OneMonkey.org

HISTORY
Bunk

Orthodox Porn

The missionary position?

Iconography

- What do you see?
- er..
- Yes, apart from THAT, what else?
- er..a tasteless carpet?
- No, something more tasteless..
- er.. Oh my God! Yes, I see!

Like most naive users of the internet, I occasionally stumble the most distgusting filth. Occasionally, I have to search quite hard for it. It is always getting me kicked out of EasyEverything (proving that the place is plainly misnamed) People would point at me and click their tongues in most disapproving 'tut tut tut's.

Some EasyEmployee comes along and unkindly asks me to leave before my alloted time is spent, just because the pictures on my screen are upsetting the 14 year old exchange student sitting next to me. Admittedly the images are somewhat gynecological in nature, but it is just human au natur and it would give her something to write home about. Besides, a statistic I recently made up states that 37% of all internet traffic is pornographic. Spend any length of time online and the chances are that sooner or later your screen will be filled by silcone valleys, shaved sacs and bored expressions. But I digress..

Jesus will come again!

Wandering the web one day, I found this series But what about the surroundings? It took a few shots for me to register the icons.

The wall are festooned with Christian Iconnery. And the real thing too, not some tacky Vatican souvenir shop trash. (You see it better here.) These pictures can only have been taken in a full-blown Bishops Palace. (Or possibly the villa of some South American drugs baron.)

Now I don't want to bash the bishops, the church has it hard enough as it is, but what can the particular consenting/offending bishop have been thinking? Is this really the way to attract young people to the church? Smiling young christians having fun in God's presence. Maybe I am too hard? After all, it is nice to see the church involved in some legal heterosexuality for a change. Normally, its all 'virgins', paedophilia or theophagy.

Is it offensive? Well I am not sure what position the Pope takes, but I am down with it. To me they look to be happy, smiling, wholesome consenting adults in the privacy of their own icon gallery doing what comes naturally. And I am sure he would be happy so see they are not using a condom! (A later image shows they are relying on a version of the withdrawal method.)

Is is blaphemous? I doubt they are satanists, and for all we know they might be married so it is possible they are not even adulterers. Nor are they anally stimulating each other with cruxifixes - a practice that although not specifically forbidden in the Good Book, is a kink that is fairly certain to upset some churchgoers, especially if they get splinters! (Aside: If you have ever tried to read Leviticus or Deuteronomy you will probably agree with me that 'the Good Book' is plainly misnamed.)

Context of sex.

Actually, I am being a bit premature. What is this image? How did it come about? I found a whole series of these, but the sequence did not provide much narrative. This was the first and from here it carried on predictably; Two people pretending to have sex. There was no scene setting, no explanation of how they came together. They have a wonderful set but no story. And granted we aren't supposed to be staring at the scenery, but I am perplexed.

Isn't part of the point of porn meant to be the fantasy? The feeble story enacted by performers whose dreadful dialogue cannot convince us they are plumbers or waitresses, but whose grunting and thrusting, yelping and 'oh yeah'-ing gulls us into thinking they are not just there for the money. What are the characters motivations? Maybe he is a wicked priest promising to cleanse an innocent parishoner of demons with his blessed essence? To help her overcome her doubts by filling her with the holy spirit? Or maybe she a Sister of Mercy, but then how did he get into her luxiuriant surroundings? Sure, it is hard to imagine she is a nun in boots like those, but without more information, who knows? (If you have any images which make it more explicit, maybe you could send them to me?)

Don't shoot the pornographer.

There it is. It amused me. I share it with you, drawn your own conclusions, I'm just the messenger. Don't think I haven't imagined the consequences and reactions to posting such art on my site. I certainly have. I will be highly entertained if some supposedly pious soul stares too hard and sees red, and gets set to pour forth bile and curses on my sorry head, if this is you, I'd ask you to forgive me, I won't even be offended if you pray for my soul.

What about those people that get aroused? I have had nightmares about all the laviscious exhibitionists who will prostrate themselves before me, begging, pleading and offering favours for the opportunity to expose themselves to my site. Okay, not nightmares exactly, but I did get pretty worked up.

What will my mother think? Ignorance is bliss. I am relying on the fact that my mother has difficulty with anything more technological than a Kalashnikov to protect me from her ever finding out. Of course, if she does find out, then her familiarity with 'the free-fighters light assault arm of choice' will give me extra cause for worry.

St. Augustine's Day, 28th August 2001

@onemonkey.org