Hot sluts! - Page 2

THE SEX ISSUE: Our favorite sleazy, easy, and just plain sexy people, places, and things in San Francisco

|
(59)
Kink.com model jessie Cox takes her knocks at Kink's HQ in the Mission Armory
PHOTO BY PAT MAZZERA


SLUTTIEST BOYS

Dan and JD, a.k.a. Two Knotty Boys, are no strangers to the twists and loops of BDSM performance. Native San Franciscans both, they not only create mesmerizing stage shows in which they bind nubile flesh to their will, but also produce end results so visionary that you'd be excused for leaving off the "fetish" and dubbing it merely "fashion." A ever-so-tightly cinched halter top of gleaming white cord, a barely there cobweb bikini that requires an expert hand to remove, overlays of skirts and dresses that hobble the wearer seductively and at the same time, show off the contours of the female body. It's neat, it's adjustable, it's sexily professional work. It's easy to see why the duo has filmed more than 100 video tutorials and taught countless workshops in the Bay and beyond for their eager fans: the Boys have tied up hundreds of women but, unlike some humiliation artists, they have never tied down their subjects' beauty and comfort.

www.twoknottyboys.com

 

SLUTTIEST PARTIERS

Was it written on the rock hard abs of some San Franciscan sex god that all coital gatherings in this city have to be stark and stoic? Thankfully, the colorful gang over at Kinky Salon never got that memo. Creators Polly and Scott have created a swinger's playland party in the pink and purple rooms of Mission Control whose focus is flair: playful costume themes have focused on everything from kitty cats (the upcoming Pussyfest) to undersea adventure and fairy tale characters. You've never lived, it would seem, until your Snow White costume has been peeled off on the couch in the Harem Room by Tinkerbell and Captain Hook. More recently, the team has created a new magazine to celebrate the vast array of sexualities that their partygoers lay claim to: San Fran Sexy. The rag includes erotic history lessons from sexologist Dr. Carol Queen, memoir pieces from Bawdy Storytelling's Dixie De La Tour, photos from recent Kinky Salon soirees, and news of sensual events to come.

www.kinkysalon.com

 

SLUTTIEST ROCKERS

"If the Meat Sluts were a Pink Lady, we'd be Rizzo! We ain't no prudes like Sandy!" says BB Rumproast of rockin' band the Meat Sluts (www.myspace.com/themeatsluts). In a world of vegan dogs, her XXX-chromosomed trash rock-punk explosion is an all-beef foot long. The four women are cookin' on stage — literally. In addition to the occasional back up steak dancing alongside their guitar licks and growls, the Meat Sluts have shared space at shows with a live hot dog-maker and a meat grinder flinging sausage and baloney onto hungry fans. It's messy, carnivorous fun — the perfect expression of the group's embrace of hedonistic appetite that could care less about what's considered "ladylike" at the table of the musical establishment. "We are loose and crazy and not ashamed of it! We love man meat! We love weenies! Beef baloney, Slim Jims, T-bones, bring it ON!" says Rumproast. To quote the Sluts' rager rally cry "Johnny Con Carne," that's what we call makin' bacon.

The Meat Sluts play Dodgyfest 3, Oct 2, 7 p.m., $10. Thee Parkside, 1600 17th St., SF. www.theeparkside.com

 

Comments

All you could think of for a SEX issue was sluts? How about sexy safe sex, kink 101, real stories about sex, or even where to get sex advice?

Sluts are easy. Try for something more interesting next time.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 10:03 am
yes

because no one's ever done those things before. Including us for the past two decades, in our annual sex issue, weekly Alt Sex advice column, and more recently on our SEX SF blog.

If you actually read the above article, you'll see we're directing you to sources of some of that information. But, you know, READING BEFORE COMMENTING. Also, loosen up a little, sex is fun.

Posted by marke on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 10:34 am

I mean, by definition, sluts *are* easy, right?

Posted by Anathema on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 6:53 pm

boooooo

Posted by Guest on Dec. 04, 2010 @ 9:24 pm

So long as you have to pay money to have fun, burning man or some bar show with a self promoting sex personality, count on the SFBG to cover it. Sex is fun, but DIY sex is more fun than commercialized, commodified sex.

And is there a place in the SFBG sex and political cosmology for gay men who are not queens or sadomasochists? I'm just sayin' that I miss when being gay was about dick, hard, throbbing dick.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 11:04 am

your comment show how little you actually read our paper, Marc. But hey, it seems we at least provide a forum for commenters to talk about their fantasies -- for free.

