…and this is a 
This is my body....take....
Category: Art
Posted on: August 10, 2008 6:33 AM, by PZMinion
MAJeff here, playing "host" this Sunday.
The image above is a bit dated. It was a poster produced for last year's Folsom Street Fair in San Francsicso. (For those out of the know, the Folsom Street Fair is a queer leather/BDSM festival.) Of course, the tighty-righties got terribly fussy over it.
Now, if you like your christ-cock a bit more hippie-ish, or if you're a show-tune queen, this might be more up your alley:
That's from the upcoming film, Hamlet 2.
Of course, you could just get your jesus-jizz the old fashioned way:
That's El Greco's Carducho's Stigmatization of St. Francis, which is part of a traveling exhibit of Spanish art from the reign of Phillip III. I saw the show in Boston a few weeks ago. Very nice exhibition, overall.
The erotic had been central to many forms of religious expression, not the least of which are the various "saintly ecstasies." However, move it into popular cultural forms, or turn "the savior" into a black leather queer, and you've crossed a whole lotta lines.
Well, pull out a video recorder. Give him a dildo and you can watch Jesus fucking Christ on your DVD player or via streaming video.
Comments
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 6:58 AM
Jeff,
Just out of curiosity, did PZ know you were going to post this, or did you just surprise him with it?
-jcr
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 10, 2008 6:59 AM
He said post whatever I want. He had no idea of anything I was going to post.
Posted by: wazza | August 10, 2008 7:04 AM
I've just finished reading Corpus Christi by Miri Rubin. Very interesting book... one point was that religious women often had a bit of a sexual thing for their homeboy.
And of course, there's St Teresa's vision of an angel visiting her at night and piercing her with a fiery spear...
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 7:13 AM
So, he trusted you, and you decided to get him another shitstorm like the cracker incident without checking with him first. Nice. Real nice.
It's one thing when PZ decides for himself to freak out the bible-thumpers. It's quite another when you decide to do so for him from the cover of a pseudonym. But hey, what's it to you? Those loonies don't know where you live, or how to send hate mail to your boss, do they? No skin off your nose, is it?
-jcr
Posted by: PaulB | August 10, 2008 7:18 AM
Your selection of a Gay Poster & a portrait of Jesus, works well, like a clenched fist inside a well-lubed latex glove. I am yet to see an image of jesus in which he doesn't look anything but, colourfully exuberant!
Posted by: adavis | August 10, 2008 7:28 AM
The painting is by Vicente Carducho, not El Greco.
Posted by: Ian Robinson | August 10, 2008 7:43 AM
I'm with JCR on this. The only point of this post seems to be to try to piss people off. Lame. Maybe PZ should have just used the delayed posting feature and queued a series of archive posts from a few years ago on interesting science topics, during his break.
Ian
Posted by: brtkrbzhnv | August 10, 2008 7:44 AM
That poster reminds me of the Ecce Homo exhibition that toured Swedish churches about ten years ago. http://www.ohlson.se/utstallningar_ecce.htm
Posted by: Harry | August 10, 2008 7:48 AM
To be honest, if PZ said that Jeff could post whatever he wants, then I imagine that he has tanken into consideration the fact that one of his guest is quite likley stir up a wee bit of a storm, and is fully prepared for it. And, if he will forgive me for being presumptuous, I can imagine him being slighly dissapointed if one of them didn't!
I don't think that the images and video posted here are anywhere near as controversial as the whole "cracker" thing. Not least because these are just re-posts of some things that other people have done and not something that the author of the post has done himself.
Besides, I know we dont often credit the religious masses with having much in the grey matter department, but I think that even they should have the brains to see that this wasnt posted by PZ himself.
Posted by: Kismet | August 10, 2008 7:48 AM
#6 is right. It's Vicente Carducho, not El Greco.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 7:50 AM
The only point of this post seems to be to try to piss people off.
Which is fine and dandy, if the person doing it is going to take the heat himself. PZ might forgive him for it, but from where I sit Jeff has betrayed PZ's trust.
-jcr
Posted by: Harry | August 10, 2008 7:52 AM
Ian, I think that instigating an informed discoussion on the prevailence of eroticism in religous artwork is a fairly valid point of this post. I'd discuss it myself if I knew anything atall about art, but I don't so I'll just shut up now.
Posted by: John Morales | August 10, 2008 7:55 AM
Bah. Talk about nervous nellies and worrywarts.
It's just a guest post, I don't find it particularly controversial.
Go MAJeff.
Posted by: Kismet | August 10, 2008 7:55 AM
Ecstasy of St. Theresa, anyone?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 10, 2008 7:56 AM
If PZ has concerns about what his minions have been posting I am sure he is quite capable of handling it himself. What you think is really unimportant, not least because most people here already have you down as someone who has trouble thinking on occasions.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 8:04 AM
If PZ has concerns about what his minions have been posting I am sure he is quite capable of handling it himself.
Perhaps you missed the little detail that he's going to have very limited communications while he's traveling.
What you think is really unimportant,
Same to you, sunshine.
-jcr
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 10, 2008 8:05 AM
Actually, the points were several.
1) Yes, it as an aim at tweaking some folks. I'll admit it.
2) Part of that flows from my own position in queer movement/theory. Eroticising the public sphere--or pointing out the ways it's already eroticized--and doing so in sometimes transgressive ways is what I do. That, and the next point, explain my own use of language.
3) I was feeling playful. Part of it was just an excuse to use the middle video, which had me laughing my ass off.
4) I added the Carducho (the site where I got it from had it listed as El Greco) specifically to stir discussion on the eroticism in these issues. What's really the difference between a painting of St. Theresa's ecstasy and the top poster? If you look at images of her, she's actually getting off, while they're just sitting there having dinner.
Folks don't like it. I'll email Skatje. If she thinks it'll bring her dad too much trouble, I'll ask her to pull it.
This also reminds me of my favorite comment on the site, ever. Can't remember who said it or on which thread but it was: "Sometimes I think the crucifixion was a daddy-son scene that went horribly awry."
PZ did say anything--well, anything short of kiddie porn were has basic words, and that's a line I'll leave for Cardinal Law.
Posted by: Tom Morris | August 10, 2008 8:05 AM
Concern trolls on Pharyngula? I'm shocked, I really am.
For the background to the Folsom image, have a read of what WingNutDaily had to say. It even quotes everyone's favourite cracker-obsessed Internet lawyer, Catholic League president Bill Donaghue. Guess he thinks that crackers deserve Constitutional protection but gay human beings don't.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 8:07 AM
Yes, it as an aim at tweaking some folks. I'll admit it.
Nothing wrong with that. What's out of line is doing it where someone else is going to take the flak.
-jcr
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 10, 2008 8:10 AM
No, I did not miss that part. I did miss the part where PZ made you the moral guardian of his blog though. Clearly your ego did not feel the need to actually be asked to take on such a role before doing it. The fact that he asked Skatje to delete inappropriate content also seems to have escaped your notice, or you just got pissed off that he put a 17 year old in charge rather than you.
Still it is the kind of behaviour I would expect from a social Darwinian.
Posted by: JoJo | August 10, 2008 8:10 AM
Upon reading John C. Randolph's and Ian Robinson's comments, I'm reminded of one line from Owlmirror's lolcat commentary on crackergate: Concern trolls are concerned.
Personally I think "Rock Me Sexy Jesus" is funny and catchy. It's in the same mode as Jesus Christ Superstar. Sure, some fundies will be appalled, but that's to be expected. So, John and Ian, your concern is noted. You may now go back to libertarian trolling or whatever else you normally do.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 8:11 AM
I did miss the part where PZ made you the moral guardian of his blog though.
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. My objection isn't to the content, it's to the fact that Jeff is bringing this heat on someone else, without clearing it with him first.
-jcr
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 10, 2008 8:14 AM
And that is any concern of yours why ?
What makes you think Skatje is not better placed to deal with inappropriate content than you ? She actually has the power to delete the post, all you can do is bleat.
Really, give your ego a day off, lest your head swell so much it explodes.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 8:15 AM
It's in the same mode as Jesus Christ Superstar.
Jesus Christ Superstar never struck me as satirical.
-jcr
Posted by: Kismet | August 10, 2008 8:19 AM
John: your concern is duly noted. If you noticed, MAJeff is emailing Skatje to verify the appropriateness of the post.
Besides the fact that the first word in the post is MaJeff and the poster is PZMinion, Bill Donahue isn't linking to this post. Godbots are highly unlikely.
Posted by: Valis | August 10, 2008 8:20 AM
Hey, who died and made you god?
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 8:20 AM
What makes you think Skatje is not better placed to deal with inappropriate content than you ?
When did I say anything of the kind?
Really, give your ego a day off, lest your head swell so much it explodes.
Do you have a sixth-grader helping you come up with these? You're not very skilled at it, you know.
-jcr
Posted by: LisaJ | August 10, 2008 8:20 AM
I'm supporting Jeff here. Rock me sexy jesus is frigging hilarious. How could he not post it? And hats off to him for finding a very creative way to do it. I thought we were against censorship here.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 8:22 AM
I'm ready for some serious Jesus jizz. Someone hit me up, please.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 8:24 AM
Bill Donahue isn't linking to this post
You know that already, only two hours after the post was made? I hope you're right.
-jcr
Posted by: John Morales | August 10, 2008 8:25 AM
JCR, I think we get you by now. To carry on is perverse and tedious to others, especially as the author has already accomodated you.
ObT: I didn't know the painter, but I was pretty sure it didn't have the "El Greco" look.
Posted by: BaldySlaphead | August 10, 2008 8:25 AM
Once you've walked around the Vatican and seen that they smashed all the tiny cocks off the statues, you have a pretty good idea exactly how closely the religiously inclined feel their art comes to eroticism.
Would anyone be hugely surprised to hear half of the sculptures the Catholic heirarchy felt the need to vandalise are little boys/ cherubs? Insert your own disapproval here: _________________________
Not my choice of erotica, but entirely reasonable post, Jeff.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 8:25 AM
#29:
tacky, very tacky.
-jcr
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 10, 2008 8:27 AM
When you decided to bleat here rather than e-mail Skatje directly.
You have e-mailed her right ? Only if you did not, it becomes even harder to take your complaint seriously. Maybe we could ask Skatje to confirm when you e-mailed her.
Posted by: Julian | August 10, 2008 8:29 AM
Don't worry about what Randolph says; this shit is tame. Seriously. The argument you're making here is no different than what you'll hear in any intro to art history class in the United States. Heck, such arguments are even made in any history class that touches on the Renaissance or the Romantic Movement. I doubt that Dr. Myers would give a flying flip about this, and on the incredibly unlikely chance that it stirs up something, I am of the opinion, having been a reader and posted here for awhile now, that his reaction won't be to get pissed off at the guest poster, but to shake his head at yet another example of religious fanaticism, bullying, and general insanity.
Speaking of ecstasy and the divine, what do you folks think about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ecstasy_St_Theresa_SM_della_Vittoria.jpg
And if you think that's risque, you should read her journals *wink* But seriously, beginning in the Renaissance and really ratcheting up through the mannerist and baroque movements, sculpture became a genre just absolutely filled with eroticism. One could say that the history of art as image has really just been the story of incredibly expensive, high class porn. :)
Posted by: Kismet | August 10, 2008 8:29 AM
Everyone needs to go watch the Priest Off! video if they haven't seen it before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGZSvdSsoAE
Posted by: Nightcap | August 10, 2008 8:31 AM
Your sensitivity gives you credit, John. You worry not for yourself, but that someone *else* might be offended by this posting, and that it might in some way injure PZ's reputation. Your tender concern for PZ is noted. "As you do unto these, the least of my brethren..."
Come to think of it, that quote could also accompany the Folsom Street poster... :->
Posted by: David Duke | August 10, 2008 8:35 AM
PZ manages to smear Catholics and queers in one blow! (chuckle)
Now, how about some funny picture of Jews and blacks?
Posted by: Mondo | August 10, 2008 8:36 AM
MAJeff you don't need to explain yourself to random concern trolls. Post with impunity.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 10, 2008 8:37 AM
I didn't know that Jeff created this content?
I've seen two of the three pieces before and I know about the Hamlet 2 movie. All Jeff did was collect them. Not sure I see an issue here and I doubt PZ will either.
Posted by: Sili | August 10, 2008 8:37 AM
Boo - beaten to St Theresa.
Jesus Fucking Christ, then.
Unfortunatly Ghastly's Ghastly Webcomic doesn't have a search feature so I can't find the relevant strip there at the moment.
Posted by: John Morales | August 10, 2008 8:37 AM
And the first troll sighting comes about.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 10, 2008 8:38 AM
Posted by: David Duke | August 10, 2008 8:35 AM
PZ manages to smear Catholics and queers in one blow! (chuckle)
Now that's some desperate trolling.
Posted by: Alexandra | August 10, 2008 8:39 AM
JCR, Internet Hall Monitor, not afraid to take names.
Posted by: Logicel | August 10, 2008 8:41 AM
MAJeff's post brought to my mind Normal Bob Smith's dressup Jesus. Dressing Jebus in a pink tutu work wonders for the years of my faking respect for Jebus in order to survive my forced childhood indoctrination. Very liberating and very fun.
http://www.jesusdressup.com/
I always have been intrigued by the prevalence of Mardi Gras type events in various cultures, which combine art, subterfuge, sexual innuendos, identity swapping, all held together with a sticky mix of pagan and religious beliefs.
The almost palpable sexuality that is under the surface of devout religious worship is a great topic for discussion. Religion is supposed to cripple/crush the so-called animal urges, but instead religion keeps them simmering--this innate sexuality of us human animals--hot and close to boiling over.
MAJeff writes: Give him a dildo and you can watch Jesus fucking Christ on your DVD player or via streaming video.
_______
A very creative idea, thanks for sharing!
However, I must wonder if clever and sociologically minded MAJeff is doing something similar to what a psychology lecturer did to a class in which I was a student (several decades ago). He pretended to be a student so he can watch the personality dynamics resulting from the problem that the lecturer is perceived as being absent! If so, then I vote that jcr is given the dunce's cap for his pushy, meddling, almost Christian approach to a non-existent problem. As PZ made it clear that the minions can do what they what to do, therefore they are not doing anything that he does not want them to do. Hence, there is no problem to solve.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 10, 2008 8:44 AM
Try and pay attention. I know it's hard.
Posted by: stogoe | August 10, 2008 8:47 AM
If you're going to shit on everything we do, jcr, perhaps it's time for you to get the fuck out. We get that you're upset that we beat the crap out of your ideology, jcr, but trolling isn't the answer. Just go away.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 10, 2008 8:51 AM
MAJeff, post what you want that is OK by PZ's instructions and the Seed contract. I find censors to be very offensive, and I would call for censoring the censors except for the irony factor that would cause my post to be censored.
The Redhead is an artist, and has dragged me to a few art museums. The amount or eroticism in art, even religious art, is large.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 8:53 AM
You worry not for yourself, but that someone *else* might be offended by this posting, and that it might in some way injure PZ's reputation.
PZ's reputation isn't in jeopardy. Its more about the fact that he's been known to get death threats from people who take their superstitions very seriously.
-jcr
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 10, 2008 8:54 AM
Augh. I meant amount of, not amount or in the last paragraph.
Rev BDC, KoT, you should bestow some lesser titles that those of us with spastic digits.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 8:56 AM
we beat the crap out of your ideology,
Actually, you don't. You in particular try to, but you fail.
Just go away.
Not your call to make, sunshine. If PZ asks me to quit posting here, then I will.
-jcr
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 10, 2008 9:01 AM
Post is fine, what's there to be excited about ? There's not even a penis ? Oh My God !
Now, let's see the concern trolls who get pissed off by this come out of the woods. And I'd like to remind particularly a few of the male british comentators here, that this old victorian prudishness of yours is not something that has afflicted all of us.
And frankly, I'm not surprised with who was the first one to show up !
Posted by: xebecs | August 10, 2008 9:06 AM
And on the eighth day, under the influence of way too many jello shooters, god created trolls.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 10, 2008 9:11 AM
JCR, you have expressed your concern. Most of the other posters, including me, don't agree with you. However, it has almost reached the point where you are trying to bully the rest of us. PZ should not have to be the one to give you a time out. You, who claim to be a responsible adult, should do so on your own.
Posted by: Nana FCD | August 10, 2008 9:13 AM
Out of prurient curiosity, was there a time when the crucified christ was depicted without a loin cloth covering his naughty bits?
Posted by: spurge | August 10, 2008 9:16 AM
jcr posted
"Its more about the fact that he's been known to get death threats from people who take their superstitions very seriously."
and whose fault is that?
Why are you not bitching on some religious site that they send death threats when they are offended.
Quit blaming the victim.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 9:18 AM
You're right guys, I've been a bad little troll. From now on, I'll let PZ get death threats. If something happens to him I'm blaming you all.
-jcr
Posted by: Alexandra | August 10, 2008 9:21 AM
Anyone else spray coffee on their monitor when they read that little gem o' petulance?Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 9:21 AM
I did not post #57. For those who are calling me a troll, I will point out that posting under someone else's name about the most trollish thing you can do.
-jcr
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 10, 2008 9:24 AM
No jcr shouldn't go away.
Prudishness is an important subject that we often fail to discuss on Pharyngula, one of those residues of religion and monarchy that still pervades non religious parts of society.
So jcr and Ian, why are you being so prudish ?
Posted by: Michael | August 10, 2008 9:24 AM
This muscle-daddy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_Shrine_Dome_V.jpg
would fit right into the Folsom poster. But in addition to the (homo-)eroticism in that painting one can't help but notice just how tall/blond/blue-eyed their supposedly Middle-Eastern messiah is.
Posted by: maureen | August 10, 2008 9:24 AM
What sort of "Land of the Free" is this, anyway?
Can't cope with Janet Jackson's nipple decoration! Can't cope with female sexuality generally! Can't cope with gay sexuality! Can't cope with the multiple eroticisms in religious art! Boo-hoo!
PZ is a pretty astute guy. He already knows and loves MAJeff - as do many of us - not just because he too is astute but because he has a sense of humour and once in a while he's outrageously gay.
The boss gave the man the key. Trust his judgement.
Posted by: Kismet | August 10, 2008 9:26 AM
I don't know what's worse: the troll or the troll claiming that he's not trolling and he's being trolled.
Irony meter is breaking
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 10, 2008 9:31 AM
Okay.
WE HEARD YOU ALREADY.
And we decided we don't give a fuck what you think. Case closed.
Every post you make in this thread, after #33 (and some before it), IS ENTIRELY ABOUT YOU and the attention you desire.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 9:31 AM
So jcr and Ian, why are you being so prudish ?
See my post #22 above.
I tweak bible thumpers myself when the occasion arises, but I don't do so in a way that would bring the heat on anyone else. That's what I objected to.
-jcr
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 10, 2008 9:37 AM
My memory might be off, but I think the Folsom Street Fair flap was the first I heard of Billy Donahue and his thin skin.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 9:41 AM
I think the Folsom Street Fair flap was the first I heard of Billy Donahue and his thin skin.
First I heard of him was in an episode of South Park.
-jcr
Posted by: wazza | August 10, 2008 9:42 AM
I'd just like to point out that I called St Teresa first...
also, has anyone else seen those crucifix dildos?
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 10, 2008 9:43 AM
GrammarRWA
it's obvious that #29 and #57 are fakes. They should be deleted by mdoderator. This is not tolerable.
jcr's #33 was in reaction to someone using his pseudonym to post #29, so obviously, it had to be entirely about him.
It gets crazy when someone starts using someone else's pseudonym. This should never be tolerated.
I actually thought it was impossible but apparently there's no assocation of pseudonym with email, so we have to trust that people don't do it, and the moderator needs to intervene if this happens, otherwise it gets really messy.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 10, 2008 9:46 AM
Whoever is doing it, stop fucking posting under other people's names. Not cool.
Posted by: JoJo | August 10, 2008 9:47 AM
As has been said numerous times, your concern is noted. We're all impressed by how you valiantly strive to protect PZ's reputation and keep him from harm. Hooray for you. You're deserving of the John Ashcroft Award of Greatness in Sanctimony (Pat. Pending).
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 9:48 AM
It gets crazy when someone starts using someone else's pseudonym. This should never be tolerated.
Actually, I don't use a pseudonym. I've been posting under my own name since the days of dial-up BBS's and FIDONET.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 9:49 AM
Whoever is doing it, stop fucking posting under other people's names.
Thank you, Jeff.
