When I learned of the following ad from Right Wing Watch, I was immediately disgusted at the advertisers.
And so were two ex-gay activists.
The ad, for a San Francisco S&M fair for glbt and heterosexual people, did not target impressionable family audiences and it is apparently hard to find in print, even in San Francisco.
But no matter: It turns a cherished and peaceful religious celebration of unity and brotherhood into a carnal display of certain medically dangerous behaviors. It also portrays gay people as the antithesis of Christians — in other words, as antichrists.
While there may be a role for controversial art in society, such for-profit advertising at the expense of people of faith — including gay people — can serve no legitimate, civil, or constructive purpose. Gay people of faith can and should join others in thwarting prurient advertisers who capitalize upon the denigration of peaceful religion and brotherhood and who promote certain medically condemned activities among at-risk populations.
Unfortunately, as I will demonstrate momentarily, people like ex-gay activist Stephen Bennett apparently do not want helpful allies and they do not really want to solve problems. Like so many pro-lifers and pro-choicers, Bennett seems more interested in the cultural warfare itself, than in resolving issues or affirming shared community values.
Exodus’ Randy Thomas, on the other hand, reacted with admirable restraint — perhaps an unnecessary degree of restraint, given the severity of the offense.
But first: Stephen Bennett reacted to the offense with justifiable emotion. However, instead of channeling his anger constructively at the advertisers or seeking allies among sympathetic gay and gay-tolerant people of faith, Bennett unleashed a tirade at the “Sick Perverts in San Francisco.”
Once again, San Francisco prepares for the perverted Folsom Street Fair where homosexuals, sadomasochists and others gather for public displays of nudity, beatings, group sex and public masturbation — PART TAX PAYER FUNDED — with police just standing by and watching.
Bennett’s press release eventually addresses the issue at hand, and demands that national gay rights activists and sponsors repudiate the Folsom Street Fair — a reasonable request, in my opinion, but too late given his sweeping tirade against all gay people and especially against gay people of faith:
This is the most vile, vulgar and disgusting public display of filth I have ever seen in my life. There is no doubt a double standard when Christians and Christianity are mocked by homosexuals and degenerates in such a blatant, vile and sick way. Where is the media outrage over this event? We Christians will no longer tolerate this abuse nor be silent.
I cannot reprint all of Bennett’s comments here, as many of them are X-rated. It is sufficient to say that I’ve become accustomed to Bennett’s desperate grabs for attention from Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association. Bennett, the truth be told, has never been “silent” or “tolerant.”
However, at the ex-gay network Exodus, Randy Thomas’ reaction could not have been more different. In fact, if I may be so bold, I’d like to suggest that Thomas was unnecessarily timid. In a comment on gay journalist Chris Crain’s blog, crossposted to Thomas’ personal blog, Thomas said:
I am not sure that you are quoting scripture with your blogpost title but the full scripture I am thinking of is when Christ was being crucified and He said, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”
These folks knew what they were doing to some degree. They are getting all kinds of free advertising with it. Their “fair” will be even more of a deal this year and next as more people learn of it.
That said, I don’t know that they see the whole picture.
The thing is…Christ would forgive them for mocking Him if they were to see their need for forgiveness and ask. I am not offended … I expect this kind of reaction at times. Scriptures say that this type of blasphemy and hatred will happen.
I can choose to not take on offense so I don’t.
If anything I am saddened… Deeply saddened on two levels. The first being that the Atonement is full of love, selflessnes, sacrifice and resurrection that transcends beauty itself. To see it twisted this way is truly, and I say this honestly, heartbreaking.
The second level is that each person in that photo is loved by the very God being mocked. They are treasures to Him. When He looks on them He doesn’t see them defined by their proclivities… He sees each person’s soul. He knows each one of them by name and every moment of their life. How His heart must break to see them abuse and dehumanize one another in the name of sexual gratification.
So mocking the establishment of the sacraments and what they stand for is one thing…dehumanizing the precious people in the picture is another.
Some choose to be offended and have hatred toward those involved in the ad and the fair. Some on both sides will use it to fuel more of the culture war. I am not offended (by choice) but I am heartbroken (a feeling I can’t stop.)
Fair enough, Mr. Thomas. But the ad — its lewdness, its suggestions of medically dangerous acts, its inversion of the values of faith, love and self-sacrifice — are indeed offensive and should be repudiated. Chris Crain and Andrew Sullivan — two famous gay journalists — agree. And if journalist Randy Shilts were alive, I’m confident he would agree as well.
I would go further and say the fair itself should be repudiated by those people who respect religion (or public health) and who might otherwise attend a gay-themed event.
What is medically dangerous in this picture? You use that term twice, but I don’t see anything in the table or being worn by the participants that would hurt someone – as long as it was done properly and not screwed up.
But any sex act can be medically dangerous if done improperly, I mean, heterosexual PIV sex and anal sex without proper lubrication can cause some pretty nasty tearing.
So what of the other parodies and takes throughout history of the Last Supper? I was just on the Stranger (Dan Savage’s blog) and looking at the extensive list of other parodies of the SAME scene, but its all of a sudden a problem when we do it. Why is it when gay people, (because gay= equals kinky and there are women in that picture as well, but again, GAYZ) does a take on it then it is all of a sudden ‘wrong’?
It might be surprising but did anyone ever wonder if anybody in that picture or the photographer of said picture were Christian? How do the “Christians” own Christianity- as if other people are not able to take it and give their opinions and feelings on it.
They are pissed off- so who the hell cares? That Sodom story kinda pisses me off but they won’t let up about that, will they?
This is another case of these guys victimizing themselves in an effort to seem persecuted. Because really- that picture is being shoved in their faces every waking moment. And how is it hurting them? How is losing their job over this? Is some Butch bear in a learther harnass coming to their doors and demanding to be their “Daddy”? You’d have to LOOK for it to be offended by it.
It’s just insane and I hate that its even made to be this Christian v. Gay thing. It’s a take on a piece of art from a kinky and homo-friendly perspective. The persecuted christians don’t own Jeebus as they like to think they do.
Thanks for posting my comment in its entirety Mike.
If you’re offended by the ad, then don’t go to the Folsom Street Fair.
There is no Constitutional protection from being offended.
Mike, I think you are one of the best commentators on the site, and I always respect your opinion; however, I think you are totally off on this. The Last Supper painting is an iconic painting but has NO religious value. It is a depiction of a Biblical scene, but anyone who has taken a art class knows that the original painting even has blasphemous elements. John, the Beloved, has always been seen as the lover of Jesus. His effeminate features and actions suggest a sexual componant. Some of the figures were plays on political figures at the time. It was a reverent parody to begin with. The Folsom parody seems to have little to do with religion and everything to do with the painting. I see very little making comment on religion. There have been scores of parodies of the painting over the years as seen on Dan Savage’s site. Why do they not engender anger? Is it only because the Folsom picture is about alternative sexuality? What does that say about gay people who condemn the parody? Are we uncomfortable with anything that may offend? The picture is pretty witty and well done. As far as religion goes, the S&M community often plays with religious imagery–and that goes back centuries (Hellfire Club anyone?). Religion is restrictive–sexuality is freeing, so the imagery works together.
What disturbs me more than anything is that Da Vinci has become a saint and prophet. That is a new development. No one worshipped the painting or its contents, but now it is a sacred relic. Right?!? I love freedom and expression. If people can’t handle that we live in a free society that should challenge, they need to evaluate their place in society. We should encourage this. Religion should also not be put on a pedastal without question. We should challenge the images presented to us. Religion is not perfect.
As a Christian-who-happens-to-be-gay-and-not-into-leather-or-fetish-scenes, I do not find the Folsom poster to be offensive. I see the poster as a parody of da Vinci’s famous painting — not the last supper. Remember the painting is merely part of pop culture — not a historic record of a Biblical event (see joke: “Then Jesus said, ‘Hey everyone, sit on this side of the table so we’re all in the picture.”).
