Among family and friends in an inundated area with oppressive heat; I can see them being unclothed and uncaring, but being naked before strangers? I think anyone would be aware they are naked.

You assume people who relocate two or three times a year according to seasonality, many miles on foot, carrying everything on their own back, have concepts equal to Sunday clothes. You may not be wrong, they had, but my impressions had been that mostly consisted of excessive jewelry and sometimes body paint. And what you likely saw on posed pictures was almost certainly that, the parade uniforms.

There's two very different concepts, open sexuality and functional nudity. One had always had at least some level of mystery, taboo, around it, especially on the highly formal, official level (and that's what usually captured by stored history). However, throughout most of history fully avoiding some level of functional nudity, including public nudity was simply unreasonable, full oppression of human form was impossible, and it was not a problem, it's natural. But Since that distinction is by a great deal in the eye of the observer, the exact division differ wildly between cultures.

Everyone knows the Crete dress, an elaborately sewn outfit that supports but do not cover woman's breasts, belonging to a culture before Mycenaean Greece. But in what context it was actually worn? Honest answer would be that we have no idea.

The Hellenic Greece we sometimes see as some utopian clothing optional society? Nada. Read carefully, they were damn prudes. There's the art, but to what extent that's just normalized pornography?

Women could be killed for peeping on the Olympic games, the men competing naked. Meleager casually kill two men for peeping on Atalanta bathing in a spring durin the Calydonian boar hunt. Well, the guy was badly infatuated with the girl himself, it could have been pure jealousy even though he was yet to win any favors at her. But it doesn't seem like that, at least it's presented as fully justified. But, it's sexual, in the context. And the fact that Atalanta was naked bathing, in a break in the middle of the day, the only woman in an assembly of heroes on an epic monster hunt, that fact is self explanatory. Of course she's naked, how else would a person bathe? It's honor of the men camping right there not to see it. She doesn't need to hide.

Romans, they were by far more relaxed actually. The public batch complexes, you think clothes were worn in those? Art is often shy, showing absurd modesty drapes that just randomly happen to conceal strategic places. Those were a whole day affair to attend, leisure. They survived collapse of empire and were built and maintained all through Europe up to seventeenth century when religious fervor shut them down on suspecting prostitution blossoming in them. Well, that could not been without merit, but sounds like any regular modern public outrage campaign.

Then it wasn't until early twentieth century when public nudity was once again almost normalized in western Europe, but that trend was reversed around second world war and been downhill since, but the real bad fervor campaign against nudity is just the last quarter century. Dark times we live through.

I could dig up an image here where the last Russian Tsar nonchalantly pose naked in front of a mass of just as naked soldiers running into the river, in first days of the Great War (1914). Of course, his teenage daughters aren't in the frame. No, I won't claim that they were in the scene at all, even less with no clothes on, but they were present in the resort and swimsuits were the norm only during the mixed hours of the beach.

Yes, the regulated beaches (a few miles out of three hundred of the beachfront we have) were time segregated back then. Women hours, men, and mixed. The later required swimsuits. But there's photos from late twenties of Jūrmala (literally, Seaside) beach packed at it's fullest with women and children (boys under 14 were allowed during "women" hours) and there's not a swimsuit in sight. That division reflected the traditional home batch sauna culture, sauna too would be attended by men an women in turn, or by couples, with the difference that clothes in sauna are insulting to the sauna spirit.

My grandfather claimed swimsuits were invented by communists just to screw up the order of the world. He was somewhat wrong, of course, but as countryman, he easily could have never encountered the garment until after the second world war and communist occupation it brought.

Boys swam naked in school pools in America until something like sixties if not seventies (would have to look it up). Attempt to ban girl swimsuits (for clogging filters, the wool dropped lint) come too late in the thirties, was local and extremely short lived, unfortunately.

To me that is just a normal human element: take our clothing off in any era and climate and there is a feeling of vulnerability and humiliation.

To me that's a cultural construct, a perpetuated trauma inflicted in early age. Nudity is the normal form, the default, the ultimate freedom. By suppressing that the mind is damaged, easy to control. Enslaved.

 

[SteelPoint]

"Credibility" is not always that important. Jonathan Swift, Lewis Carroll, ER Burroughs, HP Lovecraft, and JRR Tolkien all wrote great classics without a shred of credibility, as have many others. Being interesting, thought provoking, and internally consistent is much more important.

That's a dangerous route to go down.

It all depends on whether you are writing something which, you are trying to persuade the reader, could well be happening. In that case, you need to make things plausible, connected to matters familiar to him/her and rooted in his/her experience of the world. If not, sure, let it rip and have as many dragons, tentacles and deus-ex-machina, lazy-writing plot twists as you like. Many readers are indeed none too demanding in what "provokes their thoughts".

 

[CuttingEdge]

To me that's a cultural construct, a perpetuated trauma inflicted in early age. Nudity is the normal form, the default, the ultimate freedom. By suppressing that the mind is damaged, easy to control. Enslaved.

