1. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  2. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Sexual Chocolate - Foothills Brewing Company

Not Rated.
Sexual ChocolateSexual Chocolate

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
92
outstanding

1,004 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 1,004
Reviews: 428
rAvg: 4.12
pDev: 11.89%
Wants: 1,224
Gots: 239 | FT: 20
Brewed by:
Foothills Brewing Company visit their website
North Carolina, United States

Style | ABV
Russian Imperial Stout |  9.75% ABV

Availability: Winter

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: SaCkErZ9 on 02-15-2007)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 1,004 | Reviews: 428 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of whitekiboko
1.5/5  rDev -63.6%

whitekiboko, Dec 27, 2011
Photo of JAXSON
1.58/5  rDev -61.7%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

To be straightforward, this beer was badly infected. Extremely high carbonation, flavors focused somewhere between charred malt and vinegar. The more interesting discussion is whether a beer/brewer should be punished with a very bad rating for an infected bottle. I believe in this case the bad review is warranted as a large number of bottles seem to be infected and pretty much undrinkable. Quality control should be a major focal point of commercial breweries and considering the lengths people go to to get this beer every year, this is unacceptable.

Back to the beer, I said it already, it was all pickles, vinegar, yet heavily bitter and charred, high carbonation. Not drinkable.

JAXSON, Oct 14, 2010
Photo of MonkeyBread
1.75/5  rDev -57.5%

Poured from bottle into tulip glass.

Lot of head bubbling up. Quality lacing, oh wait who gives a crap about lacing.

Smell is of bitter dark chocolate and generic powder coffee. That's about it, not too complex.

Taste is exactly the nose. A total one note of bitter dark chocolate and roastiness. The body is fairly smooth yet finishes bitter and astringent.

I have to be brutal here and say despite having high expectations for this well regarded stout, I find it one of the worst stouts out there. It has no complexity. Solely dark chocolate and the worst tasting gas station coffee caught up in a horrific amount of bitterness throughout the beer and especially in the finish. The IBUs are absurdly high, 85, why would you do that in a stout? This is brittle, miserable and painful to drink. It's a struggle not to drain pour.

MonkeyBread, Sep 13, 2014
Photo of oglmcdgl
1.75/5  rDev -57.5%
look: 4.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

A 2010 bottle from a trade that I wish I hadn't done. Booerns.

A- two nice big fingers of mocha colored head from a stiff pour that holds for a bit the settles to leave a thin tan skin on top. Black in color with super dark brown edges.

S- oh no! Well this doesn't smell right at all. It shows the signs of a pretty bad infection on the brewers part. Burnt malts and acrid coffee mixed with cherries and rotten fruit.

T- off. There's some old fruit and again old coffee. Burnt toast and funk with a long lasting dirty tart finish, like a cherry with white pepper on it.

M- on the thin side of medium and a bit overly carbed.

O- well this is not a good beer, nope not at all. I'm glad I opened it now rather then waiting till winter. Who knows how bad it would have been by then.

oglmcdgl, May 10, 2011
Photo of ktrillionaire
2.05/5  rDev -50.2%
look: 4 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Big thanks to HeyOhh for sharing this

Why review an infected bottle? Because it is still the product they put out, intentional or not. This bottle was generously shared at a tasting, and it was very disappointing to all of us who were expecting more. It must've been a huge disappointment to HeyOhh who brought and shared it. I know he traded some good stuff to land it.

A - Stout. Good.

S - Like charred cocoa, chewing tobacco and asphalt mixed with a McDonald's apple pie. But worse than that could possibly sound.

T - Interestingly, the infection and the flavors of the intended beer seem to stand apart, unlike, say, Black Tot where the infection and the flavor melded and crossed over. Regardless, this tastes gross due to the infection. It seems like a 'B' grade stout got knocked down to a 'D'.

M - Like a violation.

D - ISO clean Sexual Chocolate, so I can re-tick.

ktrillionaire, Jul 13, 2010
Photo of chase2634
2.2/5  rDev -46.6%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

A: Dark as night with a decent tan head.

S: Smoke, some roasted malts, char and more smoke.

T: Not sure if i got a bad bottle but this was as smokey as Surley Smoke, but not as good. Tasted Nothing like the flavor profile was supposed to. A real let down.

M: Oily, Slick

O: All 10 people at our tasting thought this beer should have been called Sexual Smoke. There was very little sweetness, coffee or chocolate and we had it before we tried the barrel aged version which was 1000 x's better. I won't bother trading for this one again. Terrible let down!

chase2634, Nov 13, 2011
Photo of TonyBrew
2.23/5  rDev -45.9%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Pours a dark brownish black with a dark tan head on top. Nice lacing around glass (tulip). Happy with the looks of this Chocolate IS.