As Dan Savage has pointed out, the same folks have not fervently criticized the numerous other parodies of The Last Supper painting. So far, I haven’t heard an outcry about Fox’s Homer Simpson “mocking” Jesus. So let’s be honest. The controversy isn’t really about Christians’ reverence for da Vinci’s painting, but about who is making the parody: unrepentant gays.
Certainly, the Folsom Street Fair is offensive, but no more offensive than the numerous other sex-oriented ventures out there from strip clubs, porn, to TV, movie, beer ads, and Hooters. What about the “medically dangerous behaviors” these business ventures promote (i.e. promiscuity and unsafe sex)?
Amen Norm! And I am also not a member of the leather scene (no interest). Actually, of all the parodies, the Simpsons’ one is the one that struck me as the most shocking. But it’s the Simpsons.
If you go to the Folsom site, the picture was winner of the poster contest. There are other posters that make fun of Hindu gods too. Would people be up in arms about that?
Oh, please! Why is it that anything is open to parody, humor and satire except the religious beliefs of some people.
And since the Folsom Street Fair is, as you said, for gays and straights alike, why are you assuming it “portrays gays people” as antiChrists? Is the assumption that anyone in the satirical photo is gay? How does that differ from the jumps in logic that the fundamentalist extremists love so much?
And who the beep are you to say whether or not this services a legitimate, civil or constructive purpose.” There are plenty of people who think any critique of religion serves a constructive purpose. And speech need not serve any purpose except to express the views of the speaker. It does not need to serve some “greater good” but can be an expression of an individuals right to express their views. Your premise seems wholly collectivistic — that any expression must serve a social good or it shouldn’t take place.
I have no interest in S&M and some practices are no doubt risky or dangerous. But from what I know most has little to no risk. To use a blanket statement that the poster promotes “medically condemned activities” is just false. And it is these kind of broad, dishonest statements routinely made by people with religious obsessions that is the precise reason that it is constructive to ridicule their beliefs. There is no logical argument that will work since few religious people were reasoned into their faith they won’t be reasoned out of it. But it is perfectly legitimate to laugh at the absurdities they spout and particularly fine to laugh at them when they get their bun tied in a not that anyone dare laugh at them. As HL Mencken said: “One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogism. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent.”
Personally if I wanted to show people a good reason to laugh at the faith-ridden it wouldn’t be the photo. It would be this column and its horrified tone that anyone dare laugh at them for asserting mystical beliefs without substance that contradict the laws of science and logic.
I personally think that to use terms like “severity of the offense” makes you sound more like one of the Islamic extremists that someone raised in the Englightenment West. But then your central beliefs are the antithesis of Enlightenment thinking and did come out of desert tribalism.
And if the world tried to avoid offending people who imagine themselves with some sort of divine belief nothing would be allowed. People given over to such mythology are easily and often offended. That is one reason they are so often objects of humor — they act so absurdly.
The medically dangerous practice that I referenced is fisting. There are at least two fisting devices on the table.
I appreciate certain aspects of the leather scene. (And while this is off topic, I see value in the nudist scene as well.)
However, the poster is not about that. It is about fisting and sexual passions run amok and a depiction of gay folks as anti-apostles partaking in an anti- last supper, meditating before an altar of sex toys.
I agree that the religious rightists (CWFA in particular) are hypocritical nuts, excusing or affirming lots of other parodies. But I wasn’t talking about them. I was contrasting Bennett and Thomas, expressing my own very strong religious and public-health objections, and hoping that other people will look beyond their own march in lockstep with whatever side they’re on, in the culture war.
The two things that I like about the poster are its portrayal of Jesus as dark-skinned, and its portrayal of the apostles as outcasts. That’s about it. That poster deserves to be wrapped in a giant condom.
If that’s how you peceive and interpret the poster that’s fine. However, I find the suggestion that everyone else (even just everyone of faith) must approach it with the same perception and understanding objectionable. It is possible for reasonable people to see things differently without anyone being guilty of “marching in lockstep” with anyone.
Mike, the fisting part I disagree with. I see the hand dildo, but like many sex items, they can be novelties. Second, there are women in the picture, and it is not unusual for some women to use that type of item for other things. It is not called fisting in that case. It is just a bunch of sex items on a table like food. I did not start thinking about how they would be used.
Airhart:
So XGW readers and LGBT supporters who disagree with you are merely marching in lockstep and have no legitimate criticisms of your viewpoint? That seems to be a very dismissive attitude.
I find Thomas’s sadness for the models in the photo to be somewhat patronizing — especially when you consider that he probably feels the same pity toward all gay Christians and non-Christians. I would not make any assumptions about the sexual, spiritual, or psychological health of the models in the photo are — nor would I assume their health is any better or worse than anyone else. Certainly Thomas can attest to the fact that conservative Christians can be just as kinky, promiscious, and sexually dangerous in their secret lives.
When I saw the poster, I thought it was a depiction of the leather community poking fun at itself by showing how serious many of them can get over something that is simply recreational and, frankly, humorous. Leather costumes make me laugh. Extreme sexual poses can be sexy, but when it gets all serious, as if the “masters” really ARE “masters” or these slaves are ACTUALLY “slaves,” as some do, it just strikes me as hilarious. Sex should be fun. Sexual fantasies are fun and this poster is one way the organizers are skewering themselves.
As for the Christian right, they always know they can get attention by finding some sexual sub-culture and splashing the photos all over their websites and pulpits. It makes for great fundraising and allows them the chance for huge amounts of self-righteous indignation.
Randy Thomas should be commended for not falling into the “let’s start a new war” trap. That’s the easy way for cultural warriors to keep up the fight and pretend they’re actually doing something for God (aside from padding their paychecks and radio airtime).
The Folsom Street thing involves a limited bunch of people in a small area on one street once a year. No one is forced to watch it or see it. It’s the “Christians” who are lending it publicity and visibility. And that, of course, is their ultimate goal.
Have you ever even been to the Folsom Street Fair? It is NOT a gay pride festival. It is a fair for SF’s leather community. Having wandered through the Folsom Street Fair myself, I think the advertisement is spot-on. It’s exactly the kind of stuff you’ll see at the fair. And the Folsom Street Fair isn’t for the GLBT community, it’s for the BDSM / Leather community, regardless of sexual orientation.
I made a comment on another more conservative news site. But i’ll just throw this out.
I dont personally agree with the ad. I dont think its the worst ad they could have put out. But i think they did step into hot water.
As an artist i understand that the satire of pieces can serve a purpose. But the larger question of this is what is being satorized?
I’d like to point a bit of irony in all of this. Christians hold tight to the iconography painted by Leonardo Da Vinci (commonly thought to be gay).
I just think its funny Christians dont realize who was gay in the first place. They support our (gay) community, (alumni of our group anyway) more than they think.
Beyond that my question is if its wrong to poke fun at a creation, just as others have for years. Or are the creators simply making an attack at Christianity, and those who they feel have hurt them?
Just questions, but a bit of perspective too.
Lemme know what you guys think?
Much love
Mike G.
Norm wrote:
You’re onto something there. I was analyzing why the Folsom Street ad had so little impression on me, and I think it’s to do with that particular image. I don’t see it first and foremost as a parody of a biblical story or religious figure, but as a pastiche of a pop culture icon. A bit of a pop-culture cliche, really.
I LOVE LEATHER… for shoes, belts, and wallets.
But the idea of dressing up in strips of leather is no more sexually exciting to me than dressing up in strips of drip dry cotton/poly blend. And if anyone approached me in a leather doggy mask I think it would just make me giggle.
Is the ad tacky? I think so. Is it offensive to those who hold imagery of Christ sacred? Yeah, probably. Is it a big deal? Nope.
I’m more inclined to adopt Randy’s position. Yeah it is probably an intentional slap at Christianity, but it is an ignorant slap. The irony is that from what we know about Christ’s life on earth, he might well attend the Folsom Fair to “eat with sinners”.
