how to: eat the penis off of a chocolate jesus and not look gay
Admittedly it is very difficult to eat a chocolate penis and not look gay. It is even harder to eat a chocolate penis right off of a 6 foot tall statue of man made of chocolate. Imagine how complicated it gets when that man is Jesus, and it is Easter Sunday. I know you’re thinking, “It is definitely NOT possible eat that chocolate penis and not look gay. You will look gay.” Well, you are wrong. Here are the steps and rules involved in eating the chocolate penis off of Cosimo Cavallaro’s “My Sweet Lord” if you don’t want to look gay. In case you don’t know, Cavallaro’s 6 foot tall, anatomically correct, chocolate Jesus was supposed to be shown this coming weekend in a NYC gallery, but the show was cancelled because of death threats from “love thy neighbor” Roman Catholics.
(If you don’t mind looking gay, and there is nothing wrong with that, then just go ahead and ignore one or more of these.)
1. Jesus is not a bunny and, as tempting as it might be, you cannot wake up before everyone else on Easter Sunday morning and just bite his ears or penis off.
2. “My Sweet Lord” is anatomically correct. That means he’s got balls too. You cannot eat the balls under any circumstances short of a full melt-down and recast.
3. You absolutely 100% CANNOT eat Jesus penis while it is still attached to his holy body.
4. Roman Catholics should be familiar with the first and most important step of the actual eating process. You must cleanly snap the penis off of the crotch area leaving only a small inverted “tree stump” shape. It is important that no traces of the penis be left on the body of the man, since Roman Catholics do not believe in genitalia though they do believe that Jesus rose from the dead. (If you are at unfamiliar with this technique, please visit any museum with an ancient Greek or Roman section, and you’ll see the remains of countless tree stump penii, delicately carved away by the artistically enlightened Roman Catholics.) He was conceived without sexual intercourse and therefore we must fear and despise the penis, pretending it doesn’t exist while half of Africa suffers and dies from AIDS.
5. You must never hold the detached penis around its trunk like a baseball bat. You should only hold the penis by both ends, or alternatively laid across the palms of both of your outstretched hands.
6. You must never compare the chocolate penis to your own. Granted, Jesus is well endowed, but he IS the son of God for Christsake.
7. Never, never, never lick Jesus’ chocolate penis. I don’t think this needs further elaboration.
8. When it finally comes time to take your first bite of the holy chocolate member, do not bite into it like a hotdog. This is gay. You must eat it with very small bites, side to side, like a corn on the cob.
9. Alternatively, you could slice the penis into very thin wafer-like chocolate disks which you could place, or have someone place, gingerly onto your tongue. From that point, you will allow the chocolate penis disks to melt in your mouth (not in your hands) while thinking about the goodness of Jesus’ penis, but not its length or girth.
10. Lastly, art is commentary on the society around it. Everything, and I mean everything, is up for commentary, mockery, ridicule, and debate. We do not live in Saudi Arabia (even though I am pretty close) and we cannot pick and choose what is too offensive for display, before even viewing or considering. Im am happy people are offended by this but everyone has the right to see it and make up their own mind on how offended to be. A nude, crucifix-less, chocolate Jesus is a stunning commentary on the commercialism of religious holidays, the ridiculousness of idolatry, and the deliciousness of chocolate.
Matt Semler, Lab Gallery’s Creative Director resigned after the decision was made not to show the work, and I applaud him for that. Frankly I don’t know if the gallery had any other choice after receiving death threats from hypocritical and brainwashed Roman Catholic sheep. These are the same people who condemned Muslim violence after Mohammed was depicted in a Dutch comic strip. You fucking people make me sick. I am offended by YOU. YOU are the terrorists. You should be ashamed of yourselves, your religion, and your morals. You should all be forced to eat a little bit of that penis with me, or better yet, go fuck yourself with it.
[first alerted by boingboing.]
Normally enjoy reading your opinions, but you seem a little harsh this time. Catholics or whomever have as much right to condemn/boycott as the artist has to display. If the Roger Smith bows to the heat, then that is what it is (i.e. company not wishing to have its bottom line impacted, that’s it). If you choose to be controversial, then usually there are consequences good or bad. This time they were negative.
As for fearing for their life, when’s the last time the Catholic League killed anybody? Terrorist? Geez. Way over the top.
And as for Art being commentary for society around it? Well I suppose there limits to this, at least for most people. I can imagine examples of antisemitism, muslim beheadings, Jim Crow, or other “Art” that may see a similar or even worse reaction from the offended party. Whether hidden in chocolate or not.
By the way, we should becalling this what it is… a Casimo Cavallaro publicity stunt. Most people had no idea who he was, now we do.
My two cents.
Hey Travis,
You can shove the Catholic church up your ass. And if there’s room, cram all the other religions up there too.
When is the last time Catholics killed anyone? F**k me, read a history book.
Yours truly,
Galileo Galilei
You know what? Forget the history book, just check out a little AIDS ravaged place called Africa where the Catholic Church preaches abstinence instead of contraception. You know how many thousands, if not millions, of people have died because of that?
Idiot.
I’m not going to attack Travis because I certainly want him to come back. I do want to be really clear about witty criticism.
