Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  art history

Michelangelo Painted His Slutty Bathhouse Rendezvous In The Sistine Chapel

I’m not sure how nobody saw it before, but Michelangelo’s beautiful paintings like “The Last Judgment” were supposedly inspired by the artist’s visits to bathhouses. His Sistine Chapel frescos, replete with naked dudes pointing fingers at each other, originated in the 16th century sex scene in Rome, claims University of Pisa researcher Elena Lazzarini.

“The figures descending to hell and ascending to heaven are inspired by the virile, muscular manual workers and porters Michelangelo would have seen during his visits to the baths, which are well documented,” says Lazzarini. “It was here he defined the build of the working man as the ideal physique.”

Lazzarini pointed out that in the painting, which spans an entire wall of the chapel where papal conclaves are held, one of the damned is being dragged down to hell by his testicles while men heading for heaven hug and kiss “in an ambiguous fashion”. “Such scenes could have been inspired by the visits to the baths,” she said.

Not that Christ & Co. need to feel gross or anything.

Antonio Paolucci, the director of the Vatican Museums, said Lazzarini’s theory was no cause for embarrassment to the Holy See. “It’s entirely possible and it changes nothing,” he said. “Michelangelo studied the human form everywhere, including in hospitals. And that passion for the human body, particularly male, remains unchanged. If there was any embarrassment it was at the time, not now.”

How long before Roman Catholic priests levy that excuse to explain why they’re cruising Manhunt and frequenting the day spas?

By:           JD
On:           Nov 15, 2010
Tagged: , , , ,

  • 17 Comments
    • Fagburn
      Fagburn

      “I’m not sure how nobody saw it before…”

      Is this a joke Queerty? It’s been said a zillion times before this…

      Nov 15, 2010 at 11:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      Don’t believe the theory for a second, but to the extent that it disturbs anyone at the He-Man Women Hater’s and Pedophile Club, I applaud it unreservedly.

      Nov 15, 2010 at 12:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      There is a difference between a source of inspiration and a source of reference.

      For a student of anatomy, the baths would be a source of reference – a place to study, with or without the double entendre, human anatomy.

      But inspiration for both works in the Sistine Chapel come out of Christian theology and popular belief.

      Nov 15, 2010 at 1:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      Where have you guys at Queerty been? The biggest hoot is how Michelangelo portrayed the female body in those wall frescoes. HE DIDN’T! All the women are the same workmen in drag.

      I’ve spent many hours in the vast museums and public halls of the Vatican. Along with Renaissance art, it’s one of the greatest repositories of Greco-Roman art and sculpture. Look at the bios of the greatest artist represented there and, bottom line, the Vatican is our very own majestic gay museum.

      BTW, anybody trying to walk the Church line that M. wasn’t on our team has to deal with all the private love letters and poetry to his boyfriends that he left behind that still exist, though the Church tried to get rid of them. Along with great art, the Vatican is also one of the world’s great repositories of bullshit.

      Nov 15, 2010 at 2:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      @Cassandra: I understand your point. However, Michelangelo did not pick the themes of the frescoes in the chapel. What was to be painted was assigned to him when he was contracted to do the work. Michelangelo was a paid professional. The genius was in HOW he painted, not what he painted.

      Nov 15, 2010 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      Obviously Michelangelo ignored the quote from Jesus in the Gospel of Luke:

      “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters — yes, even his own life — he cannot be my disciple.”

      Nice guy Jesus, eh?

      Nov 15, 2010 at 4:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Merlyn
      Merlyn

      @romeo:

      Interesting observation. I’ve always said that his paintings of women in the Sistine Chapel were likely modeled on men.

      Nov 15, 2010 at 4:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      @romeo- “Along with Renaissance art, it’s one of the greatest repositories of Greco-Roman art and sculpture”

      Yes, but the vatican does not show any of the ancient greek homosexual art, statues, vases. We only know about this gay art because is was hidden or buried away, or sunk in shipwrecked cargo holds.

      And it doesn’t show any of this gay art because christianity is inherantly homophobic – homophobic in its very bones – and because, when christians siezed control of the roman empire, the followers of this filthy death cult went on a destructive spree of vandalism, smashing, burning, destroying anything pagan and homosexual (smashing the cocks off statues all over the ancient world) pulling down temples, killing the worshippers of the ancient cults.

      So, whilst the modern day versions of the destructive christians in the Vatican museum may preserve Greco-Roman art and sculpture, don’t forget that it’s only a tiny proportion of what they didn’t destroy and what magnificant gay art that once existed.

