In 2014, Tom Ford released a pendant necklace whose unmistakably phallic form generated an unusual collision between luxury fashion, religious symbolism, and deliberate sexual provocation. Some Christians objected because the pendant’s elongated shape could be read as resembling a Christian cross or crucifix, transforming a piece of provocative jewelry into what critics regarded as an offensive parody of a sacred emblem. Ford responded without retreating from the controversy: he stated that the object was not intended to be a cross but a phallus, and argued that consumers were projecting their own meanings onto it. The episode typified Ford’s approach to branding, in which shock, erotic ambiguity, and luxury presentation were fused into a publicity mechanism. Rather than a manufacturing scandal or legal downfall, the pendant’s importance lies in how it demonstrated the brand’s willingness to turn sexual imagery into a premium accessory—and to let the resulting outrage reinforce its reputation for calculated irreverence.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 2010s
The 2014 Penis Pendant That Was Mistaken for a Crucifix
Tom Ford / 2010s
In 2014, Tom Ford released a pendant necklace whose unmistakably phallic form generated an unusual collision between luxury fashion, religious symbolism, and deliberate sexual provocation. Some Christians objected because the pendant’s elongated shape could be read as resembling a Christian cross or crucifix, transforming a piece of provocative jewelry into what critics regarded as an offensive parody of a sacred emblem. Ford responded without retreating from the controversy: he stated that the object was not intended to be a cross but a phallus, and argued that consumers were projecting their own meanings onto it. The episode typified Ford’s approach to branding, in which shock, erotic ambiguity, and luxury presentation were fused into a publicity mechanism. Rather than a manufacturing scandal or legal downfall, the pendant’s importance lies in how it demonstrated the brand’s willingness to turn sexual imagery into a premium accessory—and to let the resulting outrage reinforce its reputation for calculated irreverence.
The daily editorial is currently unavailable. There’s still an entire archive to explore.