Posted by marke on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 12:08 pm

Kinda sad to see a paper defend itself via snarky comments in the comments section, just sayin'.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 7:13 pm

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?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 12:39 pm

The people in the photo modeled for same. They were consenting. The picture doesn't promote fantasies of anything other than mild BDSM.

You are living proof that people who actively seek to be offended are rarely disappointed.

Posted by Guest Johnny Wendell on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 1:10 pm

"You are living proof that people who actively seek to be offended are rarely disappointed."

3 cheers for that

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 6:50 pm

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

Posted by Kitty Stryker on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 6:02 pm

Idiotic cliches? "(I'm gonna guess here, but probably white, middle class, straight man) " He's gay by the way, by all accounts.

If you trumpet out these "(I'm gonna guess here, but probably white, middle class, straight man) " class and race obsessed left wing cliches no one is going to think you are smart, well others who have taken a first year class in critical theory or some such other non sense will. Is that who you are trying to impress here?

Do your thing, if some people have a 70's Andrea Dworkin or Kathrine McKinnon view on these things, what does it matter their race or class or whatever?

I can remember being hectored by your ideological predecessors because I though Dworkin was full of shit 25 years ago, you know why I was too dumb to get the rantings of the anti-porn feminuts? Because I was a white hetro.

You should read up on your feminut antecedents, they made common cause with the Jesus freaks, that was the only people who would take them seriously, the more things change as they say.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 7:20 pm

Yes. I am more interested in speaking to people who, like me, employ critical thinking skills instead of ad hominem attacks. :) You caught me!

Also, just so we're clear, I'm speaking about Arthur Evans, not the author of the piece. And, um, I really hope you're not trying to suggest that Andrea Dworkin is "my people", considering I'm about as against her ideologies as one can get.

I'm sure I'm pretty up to date on feminist history, esp feminist anti-porn anti-prostitution history- I've recently written about it for Carnal Nation. There's a long history of radical, anti-porn feminists getting on well with the God freaks. I'd link, but why bother, you seem more interested in hearing yourself speak than learning. Probably why feminists 20 years ago ignored you. You don't do a lot for your cause, saying "hey, white hetero men aren't unaware of their privilege!" and then proving it in your statement. But, you know, well done trying.

Posted by Kitty Stryker on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 3:14 pm

Really? In SF in 2010, a nice empowered feminist like myself and many of my friends and loved ones can't get spanked without being accused of being a traitor to the cause? Oh, Trollie McTrollerson, you're a good decade or so out of date. Pretty sure the whole anti-sex feminism thing has gone the way of feathered hair, wine coolers, and earnest late-night dorm-room discussions of Andrea Dworkin.

Posted by Anathema on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 6:57 pm

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?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 7:29 pm

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.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 9:31 pm

You know, at almost 58, I have lived in this goofy berg called San Francisco for 29 years and one month. I rolled into this place in summer of 1979, pre-AIDS (also left for 18 months in '87 and '88 but returned),moving with a lively mob of dear gay men friends. I was a wild heterosexual woman who tried to be bi, I really really tried. Failed. Still loved men. After losing count of how many men I had sex with over my youth and all the lovely attendant repercussions of "slut-dom", I began to watch my gay men friends get sick, one by one. Sobbing in hospital rooms and tear-stained faces replaced dancing till dawn at Troc, as the party began to end, painfully, abruptly. Somehow, San Francisco in the faded bloom of 2010, has seemingly downsized the plague of AIDS and other rampant STD's and all the hazards of multiple partners. This town seems to have a motto of "I demand to do anything I blasted well want to, anytime I want it,with no repercussions, and if you disagree with my debauchery, you are a bigoted and repressed person."
Well, I am here to tell you that is wrong. Totally wrong. I have been celibate for 9 years and counting and I do not miss sex one bit. I have friends, I have my creative work, and most of all, I have Jesus Christ, who is the greatest Friend ever and far exceeds the joy of any sex, drugs, alcohol, money, power or rock and roll.
I realize I am in the vast minority in this forum, but I have a right to speak, just like all of you. I wanted the fine rowdy citizens of SF to know that in your direct midst, there are actually quietly living, breathing celibates, and conservatives as well. Not everyone here is a liberal. Watching my friends die began to change me from liberal to conservative.
Sex is just one part of life, it is not every waking moment! I feel I can speak acccurately for this because I am a well-traveled sexual woman who left it all in the past and have no regrets whatsoever. The joys of God are much much much better.