      Nov 15, 2010 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      “However, Michelangelo did not pick the themes of the frescoes in the chapel. What was to be painted was assigned to him when he was contracted to do the work. Michelangelo was a paid professional. The genius was in HOW he painted, not what he painted.”

      Actually, the specifics of both commissions were left up to Michelangelo, and there was some significant criticism from his patron, Pope Julius, over the choices the artist made.

      His genius lies not only in how he painted, or how he perceived and rendered color, or his compositional innovations, but in how he chose to express whatever theme was commissioned.

      There is a reason why many art competitions delineate a theme – it requires artists to do more than just render something accurately. How an artist treats a theme is as important as how they handle their medium.

      Nov 15, 2010 at 6:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Tallskin2

      It is so kind of you to demonstrate that atheism is intrinsically opposed to integrity, honesty and decency once again.

      I can only imagine what your posts would be like if you followed a belief system that prohibited lying and malice, instead of atheism which celebrates both.

      “Yes, but the vatican does not show any of the ancient greek homosexual art, statues, vases. We only know about this gay art because is was hidden or buried away, or sunk in shipwrecked cargo holds.”

      Maybe in an alternative universe, but not here.

      “And it doesn’t show any of this gay art because christianity is inherantly homophobic ”

      Just as homophobes lie about homosexuals, tallskin2 posts lies about Christians and Christianity. Both homophobes and Tallskin2 tell lies because only by creating a false reality can they find support for their hatred and contempt of millions of human beings.

      Christianity is not inherently homophobic, the truth is that the core values of Christianity repudiate all prejudices, and the condemnation of homosexuality that some Christians articulate contradicts Christian teaching. But, like homophobes, tallskin2 perpetuates the lie because it serves his personal hatred for an entire subset of humanity.

      “– homophobic in its very bones –”

      A complete lie, since even the few verses that some people of faith twist into a condemnation of homosexuality, are superficial, tangential points of discussion. Haters like tallskin2, or homophobes, create the false and injurious impression that Christianity is defined by its condemnation of homosexuality for the sole purpose of excusing and justifying their own hate and malice.

      “the followers of this filthy death cult ”

      Homophobes routinely label homosexuality a culture of death. Tallskin2 is just another bigot with a different target.

      Homophobes routinely accuse GLBTQ people of destroying culture, of being a threat to humanity – outrageous and truly evil hate speech that is equally evil when it comes from atheists and is directed at Christians.

      Atheism is just another prejudice, and atheists are just another kind of bigot.

      Nov 15, 2010 at 6:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin2
      tallskin2

      @Cassandra -”Christianity is not inherently homophobic”

      Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah
      Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah
      Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah
      Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah
      Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah
      Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah
      Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah
      Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah
      Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah
      Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah
      Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah

      (Falls about laughing on the floor in total disbelief at such a dumb statement)

      Nov 15, 2010 at 6:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Tallskin2

      “Hah. . . Hah

      (Falls about laughing on the floor in total disbelief at such a dumb statement)”

      I get the same response from homophobes when I refute their many lies about our lives.

      They believe that they can know more about what it is to be gay that gay people can. You believe that you can know more about what it is to be a person of faith than people of faith can.

      When challenged on your false assertions, you rely on the dehumanizing and abusive behavior of mockery. Homophobes do exactly the same thing, as anyone else here has probably seen for themselves too many times.

      Atheists opining about religion are like celibates opining about sex.

      The truly awful thing, Tallskin2, is that every time you assert that Christianity is defined by its prejudice against homosexuality, you are nurturing prejudice against GLBTQ people solely to advance your prejudice against people of faith. You are putting GLBTQ people in danger in order to foster hatred against people of faith.

      Homophobes only hate and despise 10% of humanity, but atheism teaches hatred and contempt for 99%.