You get half my point and miss another completely, but honestly, one thing you wrote made me have to stop and think for a minute. First of all, I welcome the consequences. I welcome the criticism, the outrage, and the public debate about this artwork. I do not wish to stifle the voice of the offended at all. Where I draw the line is the threat of violence. You dismiss it with, “As for fearing for their life, when’s the last time the Catholic League killed anybody? Terrorist? Geez. Way over the top.” Here you are completely wrong. The directors of that gallery pulled that exhibit because they were scared of violence against them. It is that simple. It doesn’t matter when the last time the Catholic League killed anyone. That is ridiculous. (Also, have a look at the documentary Jesus Camp to get some insight into what a good portion of the US believes in and how ready they are for violence.) Somebody called up and sounded credible enough. That’s all it took, and it is the very definition of terrorism. Fear of violence causing innocent people to change their behavior. Whether that means cartooning or chocolateering, it is exactly the same thing and we cannot stand for it. Where is the line? What else will religious outcry deny me of? Aren’t condoms in Africa and Greek god penises enough? What fucking year is this!!???
As for making me think, you did so with this, “I can imagine examples of antisemitism, muslim beheadings, Jim Crow, or other “Art” that may see a similar or even worse reaction from the offended party. Whether hidden in chocolate or not.” You made me think about my own buttons, and the lines artists might cross to turn me to violence. And I realized I have some. I also realized that I am particularly sensitive to this piece because it is about a God that I don’t believe in. And so I guess there is a point in there, at least for me, a little bit, that there is such a thing as a work of art that I might be so offended by that I might punch the artist in the face…
But wait. How do I know what the artist means by the work? How do I know the hypothetical chocolate black man hanging piece isn’t a commentary on how horrible modern day racism is? Do I judge that by the color of the guy who made the sculpture? Is it a celebration of racism? If so, the artist will likely be laughed or screamed out of credible artistic circles. Don’t we all deserve a chance to see it and judge for ourselves?
Does the over-the-top antisemitism of Borat make Sasha Cohen an antisemite. Did my laughing along and VERY out loud to “Throw the Jew down the well” tell me something disturbing about myself? Where is the line? When is art not allowed to make these assertions? Why is art not allowed to tread in the gray area, causing us to think or debate or cry?
We must be allowed to see these things and we must be given the choice to turn away. And while I would agree that there are lines that could be crossed to offend even me, I think they must be allowed to be crossed. The threat of violence is the only line that should not be crossed.
(In writing this I realized that I have a slightly different opinions of public works made with public money where “turning away” is not possible. I haven’t thought about it too much and it is slightly off topic, but I think I would agree that the purpose of works like those would not be controversy and debate. Different topic for a different day.)
So Travis, you are entitled to your opinion, even though I disagree. But if you lived next door to me and I threatened you with violence, you might not be so cavalier about giving it. We all deserve the right to see the naked chocolate Jesus if we want to, to draw our own informed conclusions about it, and then argue as loud we feel we need to. This is really, really simple.
All of the above notwithstanding, I for one would lick the chocolate balls. Wonder if they’re salty?
As a happily lapsed Catholic and a fully paid-up athiest, I can’t help but wonder where all this ends. I was lead to believe (ironically, as it happens) that the roots of all religion lie in faith. That is to say, it’s what you believe that counts; what anyone else may hold to be true - or false - is neither here nor there.
No disrespect intended Travis, but is your faith so shaky that a chocolate Jesus cock can rock its foundations? Nothing personal - I’d ask the same of the silly fuckers who couldn’t take the Mohammed-with-a-bomb-for-a-turban cartoon for the (politically loaded) joke that is was so obviously intended as.
“Catholics or whomever have as much right to condemn/boycott as the artist has to display.” For sure. And the same rules apply in reverse - the artist has as much right to display as Catholics have to condemn/boycott. It’s just that I don’t recall the artist having called in a pre-show death threat to Cardinal O’Connor.
So bring on the chocolate cock. After all, didn’t He once say “This is my flesh, which is for you”?
BTW, superb post DiClerico…
I wonder if the chocolatey body of Christ is filled with that delicious, nausiatingly-sweet Cadbury Easter Egg goo..
Mmmm…Jesus goo…
Good debate. By the way I’m not Catholic but my wife is. I was actually raised Babtist.
Hey Galileo, I think both means of contraception in Africa would be effective and maybe you’re a little high strung (spanking the monkey can help with that). If we truly are looking to save lives, then let’s do all we can to start using DDT as a pesticide in all third world countries and stop worrying about some hippie lies about thinning bird eggs. I digress….
And my point about those terrorist Catholics was that the church doesn’t sponsor or endorse killing people. They, like any organization, cannot stop wackos from aligning with them. As for the history book, I’ve read them and every culture in history has killed/murdered based on their beliefs, including Catholic’s/Muslims/Germans/Amercians et al.
Anyway, in a nutshell (no pun intended), these types of displays should and can be displayed for all to diagnose/understand but when mixed with commercial business or public monies then this type of outcry can shut them down. I just beleive this was more of a money thing, than a fear thing. Roger Smith was going to be economically impacted, therefore they shut it down.
