Not a member? Sign up now
August 3, 2000
| POETRY |
And God made, apart from Heaven, a garden, which was vaguely tedious, and studded with stenches. And feeling both the stench and the tedium, and feeling a need to do violence to them, God made the boy.
And God gave the boy a huge cock, which pleased Him, and which pleased the boy.
And the boy played with his huge cock, alone, for hours, and the stinking tedious garden resounded his dateless delight.
And God, seeing the datelessness of the delight, put a deep sleep upon the boy, whereupon He lifted the boy's huge cock up into Heaven and held it close to His ownmost cheek, whereupon He closed his eyes and pressed the delicate cock-head to His closed lids and to His lashes, and whereupon He felt the silky sink-hole of His own divine mind.
And God loved His own silky sink-hole so, He found himself having imagined the eye-balls beneath His lids.
And God forthwith placed His eyeballs, which He could not endure, in a silky sack, which He attached to the boy's huge cock, and which He placed back upon the boy as He wakened him from his fruitless sleep.
And the boy began again to play with his huge cock and with his newfound sack, God's own eyeballs, and now from his huge cock issued the stuff of life, pouring forth uselessly into the dust.
And God saw the stuff of life, the stuff of His own eyes, poured into the dust and upon the fruitless bushes, and He said, "This dust, these bushes . . . do not know how to take it."
And so God, from the fast-evaporating silky sink-hole of His own divine mind, made woman.
And God placed woman in the tedium and the stench of the garden beside the boy, and beside the boy's huge cock, and God said to the boy, "Behold: pussy," and the boy understood the word of God for the first and the last time.
And so in the garden there was silky-good pussy and a huge cock, and this pleased God, and this pleased the boy, and God's eyeballs rose up through the boy's cock and spilled out into the pussy, for which the boy was always at first grateful.
And the woman, with the huge cock turned toward her, and indeed, turned into her, was the intersection of two immense pleasures — the boy's and God's — and she did not know which, if either, was hers. She could not decide.
And this indecision became her, became woman, and in herself, pussy was often withheld from the boy.
And God began to pine for the boy's huge cock, for the silky sink-hole of His own divine mind began to forget itself, and so God made His eyeballs inside the woman — and inside every woman from that day forward — begin to grow, and to cause the woman both joy and pain at the same time.
And from the grown eyeballs of God came forth another woman, and from her, other women, and from them, other women and other boys, and with each one came either a huge cock or a new silky-good pussy, and before much time there were too many cocks, too many pussies, to be accurately counted.
And so, despite the tedium and the stench of the garden, and despite the frequent indecision of every woman, and despite the prevalance of smaller and smaller cocks, much pussy was nevertheless found and filled up with God's eyeballs, and for this, God and everyone who was ever really there was thankful.
Joe Wenderoth and Nerve.com
Commentarium (28 Comments)
So..the Woman's sex life is defined by indecision? And the Man's sex life is constant pursuit of this indecisive pussy? C'mon - I think I've read this before - and it's still tired. The desire to not be pregnant and chained to said Man may have something to do with it. This is the kind of stuff i expect to read in Playboy - not on Nerve. And I'm an angry male - not an angry female.
What the hell is this? I've read some alternate readings of the Eden story, sure, but this load of crap was just bad! I mean, semen and ova are God's eyeballs? Is there some source for this, or is this just some Troma-inspired wanking carried on by whoever it was who wrote this? I'm sorry, I thought Nerve was better than this.
hey - fuck off, feedback-writers... nice one Joe, how's Wendy?
Ugh. Not up to your usually fine standards, poetry and otherwise.
This writer is totally insensitive to the feelings and philosophy of other people who are believers in God and embrace their faith with honor, dignity and sincerity - none of which the author can appreciate.
This writer is an atheist with anomosity toward faith of any kind and I find the writing to be disgusting and dispicable and I will never visit this web site again.
you people need to get a SENSE OF HUMOR.
Amusing but entirely inconsequential.
Joe's piece joins Monty Python et al. in the scabrous humor department. Valuable stuff!!! (I smiled all through it.) Even if it isn't Shakespeare (which it clearly isn't), it is very useful.
Anthropolgists use the term "a joking relationship" to identify certain intensely competitive and therefore tension-filled relationships in tribes, e.g. maternal uncle and nephew. So the jokes that are the funniest to us are the ones that tap the most powerful unresolved tensions in our worlds.
Now, clearly, if Genesis is powerful (and culturally it sure is), and if it seems to deny our sense of our own sexuality, then making a joke of it is great therapy.
But of course, you have to have a certain degree of liberatedness to appreciate the humor. If you are still overwhelmed by the authority of Genesis, then it isn't funny; it is scary, and it pisses people off, and at a certain point, they can get violent about it.