I was analyzing why the Folsom Street ad had so little impression on me, and I think it’s to do with that particular image. I don’t see it first and foremost as a parody of a biblical story or religious figure, but as a pastiche of a pop culture icon.
I was raised conservative Protestant. We didn’t actually believe that the icons were actually pictures of Christ. In fact, we avoided such imagery as being slightly idolitrous.
But I understand how some conflate the imagery of icons with the actual Christ and would then be offended.
I don’t think they were attacking Christianity, specifically. I think this is a phony issue trumped up to get publicity for the anti-gay political right wing. As for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, may they go on forever. Their attacks on hypocrisy always hit the target.
Sorry, Mike, I don’t think you get to have it both ways on this.
If, as you maintain, the consensual performance of sexual acts with which you disagree is antithetical to your religion (and kudos, by the way, for channeling almost every homophobe out there), and hence the poster portrays these people “as antichrists” and “as anti-apostles”, then it actually means that the anti-Christ is black, not Jesus himself. And of course, some of the anti-apostles, should such things exist, are women.
Or it could just be a parody.
As a committed vegan, I find the ad to be utterly offensive. 😉
It’s a sacriligeous poster that goes way too far for my personal sensibilities but apparently not for alot of other folks.
I do think Michael raises a great point with the aspect of DaVinci’s sexuality and we could take that further with the entire history of art and why those peices were painted in the first place. (who commission and paid for them, what were the motives, etc…) Suffice it to say, none of your typical fundamentalist Christian type stuff going on in any of those households.
If you were a child in the 70’s like me, you may have eaten dinner under that thing for most of your life. Or, at the very least walked down your hall past it on the way to bed each night. So, this thing becomes part of your subconcious, to the point that you can’t get the image out of your mind when the actual last supper is mentioned or discussed. Maybe this is why it’s so offensive to so many. I don’t know.
But, it is. Although, in the grand scheme of things, it’s just a stupid poster.
If you were a child in the 70’s like me, you may have eaten dinner under that thing for most of your life
Yeah Pam, but I have a suspicion you weren’t scoffing down a good charcoal baked bread, some tabouli, some tasty sheep cheese, a grilled sardine, and a handful of olives??? With a measure of young red wine.
Come to think of it — school lunches must have been wild in 0 BCE!
(We could enjoy all that now, but … toast and Vegemite is only on offer… we need a maid)
The original painting certainly is not sacred, at least I don’t personally think Da Vinci was a deity. But many people grew up learning to hold what it represents as dear to their hearts. I’m sure there was little doubt about the reaction this parody would elicit, and don’t personally care for it.
I hope we haven’t devolved to the point that the only deciding factor in any action is whether or not it is constitutional. Of course they have the right to do what they want. People have the right to portray gays in all sorts of ways which don’t reflect reality, but that offends me at times as well.
I may be alone in the idea that gratuitous offense, no matter what you may think of the other party, shows a severe lack of class, but that’s how I was raised. I don’t mind going to the mat over an issue of civil rights, but I see little hear worth defending.
BTW, Timothy, didn’t you get very upset over a Chrysler ad last year that featured a Tinkerbell like figure? Do you consider this more or less offensive?
Nope, G/D……like many 70’s generation kids…..we had the 5 night Bible-belt rotation of fried chicken, chicken fried steak, spaghetti, some sort of mushroomy saucy gloopy thing with noodles, and then pizza on Fridays….not delivered. On weekends there was the grand treat of those Swanson tin foil wrapped TV dinners or, if we were REAL good….fried balogna!
Those foods, eaten under The Last Supper, might be almost at sacriligeous as that poster! heehee!
Would the gay Leonardo DaVinci today create such an ad or approve of such a parody?
I think not.
Mike,
I didn’t mean the point of him being gay in that he would create the parody….I mean that a gay man created such a sacred religious icon. It’s not less sacred because he was gay.
Sorry if I was misleading.
Sorry for multiple postings….but…it’s also no less sacred just because the family that paid him to paint it was WAY less than Christian in their behaviors.
The images referenced in this ad are not owned by Christians. It’s a damn painting by a gay man (Davinci). I just wonder where all the outrage was when the Simpsons, the Sopranos, That 70’s Show, Mel Brooks, George Carlin, Black Sabbath, Nas, Gilmore Girls, Con Air, South Park, the WWE, MASH, and Dilbert created satires of the famous painting.
What is this outrage really about? It’s about being uncomfortable with sex in general and S&M in particular. I’m not a member of this community, but I have no problem with this ad. In fact, I find the poster beautiful for it’s depiction of raw sensuality.
Shoot. I tried editing that last comment before the time loop got me….and it didn’t work.
I do agree with your article, Mike. I personally find it offensive.
But, the painting is sacred because people make it sacred….and the poster is stupid and can’t take that away from the painting OR the meaning of the actual last supper.
What I hate most about the poster is that alot of folks see things like that and attribute it to ALL gays….and that poster is as much about straights as gays. It’s just about sex, and a certain sort of sex, right? And yeah, it’s offensive to me to mix all that in with the little ten buck picture I ate all those dinners under as a child. Because all those dinners meant something to me just like that painting does. But then, I’m not going to that Fair anyway, so….que’ sera!
Pam — “chicken fried steak”.
Well, that’ll certainly help push you toward your maker! Heart attack in a grease bowl…
Trying (squinting my eyes, real hard) to imagine what the last supper would have looked like if your 1970’s school had done the catering.
(Of course I see you in a Halston knock-off… spaghetti straps.. gardenia behind your ear… rather large hair, flipped outwards… someone with lots of chest hair is asking you to dance)
Nope… cannot see Jesus with fired balogna… must be missing something.
(and, please, do not ask us what they called a log of bologna in the Navy… )
I’ve never seen any of these particular parodies except for Mel Brooks in the History of the World movies, and I found that depiction at least tacky, perhaps offensive – it was a long time ago!
Wow, you captured many a 70s moment in great detail 😉
Dan Savage has done a good job of documenting these other references to The Last Supper at https://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/other_last_suppers_wheres_the_outrage
/snort
but hopefully we were only joking in Pam’s case.
David, you age yourself too rapidly at times, ya know
/meaow
for the record….i’m not into chest hair…..not that I’m looking for another husband….and certainly not HERE!! haha!! been there, done that!
🙂
Oh, thank heavens!!!
Pam has worked out XGW is not an undercover straight dating service. We were really starting to feel the pressure…
And for the record… I like my boy’s chest hair. He likes mine. To be fair, neither have it heading off over our shoulders and confusing people if we are man or beast… enough is more than enough, but he’s also not a 12 year old girl for goodness sake.
Prob’ly more info than y’all wanted to know, I guess. As always.
we’re going to get our typing fingers slapped for being off-topic…but…
when i want to really “bug” mr. roberts I tell him i have a secret wish that he’ll turn straight…..that gets him EVERY time! heehee!!
I understand re: Leonardo, Pam — I was simply trying to say to folks that DaVinci’s gayness does not seem relevant to me in this case.
Should the religious-rightists honor the fact that their religious icon was created by a gay artist? Absolutely. Does the gay source justify abuse of the source and his creation by San Francisco profiteers who are only half-gay? Not really.
Yah, but Robert told us about his secret wish for you.
… not gonna happen, we told him. 😛
When you find Mel Brooks tacky and offensive, you’ve got a serious problem, and I am not joking around here.
If I had just seen that ad, it would never have occured to me that anyone would find it offensive. But I’ve also had little contact with people who are extremely religious, so their ways often seem alien to me.
I’d like to know how many times militant non-Christians have complained about “bastardized” versions of art, music, literature or film, Christian creators have had their hands in? Several months ago Westboro Baptist youth parodied “We Are The World” with “God Hates The World” and no one screamed loudly, over-analyzed or threatened a boycott. Christians are famous and infamous for taking secular works of art and manipulating them and rarely does a negative peep come out against them.