Travis
Hey last thing I want to do get involved in this debate, but I’m really confused by this whole post. Started off kinda creepy and ended very very angry.
I’m pretty easy going, and I find that chocolate Jesus creepy and uncomfortable. Not death threat worthy, but really I’m kind of lazy and don’t care about things much, but I’m definately put off.
I question how much of all of this is BS. “Chocolate Jesus” sounds like BS art to me (but a great ODB nickname) I say the people who called in a death threat are full of it too (they’d never follow through) and this conversation also seems pretty ostentatious. Who really cares about this?
If you think Chocolate Jesus is a) real art b) worth killing over or c) worth commenting on - you are probably a J-Hole.
Although I fit my own description of “C” so I guess you know where I’m coming from
Travis,
I don’t think atheists, as a culture, every killed or murdered anyone.
And if you think preaching abstinence in Africa works and Christians are correct in cutting funding from any clinic dispensing condoms, that’s just plain crazy. That’s plenty of death on the pope’s conscience without even delving into the church’s bloody history.
I will now pour Hershey’s on my knob and I invite anybody foolish and/or ignorant enough to beleive in ANY religion to “suck it.”
~ Andrew
Can you even classify atheist as a culture?
I would almost classify it as a non-culture (counter culture maybe). Probably a discussion for another day, but I would not lump the random killer/murdering atheist into the same historical classification as race/religion/countries etc. Unless we believe that never has there been a killer or murdering atheist… Is this true?
By the way, I’m about halfway done with my half Malcolm X half MLK white chocolate masterpiece. This beauty delivers where that phallicly challenged Chocolate Jesus disappoints…… Just Kidding.
Travis
I can tell Travis is a religious man because he’s selective in what he reads and derives whatever meaning is convenient.
So you only refer to a collective as a culture when that collective is based on religion or geography? Myopic at best.
Well whether you personally consider it a culture or not, Atheists (or non-theists) don’t kill for their beliefs. Catholics have killed, and are killing, millions because of their dogma. They are also making billions of people miserable (e.g. homosexuals, chocolate sculptors, masturbators, would-be divorcees). This latest fiasco over a work of ART is just more proof that Catholics are close-minded morally-bankrupt fools with no capacity for reason.
Don’t worry, I have plenty of resentment for all the other world religions, but you’re right, probably a discussion for another day.
Rossi, the catalyst of these comments (chocolaty JC) might not be something we should truly care about, but IMO the more dialogue about religion (and the absurdity of it) that occurs among our generation the better. Evangelical Christians are destroying this country…
~ Andrew (confirmed J-Hole)
Okay, we were able to amicably ridicule the lumpy-fronted goddess from the mystical East and we can’t just agree that a Cocoa Christ is benign? Why can’t we all just get along.
I guess I lived in the Midwest too long because I just took it as a guy who realized he was really good at molding candy and happened to be religious. Can’t imagine why there would be tantrums, given that there are those half-bathtub things standing around in at least 75 percent of the lawns in South Bend with varyingly garish plastic Mary statues in them. If we can mold whatever kind of religious symbolism we want from polymers, what’s the big deal? I mean, if I had my way, we’d go back to stoning scrapbookers in the town square, but hey, I understand that the world’s not tolerant of my religious expression.
I really must be missing something.
Wow. Andrew sure has it all figured out. Life must be really boring knowing everything.
Speaking of myopic, that appears to be a good description of your view on religion in general. Considering 84% of the world is religious, according to your dogmatic view of religion, they must all be wrong.
I’m not sure catholicism is making homosexuals, chocolate sculptures, and masturbators “Miserable”, at least not “billions”. Unless of course everyone who isn’t catholic is miserable, because of catholics.
Lighten up cowboy, we’re having a discussion. We get it, you can care less about religion. Actually I’m not all that religious, but I do have faith. It is personal and I don’t push it on anybody.
Hi Chris. This is Erika, Valerie’s friend. You may remember me from eating everything in your family’s refridgerator from 1997- 2003. I like your piece on chocolate jesus. i like it better when you tell the story about your head stuck in the car window. If you tell that story on this here website, please e-mail me to read it. Hope all is well.
Erika
This was one of the most amusing articles in a while. I too had heard of the ‘cadburry jesus bunny’ and thought, what would it be like to chew the nipples of christ? lol.
Being religious (and I’ll spare any cowardly insecure deviant here the enjoyment of calling me Gay.. Cause I am.. what, you want to suck my dick, is that why you are so insecure? You should be, I’m blessed too, but not out of chocolate LOL).
Actaully the statue of christ done in milk chocolate is very impressive, and being Spiritual (and a member of the ULC - United Life Church for those here who are truly ignorant), I find it something that bears truth to.
Too many of you here are worried about what your other man/woman thinks, why can’t you just accept what they say and allow yourself that acceptance? religion doesn’t cause wars - it’s ignorance and insecurity - and those same people use religion as a good excuse, but then alot of religion was based on much bullshit anyhow.
My advice? skip the frosted Easter Lamb cake, and go right for the chocolate devilled eggs of the holy bunnyman.