Very Strong Chocolate on the nose. Not too much but chocolate on the aroma, but perhaps a acetic acid along with the chocolate.

BIG Chocolate at first on the taste and a bit of a roasted characteristc to the chocolate taste, along with a bit of a resin likeness. The aftertaste is actually horrible, it is more like a cheap american stout taste with a helluva lot of chocolate added, rather then an imperial stout finish. NOT creamy, not smooth!

As for the body, BLAH! This is so thin, I cannot beleive they call it an Imperial Stout. This should be a dark chocolate ale or even more of a porter rather then a stout. Plenty of carbonation but somewhat watery.

This is a rare ale that does not measure up to the hype it has. You have to keep in mind there are only 500-600 bottles a year so it can build up a hype about it with that few bottles. We had bottle 5 of 600. Very dissappointed with this ale! We had it at a blind stout tasting and most of us gave it very low grades then. Now with 4 of us sharing a bomber, we are still highly dissappointed with this stout. Perhaps we had two bad bottles between two years, but I doubt it! This is far from the definition of Imperial Stout!

TonyBrew, May 31, 2010
Photo of leschkie
2.25/5  rDev -45.4%

leschkie, Feb 29, 2012
Photo of Dan25D
2.25/5  rDev -45.4%

Dan25D, Apr 17, 2012
Photo of s1ckboy
2.25/5  rDev -45.4%

s1ckboy, Aug 09, 2013
Photo of mullenite
2.3/5  rDev -44.2%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

Pours black with a tall, dark tan head. Excellent retention and some decent lacing.

Strong acetic acid in the nose. Nothing else comes through aside from vinegar/acetic acid.

There is some chocolate and roasted character to the taste but primarily it is acetic acid and sesame seed oil.

Body is thin and somewhat watery with excessive carbonation.

Overall, this beer was not good and is primarily hype driven in my opinion. The three of us who split this bottle all got vinegar/acetic acid in the aroma and sesame seed oil in the taste. I'm really hoping this was just a bad bottle because it was really bad.

mullenite, May 16, 2010
Photo of Axic10
2.4/5  rDev -41.7%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Bottle #966/1000 2010 vintage, poured into a snifter.

Appearance: Pours a pitch black with two fingers of head that settles quite nicely.

Smell: Burnt chocolate, roasted malt, cocoa, some sourness. Improves as it warms.

Taste: Roasted malt, some chocolate...HEAVY sour fruit taste. I think I have an infected bottle.

Mouthfeel: Thin and watery.

Drinkability: I have another bottle, I think this one might have been infected, if that one is better I'd seek out again, if not I wouldn't, hence the average rating.

Axic10, Aug 01, 2010
Photo of ChadQuest
2.45/5  rDev -40.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

The pour looks a bit thin, more along the lines of a traditional stout then an imperial stout really, some light shows through the edges, but maybe i am just used to pouring so many black holes like hunahpu & darklord, no where near that.
The aroma seem to have a bit of a lactose and coffee note to it, more roasty then chocolate.
Now that we are at the flavors there is something of a burnt vegitable note, i would say asparagus that was burnt. I am very familiar with asparagus. There is afor mentioned high level of roast that is the main game player, the chocolate that the bottle claims only really presents in a powdered coco sort of manor, really dry overall and leaves a lot lacking.

If this was on my local shelves labled year round as something else, i wouldn't buy it, it doesn't taste good.

ChadQuest, Sep 11, 2011
Photo of MADPolo
2.5/5  rDev -39.3%

MADPolo, Feb 21, 2013
Photo of brandoman63
2.5/5  rDev -39.3%

brandoman63, Jan 29, 2013
Photo of Sarlacc83
2.5/5  rDev -39.3%

Sarlacc83, Nov 14, 2011
Photo of mroberts1204
2.5/5  rDev -39.3%

mroberts1204, May 25, 2012
Photo of jcartamdg
2.58/5  rDev -37.4%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

Poured into a ccb snifter. Pours dark black with a 1 finger head that lasts seconds. A thin ring forms around the glass with very little lacing. Aroma isn't bad, coffee and chocolate all the way. The taste is where there is a problem. Chocolate then coffee then a really off taste, something I'd never like to taste again. I don't like to throw around claims of infection but if this isn't infection what the heck are they putting in their beer. Very disappointing for a very hyped brew.

jcartamdg, May 13, 2011
Photo of gueuzer
2.68/5  rDev -35%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

App- Black as night. Can see the carbonation bubbling. Almost looks like a coke.

Sm- Looking for chocolate, but having to strain to find it. Get some soy sauce and toffee.

Ta- Stone fruits, roasted malts, chocolate, soy sauce.

MF- Very thin bodied and over carbonated.

DR- The taste doesn't make we want to drink a ton of this.