-jcr
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 10, 2008 9:50 AM
I mentioned "after 33" because 33 was understandable for that reason. Unfortunately after all the concern trolling from JCR, 57 isn't obviously a fake. Of course no one should hold it against JCR for clarifying that someone is impersonating him. The easiest way, though, would be for JCR to declare that he will say nothing more about the issue. Then the impersonator will have nothing to work with.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 10, 2008 9:51 AM
jcr,
there must be something with the content of MAJeff's post that leads you to believe that it could bring heat on PZ.
Can you elaborate please ?
Posted by: Aquaria | August 10, 2008 9:52 AM
Art on a science blog?
Niiiice!
Sheesh how can anyone bitch about linking religion and erotic art? As if the Sistine Chapel isn't teeming with tons of examples, and a frightening number of them homoerotic. Nah, there's nothing curious about a bunch of supposed angels who look suspiciously like human males, naked and coiled around a long, thick, white column.
If the erotic in art bothers the cracker munchers, they'd better stay away from their great cathedrals!
Great post, Jeff. Thanks!
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 10, 2008 9:54 AM
*vigorously slices at wrists and throat*
Posted by: bric | August 10, 2008 9:55 AM
That Fulsom Street poster has of course come in for criticism elsewhere, with the strangely familiar refrain from Andrew Sullivan "Next year, guys: do a similar parody on a sacred Muslim scene, if you have the balls. Easy, cheap blasphemy impresses no one." I have to admit (despite being old, English and male)to always being impressed by cheap, or even expensive, blasphemy.
As Michael Petrelis points out, that splendid anti-clerical Luis Bunuel created a similar scene in Viridiana http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2007/09/savage-sullivan-unaware-of-bunuels-last.html
And we recall the wholly positive effect of the ludicrous Gay News Blasphemy trial in 1977 http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/11/newsid_2499000/2499721.stm
The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name
by James Kirkup
As they took him from the cross
I, the centurion, took him in my arms-
the tough lean body
of a man no longer young,
beardless, breathless,
but well hung.
He was still warm.
While they prepared the tomb
I kept guard over him.
His mother and the Magdalen
had gone to fetch clean linen
to shroud his nakedness.
I was alone with him.
For the last time
I kissed his mouth. My tongue
found his, bitter with death.
I licked his wound-
the blood was harsh
For the last time
I laid my lips around the tip
of that great cock, the instrument
of our salvation, our eternal joy.
The shaft, still throbbed, anointed
with death's final ejaculation.
I knew he'd had it off with other men-
with Herod's guards, with Pontius Pilate,
With John the Baptist, with Paul of Tarsus
with foxy Judas, a great kisser, with
the rest of the Twelve, together and apart.
He loved all men, body, soul and spirit - even me.
So now I took off my uniform, and, naked,
lay together with him in his desolation,
caressing every shadow of his cooling flesh,
hugging him and trying to warm him back to life.
Slowly the fire in his thighs went out,
while I grew hotter with unearthly love.
It was the only way I knew to speak our love's proud name,
to tell him of my long devotion, my desire, my dread-
something we had never talked about. My spear, wet with blood,
his dear, broken body all open wounds,
and in each wound his side, his back,
his mouth - I came and came and came
as if each coming was my last.
And then the miracle possessed us.
I felt him enter into me, and fiercely spend
his spirit's final seed within my hole, my soul,
pulse upon pulse, unto the ends of the earth-
he crucified me with him into kingdom come.
-This is the passionate and blissful crucifixion
same-sex lovers suffer, patiently and gladly.
They inflict these loving injuries of joy and grace
one upon the other, till they die of lust and pain
within the horny paradise of one another's limbs,
with one voice cry to heaven in a last divine release.
Then lie long together, peacefully entwined, with hope
of resurrection, as we did, on that green hill far away.
But before we rose again, they came and took him from me.
They knew what we had done, but felt
no shame or anger. Rather they were glad for us,
and blessed us, as would he, who loved all men.
And after three long, lonely days, like years,
in which I roamed the gardens of my grief
seeking for him, my one friend who had gone from me,
he rose from sleep, at dawn, and showed himself to me before
all others. And took me to him with the love that now forever dares to speak
its name.