I am a Christian and am not offended by this image, because like most people with the ability to differentiate between fact, fiction, parody and reality- I see what the artist behind it was thinking– advertising revenue, personal and creative validation, humor etc. But those who dislike it, instantly believe it was designed to jab an eye out or poke the heart of a faithful Christian. It ain’t necessarily so!
I could get justifiably riled up about the pharmaceutical industry’s media frenzy towards Erectile Dysfunction, sleeping medication, birth control advertisements and lay claim that they are promoting hazardous health practices and addiction to side effects- instead, I turn my head or mute the sound- not because I am a superior individual, I happen to possess the ability to differentiate reality from fantasy and fact from fiction.
BTW, Timothy, didn’t you get very upset over a Chrysler ad last year that featured a Tinkerbell like figure? Do you consider this more or less offensive?
Very upset? Odd wording choice. I did strongly object, as you know.
The difference is that the Chrysler add was premised on the notion that Chrysler drivers would sneer at the effiminate character and hold themselves to be superior. I don’t think that was the intent – or even the function – of this parady.
While it is mocking of the values held by those who hold the imagery sacred, I don’t think it was to intended to mock them as people or to declare themselves to be superior. Though, of course, I could be wrong.
Would the gay Leonardo DaVinci today create such an ad or approve of such a parody?
I think not.
He was more conservative than his contemporary Michealangelo so perhaps not. Although he could have gone the other way and wanted much more nudity and more people draping theirselves on each other – he did seem to like that a lot.
Fisting is inherently medically dangerous? I don’t buy it. I’ve head that it is more dangerous for men who are fisted anally then women who are fisted vaginally, however the key is always TONS of lube. And as I said before, as long as you don’t screw it up, it is usually fine. I don’t buy that your critique has a thing to do with the remote medical dangers, I think you’re just grasping at some straws to try to “prove” why this depiction of BDSM is bad.
Fisting is inherently medically dangerous? I don’t buy it. I’ve head that it is more dangerous for men who are fisted anally then women who are fisted vaginally, however the key is always TONS of lube. … I don’t buy that your critique has a thing to do with the remote medical dangers, I think you’re just grasping at some straws to try to “prove” why this depiction of BDSM is bad.
I agree Sarah, that’s the classic red-herring frequently used by the conservative and religionist crowd to demean any lesbian/gay/bi/trans sexual practice- they are part and parcel of the anti-gay argument. Any sexual practice can be harmful depending on the context and situation, however we infrequently broach that discussion because it’s much more acceptable to point out and scapegoat the “nasty, medically harmful practices” of the Leather and Fetish community.
I’m an artist and I studied art history for 4 semesters in college. I was under the impression that Da Vinci was a pederast, not a homosexual. He had an adolescent that “assisted” him and I think stayed with him the rest of his life. I don’t consider men who like kids or teenage boys to be homosexuals.
He had an adolescent that “assisted” him and I think stayed with him the rest of his life.
I’m assuming this assistant didn’t remain an adolescent for the rest of his life?
Gee, thanks Sarah, that should gain us some wonderfully off-topic Google traffic 🙁
Let’s avoid tutorials or detailed descriptions of sexual practices of any type. We try to be work-safe.
@ Timothy
Very upset / strongly objected – it was just my quick description. I wasn’t implying anything 😉
I was out looking for materials for my punk class at a local punk oriented record shop. They had Last Supper mints, lunch boxes, socks, playset, and I am sure there were other Last Supper items elsewhere in the store. I once bought a Satan fish there.
Look, I’ll be the first to say that free speech should be allowed and that many times even well-intentioned censorship goes too far. And people know by now that I’m not Christianity’s biggest cheerleader.
But honestly, you have to take context into consideration here.
sexual minorities and Christians have been at odds in the culture wars for many many years. It is no coincidence to me that this S&M group chose to parody a distinctly Christian image. Very often i think the whole “out and proud” thing as a whole can be seen as an act of rebellion. I don’t need to flaunt the fact that I’m queer, and I’m perfectly content going about my normal life – but if someone starts demeaning me because of my orientation, it makes me WANT to flaunt it, just to show that I’m above them and I’m not ashamed. This group used a Christian image that represents men considered to be holy as sexual “deviants.” (Look, kids, irony!) It’s sort of like “sticking it to those Christians” or something.
I have to say that the presence of a black Jesus figure made me roll my eyes. it’s been done before. Another “rebellious” idea that many artists have done to death. On the whole, as a piece of graphic work, I don’t have a very high opinion of it. The whole parodying of the last supper has really been over-done (as can be evidenced by numerous citations of parodies here on this board). The work as a whole is pretty unoriginal and rather uninspiring. It’s like a point was trying to be made but instead it just fell flat.
I think Emily is on the right track.
Emily, I think you are right that it is overdone, but realize this is for a local fair that is fairly large, but I don’t find a lot of originality in similiar type situations. Even the LA County fair has pretty cliche posters and phrases. That said, I wholly disagree about reaction. When I saw the poster, I did not think Christian at all until people started screaming about it. I saw one thing–the Da Vinci picture. I did not even think of the African-American figure as Jesus. I just saw an allusion to the original. I suspect many people aren’t going to see religion in it just like they would not in the Simpsons parody. Why? Because it is cliche.
In my English classes, students will unknowingly use cliches. It is a part of culture and it does not register with additional meaning. That is why cliche language is also known as dead language. If the Folsom Street poster is also cliche, it is working off a dead image. I can believe honestly that it was not done with malice in mind. Now, if I saw a Christ figure tying a naked man to a cross in a sexual manner, I would be shocked. Why? Because the image is more original.
Lastly, these posters are directed towards people in alternative sections of San Francisco: Castro, Haight, etc. That is not exactly sticking it to Christians because these are areas that would be more non-traditional to begin with. Also, we forget that the Last Supper has been in the news the last few years because of the Da Vinci Code—I think simply it is an overused image. Malice I can’t determine. The image also allows for a certain diversity that American Gothic can’t provide.
Ah gee… I’ve seen worse at a KISS concert back in the 70s. I was made to wear somewhat the same for a KISS concert. Gay boys should not try to be straight with a lesbian with an agenda. They know all to well how to control you… and that the way to your heart isn’t through your stomach.
You all missed the Pete’s tirades which are in a variety of Christian online publications (see: GOOGLE Search). This particularly was taken from Crosswalk (www.crosswalk.com/news/11555188/):
Eh…..
“Eh” is pretty much my response as well, except to say that Pete really does seem to have an unusual fascination with the gay S&M crowd. I used to think it was just poking fun at him when people said that, but how many of these things does one need to attend to understand what it’s all about?
Certainly there must be a larger group of straight people doing this stuff, wouldn’t he fit in better with that crowd? Or then again, has he already found his crowd?
All censorship goes too far, well intentioned or not.
How about this…
I suppose and sometimes my black friends and I will shake our heads and what seems the luxury that white folks can have to consider the ‘slave/master’ thing, the object of fun. Especially as a sexual fetish.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for folks doing their thing in that way if they don’t hurt each other.
But I think you all might understand if a black person, the descendent of real slaves and with the legacy of slavery still fresh in our consciousness…I think you’d understand if some of us looked on this as very, very…strange.
A few years ago, when I saw Snoop Dogg attend a public event with two black woman on dog leashes…I personally wanted to kick him from here to Kingdom come and assay the sisters on those chains that no amount of money is worth seeing any black person in chains for any reason.
Mike,
As a Christian I am not offended by this poster, but I am offended by gratuitous insults at easy targets. I think it is childish Christian-baiting. To live in a pluralistic society, respect is needed on all sides.
Supporters say that Christians should understand that this is just a “parody” or that Christians have no understanding of art, or “camp”
Well, Christians can do parody too.