Posted by Guest Elizabeth on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 11:49 pm

What does Jesus have against bondage, its probably not even considered to be sex technically.

Good to see all ends heard from; the classist neo-feminist, the self avowed progressive apologist for classism, the 70's anti porn type, the DIY sex advocate(shudder), and now we know how a god feels about bondage.

I'm sorry to hear your friends died, but how does that make you a conservative at the other end.

And the progressive in this town are just as prohibitionist and interested in peoples private lives as any conservative.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 1:03 am

The cynical, jaded one who has everyone figured out (not!), who pretends to be the only defender of freedom in the world in a world of phonies, the Sole Purveyor of Truth.

Get a life, Matlock.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 7:34 am

About government knows best legislation, you differ not in the least from a right wing Christian trying to legislate people's personal life.

You also jump in with the classism, sexism and race ravings of the neo-feminist and start in with another ad-homonym directed at Arthur. While I suspect something written directed towards another more special group or person would elicit howls and free association rants about the cause de jour.

So yup, I have you figured out. A cliched, ad-homonym spewing leftist and intellectual faddist nothing.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 10:16 am

Arthur's post are a bit puzzling in this day and age. I got a chuckle out of them in a way back machine type of way. He seems to have formulated his world view from the going concerns of another time and doesn't want to change.

I don't agree with Arthur here but he does seem to try to keep a consistency. There is respect for people who try to remain consistent even if I don't agree with them. I get the feeling that once the progressives gained a little power here in SF, and then began abusing it like creationists in control of a school board, he is annoyed.

-

The complaints like Kitty/Greg here are also a bit odd, the male feminist has a somewhat rougher time going of it, he has to parrot the going intellectual fads so as to remain hip and intellectual. Luckily for the supplicated faddist, answers are not that complicated, its just the rationals that need to be adjusted.

30 years ago Greg would have agreed with kitties comical feminist race/class ravings too. The answer is always the same to the Kitties/Greg's of the world, but 30 years ago they would be agreeing from the "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" side. 30 years ago Greg could be cheering as Kitty calls for the banning of porn mags as a civil rights issue.

Turn on the way back machine and send Kitty and Greg back with their neo-feminist views of today, and all the bitching in the world about middle class white male breeders isn't going to get them into the feminut club of yesteryear.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 12:21 am

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?

Posted by marcos on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 6:52 am

Yep, I've seen all this before, in the 70s, when feminists dared challenge the patriarchal system, across the spectrum, from left to right, about its treatment of women.

In those days, the supporters of patriarchy called the feminists man-haters, launched preposterous slanders against their personal lives and character, and went into dismissive denial.

However, the violence, abuse, and marginalization of women has continued since then. The difference is that there was once a vigorous voice against the patriarchal system. Today in SF it has grown silent.

The Guardian has the right to publish an image on its front page that encourages violence by men against women.

But is it wise to do so?

Is it progressive to do so?

These questions have yet to be addressed and answered. The defensive name-calling and slandering in this thread today are not answers, just as they were not answers in the 70s

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 9:03 am

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.

Posted by Kitty Stryker on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 3:30 pm

Um...

Yet more reason to research before you start flailing. I didn't when I assumed about Arthur, here, but sounds like I hit the nail close to the head anyway, which sucks. It's really sad that I'm able to do that. I hate when stereotypes are proven right.

You obviously haven't looked me up or read any of the links I've posted. I'm a feminist, sure, and a sex worker, a potential porn director, soon-to-be writer for Filament (a feminist porn mag for women who like men), and, um, definitely NOT anti porn. Like, at ALL. I remember going to parties at the Armory back before it was in the Mission. I run a sex club in London and help out at one here in SF. I think you're projecting a feminist fantasy figure onto me here.

Posted by Kitty on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 3:43 pm

More power to you and your career, but you just repeat the feminist standard canards that were tired and stupid 30 years ago, but you are from the pro-porn side instead of from the anti-porn side.

How can the typical straight middle class white male be responsible for porn being common 30 years ago, and yet be the typical person responsible for people being against it now?

It boggles the mind that in thirty short years feminism still demonizes the same group, but yet has flipped its positions.

Your stereotype is that a certain group is anti-porn, while thirty years ago that group was stereotyped as being pro-porn.

