Religious Right Outraged by Folsom’s Gay Porn Last Supper

Posted September 25, 2007 11:38 AM by with 29 comments

Folsom Events set them up — and they took the bait! In what’s sure to end up as talking point on tonight’s O’Reilly Factor, Concerned Women for America has called on CA elected officials to publicly condemn the poster for the 2007 Folsom Street Fair — a parody of the Last Supper with apostle porn stars (Titan Exclusives Tober Brant & Dean Flynn), drag nuns (Sister Roma, natch), and — gasp! — a black Jesus (source Towleroad).

Despite the fact that Folsom Street Fair is a pan-sexual event, and there are women in the poster, they are — of course — blaming the ‘Gays’. See their very hysterical, Francine Fishpaw-style press release here.)


See the full-sized poster here. Their timing could not be more perfect with Folsom coming up this weekend. Another victory for San Francisco Values … just wait until they see Jesus climb off the cross and rape a priest in Dark Alley’s Passio!

dark alley passio gay porn jesus


Tags: , , , , , , ,

29 responses to Religious Right Outraged by Folsom’s Gay Porn Last Supper

  1. Interested Party.... September 25th, 2007 at 1:09 PM

    I am a gay guy who loves porn, and would even enjoy Folsom Street. But I guess I must be in the monority because I think this poster is really blasphemous and inappropriate. Do we have to shit on their belief system to get attention? It’s no wonder they hate us. I am really just sick to my stomach over the images depicted.


  2. Chester Lee September 25th, 2007 at 2:02 PM

    When I was a kid in Church, I used to get turned on by the statute of Jesus hanging from the cross. His body was so ripped, and the loin cloth was so skimpy … I used to jerk off thinking about it until I moved onto International Male catalogs.

    I hope Passio has lots of sexy Jesus shots in it! I’m totaly gonna buy it — and just in time for Christmas!


  3. A concerned 'gay' September 25th, 2007 at 4:58 PM

    What I really don’t get about the press release is that it keeps talking about things being ‘gay’. (Insert air quotes here.)

    I would like to think that this group isn’t as insanse as the Iranian president in denying that ‘gay’ even exists.

    Gay is real!


  4. Arnold Goldstein September 25th, 2007 at 5:14 PM

    If I wasn’t Jewish, I might’ve experienced the same Sunday pleasure Chester did as a kid. I just want to know who that clown is in the picture. I seem him everywhere.


  5. gaybob September 25th, 2007 at 8:54 PM

    DaVinci’s iconic Last Supper is an artist’s interpretation recognizable around the world, but not, as far as I know, considered “sacred” or “canon” by any denomination. So recycling its layout isn’t blasphemy. If a Little League team did it for their team photo, no one would blink. It is most assuredly the sexuality of it – the”gay”ness of it – that they object to. Their own press release says so!

    Face it, these people are gonna be offended by anything – ANYTHING – we do. So we might as well go whole hog. Maybe pushing their buttons gives them the moral outrage they live for. It’s a win-win for all involved.


  6. Spike September 25th, 2007 at 9:58 PM

    I must be one really jaded sadomasochist because I hardly see fault in satirizing a famous work of art.

    Those “Concerned Women” need to brush up on their art history since their beloved Christ’s last meal was painted by one of the most famous (aleged)homos to ever live. You gotta love that ironic twist.


  7. cannot_stand_rubes September 26th, 2007 at 6:50 AM

    Anyone who finds this “blasphemous” is probably just some hick who lives out in the middle of nowhere, is surrounded by people JUST LIKE HIM/HER and doesn’t think about anything that isn’t presented to them on television or at the local Wal-Mart.

    Get thee to a museum, Interested Party. You might learn something.


  8. Interested Party... Again.... September 26th, 2007 at 11:39 AM

    How quickly you are to judge me. I am, in fact, a college professor in English at an elite university in Chicago. Not only am I surrounded by a thriving gay community, but I spend plenty of time in museums (Art Institue, anyone?) I suspect my PhD and travels around the world make me far more cultured than you. Being gay doesn’t mean you have to lack class, taste, and dignity. And frankly my opinion stands… the poster IS offensive. That work of art has been subjugated by a greater Christian Community as a major symbol of their love of Christ. The images created in the poster are meant to shit on that. I hardly think the creators of it were sitting around debating the merits of satire and art. My instincts tell me they created it to purposely piss someone off. That’s not redefining artistic image, that’s begging for a fight. And just so you know, just because I do not agree with you, that does not make me a RUBE. That generalization is offensive, as well. Almost as offensive as if I called you a bitter faggot without an ounce of decorum. :)


  9. Brandon September 26th, 2007 at 2:11 PM

    “The images created in the poster are meant to shit on that”.

    Since your indignation is basely solely on this premise, I’d like to see you prove it. Prove that giving a damn what Christian reactions would be, played any part in the making of this.


  10. cannot_stand_rubes September 26th, 2007 at 2:48 PM

    Yes, Interested Party, most “…college professors in English at an elite university in Chicago.” resort to sentences like “Do we have to shit on their belief system to get attention?”. Do you use expletives so freely at this “elite college?” I hope it doesn’t offend (or as you’d say “shit on”) the sensibilities of your Christian students.

    PLEASE, stop posing! Your attitudes and your way of expressing them (bad grammar, expletives et al.) reveal what you really are, namely some backward little hick who trolls gay blogs and pretends to be a Right leaning homo.

    Spare us the (fake) blather. In fact, I don’t intend to go on enabling your desperate play for attention. You just go ahead and craft yet another awkward retort (don’t spare the expletives, Professor) to this. I’ll neither read nor respond to it. Maybe someone else here will play pretend with you; I’m finished.

    Have a great day.


  11. Anonymous September 26th, 2007 at 6:18 PM

    Does anyone here NOT think that Interested Party is with the Folsom St. people?


  12. lolatcollegeprofessor September 27th, 2007 at 1:31 PM

    Because leather fetishists are the only people ever in the entirety of human history to satirize the last supper. Because somehow, leather fetishists (which is what folsom is about, which of course relates back to part of the gay community, but isn’t some spokesperson event for all of the homo-gayness of the world) can’t also be Christians. Because leather fetishists are exempt from making artistic statements.

    You know, I don’t see the point in the ever-tolerant Heartland demanding people shun this poster. I love their ability to rally the masses behind pointless causes. God© forbid they got around to solving some of the world’s actual ills. OMG TEH GHEYS.


  13. Got It! September 27th, 2007 at 6:50 PM

    I guess this is what the major porn industry has come too, creating controvery to sell what i’m sure is another BAD movie, the poster dosen’t bother me , but i’m sure that will be the most interesting part of that movie, get back to basics with good looking models that pretent too have an interst in their on screen partner!


  14. Bye Bye Miller September 28th, 2007 at 10:03 AM

    What, exactly, did the FSE people think they were doing when they “selected” this image for the poster art? First, with the way that Titan is taking over the Fair, its obvious (Hi Tober & Dean!) that they had a hand in the image creation, and more than likely the “selection” of this piece.

    Was this the best image submitted? How, exactly, does the Last Supper represent the Leather/Gay community? I’m all for free speech, but why antagonize the religious nuts? It’s one thing for Dark Alley to make a “corporate” decision to create controversial movies, and it’s another matter altogether for the FSE — technically a charity — to make controversy just by taking an iconic image (and I use the word iconic purposefully, look it up) and recreating it to their own likeness.

    How would you feel if Bill Donohue shredded the gay flag on national TV?


  15. riddlemethis September 30th, 2007 at 3:05 AM

    Bye Bye Miller,

    People like Bill Donahue routinely “shred gay flags.” Every time they say that we don’t have the right to marry, to be protected from job or housing discrimination, etc. they’re not only “shredding our flag” they’re trying to stamp us out altogether. I doubt any informed homosexual will shed a tear for the tender sensibilities of the Bill Donahues of this world.

    That said, I agree that this ad is most likely only designed to illicit a disproportionate amount of attention and discussion and garner scads of free publicity for Folsom. If this thread is any indication, it’s working. However, I caution anyone who is “all for free speech” against questioning the piece’s validity in the context of how it makes particular segments of the population e.g. those who bash us, deny us equal rights, etc. “feel.”

    Sure, those of use who are paying attention see the not-so-thinly veiled motive here (the more obtuse members of the population would call it cynicism, jadedness – pick your trendy adjective) but I think the appropriate response is to assess, find whatever value in it (or none at all) and move on.

    Siding with the religious nuts over an issue like this makes even a genuinely offended queer sound like an apologist and consequent Right Wing shill.

    THEY have enough noise emanating from their side (and yes, there are most definitely sides; let’s not fool ourselves) already.


  16. koo-koo October 1st, 2007 at 8:01 PM

    we’re all going to hell – who cares? I mean REALLY.


  17. Odsbjorn October 1st, 2007 at 9:55 PM

    Right a “English” professor at an “elite Chicago university”. whatever.

    Funny how the X-tians get in a huff, whenever it involves something that they consider “their”‘s, but it is just as much ours since it is a major piece of art in the Western Canon. Are the Concerned Spinsters of America going to call out the Star Wars Last Supper or the Red Sox Last Supper? Please, these dishrags need a hobby. And Bill O’Reilly, whatever Falafel-Boy…

    Hey there is this new thing everyones trying, it’s called Freedom of Speech. Which this clearly falls under, unless you’re some Taliban-like haters who think that yelling “Gay” in a crowded cathedral is okay.


  18. Bye Bye Miller October 2nd, 2007 at 10:10 AM


    I couldn’t care less how the religious nuts feel. It’s what they do that angers me, and the last thing the leather/gay community needs is to surrender the high ground by provoking faux controversy. The stated theme of the Fair — taking back San Francisco values — was a great idea, and too bad Titan and FSE didn’t follow through on it (unless you can explain to me how repurposing The Last Supper is inclusive and promotes equality in the community — or have I misunderstood the meaning of San Francisco values?).

    All FSE and Titan did was hand Bill Donohue and his ilk a giant club to bash the entire community. When ENDA comes up for another vote, or when another state bans gay marriage, will this advertisement help or hurt the effort?


  19. Jon October 2nd, 2007 at 6:40 PM

    You guys are assholes..Interested party is right…why do we need to trash their religion just to get attention? When we trash someone’s we are no better than the hate that’s already out there that’s coming against gays. This is why I don’t get into the gay community. Your nothing but assholes who care only about yourselves. You can’t even see the consequences of the actions of this. My college professor was right…gay men are little boys trapped in adult men bodies. Ya’ll are being immature and no better the hate mongers of the Christian religion. There are somethings that should be respected even when you don’t agree with it.


  20. riddlemethis October 2nd, 2007 at 7:46 PM

    Bye Bye Miller,

    Oh I see, we should all be good little fags and dikes so as not to anger our big bad conservative fathers? Are you serious?

    We’re fighting for our rights, and that means just that – rights as in truths that we hold “self evident.” Not whatever anemic, “separate but equal” nonsense they want to hand us because we haven’t upset their sensibilities and that one down the street seems so normal.

    I don’t want to get dragged into defending this obvious publicity stunt. I think it’s silly, too. What worries me about your position is that you’re not so much complaining about it as a stunt as you are terribly worried about what the “neighbors” will think.

    Drag queens dressed as nuns upset the Bill Donahue set, too. Should we tell them not to do that because a vote is coming up? Oh and they don’t like certain television shows because there are gay characters – let’s pull those, an elections is coming up. Ah, let’s just make sure all homosexuals and lesbians wear suits and dresses respectively, modulate their voices (not too fem, not too butch) and act just like everyone else, there’s an election coming up! The only question now is what do we do with all the transgenders? Pesky trannies!