Look at the silly Folsom Street Fair press release that justifies this. Then compare it with my parody:
September 25, 2008
FOLSOM STREET EVENTS™ LAUNCHES POSTER DESIGN FOR 25th ANNUAL FOLSOM STREET FAIR™
Poster image draws inspiration from the annual Islamic Hajj, in a poster entitled: Masjid al-Harem.
Folsom Street Events has released its latest poster design for the 25TH Annual Folsom Street Fair. This year, the official poster, drawn by renowned artist Theo van Gogh, uses well-known community members as players in a strikingly original interpretation of the annual, worldwide pilgrimage to Mecca. The poster is the second in a series that draws from well-known paintings, album covers, movie posters, or other iconic images. Community members celebrate exuberant sexuality by donning their S/M regalia, and dancing around not the Kaaba, but a 10 story phallus.
According to Andy Copper, Board President, “We are extremely pleased with the outcome of this poster, and we are looking forward to a particularly inspirational event season. There is no intention to be particularly pro-religion or anti-religion with this poster; the image is intended only to celebrate the sacred roots of raw sexuality. It is a distinctive representation of diversity with women and men, people of all colors and sexual orientations. Just as Mecca draws people of all races throughout the world, we hope people from all continents will come come celebrate with us!”
Folsom Street Events acknowledges that many of the people in the leather and fetish communities are spiritual and that this poster image is a way of expressing that side of the community’s interests and beliefs. This year, Folsom Street Fair is dedicated to “San Francisco Values,” previously used against the San Francisco community for its support of sexual diversity and now used by Folsom Street Events as a way to reclaim power by the fetish community.
Andy Copper, adds “We hope that people will enjoy the artistry for what it is – nothing more or less. Many people choose to speculate on deeper meanings. This is one artist’s imagining of a pilgrimage that is at one both sexual and sacred – all we did was adopt the iconography of Mecca and make it our own. The irony is that homosexuality has a long and wonderful history in Islam. In truth, we are going to produce a series of inspired poster images over the next few years. Next year’s poster ad may take inspiration from American Gothic by Grant Wood, the flag raising at Iwo Jima, or even Raphael’s ‘The School of Athens’ – community members are already preparing for roles in that one!”
When asked about the murder of the poster artist, Theo van Gogh, and the worldwide rioting that has claimed dozens of lives, Copper said: “I guess it wouldn’t be Folsom Street Fair without offending some extreme members of the global community, though.”
Regan,
I once saw some S&M thing wherein some white guy was flogging a black guy. Even though it was more show than pain and that all were willing participants, I found it to be deeply disturbing on some visceral level.
As a member of the Leather/BDSM community, quite frankly Mike, I am offended by your comments. I realize that kinky sex is not for everyone, but that is no reason to take potshots at the whole community – particularly over a poster that, as many have pointed out, parodies a famous painting that is in no way a sacred icon (and this is from someone raised Catholic).
The watchwords of the mature, responsible leather/BDSM community – both straight and gay – are “safe, sane and consensual.” No one is being forced to do anything – if you don’t like it, don’t do it. I can assure you that most of the attendees at the Folsom Fair are either gawkers looking for the freaks or leather-wearers who are not into the kinky stuff. Like everything else, there is a wide variety to the community. Personally, I believe you have to be hard-wired for kinky sex the same way someone is hard-wired to be gay or straight.
As to this concept of kinky sex as comprising “medically dangerous behaviors” you simply could not be more wrong. In terms of HIV transmission, SM sex is some of the safest and most erotic you can have – ’cause in reality it’s all about the foreplay and very little about the getting off. I can tell you that fully 50 – 75% of my lifetime SM sexual encounters were completely free of any activity that could transmit HIV – unless you believe that kissing is a problem.
And let me clear up another misconception – the whole master/slave concept is a small subset of the community, and those relationships are far more similar to old-style marriage, in which the wife was the “property” of her husband, than the coercive nature of economic slavery. Clearly these relationships are consensual, which negates any real comparison from the start. I know many African-Americans involved in the community, and many of them understand this difference, and have no problem with the language. Others cannot abide it, and don’t use it. Again there is a wide variety of relationships with in the Leather/BDSM world, and they are as different as the people in them.
Finally, if you spend any time with the community, you will find that it is one of the friendliest, most accepting;least agist, sexist or looks-obsessed, in the gay world. Many leather groups and clubs are deeply devoted to community and charity work, both in the GLBT and wide communities. For many years I myself sat on the board of Brother, Help Thyself, a DC/Baltimore-area community chest that was dedicated to helping small local charities and community groups – particularly those overlooked by the Bush administration. We gave money to needle exchange programs that were locked out of government funding, to half-way houses for the mentally ill and disable trying to be productive members of society, to advocates who literally prowl the streets at night to help prostitutes stay alive. I am very proud of this community, and all it has done.
Dooms comments make the leather community look better than anyone protesting this image.
As for the potentially disturbing racial implications of master/slave relationships, I don’t think that really has any relevance to this particular issue.
I have a brochure for the national biodisel board on my desk. IF they had decided to promote one of their events with a last supper parody, with biofuel items on the table, would anyone be whining? I doubt it. Part of this issue here is that people think its okay for SOME groups to parody or poke fun at religious, or in this case, pseudoreligious matters, but others can’t, mostly because religious rightists disliek those groups more.
If a pet store made an ad with dogs sitting at a table in a last supper parody, would anyone complain? More people would probably think its “cute”.
Why is this image being given so much attention? Why this event? Any religious right anger over it can’t affect us or anything else even remotely. The worst they can do is take it to court and lose, but this issue is highly unlikely to enter in to the national zietgiest, and even if it did, its effects on anything would be limited, so its not a publicity problem for us either.
This whole affair is a bunch of noise over a complete nonissue.
kittynboi,
I think the Fair people chose this poster – which, by the way isn’t actually the one that got the most votes in the contest – is because they deliberately wanted to bait Christians.
Christians in turn chose this particular parody to complain about.
Why is the latter choice evidence of bigotry, but not the former?
See Emily’s comment above, I think she got it right.
Again, is this the only standard to be used when considering our actions – whether it affects us, or whether someone can sue us over it? If we have truly reached this point in society, then the perpetrators of Culture War have won, and the rest of us have lost.
Is this really how we want to be treated by others? Are these the rules?
And please, while I have no interest in depriving anyone of participating in legal actions, sexual or otherwise, let’s be clear that S&M is a fetish, or for some just a hobby. Either way is it should not be confused with sexual orientation and gay rights. Among other things, this just plays into the hands of those who are anti-gay, and wish to diminish sexual orientation to the status of a choice, or fetish, etc.
I think Sweating made some honest points in his/her own blog:
Once again–it is only bigotry if it is a religious icon. It is a pop culture/art piece with religious allusions, but it has never, to my knowledge, ever been used as a religious artifact. Everytime I have ever been in an art class, the focus on the painting has never been the religious aspect but the subtext, composition, and positions of the characters. It can only be a bigoted act if the item is of a purely religious nature, and last I checked, it was only a representation of an item. If they wanted to do religious baiting, I can think of a hundred more blashphemous things than the parody.
Since when did this become a religious artifact?
We are covering old ground.
Further, I think your premise is faulty.
Arron. you do admit to “religious allusions” and I suppose you would grant that those allusions are sacred to some. The Fair organizers certainly knew this.
“If they wanted to do religious baiting. . .” – it isn’t about religious baiting, it is Christian baiting. It is the specificity of it that implies bigotry. Just as you claim that the specific “parodies” that Christians respond to is a sign of bigotry on their part.
David, thanks for the flattering remarks about my comment.
Sweating through Fog, I believe your point is also right on, both here and in your blog post.
Context MUST be considered. Just like Doom made a comment about how S&M slave/master represents more of a “marriage” relationship, i.e. passive/dominant, and not anything relating to white master/black slave. Someone can STILL look at it that way, and may have a genuine argument, but Doom brings context to the practice and explains it thoroughly that way. The same must be done with this poster.
