compartmentalization

The Opposite of Pareidolia: Refusing To Acknowledge Giant Phalluses in Oklahoma Church Art

Fri, 2010-04-16 10:17

You know those stories where someone notices that, if you squint just right, and turn your head a little, and ignore that little bulge on the top, a rust stain on a wall or a scorch mark on a tortilla looks exactly like [your favorite deity or rockstar here]? And then sometimes hundreds or thousands of people do pilgrimages to go see it, either in real life or, more often, on Ebay?

And you may remember, or at least might have heard, that back in the 1990s about prolonged outrage over alleged hidden phalluses on The Little Mermaid covers? (Just think how that would have been handled by today’s 24/7 noise machines!?!?!)

Anyway, (via AAG) Melissa McEwan of has uncovered sort of the opposite effect: Church officials in Oklahoma wearing up and down there’s nothing to see at all, nope, nothing at all to… well, here’s how McEwan puts it


Source: Photobucket via Shakesville

If you can’t view the image, it’s of a ten-foot-tall crucifix hanging in St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church in Oklahoma, in which Jesus’ abs (I ain’t gonna mince words) look like a huge cock and balls.

The controversial crucifix has caused a deep divide among members of St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church, where it hangs above the main altar.

“There are a couple people who have left the parish,” said the Rev. Philip Seeton, the church’s pastor. “There are people in the parish who don’t like it and have stayed.”

Critics of the crucifix take issue with what appears to be a large penis covering Jesus’ abdominal area. Seeton said the portion of the crucifix in question is meant to be Jesus’ abdomen “showing distension” — not a penis.

Via Andy, who notes: “The crucifix is based on the San Damiano Crucifix. As you can see, it has distended abs too.”

Read the quote, and lively (and pretty hilarious) commentarey, here.

Despite McEwen’s warning for those triggered by associations with priest abuse the comments are perhaps-uncharacteristically light-hearted for Shakesville. For instance a commenter named Rehmeyer said “Seek immediate medical attention if your distended abs last longer than four hours.”


The pastor’s response reminds me a lot of Mississippi John Hurt’s reaction to criticism of the lyrics of his Candy Man Blues. Claiming to be surprised he said he couldn’t help it if some people have dirty minds.

The lyrics, by the way…

Well all you ladies gather ‘round
That good sweet candy man’s in town
It’s the candy man
It’s the candy man

He likes a stick of candy just nine inch long
He sells as fast a hog can chew his corn
It’s the candy man
It’s the candy man

All heard what sister Johnson said
She always takes a candy stick to bed
It’s the candy man
It’s the candy man

...

His stick candy don’t melt away
It just gets better, so the ladies say
It’s the candy man
It’s the candy man

Lyrics found here by random Google.

I’m sure Rev. Seeton knew exactly how he felt.

Because "Part-of-Everyday-Life Blogging" Would Be Such a Mouthful

Mon, 2008-06-23 12:33

Z of The Naked Truth says

The other day, someone said to me that this is not a sex blog, it’s an emotion blog. Is it? I don’t know. Maybe it’s a sex-through-a-veil-of-emotion blog, or an emotion-through-a-veil-of-sex-blog, or it’s more of a relationship blog than a sex one, mainly detailing the close and generally fulfilling one between my body and my head.

Read the quote in context here.

Funny how you never hear people say “well, he’s not a real a food blogger” or “You couldn’t really call her a transportation policy blogger.”

Something similar popped up in comments when The Ethical Slut discussed vulvodynia, a decidedly sex-related topic for her because it was getting in the way of (ok, effectively wrecking) her ability to enjoy intercourse. The commenter said “Wow, the writing here has gotten to be a bit of a downer. Meh. Buh bye.”

Anyway, I got a little lightbulb reading Z’s post though and I think maybe the distinction isn’t sex vs. non-sex blogs but sex vs. reliable-wank-material blogs. (And by the way I think TES’s retort to her commenter supports my contention.)

Anyway this is all kind of a nuisance. On the one hand you’re not a “sex blogger” if you don’t reel off your nightly encounters. Meanwhile for everyone else if you use any of the Carlin words it’s off to the pink ghetto, never to be seen by Google or Ad-Sense again.

User login