This was truncated for space considerations only, and in no means to dispel your otherwise intriguing and well respected words on the matter. They too are situations to consider on the matter and mean no disrespect on their omittance.

I get what you are saying too in the quoted passage. Having five daughters I have seen it, and can attest keeping clothes on an infant is an almost impossible task, and trust me on this... a huge sense of frustration when you need to get somewhere fast. From house, to car, to shopping center, somewhere in there you are going to have to redress an infant a time or two! In that, there is just something inherent in that, being naked is a natural phenomenon, and only is removed as the infant grows and is indoctrinated to learned behavior.

I am not so sure we should draw that conclusion however.

A child's mind is still developing, so with that line of logic, it could be said that shitting and pissing all over themselves is a perfectly natural act and so we should do that now. That is not the case though. In modern days we are taught at 2 years old or so to properly use the bathroom, and while the toilet is a modern invention, previous to that and going back to caveman days, kids quickly learned to properly sit on a fallen tree, a back section of the cave, or an outhouse. The point is, as kids developed, their behaviors adapted because their developing minds realized they needed to act differently.

It is no different with clothing. An infant has no control over their clothing. They cry when they are cold, cry when they are hot, just as they cry when they are soiled with urine or feces. With clothing we just see an infant taking off their clothes and we deduce, "it is a natural occurrence and we have later taught kids to stayed clothed", but that may not be it. It could very well be, kids realize the value of clothing only when their developing minds catch up.

As you said, clothing is complicated. Clothing is not necessarily bad, and nudity is not necessarily good, just as it is not the other way around. I propose there is no greater gift then to stand before the person you love in complete nudity; all flaws and physical characteristics bared for them to see. It is not something we offer to a lot of people in our lives, and in that context is wonderful; the ultimate gift. But clothing also protects us, from the environment, predation of other humans, and human ridicule. It definitely has its place and as parents it is best for us to teach that to our children early so they are not hurt by that. That is not indoctrination, but rather proper parenting. I certainly do not need a 40 year old pervert staring at my naked 2 year old daughter. She does not understand yet that such a person exists. Since I cannot just shoot the pervert in the back of the head, my only recourse is to keep my children dressed, and teach them the importance of staying dressed. That is not indoctrination, that is protecting my children from a harmful world.

I think the modern take on nudity is not because of puritan morality principals from years past, but because of broader media. They say today a lady is subjected to 600 images of what the ideal female form a lady should look like. Almost no lady feels as if she measures up to that, and it is not much better for men. In that we have greatly reduced our self-esteem. We are not covering up more because of it is being imposed on us, we are just not taking off our clothes because we are ashamed of ourselves as never before.

Myself, my little kink is woman who are publicly nude. I do not care about their body shape so much as I just think they are brazen to do what they do. To have enough courage and stamina to strip down, and be naked in public, is so rare these days that when done, it is a thrill to see. It is not just the act itself, for me it is because the act of public nudity shows how their mind is working, their 'screw the rules mindset', and bare all.

 

[allthetimeitsthere]

I'm thinking of a society where people will walk about with their servants like we would our pets. The servants are the most beautiful and handsome of the low born masses. They are kept naked but highly decorated with jewelry and scarves and meticulously groomed and made-up. It's a source of pride to have a beautiful pet. Sometimes they use the pet in full view of the public or allow others to do so. Knowing others are jealous of what they have. "Daisy, would you please fellate the Marquis, while he's waiting for his wife to finish shopping?" Or "David please tuck yourself beneath my skirts and make me cum? I feel a headache coming on. That's a good chap."

Not so much a punishment, just an acknowledgement of social status.

There was a sci-fi movie with a similar theme.............it ended badly for the society........

 

[dschuetz68]

Interesting thread

 

[Samantha47]

I'm thinking of a society where people will walk about with their servants like we would our pets. The servants are the most beautiful and handsome of the low born masses. They are kept naked but highly decorated with jewelry and scarves and meticulously groomed and made-up. It's a source of pride to have a beautiful pet. Sometimes they use the pet in full view of the public or allow others to do so. Knowing others are jealous of what they have. "Daisy, would you please fellate the Marquis, while he's waiting for his wife to finish shopping?" Or "David please tuck yourself beneath my skirts and make me cum? I feel a headache coming on. That's a good chap."

Not so much a punishment, just an acknowledgement of social status.

Sounds wonderful

 

[CuttingEdge]

China's only Female Emperor Wu Zetian was very similar to what is being described here. She actually went out and explored the world much like Christopher Columbus. But when she was disposed of power, her exploits and adventures were buried from general history.

It has been claimed that when explorers from other nations came to her country, she would take them into a private chamber where the men were expected to give her oral sex. It was pretty simple. If she achieved orgasm, they lived. If they did not, they were beheaded.

Puts a whole new spin on, "giving head".