Maybe it is where I come from, but allusions never replace or substitute for the item, so I have never thought equivalency. I also think that my original statement came across in a faulty manner, so I was not as clear as need be.
Ultimately it comes back to motivation, and I don’t think we can ever actually assume fully if the poster was intended to offend or not. I was not offended, and I did not see it as even referring tot he religious aspect. Others may. I just saw it as a play on a common painting. I don’t think people will see eye to eye on this and that is ok. I also believe that anything we do as a community will offend someone even if we are not trying.
“even normally sane people, are treating a 15th Century wall painting. . .” It is a pity that the Fair organizers didn’t use Raphael’s “School of Athens” as the vehicle for making their subtle, incisive commentary on Western culture and art.
I could swear I saw a similar painting in a Dutch masters exhibit.
I think this ad more resembles that, than the Last Supper.
And the famous Dutch masters picture has been parodied a lot too.
I suppose whoever shot the picture has probably already mentioned who they copied.
But it would be so, so hilarious if all this was over wrongly identifying what icon was parodied.
(My earlier comments got eaten by a browsercrash, this is the short version.)
As a kinkster, I have to say that I am also angered and offended by Mike’s comments. As far as I can tell, that’s two for two in this comments thread. Not cool, XGW!
“It turns a cherished and peaceful religious celebration of unity and brotherhood into a carnal display of certain medically dangerous behaviors.”
I don’t suppose it occurred to you that unity and brotherhood might be values that are very dear to the BDSM community? I think the message the poster is sending is not “Christ was a pervert” but “come join us at the table, we welcome you whatever you may be”. I love this poster, I think it’s excellent. If I knew how to get a copy I would. In my opinion, it is good advertising and has artistic value, too. As for it’s legitimate, civil, and constructive purpose, how about promoting the values of brotherhood, friendship and sharing among kinksters? Not that they generally lack those, but it’s always worth reminding people, and celebrating.
“It also portrays gay people as the antithesis of Christians — in other words, as antichrists.”
First of all, this is a BDSM event, NOT a gay event, as you pointed out yourself. Secondly, what part of the image is depicting anyone as the antithesis of Christians? Are you saying BDSM people are, just because of what they wear or do, the antithesis of Christians? Thanks man, what a way to make friends! Good to know what side you’re on now that YOU’RE out of the DSM!
Finally, can you not hear yourself speak? “a carnal display of certain medically dangerous behaviors” … “who promote certain medically condemned activities among at-risk populations”. Does that not sound at all familiar to you? The irony is hurting my brain!
Seriously, not cool. I know I don’t comment often, so for those I’m new to: I am a bi-leaning straight girl who made a comic condemning Love in Action’s “Refuge”. I’m also a faithful XGW reader.
Willie, Mike can answer your questions but I will comment. There is a mentality in what you say that I find disturbing. There is a difference between gay rights and the sexual revolution, though many in the anti-gay rights groups would like to conflate them. As I said above, I have no wish to deny anyone the right to do what is legal and involves their own lives, but there is a difference between a fetish and ones sexual orientation.
There are straight and gay people who enjoy what S&M involves, and that is up to them. But because one is gay does not mean one is necessarily going to consider that a good thing. Your analogy of Mike’s comments to anti-gay sentiment works only in that both are against something, otherwise these are very different topics. One does not have to practice fisting or whatever else is being suggested by the photograph, to have a meaningful, intimate relationship with another person. If one is gay, they really do need a person of the same sex to accompish this.
The other issues, kink or whatever, are just a different matter, even if they are none of anyone’s business. Elevating one to the level of the other simply confuses the issues. The major claim by all anti and ex-gay organizations is that gay is something you do, not something you are. In the case of S&M, this is true, while in the case of being gay, I do not believe it is.
David,
I acknowledge the differences you highlight and I think you’re probably right about them, but I’m afraid I can’t help but see the similarities. Both gays and kinksters are/have been condemned/harassed/criminalised for their sexual behaviour. (It’s not the mushy love stuff they object to, now is it?)
Both gay sex and kinky sex have been condemned as medically dangerous, when that’s not necessarily so. And both have (just now!) also been condemned as anti-Christian, when that’s really just wrong!
You can be gay and oppose BDSM, I guess, but to turn the exact same language that’s been used against you and turn it agains the next group of ‘perverts’… Can’t we just get along?
As an aside, while I’m personally not convinced that a proclivity for BDSM play is ‘hardwired’ the way sexual orientation is, there are plenty in the BDSM community who do believe this is so (see Cpt Doom above). And I would ask, how do you know it is not? We know almost nothing about why people are kinky, there’s been no research on the subject.
And a fetish is, when the word is used correctly, something without which one cannot get off. By definition. Which makes it, like, kind of a big deal. Sex may not be as important as love, but that doesn’t make it unimportant.
As I said, I have no reason to judge you or anyone else concerning this – it does not hurt me and it’s none of my business. Nor do I think any more or less of someone who is part of that community on that basis. I just think for the good of all that we should keep things well defined, lest we make it easier for those who are against all of it.
For the rest, Mike will have to reply. Thanks for reading – and commenting 😉
i’m disappointed that the authors of this blog would take this position. it shows, i think, that old habits die hard.
to me, the ad is gay camp at its best. i subversively co-opts a recognizable Christian icon—the Last Supper—to celebrate the unbridled sexuality condemned by the very same Christianity as taboo, sinful, and disordered.
The meaning and subversive intent couldn’t be clearer, as far as I’m concerned: it has far less to do with attacking Christianity (lampooning perhaps) and far more to do with elevating, even sanctifying, that which is regarded by conservatives as deviant. The fact that it is perceived as being in poor taste is part of its campy appeal.
Let me remind you that Jesus was also accused of doing things that were considered to be in very poor taste, for precisely the same reason as this; namely, he subverted deeply held religious values (i.e. the sanctity of the Sabbath, cleanliness laws, et cetera).
I thought it was agreed that this was not about gays but about the S&M community. Either way, I would agree essentially with your description here, but then that’s the point of the offense to many – this intent.
On the rest of what you said, I couldn’t disagree more. And Jesus didn’t subvert any of those things, he simply admonished some particular religious leaders for emphasizing laws over love and compassion – none of which applies in this instance. As I said, we will just have to disagree here.
Years ago, when I lived in the City, a collegue of mine invited me to the Folsom Street Fair. She and her husband apparently were into that scene and went every year. In fact, she had ordered this leather kind of outfit to wear that left little to the imagination. At the time, we were working for one of the Big 5 Auditing and Accounting firms, and being the good conservatives that most of us were, we were a little “shocked” by her invite. I spent a couple of hours milling around. It was absolutely NOT my scene. Neither was it particularly a gay scene. It was, as some have mentioned, for everyone involved in that whole milieu. I have friends who go every year just to gawk. Who can blame them, it certainly is gawk worthy.
It is very interesting to me that so many people are up in arms about this particular spoof of the painting, but are silent at some of the other spoofs that could just as easily be found offensive by some. While I am a Christian, I don’t hold Da Vinci’s portrayal of the last supper, as a tenet of my faith, therefore I didn’t find myself disturbed particularly by this spoof. I did think that Randy’s response was much more measured. Bennett’s was just what one would expect from that man. If he thought that a spoof of the last supper would generate more publicity for himself, he’d do it.
j.
Isn’t that the truth! That guy is like a little puppy trying to get attention – only puppies are cute 😉
I am a little surprised that the hefty string of remarks on this item has neglected to notice that the Last Supper story itself involves a very serious appropriation of the Jewish seder tradition to Jesus’ narrative intention. For those who did not buy into Jesus’ claims of a special relationship to the Hebrew God, his performance would have been an explicit act of sacrilege. Enacting a Jewish ritual for a group of Jews, Jesus is reported to have taken the “What does it mean to be a Jew?” and turned it into “What does it mean to believe what Jesus says?” It is worth noting that the Folsom Street Fair people do not appear to be making institutional claims to Christian faith, so Jesus’ effrontery would seem to outrank theirs by considerable.