Disappointing. Very over-hyped. What I would expect from a mediocre corner brewpub's RIS.

gueuzer, Sep 20, 2010
Photo of Arbitrator
2.7/5  rDev -34.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Lightly chilled '09 vintage into a glass. From a trade with sincereNc. Thanks, Ian!

A: Pours a beautiful black body with slight edge penetration when held against a lamp. The dark mocha head billows up to fill 1.5 fingers of space in the snifter, and it falls over 30 seconds or so into swirls of fine bubbles on top of the brew, with a thin collar at the edge.

S: Milk chocolate with a lactic sweetness and twang, bordering on anise / dark fruit. Caramel, roasted coffee.

T: Nicely chocolatey up front, but as noted in the aroma, it has more of the straight milk sweetness than bittersweet dark chocolate. It is accentuated by very noticeable lactic twang associated with it; at times I feel it's similar to an anise / dark fruit blend, but this doesn't quite have that tartness that suggests one one of those two. Regardless, this particular aspect is so strong that I'm tempted to think of this as an imperial milk stout.

M: Light-medium bodied; it's thin for the style. The flavor gets decidedly watery in the finish. Carbonation is appropriate for the style. No heat or even warmth. The flavor falls off fast; it doesn't have much heft to it.

D: The girlfriend and I polished off a bomber quite easily. This beer goes down nicely and is tolerable. I didn't love it enough to seek it out again, though. Certainly not worth the prestige and hype it has on here.

Arbitrator, Apr 11, 2010
Photo of Bendurgin
2.73/5  rDev -33.7%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Bottle shared by the generous Josh. Poured into a tulip. This one pours dark brown and sits black in the glass with a finger of tan head that settles down with a little bit of sticky lace.

A little bit of a smokey char aroma comes right away. Very faint chocolate aroma here. Instead of roast, I mostly get char though. This has a leathery flavor with little bit of smoke and lots of char. Honestly seems like this one was simply burned.

The feel is a bit thin for an RIS and the carbonation is soft but there.

Overall this one is a little dissapointing. Nothing bad or offensive here but just not what one would hope it would be.

Bendurgin, Aug 28, 2011
Photo of Mora2000
2.78/5  rDev -32.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Thanks to Exiled for sharing this bottle. This is a beer I have wanted to try for a long time. 2010 vintage.

The beer pours black with a tan head. The aroma is roasted malt and chocolate, but I also get a little bit of tart cherries. The beer smells like it may be infected.

The taste confirms that an infection is at work here. I get a lot of tart dark fruit with some roasted malt, chocolate and coffee. I think the base beer may be good, but the infection really makes things taste funky.

The carbonation is about right for the beer, but the mouthfeel is all wrong. The beer is very thin and almost watery, which I assume is caused by the infection.

Very disappointing overall.

Mora2000, Sep 29, 2010
Photo of pollox87
2.95/5  rDev -28.4%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

2010 22 oz

A - Poured black with little head, dark beer with little lacing.

S - Smelled a bit smokey roasted, but a bit of a chemical smell to it.

T - It tasted like smoke and roast, none of the richness that I want in a RIS. There was no smoothness and it was a bit too astringent.

M - way too thin for the style.

O - There are many off the shelve beers that I would rather have, I didn't want to penalize the rating because of how hard this was to get, The beer should stand on it's own rare or common, and this one was just not good.

pollox87, Dec 10, 2011
Photo of Kaydogg
2.98/5  rDev -27.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

2011 - about a 5-6 oz pour

A - black/brown with a one finger light tan head that fades to a rim of bubbles..looks pretty well carbed.

S- Really not much on smell..was really trying to pull something out..roasted malts

T- What what what...sexual smoke. - harsh coffee roasts through out with a very smokey aftertaste. I honestly cannont taste any chocolate.

Mouthfeel is way to thin, watery and light. Reminded me of Beer Geek Bacon, or a smoked porter

Overall, very disappointing.. surprised reviews are all over the place..this is not a stout let alone a stout with chocolate in it.... thin, and boring. Hype train..choo choo

Serving type: bottle

Kaydogg, Nov 30, 2011
Photo of tjthresh
3/5  rDev -27.2%
look: 5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

The pour is black with a billowing light brown head with some very nice lace. Aroma? What aroma? I get next to nothing here. Seems to me hops are leading the way in the nose. I bit apple-ish. There's roast and chocolate, but over all the nose is much to weak to earn a high score. The flavor, to me, isn't really anything to brag about either. There's some roast and some chocolate, but there supposed to be. I do pick up a tad of molasses. Really, the flavor is pretty pedestrian. The mouthfeel on the other hand is quite good. Big body. Above average carbonation. Dry finish. Full palate all the way through. OH-VER-RAY-TED!

tjthresh, May 23, 2008
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Sexual Chocolate from Foothills Brewing Company
92 out of 100 based on 1,004 ratings.