    The gay community has been diminished enough by the AIDS crisis. We don’t need our own members gnashing their teeth and telling the more flamboyant ones to “Tone it down – the Christians are watching!”

    Again, for the record, I think this poster is silly and it’s quite obvious why they’re doing it. If they were going to exercise discretion it should have come in the form of a higher level of creativity.

    If I were to give them points for anything it would be for not cowing to the pressure from the Right and the apologists, whose numbers are probably only hinted at here, in our own community.


  21. Amazed October 2nd, 2007 at 11:11 PM

    I think Jon wins the Drooling Illiterate Nincompoop prize for this thread!

    Wow, and I was sure that Interested Party had him beat! (of course, he may very well be Interested Party so…)

    Jon’s post has introduced yet another question into our discourse: Can you call an instructor at DeVry a “professor?” Hmm…



  22. Anonymous October 2nd, 2007 at 11:15 PM

    To take a page from an earlier post –

    Does anyone here NOT think Jon is actually Interested Party???

    Damn poser.


  23. lolatcollegeprofessor October 11th, 2007 at 12:46 PM

    “Can you call an instructor at DeVry a “professor?” Hmm…”



  24. fddemb October 13th, 2007 at 1:50 PM

    To depict Jesus Christ in a homosexual relationship when Jesus himself condemned homosexuality in the Bible is extremely blasphemous and inappropriate. I would hate to be the ones in the movie when they stand before Jesus himself someday and try to explain their actions before they are sent to hell. I can’t even look at the ad for it without being ashamed. By the way, I am gay.


  25. therearetoomanymorons October 13th, 2007 at 4:58 PM


    You forgot to add “… and a moron.” to the end of your post.

    Idiot, if YOU are “gay” and you feel that this Jesus you speak of will be upset that he was depicted as a homosexual in a film then he isn’t going to be too thrilled about YOU (you know BEING GAY) either, fool. Unless you’re suggesting that your Jesus doesn’t mind if you’re gay, just as long as you keep it away from him. Wow, he sounds just like your typical low-key homophobe.

    If figures. Religious types usually don’t think about anything too carefully. If they did they wouldn’t be religious.



  26. Me October 16th, 2007 at 10:06 PM

    I do believe it is blasphemous, i’m gay, and love porn, but why do we believe we have the right to judge, criticize, attack, and make fun of everything sacred to others, but as soon as we feel attacked, we feel like they’re crossing the line. We should respect!


  27. Amazed October 17th, 2007 at 12:14 PM


    Judging by your broken English I can only assume that you’re from some Third World (oh, I’m sorry “developing”) country in which the current dictator doesn’t allow freedom of expression.

    Well, here in the US, we have something called Freedom of Speech. Sure, it is sometimes taken too far (I’m not saying this silly poster is an example of that however) but it’s there to make sure that we CAN “make fun of, criticize, attack, etc.” and have different points of view available to everyone.

    If your religious convictions are so feeble that they can’t withstand a silly poster, a painting of Mary with elephant dung on it or a Jesus made out of chocolate then maybe you should direct all that righteous indignation toward some serious introspection.

    Here, I’ll put it in words you’ll understand:
    Get the fuck over it!


  28. Anonymous October 17th, 2007 at 12:16 PM

    I’m so sick of these new gays who are trying to belong so desperately that they feel it necessary to be outraged by – nothing – just like some uneducated, lower middle class American housewife.


  29. Seymor Butz September 10th, 2009 at 5:22 AM

    I generally hate thooper cereal religous bullshit but I really can’t find any other serious reason for this poster other than to offend and grab attention.

    “Artistic expression” or what ever their excuse was is generally retarded as well since the last supper holds no relavence to the event other than it being offencive to the group that is basically the enemy of the gay community.


Leave a Reply