A worldly and neutral observer might take this to be yet another marvelous example of the Jesus character’s dramatic wit, but it is doubtful that most Jews of that time would be so entertained. Figuring that being a Jew was difficult enough, and that their own religious hierarchy should be in control of how Jews represented Jews, they were roused to murderous violence on related issues several times in the Roman era. The last round was a three way civil war while the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem.
One would hope that Christians would have learned a thing or two from all that, but the pickin’s are often rather slim. Some would hold that doctrinal considerations commend a certain humility, hospitality, and forebearence, especially in cultures in which so many Christians wield so much wealth and power. Many others seem to prefer to argue for a reference to a form of cultural hegemony in which they get to dictate to other people how pictures of Christian stories can and cannot be used. Still others look to exploit that desire to exercise hegemony in order to make a substantial living and exercise some political power. Some might notice that it is a sideshow that takes attention away from feeding the hungry, clothing the involuntarily naked, and liberating the captives.
Was that actually an attempt to avoid offending nudists?
I’m amazed that we got all that out of a single, tacky ad. Then again, I’ve never understood why consistently one of our highest Google referrals comes from people searching for Kirk Talley. Go figure.
I’m surprised that some defenders of the FSF and the ad have declared that their interpretation of the ad is the only obvious one.
The BDSM community represents (wild guess) less than 1 percent of the U.S. heterosexual population and a similarly low proportion of the gay community. Even the gay community itself (which generally is not into BDSM but at least is informed about BDSM) is, at best, eight percent of the U.S. population.
So any positive perception or informed insight into the ad is going to be very much a minority viewpoint.
Something like thirty percent of the U.S. population is conservative evangelical. Its cultural/religious reference point, and therefore its perceptions of the ad, will be completely different and far more numerous than those of the BDSM crowd or the informed GLBT Jewish/Christian crowd.
The FSF marketers were either deliberately careless or stupendously ignorant, not to foresee the reasonable reaction of the general public. The ad misrepresents the fair as a gay event. It also — when seen from an uninformed observer’s perspective, not the perspective of a savvy gay sophisticate or a BDSMer — portrays gays conducting an unholy last supper with sex toys. The only thing missing from the ad, if seen from the reference point of a majority of Americans — including gay people who are just coming out to themselves and unaware of context — was a pentagram and a copy of the Satanic Bible.
I believe it is unwise to assume that all or even most people — given Americans’ ignorance about art — will see the ad as a parody of a painting, rather than a parody of a religious event.
Specific to Willie’s points:
1. If kinksters want to hold a safe and healthy festival in a confined section of an accommodating city, I’m cool with that.
But I do not support: a) the mischaracterization of an event as more gay than it is, b) advertising that (to an average American observer and especially struggling gay youths) might make gay Christians look like sex-toy worshippers, c) outdoor public sex acts without a condom (a publicly known feature of the fair), or d) fisting. Sorry — I just don’t think deception and dangerous activities are “cool.”
2. “I don’t suppose it occurred to you that unity and brotherhood might be values that are very dear to the BDSM community?”
Yes, those values are dear to that community and to me — and those values are undermined by the aforementioned dangerous and deceptive activities.
3. “I think the message the poster is sending is not “Christ was a pervert” but “come join us at the table, we welcome you whatever you may be”.”
That’s your perspective. It’s a minority perspective, as discussed above. I believe it is unfair to expect the general public to have the background knowledge or experience to react in a way resembling your appreciation for the ad.
4. “Are you saying BDSM people are, just because of what they wear or do, the antithesis of Christians?”
No, I’m not saying that, the ad is saying that. The ad replaces the Christian communal / spiritual icons — bread and wine — with sex toys. Sex toys have their place (except the fisting ones), but as a substitution for religious icons? That’s neither wise nor respectful, in my opinion.
The ad would have affirmed the Christian leather community if it had shown people in leather holding hands with the black Jesus while they prayed or meditated over the bread and wine. I would be a cheerleader for the ad if it had done that — but then it wouldn’t be appropriate for the FSF, which is not about spiritual community. The FSF is primarily a celebration of alternative public sexuality — so its parody of the spiritual is galling to me.
5. “Finally, can you not hear yourself speak?”
Yes, I purposely stole the language about medically dangerous practices from the religious right — but I limited their definition to two things: fisting (mainly), and the likelihood of condomless sex among strangers.
I’m all in favor of well-done parody, that cannot be misunderstood to mean virtually the opposite of what the advertisers might have intended.
This ad is a good example of second-rate and politically suicidal parody that uses worn cliches to convey the opposite of its ostensible intent.
Nothing in my article should be interpreted as an attack upon the leather or bear communities or even those who practice BDSM in safe and sensible moderation. The ad, unfortunately, shows little wit, nuance, moderation, or respect for that which is being parodied.
Jonathan Justice,
I’m certain that the “seder” narrative was a later addition to the Jesus story, produced to emphasize Jesus’ role as a ritual sacrifice (a la the Paschal Lamb). The earliest gospel is generously dated to 70-80 CE, with some of our oldest manuscripts dating from 200 years later. That being said, the original Jewish splinter group that gave way to Christianity did not survive past the first century- so the “heresy” that you say occurs would have not been evident to the Hellenized Christian movement. In any case, that is a whole topic all together – if we go that route, Da Vinci’s original painting could be just as shocking as this particular depiction.
Responding to CPT_Doom:
1. I don’t feel that I have taken potshots at the whole leather or BDSM community. I encourage you to let me know where I have done that.
2. You interpret the poster as a parody of a painting. Many people (a majority, I argue above) won’t interpret it that way.
3. “The watchwords of the mature, responsible leather/BDSM community – both straight and gay – are “safe, sane and consensual.”
I agree — and neither the ad nor the festival do that. Fisting is not safe, and the festival permits condomless public sex.
4. “As to this concept of kinky sex as comprising “medically dangerous behaviors” you simply could not be more wrong.”
I didn’t say that.
6. “Finally, if you spend any time with the community, you will find that it is one of the friendliest, most accepting; least agist, sexist or looks-obsessed, in the gay world.”
I know that.
The ad, unfortunately, shows little wit, nuance, moderation, or respect for that which is being parodied.
That’s the beauty of Free Speech, Mike. It covers witless, non-nuanced, inmoderate and disprespectiful expression. Yours, mine, and the makers of this poster.
Argh! For the last time this isn’t a question of free speech! Of course they have the right to create the image, and others have the right to register their disapproval – by word or boycotts or whatever.
But is this the only rule we follow, whether or not we have the right to do something? Because if so, it’s over.
But it is a question of free speech. You’re advocating self-censorship in place of government censorship with the argument that it’s not “appropriate” as if the Folsum Fair folks gave a fig about appropriateness (they don’t – I’ve seen vids of what goes on there).
Your problem is that you want the Fair to care about your sensibilities. But they don’t, Dave, they don’t.
No one here has challenged the FSF’s “right” to jeopardize our rights as well as our health. But when a group does that, they should expect some people to express their own free-speech right to conduct a boycott.
We call on Exodus all the time to reflect accuracy and respect in its ads, instead of its sinister and dishonest warnings against protecting gay people from violent hate crimes. Why shouldn’t we call upon the FSF to do the same?
Gay rights groups and religious groups regularly call for boycotts of companies that directly promote discrimination or incite others to violate the law — that’s not a threat to free speech, it’s an exercise of it.
Mike,
You did not limit the description of “medically dangerous behaviors” to fisting (which is NOT medically dangerous, when done correctly, although I myself am not into it) and condomless sex until your later comments, so anyone reading the original post would not have that information. More importantly, you are talking about a real minority of the activities that go on at FSF, the gayer Dore Alley Fair each July, or International Mr. Leather or Mid-Atlantic Leather, the two largest gay/leather/BDSM conferences in the country. I have been to all 4, and can tell you that “public” sex acts, like those described by PornoPete, are relatively rare.