      Nov 15, 2010 at 7:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • prajna
      prajna

      @Cassandra
      There are some serious holes in your arguments…
      You say, “atheists opining about religion are like celibates opining about sex”, as if either is completely inexperienced of the opposite. The truth is, most celibates choose celibacy after having already experienced sex, and many atheists have been raised within religions, i.e. having previously been “persons of faith”. Making the decision to reject faith, as atheists do, is based on experience of that faith, and on “reason” – something which religious people abhor altogether or only use so far as it supports their faith.
      Atheism is not an organization, and as such doesn’t “teach” any one thing but rejection of irrationality…and it certainly doesn’t teach hatred and contempt for 99% of people, as you hysterically state (talk about inciting hatred! )
      Cassandra, show me a minister who demonstrates “integrity, honesty, decency” and I’ll show you Ratzinger and his protection of pedophiles, or Pastor Eddie Long, two of whom represent the norm of corruption within religion since time immemorial. Ethics and morals might be used religiously, but they evolved out of social dynamics prehistorically, long before religion ever took over.
      I agree with you that Christianity may not be inherently homophobic; the Catholic Church certainly practises homophobia though, as do most fundamentalist Christian religions, and those groups represent by far the majority of Christians on this planet, so it’s not a stretch to say the religion is homophobic.
      Cassandra, you confuse hatred with derision. Atheists may laugh at the foolishness of religion and may work to enlighten those still lost in Dark Ages thinking, but that doesn’t equate with hatred, or hatred of religious people. Hatred is something practiced much more by the religious (as most people throughout history have been religious) when they burnt people at the stake, bullied LGBTQ teenagers until they committed suicide, or fought any of the many holy wars of the past (and present).
      If you want people to listen to your “expertise” on this or any other matter, perhaps you should think twice about posting further irrational comments. @Tallskin2 doesn’t need to “create a false or injurious impression” of Christianity, because Christians do that well enough for themselves.
      Kudos to Michelangelo! Thumbed his nose at the Pope and got paid well for it.

      Nov 15, 2010 at 9:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • slobone
      slobone

      And here I thought it was his sculptures of “slaves” that were the real gay porn…

      [img]http://images.travelpod.com/users/jamierand/1.1242287880.1_michelangelo-slaves.jpg[/img]

      Nov 16, 2010 at 9:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      prajna

      You wrote: “There are some serious holes in your arguments…”

      We shall see if you find any. I have doubts.

      “You say, “atheists opining about religion are like celibates opining about sex”, as if either is completely inexperienced of the opposite. The truth is, most celibates choose celibacy after having already experienced sex, and many atheists have been raised within religions, i.e. having previously been “persons of faith”.”

      So, the two do have something in common, so the comparison is accurate. And it remains true that both celibates, and atheists, have rejected the very thing they both profess to be expert enough on to judge and pass sentence on the experiences of others.

      “Making the decision to reject faith, as atheists do, is based on experience of that faith, and on “reason” – something which religious people abhor altogether or only use so far as it supports their faith.”

      Your mistake here lies in confusing religion with religious experience. Not everyone who “have been raised within religions” has experienced the Divine. But think about your argument a moment. You are saying that atheists have experienced the Divine and yet reject that experience based on what? Their thoughts and questionable reasoning skills? Is that really reasonable?

      In fact, your vision of atheists bears a striking similarity to ex-gays – who experience same-sex attractions and have sex, but reason away the truth of their own experiences and dismiss the testimony of other GLBTQ people.

      Your claim that religious people abhor reason is simply hate speech on your part – a vicious lie told to degrade and dehumanize most of humanity in order to exalt your own ego. Seems to me that you are affirming by example what I have presented.

      “Atheism is not an organization, and as such doesn’t “teach” any one thing”

      Something doesn’t have to be an organization to teach. Is this what you consider reason? Atheism is a specific belief with only one tenet: “God does not exist”. It intrinsically repudiates the experiences of most of humanity, not because it has any evidence, but from either the lack of evidence, or as you claim, by deliberately rejecting evidence atheists have themselves experienced.

      “but rejection of irrationality…”

      But the sole tenet of atheism says nothing about irrationality. Your assumption that religion is irrational is a reflection of your prejudice of atheism. Religion is not irrational, it is not irrational for people to acknowledge and share the things that happen to them, find value in those experiences, and be led by those experiences to be more just, more compassionate, to improve themselves, and so on.

      Claiming that your rejection of your own experiences, per your scenario of atheism, or claiming that your lack of experience proves that everyone else who has experienced the Divine is wrong – is not rational.

      “and it certainly doesn’t teach hatred and contempt for 99% of people,”

      Sure it does. Religion is based on personal experience, atheism states that all people of faith are wrong about their own experiences, “just because” – and athiests routinely assert their desire for a world without religion, coercing most of humanity. This is hate and contempt, and it is the foundation of atheism.

      “as you hysterically state”

      Characterizing my calm, accurate statement as ‘hysterical’ is an example of contempt and an expression of hate.