Some advice, the answer to every one of your complaints isn't "straight middle class white males." Pity the Gregs of the world trying to keep track and ingratiate himself to the winds, its the hardest on people like him.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 4:22 pm

Because we STILL LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE STRAIGHT MIDDLE CLASS WHITE MEN HAVE MOST OF THE POWER. That hasn't exactly changed much in 30 years, m'dear. Have you read anything on feminism and patriarchy at all?

Do I blame all straight middle class white men for everything ever? No. I said it wouldn't surprise me to find such a man making statements about what women should/shouldn't do with their bodies and sexualities, because, well, that's been the case for a good long while, hasn't it? I think if you want to give women power, you should ask women in porn, say, what it is they need, not decide for them. And frankly, that goes for women too. I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself and saying what I need from law enforcement and to make myself feel safe, and I think that feminism is about talking to the women affected. I respect the opinions of women who are into kink or were, whether they're pro or against, because it actually affects them. I don't want some guy to pop in and inform me I'm being objectified and it's bad for me and I need protection from such things. That, my friend, is exactly what's wrong with the patriarchy I fight so hard against.

I think we have a culture that enables pisspoor behaviour from such guys, even rewards it. Still, some of my best friends are such guys, and they're ok. Just because you have lots of privilege doesn't mean you can't be actively aware of it.

Posted by Kitty on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 12:02 am

Congratulations--that was actually the silliest thing I've seen in weeks.

You live in America?

Posted by Guest Johnny Wendell on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 6:20 am

The same people holding back women thirty years ago because they bought playboy at 7/11 are the same people holding you back today, because they hold the same views of the women who 30 years ago didn't want people to buy playboy at 7/11.

"I think if you want to give women power,"

"I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself"

sure

===

In your gender studies travels have you picked up the term "learned behavior?"

from answers.com

Q What is learned behavior?

Answer
A learned behavior is a behavior that was observed by an individual that they find it to be beneficial to them in some way. There's a motivating factor behind it. also it can be conditioned. the learned behavior is a conditioned response to a stimuli through either voluntary or involuntary intent.
A learned behavior is some type of action or reflex that you learn. For example tying your shoes is a learned behavior, but crying is not.
A learned behavior is one that you decide to learn unlike 'inate' behavior.This is not a natural behavior, instead it is learned by that being. You can learn these behaviors by watching others do them such as riding a bike or learning to write.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 8:04 am

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.

Posted by Andrew James on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

Actually, I'm the editor of the Sex Issue, as I have been for the past six years. In the past, we've featured all kinds of wonderful people of color, non-traditional poses, female-domination scenes, queer themes, and size-variant models. This time we went with this shot because we happened to think it was beautiful (despite what you think, although I'm grateful for your respectful, intelligent and constructive criticism). Funnily enough, it's caused a very lively discussion. Which was our goal. And may say something about the state of sex in SF.

Posted by marke on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 6:11 pm

She's got a great ass.

Now, if you think that's sexist, fine. Aesthetically speaking, that model has a great ass.

An awesomely great ass. A grade A, off the charts lovely set of cheeks.

I don't care about the "implied violence towards women inherent in a photo of a paddle" or Andrea Dorky or some lonely male's take on feminism, that is one swell, living example of baby got back.

She's got a great ass. The rest is commentary..

Posted by Guest Johnny Wendell on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 7:44 pm

I personally attended a number of meetings of the supes' Public Safety Committee over the past year and a half. At these meetings, the police reported that serious crime in general in SF has declined significantly over the past year or so, except for rape (the victims are usually women). In some of these periodic reports during this period, rapes actually showed an increase.

Therefore, those who claim that the abundance of violent porn in SF has contributed to a decrease in crimes against women here have some explaining to do. In fact, there is no such correlation.

The image now on the front page of The Guardian validates the fantasy of men who get their rocks off by physically abusing women.

The only way this sorry display would lead to a decrease in violence against women would be if it were in the nature of fantasy to deter those who have fantasy from acting on it. We all know that this is a preposterous claim.

There's a story with broader implications here. SF progressivism in the 1970s was an inspiring popular movement, intellectually stimulating, and welcoming to feminists and many others. I know. I was a part of it.

In recent years, however, SF progressivism has ossified into a doctrinaire, male-dominated sect. It has become anti-intellectual, anti-cultural, and anti-feminist.

