What kind of mummy do you like?

5 (71.4%)
0 (0%)
1 (14.3%)
1 (14.3%)
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 6

Voting closed: August 03, 2016, 08:41:06 pm

Author Topic: Standard vs Hogtie Mummy  (Read 4561 times)


  • Guest
Standard vs Hogtie Mummy
« on: July 20, 2016, 08:41:06 pm »
I had been wondering...I have read a lot of stories of mummies with their legs straight down.  The way they wiggle and show off their curves have always been pleasing.

However, some people take mummification to a practical level and instead write mummies with their legs pressed to their asses, eliminating any chance they have to escape.

So it makes me wonder...if you only had one roll and someone to wrap, how would you go about immobilizing them?  Do you plan to make a simple mummy or do you make them experience total helplessness?


For the poll, you can also choose to explain any other unique mummification positions.  I already listed two more:  Being ball-tied usually means knees to chest and feet to bum, a blockier shape that greatly reduces movement.  Puppy-style is what Cocoa-Soft is known for, but generally it's wrapping hands to shoulders and feet to ass cheeks separately to give an "amputated" look.


  • Guest
Re: Standard vs Hogtie Mummy
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2016, 02:09:09 pm »
I'll go with the simple or standard position. It's true the others are more immobilizing, but they are a cramped, uncomfortable position and not suitable for long 'sessions'. And I agree, the others just don't accent those curves as well as the standard position.

However, there are ways to achieve full immobilization with the standard position if a splint or pole is used. While a splint may be uncomfortable, a mop or broom handle under the wrapping will remove all possibility of movement except perhaps nodding of the head. And even that movement can be removed if one is wrapped upright to a column or post.  ;)
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 11:20:13 pm by Andreas »

Offline siobhann

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Standard vs Hogtie Mummy
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2016, 08:37:28 pm »
Well, I choose standard.  As far as my fantasies go, I like the time it takes to do a standard mummy, the longer legs mean a longer time getting bound.  That's my two cents.


  • Guest
Re: Standard vs Hogtie Mummy
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2016, 08:13:50 am »
I'm a traditionalist.

I want my mummy to be secured for as long as I want them to be rather than until they cramp up or get into other kinds of trouble.

...and its fun to watch the wiggling :)

Offline Lobo De la Sombra

  • Global Moderator
  • Bound & Gagged
  • *****
  • Posts: 186
Re: Standard vs Hogtie Mummy
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2016, 09:52:04 am »
Bet you're lots of fun on fishing trips.
"Come on, catch some fish."
"But I'm having so much fun watching the worms wiggle.  They're giving me the nicest ideas."
The more I look, the more I see.
The more I see, the more I learn.
The more I learn, the more I know.
The more I know, the less I understand.
The less I understand, the more I look.


  • Guest
Re: Standard vs Hogtie Mummy
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2016, 01:39:54 pm »
For general usefulness with security, I'd have to go with standard mummification on a board or pole. *voted here*

However, the mummified ball tie is quite appealing as well and doesn't have to be super uncomfortable.


  • Guest
Re: Standard vs Hogtie Mummy
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2016, 09:01:27 pm »
The poll looks long over, but from what I can tell, the general pose by mummies thousands of years ago is still prominent even today.  Heck, most mummification stories go this way.

Well, I suppose the answer was pretty obvious, though it's nice to see that it's not the only answer here.


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk