Doesn't the front-page pic of your current issue encourage fantasies of violence against women?

Aren't the great majority of cases of sexual violence committed by men against women?

Isn't violence against women a grave, world-wide problem that most men trivialize?

Doesn't a rich and powerful industry makes its profits by promoting fantasies of violence against women?

Have any of The Guardian editors read any of the feminist literature of the past 40 years?

Isn't The Guardian as absurd in calling itself progressive as is the Six Guys Club at City Hall?

I know a couple of the guys who work at kink.com, or have- mostly, though, I know the models. And the ones I know at least are a parade of incredibly intelligent feminists capable of discourse and saying for themselves why they enjoy modeling and performing there. I doubt they would appreciate a man (I'm gonna guess here, but probably white, middle class, straight man) coming in waving his finger and telling them how they're feeding the patriarchy by engaging in fantasies many of them share. I want to specifically direct you to this- http://sm-feminist.blogspot.com/2009/02/nope.html

There is a distinct difference between BDSM and abuse. If you don't understand the difference, may I point to to the following:

http://carnalnation.com/content/58621/1472/thats-not-what-we-do

http://www.evilmonk.org/a/abuse00.cfm

And for more info on BDSM and feminism, try some feminist writings that've happened in the last 20-30 years or so- pretty much everything Pat Califia's written, or Carol Queen, or Annie Sprinkle, or-

http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2008/07/kink_101
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sister/BDSM.html
http://daily.swarthmore.edu/2010/3/26/on-politics-and-paddling/
http://sm-feminist.blogspot.com/2009/03/examination-and-lost-tempers.html

Most cases of egregious violence against women have their roots in atavistic male fantasies. These are empowered by a political and economic system that uses women as objects for the gratification of the male hunger for sexual objectification and domination.

The violence that men around the world impose on women remains appalling. SF is no exception. Look at the international prostitution cartels that still exist here and the way they treat women. Look at the number of rapes that continue to occur here. Also, the physical violence of husbands toward wives.

Women who profit from promoting fantasies of violence against women are collaborators in the oppression of women. They are not feminists.

The current front page of The Guardian was something you would have expected to see on the front page of The Village Voice in the 1960s, before the rise of modern feminism. Likewise, for the excuses that are now being made for it here in this thread. We've seen all this before.

A revolution has occurred since the 1960s. It's no surprise that the porn capitalists have insulated themselves from it. But it's less excusable to see that the editors of The Guardian have done so as well.

Who are they taking their cues on women's concerns from, the Six Guys Club at the supes?

I'm sure women appreciate Arthur telling them who's a proper feminist by his definition, and who's not. Is there no limit to your arrogance, Arthur?

And Kitty has 2 out of 3 right. Arthur is white, he is middle class, living in a rent controlled apartment in a prime location, courtesy of the progressives he loathes.

But he is gay. But... and here's the rub -if you read his other writings, it becomes quickly apparent that he has a profound hatred of men (I would argue a generalized misanthropy, but particulary men). Think about this for a second -a gay man who hates men. One would think that makes for a profoundly miserable individual. And that, folks, explains a lot.

We can have it both ways, Arthur Evans can be an anachronistic second wave anti sex feminist, one for whom homosexuality is a dim theoretical memory, devoid of hot hard cock and ass thumping sex AND the SFBG is a boys club, infatuated with professional sex operators and personalities that only value sex as a commodity.

Is not the entirety of Catholic theology one long tale of BDSM?

Arthur, I'd like to see proof that sex positivity, porn positivity and kink positivity has added to the abuse of women in the Bay Area. Can you prove that these things are at all linked? For example, comparing rape stats and forced prostitution stats here to in, say, Alabama, or Massachusetts even, where you can't really have public dungeon parties? Because if you can't supply the data to back you up, your statements are fear mongering and useless.

What a generous amount of comments for a terribly mediocre cover!

Dedicating a whole issue of a local alternative weekly newspaper to the topic of sex and sexuality offers a unique opportunity to challenge your viewer's expectations and be creative in your approach. It is sad that this cover image fails to challenge any preconceptions about sex and wholly lacks in creativity.

Who cares if the models agreed to participate or what they think about patriarchy if the people behind the making of this image (Art Director Mirissa Neff, Photographer Pat Mazzera and Editor Tim Redmond) are unable to see that the final product of Mirissa's concept should have never ended up on the cover of their newspaper. How predictable can you get. Seriously.

Make it a man's behind and woman holding the paddle. Show me something other than caucasians. Make his/her ass real big and show real hand prints and bite marks left on it. Give it some kind of twist, even if not that unexpected. SF is a tough crowd for this topic, I know, but that's exactly why you have to step it up.

The other thing that gets me is that they had all the cards stacked in their favor (or so it seems) - cooperative models who know and live the very topic and the environs and props galore of Kink.com's HQ - and the cover still lacks creativity and fails to offer any new or interesting view into the world of sex. Plus, the man's arms and the paddle look like they were photoshopped in afterwards. Why take everyone's time to use local people and places to make an image that doesn't even look authentic!

They had a great opportunity here to literally show their readers how creative the sex scene in SF is and instead I feel like we are left with something generic, boring and lacking any of the energy that I am seeing left in these comments.