Posted by: llewelly | August 10, 2008 9:58 AM
John C. Randolph, #4:
I guess you weren't here when PZ posted about the chocolate Jesus. It's unlikely that this post will generate a 'shitstorm'. It's even less likely that PZ would be upset even if it did. I'm sorry, but I think your concern is misplaced.
As others have pointed out, MAJeff's post would not be unusual in a college art history class.
PS, Nana, FCD, the Cosimo Cavallaro's chocolate Jesus, which my link is about, depicted Jesus without a loincloth in luscious chocolate.
Posted by: Lee Picton | August 10, 2008 9:58 AM
#55 //Out of prurient curiosity, was there a time when the crucified christ was depicted without a loin cloth covering his naughty bits?//
As a kid, I sometimes wondered how that little wisp of cloth managed to stay up, but it never occurred to me that the linen bit was a sanitizing fiction, since crucifixees were, of course, as I later found out, nailed up buck nekkid. When I began to review crucifix crotches, I noticed something else bizarre - there was NO BULGE under said wisps. Ah, the questions that raises. Was the wonder worker a dickless wonder himself? Or was the offensive part so teeny weeny, the wisp was to conceal the lack of manly proportions? And that little bit of linen - it's so clean looking! Does no one want to face what really happens to a corpse just after the last breath has been taken? I think I'll stop here, as I don't like the visual either.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 10, 2008 10:02 AM
GrammarRWA,
I think it is obvious that 57 is a fake. And 59 is authentic, so are all following ones.
The only other possibility would be that 57 is authentic and all following ones are fakes, which is invalid because that would mean that the real jcr would have never complained about someone using his signature.
Posted by: MH | August 10, 2008 10:02 AM
Hamlet 2 looks like fun! Predictably, some Christians posting on IMDB are exhibiting fatwa envy.
Kismet #36, that was hilarious! If only it worked.
If you like irreverent, biblically themed musicals, AD/BC is great. Click here to watch it. (Duration: 28 mins)
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 10:06 AM
negentropyeater ,
there must be something with the content of MAJeff's post that leads you to believe that it could bring heat on PZ.
Can you elaborate please ?
It's on PZ's blog, not on Jeff's blog. PZ is the person whose real name is associated with this site, whose home and office addresses are easily discovered, and who has already had some rather lurid death threats sent his way by people who are clearly unhinged.
-jcr
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 10, 2008 10:08 AM
I was thinking of this this morning, but couldn't think of what to do with it.
One of the things I find interesting about the sado-masochistic homoeroticism of the Folsom Street poster as compared with something like Passion of the Christ is how erotic violence is or is not acceptable. Controlled violence applied to the body for pleasure and which can be ended via the utterance of a particular word is a big ol' no-no. Uncontrolled violence used to harm someone who cannot escape is the basis for eternal salvation. The visceral thrill of torture is more acceptable than the embodied thrill of participation. Violence unto death is ok, but not violence unto orgasm.
Posted by: Alexandra | August 10, 2008 10:09 AM
Michelangelo's Last Judgment on the Sistine chapel wall (much later than the ceiling job) caused a jcr style "shitstorm" due to the unconcealed wobbly bits. Google "Il Braghettone" for the story of the church's response.Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 10, 2008 10:11 AM
I guess you weren't here when PZ posted about the chocolate Jesus.
Yes I was, and the key difference is that he posted that himself.
-jcr
Posted by: MarkW | August 10, 2008 10:12 AM
negentropyeater:
It doesn't afflict all of us male Brits either.
I'm surprised at JCR's reaction to this post.
Posted by: MH | August 10, 2008 10:13 AM
Lee (#80) wrote: "Ah, the questions that raises. Was the wonder worker a dickless wonder himself? Or was the offensive part so teeny weeny, the wisp was to conceal the lack of manly proportions?"
Well, if Jesus was indeed born of a virgin, and God didn't impart any holy DNA, then the only explanation would be that he was a product of parthenogenesis, and was an XX male. From Wikipedia:
So, in answer to your second question, Lee, yes. :-)
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 10, 2008 10:15 AM
GrammarRWA,
I'm still interested to know what is his "concern". As said earlier, I suspect that jcr is being prudish. So I'm testing this. I'm interested with this subject (see post 52). If you aren't you don't have to follow the conversation.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 10, 2008 10:20 AM