      “Cassandra, show me a minister who demonstrates “integrity, honesty, decency” and I’ll show you Ratzinger and his protection of pedophiles, or Pastor Eddie Long, two of whom represent the norm of corruption within religion since time immemorial.”

      Here we have a classic example of prejudice. You are defining all people of faith by several who have done terrible things, just as homophobes do all the time. I can show you hundreds of clergy who demonstrate integrity, honesty and decency, and thousands of lay people. I have yet to find even one atheist who demonstrates that qualities though.

      And in answer to your citation of Ratzinger and Eddie Long – should you ever find a truly honest, decent atheist with integrity, what about the Stasi in East Germany, or Communist China, or the nice atheist homophobe who shot up a church during a children’s program, killing a number of people?

      “Ethics and morals might be used religiously, but they evolved out of social dynamics prehistorically, long before religion ever took over.”

      Try to substantiate that, please. Because the earliest records humans have left, include religion.

      “I agree with you that Christianity may not be inherently homophobic; the Catholic Church certainly practises homophobia though, as do most fundamentalist Christian religions, and those groups represent by far the majority of Christians on this planet, so it’s not a stretch to say the religion is homophobic.”

      Actually, those “groups” – the Catholic hierarchy and fundamentalist Christians, do not represent the majority of Christians, not by far or near or close or sort of. You are broadbrushing the amazing diversity of Christianity, and religion, by the portion that suits your prejudice.

      That is not honest or decent, and it shows an absence of integrity.

      “Cassandra, you confuse hatred with derision.”
      No. But derision is one way of expressing hate, all too often a diagnostic symptom of it. Of course, atheism goes beyond mere derision, though, deriding people for their experiences is what homophobes do, and we recognize that for what it is – hate.

      “Atheists may laugh at the foolishness of religion and may work to enlighten those still lost in Dark Ages thinking,”

      Of course, characterizing people of faith as ‘lost in dark ages thinking’ is derogatory and abusive, and thus, an expression of hate.

      “but that doesn’t equate with hatred, or hatred of religious people.”

      Tell yourself all the same lies that homophobes do – because they use this same game too. “Oh, it isn’t hate when we tell you that homosexuals are perverts, we are trying to enlighten you about your own lives which we just know better than you do”.

      “Hatred is something practiced much more by the religious (as most people throughout history have been religious) when they burnt people at the stake, bullied LGBTQ teenagers until they committed suicide, or fought any of the many holy wars of the past (and present).”

      Hatred has been practiced by all kinds of people, in all kinds of situations. People have waged war for all kinds of reasons, bullied people for all kinds of reasons, even executed people for all kinds of reasons. The witch trials, for example, were only superficially about religion – that was only an excuse. Look at who most of the victims were – women living independently, with enough property to survive on their own. The witch trials were a way for the male patriarchy to get its hands on property it otherwise could not attain.

      Religion has been used as an excuse for lots of terrible things, but then, so has everything else. But religion, unlike atheism, actually teaches that injustice is wrong, that selfishness is not a virtue, that justice is to be sought and implemented.

      Atheism just says ‘everyone else is wrong’.

      “If you want people to listen to your “expertise” on this or any other matter, perhaps you should think twice about posting further irrational comments.”

      Ah, if there were any doubt about the value of what I post, you wouldn’t have to dismiss it as irrational. You know, homophobes have tried the same trick on me too. When I provide a rebuttal they cannot refute, they dismiss it as irrational.

      Of course, the sexism in your particular dismissal is noteworthy, “irrational” is a common way to dismiss women, who were thought to be prone to it.

      “@Tallskin2 doesn’t need to “create a false or injurious impression” of Christianity, because Christians do that well enough for themselves.”

      Again, you are validating my premise by example, for here again you are judging billions of people by the actions of some. Never mind that you are excusing tallskin2′s overt lies and deception, which is neither honest or decent, and indicates a lack of integrity on your part.

      But since atheism does not commend, encourage, demand or nurture honesty, decency of integrity, but rather, nurtures egotism, and promotes the dehumanization and dismissal of most of humanity, at least you are being true to your belief system.

      Seems the only holes you exposed were in your own character.

      Nov 16, 2010 at 10:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Vic
      Vic

      They were baths not sex clubs.

      Nov 16, 2010 at 10:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greybat
      greybat

      Thanks for keeping us on Topic, Vic!

      Nov 17, 2010 at 4:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.