So, "smile when you say that, pardner."
Wonderful to see someone irreverently filling in the gaps in our Judeo-Christian mythos. At least *I* don't remember that part about penis/God's eyeballs/pussy in the Genesis section of the comic book bible that I read. It makes at least as much sense as some of the other creation myths that humans have cooked up over the years.
In addition to there being little sexual discussion in most western religious texts, has anybody else noticed the lack of a sense of humor as well? Is there some correlation between the two? To get into heaven, do we have to give up all fun? Didn't Jesus laugh? Yeah, great that he turned water into wine... but what they didn't tell you is that he had originally turned the wine into water as a practical joke first! Ha-ha, very funny Mr. Miracle Man, now turn it back into wine so we can get on with the event. :)
I'm not sure what I'm getting at. Just random ramblings bubbling up from my brain and spilling out onto the keyboard. But why didn't they preach to us about sex or laughter? I don't think this is purely an Episcopalian thing.
I don't have all the religious answers. I'm not an atheist, nor am I practicing any particular religion, but I've experienced enough religion to know that in addition to a *healthy respect* for those beliefs, there also needs to be a little sense of humor. C'mon! Christians are worshiping a man who completely trashed his own religious establishment's temple. Aren't we allowed to shake loose a few good questions for ourselves???
Not only was your little story REPULSIVE, but your reaction to the comments you've recieved are evan worse. To put this type of smut into some sort or Religious Twist is not only Sacreligious, it's S T U P I D!!!! Your a pig, and you cant' evan spell. People like you make me sick. Trust me, there is a place in hell with your name on it. Nerve, you got alot of nerve putting this one in here. You've lost my interest.
and, you know, I don't give a damn about mixing up god and semen - genesis and excrement - don't give a good god damn. It's the tired old man=hunting, woman=hunted that burns me. It's just sophmoric, dull, and oh so icky. - hornrim
Another immensely entertaining piece of Wenderothism. Muchos gracias.
Anyone who can't take a good joke about God and/or creationism must be filed under the category of "doosh."
Joe needs help!
This is a very distasteful atticle and I can't believe anyone would be interested or publish trash of this nature. This doesn't make any sense at all, what could be the purpose of this type of ignorance.
Now this sounds more like the kind of creation that we might have imagined.
I have yet to see, among the responses of those who were frightened by this text(and particularly those who were frightened enough to claim to be bored-- a strategy usually reserved for the 12-15 year old crowd), a critique that addresses the substance of the narrative and/or the constellation of images that drives the narrative. With one exception-- this being the "angry male" who claims to be offended by the depiction of the woman in the garden-- her indecisiveness. This exception, while it does draw attention to ONE detail from the text, is not worth responding to because it proceeds to interpret this detail with something less than Lacanian complexity. My question, then, is simply: does anyone on either "side" of the "argument" have anything to say that might actually serve to take even one step toward an interpretation, a feeling for what this text is (deftly or not) signifying? Or is it an unwritten rule that persons visiting a site wherein "sex" is "visible" should stifle such expectations?
One's expectations when reading text are entirely up to the reader - what the author thinks we should expect is "not worth responding to". Said author is not looking for substantive criticism - he is looking for vindication of his mighty talent. Always boring.
That said - I really enjoyed this piece until I got to the truly neanderthal points about male vs. female sexuality. Then it was all over.
just a little note to brighten your day (and night)
it was a very good storey
Insulting and boring, yes, boring. Sexuality began with the cock and woman was created in order to provide a receptacle for semen? Thanks, but I've heard this before and it was just as unimaginative and uninspired the first time. If you need to re-interpret the already patriarchal Garden of Eden story, couldn't you try to give this tale more meaning for women instead of infinitely less meaning? "And the woman....was the intersection of two immense pleasures
two cocks erected and two pussy's wet!
"And God did this, and God did that..." "The cock here, and the cock there..."
Seems to me like this writer doesn't have much imagination, except for this fixation with cocks.Perhaps he is is "unfulfilled."
Maybe in time,this writer will have a break.All in all, I find "In The Garden" very repetitive...repetitive...repetitive...repetitive.
garden is the place for joy only
Very nice. I think it's a bit more of a sarcastic critique of the Western tradition than it is being given credit for. I think that some of the offended and bored have not understood this fact, and this because there is some implicit notion of harmony in them, and this implicit thing is being eroded-- God forbid! One should not, if one is the good animal human, dislike this erosion-- one should pleasure in it and in its redundancy-- redundancy is one very good strategy of erosion.
complete logical inturpreting
once i saw a boobie
I think this guy was a writing teacher of mine in 8th grade. Had i known his mine was as perverse as mine, i might have had more fun.
Now you say something