Gay Porn Movie: Dark Alley’s Martyr Complex
Forgive me, Daddy, for I have skinned.
(Incipient scandal courtesy Dark Alley Media)
— MIke
Tags: Dark Alley, Religion
Forgive me, Daddy, for I have skinned.
(Incipient scandal courtesy Dark Alley Media)
— MIke
Tags: Dark Alley, Religion
Anonymous June 19th, 2007 at 11:05 PM
that’s just wrong…
riddlemethis June 20th, 2007 at 5:57 AM
This is no more offensive than Mel Gibson’s absurd dramatization of the Jesus myth.
Mike June 20th, 2007 at 6:20 AM
As much as I enjoy antagonizing the fundies, one has to wonder what will happen when Bill Donohue gets a hold of this. And if you think Bill O’Reilly was like a dog with a bone when San Francisco decided to help Colt Studio celebrate its fortieth anniversary, just wait until he sees this.
riddlemethis June 20th, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Mike,
Are you suggesting that we should modify our behavior and our expression (no matter how gratuitous it may tend at times) to preempt the wrath of a few demagogues?
I do think I know what you are getting at (that this kind of thing only serves to give our enemies fodder) but I think you’re assigning “blame” to the wrong party.
When an artist, a community, or for that matter a porn peddler starts to self-censor just to please the “normals” and avoid controversy a vital bit of vocabulary is lost and another door closes. True – a naked man mimicking Christ in a porn film may not seem like an important thing to protect, but it is a surprisingly short leap between it and objections leveled at works hanging in a number of great museums around the world (Remember the Mapplethorpe “book burnings” of the 80s and 90s?).
Let’s not impose THEIR myopic values and frighteningly narrow world view on OURSELVES.
Anonymous June 20th, 2007 at 2:06 PM
No crown of thorns, no cut in the side, very Anglo-Saxon looking.
This is either Mel Gibson’s idea of the whole Jesus thing OR it’s just a take on one of the hundreds of crucifixions the Romans performed in their time.
Hey, you never know…
thebigO June 20th, 2007 at 3:18 PM
A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves. give away your rigth of speech out of fear of losing that right, you are a sheep. rights must be claimed and fought for. the wolves want to eat you.
Anonymous June 20th, 2007 at 9:56 PM
thebigO,
What about your language skills? Have you relinquished those (Did you ever have any?) or is it just a bad day for your SHIFT key?
Any “speech”, free or otherwise, looks mighty silly when it’s written in the manner of a ten year-old.
I’m just saying…
Doug June 21st, 2007 at 3:01 AM
Is that what passes for well hung these days? Jesus!
Kostas June 21st, 2007 at 9:08 AM
It is one thing to mock the priests and all of today’s hypocrytes , preaching ” right ” while only doing wrong and it is another to use something so sacred to so many people in a porn movie . I have nothing against porn showing actors pretending to be priests or nuns , but i definetely wouldn’t sit to see this . This is just awful , any way you see it .
Anonymous June 21st, 2007 at 9:19 AM
riddlemethis,
I was really just trying to make an observation about the predictability of things like this. Someone (be he/she artist, pornographer, average citizen) says or does something that is more or less controversial, and then the fundies (or, in some cases, just their loudest spokespersons) predictably react with outrage and calls for wider censorship and make their predictable arguments about the downfall of our civilization. I’m reminded, in this case, of the nude, chocolate Jesus Christ work that was pulled from display in a New York gallery because Bill Donohue raised his usual nonsensical, self-aggrandizing objections, and a handful of wingnuts threatened the artist and the gallery with violence.
I do think context plays a part. I would not suggest an artist or an opera director (cf. the German production of “Idomeneo” that was canceled over fears of Muslim violence) “modify” his work to avoid upsetting the “normals”. On the contrary, I would consider that a complete betrayal of the artistic impulse that would suck out of art all that we find vital and interesting. In a different context, on the other hand, a controversial expression can become nothing more than simple baiting or antagonism, with no redeeming social, artistic, or intellectual value. I’m tempted to place this particular example in the latter category; it’s a porn film, made for one reason and one reason only, and only in the broadest sense of the word could be considered “art”.
Nevertheless, your point is well made, and I’m not trying to suggest that this is a clear black-and-white issue. It also goes without saying that if some government or legal body tried to censor this on grounds that if is offensive to Christian religious sensibilities, I would fight that tooth and nail. For that matter, I’m not even necessarily advocating self-censorship on the part of the filmmakers. Rather, my comment was intended to point out that typical, not very imaginative Christian-baiting will only provoke a typical, hysterical response from the fundamentalists and their ilk, and I question the value or point of such an exercise.
J² June 21st, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Porn as political statement… what a concept. Now, if it were saying anything more than Dark Alley was just trying to stir up some trouble/publicity.
riddlemethis June 21st, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Mike,
Thanks for your reply. I did assume that was your point and I agree with it in part. However, the problem lies in our stating what is unimaginative “baiting” and what isn’t. The recent controversy involving the comic strips of Mohammed were deemed antagonistic by many and an important exercise in free speech by an equal, if not greater, number of people. Who is right? That’s as subjective a question as — What is art? As soon as a question like that is asked, lines are drawn and “standards” are established (and often enforced). I suppose that’s inevitable (order from chaos and all that) and not entirely disagreeable (Britney Spears in Carnegie Hall? – Good God!).
The reaction of people like Kostas (see above) is terribly disappointing. I hope, for the sake of reason, he’s upset because this “mocking” is going on in a porn film and, he feels, it therefore has little to no artistic value (there’s that conundrum I mentioned previously). If, however, he’s just being archaic and declaring something off-limits simply because it’s sacred (THERE’S a concept that needs to be examined) to a segment of the population, that’s truly sad. I wonder if Piss Jesus would have garnered the same reaction from him. If so, then he and Jesse Helms (such a stalwart friend of the gay community these many years) are on the same page.
Anonymous June 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 PM
I have to tell you, IMO, the picture is not even “hot”, so it fails the only test that counts, a far as porn is concerned. It smacks of a desperate attempt to pay the film-makers New York rent, pure and simple.
By the way, in terms of hot “religious” art, I have seen some pretty hot paintings of St. Stephen, Jesus, etc. in my museum-going lifetime. And these works of art created many centuries ago are far more (intentionally) erotic than this stupid picture.
Anonymous June 26th, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Once more — but this time try it in English, dear.
Anonymous June 26th, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Whether or not you find this “hot” is beside the point. Yes, this is a PORN blog but at least some people on this thread were willing to discuss this thing without being stupid.
I see that ended Friday at 10:48 PM.
Oh well…
Friday, 10:48 PM June 27th, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Oh come on June 26 10:48 PM, we are posting at gaypornblog.com, not the New York Times website. So tell me what is the point of the picture if it is not about being hot?
LOL, please don’t tell me you think there is a “message” there somewhere, because I might have bought the tape but now I am not so sure, nothing ruins it more than porn directors with a “message”!!
riddlemethis June 28th, 2007 at 6:47 AM
June 27, 10:48,
I’m basing my response on what I was able to sift from the fumbled English of your post.
Here it goes…
No one is suggesting this piece has a “message.” We were, however, discussing the larger ramifications of this stunt (I just love the way some people on this thread felt they needed to show us how alert they are by announcing that it’s just a publicity seeking picture — wow — really — you don’t say) and how it relates to art, censorship, etc.
Why is it that when people want to excuse their inability to discuss anything on here intelligently they say, “This isn’t the New York Times website…”? Are they trying to embarrass everyone else into being as vapid as they?
I don’t think anyone here confuses this GAY PORN BLOG for The New York, Washington or LA Times’ websites so perhaps a new tack is in order.
Guest June 29th, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Dark Alley strikes me as the type of company that makes statements like this just to push buttons.
Im gay and Christian. And to be honest, I think of all sorts of New Testament themed hard-core gay scenarios. I think most gay Christians do have similar daydreams, but most probably won’t admit it. This photo… the nude martyr figure on crucifix (and it’s just a generic dude, not actually a portrayal of Jesus) in a sexual context is really really tame to a lot of the stuff Christ takes and dishes-out in my imagination.
I don’t like to keep religion and my personal sexuality vastly seperated in my mind. Becuase then they become two unrelated, and partially opposed concepts.
I doubt Dark Alley has some grand statement to make. But it is possible to do a sincere hard-core New Testiment themed gay flick. Bondage and a spiritual quest… that would make quite a flick. I think it would actually better serve the gay community to have religious themed porn. For me… with the way my mind works anyway… the two compliment each other. (And actually a lot of other religions of the world do get fairly raunchy in their legends.)
Richard July 1st, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Wow, some of you guys really take this seriously! I am not complaining, these posts make for interesting reading. (But just between you and me, I love porn with religious-themes featuring priests, and I hope the DVD is better than that publicity still!)
Ps September 26th, 2007 at 12:45 AM
How Boring.
mediapusher October 6th, 2007 at 4:26 AM
It’s really amazing how you dumb bitches fall for these tricks every time. Of course it’s offensive, controversial TO SOME, that’s what sells.
god August 21st, 2008 at 1:53 PM
fuck me, Christ!
Orlando September 14th, 2008 at 10:58 AM
dude this is not right, fine if not beieve in god good for you but think about this your here cuz God wants,this pic you have to take off from this page God n lke ugly people,Im gay but God its not funny character
Bullshit September 13th, 2010 at 2:34 PM
You’re all so brave, in your own minds. You will laugh at the Christians who will tut-tut and take this on via Fox News etc.., but when it comes to really putting your balls on the line by using Mohammed or other Muslim icons, you are all as gutless as one would expect. How brave of you all. When it’s words, you are all ready to die for your ‘art’, but when real retribution may be meted, you become the sissies that you are…..