As for potshots, using the language of the far right is enough for me. You are also making HUGE assumptions about the motivations of the organizers of the Fair, and their intentions with this poster. Your interpretations are yours alone, and are just some of the potential ones that could be ascribed to the poster.
Who do you really think the poster is aimed at? The evangelical community? I think not. The poster is aimed at those who might enjoy the festival, and they are not likely to be offended.
While I’m confident most leather and BDSM events are relatively free of condomless sex, that’s not what I’ve heard regarding FSF.
Regarding the language of the far right: I used language that referred to fisting as a medically dangerous practice. The far right uses that language far too broadly, but in the context of fisting, it’s accurate: Fisting is dangerous; once sharp pain or bleeding occurs, the damage is already done. I could have been more explicit in my original post if XGW were an R-rated site, but XGW does try to keep its articles suitable for family reading. At least for this page, as it turned out, that goal was hopeless.
I was hoping that, by clicking through to the substance of Stephen Bennett’s complaints, readers would see exactly which dangerous activities I was complaining about. Bennett was quite explicit (and unnecessarily antagonistic toward all same-sex-attracted persons).
The target audience for an ad is of little interest to me; in the Internet age, EVERYONE is a potential viewer, unless an ad is placed behind a paywall or age barrier. Competent advertisers take reasonable precautions to endure their ads are well-understood by broad audiences, even if the target audience is narrow.
Emily
For all the careful couching I did about discussing narratives, I am serious that there are plenty of people, then, now, and in between, every time they celebrate the Passover, for whom the Last Supper story is a shocking cultural theft, arguably more shocking than the riff on the Leonardo DiVinci painting the current poster makes. That perspective helps to make it clear that the issue is threatened hegemony, not the general matter of the reappropriation and reformulation of cultural icons. As several posters have suggested, that sort of hegemony and the effort to exploit people in the ostensible defense of it is so problematical that we are better off to try to move to do without it.
Jonathan, I agree with you that one of the issues with the religious right, related to the ad, is the threat to their (i.m.o. unholy) hegemony.
I believe that any single faction’s hegemony over a religion needs to be challenged and overturned; there are wise and unwise ways to go about that. Fueling their hegemony seems unwise to me, and I believe the ad does that by serving up an extremely wide window for misinterpretation.
David
The reference to ‘the involuntarily naked’ is not so much a matter of avoiding offending nudists or the delightful folks who post pictures of their smiling selves naked on personals sites as it is to riff the usual version of Jesus’ list of behaviors that indicate taking God seriously to point to the idea that being unclothed is not much of a problem unless the people involved would rather be clothed. While we are at it, I also mean to suggest that ostensibly religious objections to nudity and erotic display are often much of a problem.
Mike,
While I do appreciate your argument, it seems to me that the matter is more one of burning out the case. As with the ill-conceived war on Iraq, a serious dose of outrage can be a serious motivator, but a whole lot of lies gets really boring after a while. Weak revenues at the Republican National Committee and Focus on the Family should be telling indicators of just where we are as a country on these issues.
In other words, the only people who will see a “positive perception” of the ad are people into BDSM? What a crock. That’s like saying that the only people who will support gay rights are gays.
No, you did that, Mike. The ad has a great deal of male-female interaction in there. The only reason people would interpret this as a “gay” event is because people already associate BDSM with gays–which isn’t the fair’s fault, nor its problem.
Yeah, real convincing Mike. Who would believe that you’re challenging their right to free speech when you dub it a “right” (mocking scare-quotes included) and declare that it somehow jeopardizes “our” rights and health, whoever “we” are? Only crazy people!
Finally, two more things:
Did anyone from XGW bother contacting the fair and asking them about the ad and the reasons behind it? Or did the alleged high standards of reporting this site promises simply evaporate in this instant?
Also, for all those people foaming at the mouth that this ad was intentionally meant as an attack on Christians… what do you think is the religion of the people who made, voted for, and in the end chose the ad? The majority of them are probably Christians who–gasp–had no interest in attacking their own religion and understood that it was just a clever parody.
Your turn to do research and confirm this as fact.
What you’ve heard but not witness – you sound just like Peter Labarbra & Matt Baber and their ilk.
I was at the fair and there was no condomless sex taking place except for manual masturbation – which is not a health risk that I know of.
What is also very enraging is that the Folsom Street Fair is not a gay event. It is a BDSM event which includes all forms of human sexuality.
To be honest I’m glad this poster tick off some Christians. In this country the people who are the most vocal about the evils of homosexual behavior are Christians. They have said we suffer from mental disorders accused us of a child abuse both as predators and victims. They compare our lives to that of alcohol and drug abusers. They have used their religion as a means to keep us from true equality.
My “turn”? That would imply that the people I’m challenging have taken their turn to do research or provide facts–they have done neither.
This isn’t research, so it’ll probably be ignored by people who demand proof that BDSM people aren’t attacking their religion instead of offering any proof that they are. But try this thought experiment: Is there any reason, aside from Mike’s libelous assertion that BDSM is antithetical to Christianity, to believe that people who engage in such activities have a radically different religious make-up than the rest of the country? Christians make up the vast majority of this country, and so it is simply common sense that a similar proportion of those who were involved with this poster were also Christian.
Skemono,
Just a guess here… but you may be right in the sense that if you asked them what their religion is they would say “Christian”.
However, I doubt that the majority are Christian in the sense that they regularly attend a church service (most Americans don’t) or that they much venerate religious iconography.
Further, I would be willing to venture a guess that there are more athiest, agnostics, or anti-religious folk amongst the BDSM community. I suspect this because organized religion tends to equate “kinky” with “sinful” and tends to set themselves up as the enemy of the BDSM community on their own.
So while it is possible that you are correct – in a general sense – it is also possible that the majority of those who designed and approved the poster consider themselves to be non-Christian. Without anything better than a guess, we can’t much make an assertion either way.
Skemono,
You have ignored my actual objections and inserted strawmen in their place. I don’t waste my time responding to strawmen.
Did I? Let’s look.
After going on about how small is the population of people who are into BDSM (that’s what you meant by “The BDSM community represents (wild guess) less than 1 percent of the U.S. heterosexual population and a similarly low proportion of the gay community.”, yes? Or is that another “straw man”?), you write:
The “so” meaning “therefore”; in other words, if words mean anything at all, you’re saying that because the BDSM community is small there will be few people (that is what you mean by “a minority viewpoint”, isn’t it?) who come away with a “positive perception” of the ad. Which means that you seem to think that only people who are into BDSM could find this ad unobjectionable.
Actually, wait, no. I did misrepresent you there. You didn’t say people who are into BDSM, you instead talked about “the BDSM community.” I suppose that must be like the “gay lifestyle” or something.
In either event, you’re simply wrong. I, for one, am not into BDSM and have a positive perception of the ad.
Next I challenged your claim that “The ad misrepresents the fair as a gay event.” And if I attacked a straw-man version of your reasoning, that would be because you have given no reason at all for us to think this. You simply made up this random claim out of thin air, despite the blatant heterosexual interactions depicted in the poster.
And then I shredded your despicably-worded sentence, “No one here has challenged the FSF’s ‘right’ to jeopardize our rights as well as our health.” There’s not even even the remote possibility of a straw man there, since I’m challenging your choice of words.
I can only imagine that you’re claiming I’m setting up a straw man because I didn’t reply to other things that you said, which I of course didn’t try to do. So really, in that case, you’d be the one setting up a straw man by dismissing my comment for not doing something that it was never intended to do.
Sorry, Mike. Like the entire issue with this poster, you’re simply wrong on this one.
And with that rather absurd remark, this thread is closed — 103 comments for a tacky ad is more than enough. Let’s put that energy into issues that have some real significance.