Hopefully next time they do this, they will be praised for how clever the cover is.

There’s another newspaper called The Guardian, the one in England. It has a different take on male violence and pornography.

Click here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/02/gail-dines-pornography

"Think about this for a second -a gay man who hates men. "
It's just like a straight man who hates women.

Thanks for your post above, Kitty.

The problem is not pornography. The problem is pornography that promotes male violence against women.

You're right that some pornography does exist that does not promote male violence against women. But this sort of pornography is not the issue here.

The Guardian has a right to promote male violence against women if it wants to. But it cannot do so in the name of progressive politics.

Promoting male violence against women is retrograde and wrong. Period.

The guys who run The Guardian should acknowledge that they made a mistake and do better the next time. On the other hand, they may decide to keep crawling along in their ditch of cruddiness while pretending it's progressiveness.

The choice is theirs. The city is watching.

It is not at all clear that the violence-by-proxy of certain kinds of kinky sex encourages violence against women.

To the contrary, often times when undesirable conduct is ritualized it can be disarmed of its threat as is the case for pagans during Beltane where monogamy is thrown out the door for a day.

-marc

Today's feminism is not your mother's feminism. Susan Faludi holds forth at length in this month's Harpers in a piece entitled "Electra."

The first and second waves of feminism have long since crashed against the shore, altering the shoreline and terrain somewhat inland, but no longer carry the power that they once did.

A more subtle, informed, daresay mature feminism now holds sway. Arthur Evans needs to grow up and out of the adolescent feminism from the second wave. Andrea Dworkin is finally dead; she and Katherine MacKinnon lost the sex wars of the 1980s, fortunately.

It is clear that the second wave feminist approach to ending violence against women failed, as the numbers appear to have remained static over time. As one who has first hand experience watching men pursue their sexual imperatives, it is an error to suggest that from the man's experience, that rape is a crime of power. From the woman's perspective this is clearly true. But since women do not "ask for" rape or sexual abuse, in order to change culture to stop men from raping, it is axiomatic that one must figure out why men rape.

Again, from my experience, some men have the kernel of the rape gene where the world revolves around the head of their penis and nothing and nobody else matters. Successful challenges to male sexual abuse would do well to focus on how that gene works and how it can be neutralized.

My take is that including in health insurance coverage for prostitution services for straight men would do more to prevent sexual assault and abuse than any shaming men for perpetuating violence against women, as when their dicks are hard and they want to get off, none of that matters to a man possessed of and by the rape gene.

[If we took it a step further and included penis and breast enlargement surgery coverage as well as liposuction, socialized medicine would be enacted posthaste. We might be broke, but at least we would all be hot.]

This is heresy to a second wave feminist like Arthur. But at the end of the day, given that the second wave approach has failed, we need to be trying other approaches.

Arthur is trapped in an academic world that is frozen in time to 1972. His failure to adapt to changing circumstances, to be confined by the rigid dogma of the dogmatic second wave feminists, boiling in the seething cauldron of stentorian sexphobia, puts him squarely in with the progressives against whom he likes to project his own inability to adapt to changing intellectual circumstances.

-marc

Some responses follow to your post above, marc:

You say:

“Today's feminism is not your mother's feminism.”

I don’t see much of any kind of feminism in SF these days, whether first wave, second wave, or permanent wave.

The big shift downward occurred in SF in January 2001. When the new district-elected board came to power, there was only one woman member. In previous boards, women were a majority.

The progressive contingent at the supes has never had a woman member since the takeover occurred in 2001.

The progressive contingent is now trying to agree on whom they should appoint as mayor if Gavin Newsom is elected Lt Guv. There are no women on their list.

SF progressivism, which used to be pro-feminist, has become anti-feminist. The progressive contingent at the board has been in the vanguard of the reaction. And Chris Daly, the living embodiment of the bullying patriarchal male, has been in the vanguard of the vanguard.

This is a shameful record.

You say:

“one must figure out why men rape.”

Yes, asking this question is a good starting point. It’s better than denying the reality of rape or attacking those who point out that rape persists.

You say:

“some men have the kernel of the rape gene … Successful challenges to male sexual abuse would do well to focus on how that gene works and how it can be neutralized.”

Both biology and social conditioning play important roles in male violence, which is not limited to rape. All sorts of violence in every society are largely committed by men.

Why is this so? What can be done about it?

Most SF progressives today attack anyone who dares to raise these questions. In the 70s, however, SF progressives welcomed debate.

Re-open the doors of discussion!

You say:

“My take is that including in health insurance coverage for prostitution services for straight men would do more to prevent sexual assault … when their dicks are hard and they want to get off, none of that matters to a man possessed of and by the rape gene.”

Doesn’t the second half of this quote contradict the first half? If nothing matters to men who are genetically driven to commit rape, as you say, then why would health care policy matter?

The logical conclusion that follows from your assumptions about men and rape is that nothing can be done or, at most, that heath coverage should be expanded.

Your answer is not good enough. In fact, it’s a trivialization of the issues at hand.

Now if we can just get you to accept Burning Man!

;-)