It has been co-opted by scheming politicians, who use it to promote their own banal careers. And it has been infiltrated by the narco capitalists and the porno capitalists, who use it to promote their own profits.

The guys who run The Guardian pretend that these signs of deterioration are proofs of progress.

But there is nothing progressive about cruddiness.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 7:32 pm

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

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 10:07 pm
uh

No way- an anti-porn feminist talking about why porn is bad???

Look, Arthur. I understand where you're coming from. My mum was also a part of that movement, so I was well-versed. But even she has discovered the third wave. When I came out as kinky, the dear woman told me "I fought for your right to CHOOSE. As long as you have the ability to choose, and you can get out if you want to, then by all means."

I can play the article "scientific data says" game too-
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57169/;jsessionid=09304F16D...

Though, be aware, this article does have references, so you might have to read, rather than parrot what other people say. :/

Data can be manipulated, as anyone who's studied psychology and the politics of research would know. Very easily manipulated, as these studies get funded by people who want a certain answer when they begin the study. So take them with a grain of salt.

Personally, as someone who lives in a world of sex-positive parties, queer porn performers, and savvy feminist whores, I've got all the information I need to be able to reconcile being a feminist with BDSM, porn, and prostitution. ::shrug:: You have a different cultural bias, and fine, ok. It takes all types, after all. But please please please link to your facts, if you have them. Otherwise, without research (and the ability to read the study itself, not just an article discussing it, otherwise how can you tell how the study was conducted?) then your statements are, basically, your opinion.

Posted by Kitty on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 11:51 pm

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

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 10:47 pm

Both probably make for very unhappy individuals. That was exactly my point.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 10:24 am

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.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 9:52 am

Doesn't surprise me that facts have no effect on you. To paraphrase Barney Frank, talking to you is like talking to a wall.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 10:27 am

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

Posted by marcos on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 10:53 am

Hey all, long time reader of the thread, first time commenter on the thread. Speaking from the totally biased standpoint of (one of) the Guardian's young woman sex writers, I think the cover's hot. There's a huge, mutually respectful BDSM community in SF. Enough with judging other people's sex lives, we're over it.

And I'm not sure where you're going to find more sexually diverse content in a widely circulated city newspaper. And yes, without pointing fingers to people that didn't actually read the inside of the newspaper, there's good stuff there, ditto with our regularly updated Sex Blog.

In closing, to quote Johnny Angel Wendall:

"If I see a picture that makes my nuts tingle, I know that it's good."

Here's to making all varieties of nuts (ovaries, etc) tingle. Let us know if we can better cover your particular brand of nut-tingling. Celibate Jesus lady, what's your flavor?

Posted by caitlin on Sep. 25, 2010 @ 11:53 am

Hi Caitlin, Wow, not expecting an invitation from "one of the Guardian's young women sex writers" to reveal what "flavor" makes my "nuts" tingle. I had to chuckle when I read that. And whoa, how long is this thread going to get??? Well, this is San Francisco, where forums are in our blood. In answer to your query of me, the "celibate Jesus lady", my flavor of sexuality has been released into the joyous abandon of Jesus Christ. Since I cannot explain that through words alone, I will not attempt to do so. It is so far above this physical realm.
My comments on my celibate lifestyle here in horn-dog central, was not one of a desire to preach celibacy. That is not likely to catch fire in this town. I am, however, cut from the same cloth as many of you and even as a woman of God and follower of Jesus Christ, I still struggle with the same human challenges as all of you: keeping afloat in a very expensive place, the meaning of life, and yes, sexuality. My journey to celibacy did not happen overnight. As I moved here in 1979, pre-AIDS, I was a rowdy little thing and regularly went boy-hunting in many places that no longer exist in SF: The Stud when it was on 12th and Folsom, Trocadero Transfer, the great disco next to the Hotel Utah on 4th and Brannan, the I Beam, and some of the wild video events at the old Target Video on South Van Ness and 18th St. Me and my trusty diaphragm (old style birth control!) traveled all over SF. All the hunting of boys or girls did not satisfy the hunger in my heart, hence my journey back to God. Sexuality is a raw power and difficult at best to corral or channel. I am not telling anyone what to do, I am just sharing the sorrow that the rowdy and unrestrained sexual road brought to me: poverty, emotional distress, and searing pain. At age 58, life is blunt and not easy. Youth thinks every action is free and there are no repercussions. Even as a feminist in my youth, I had to move beyond hating men as a solution. Jesus Christ brings more freedom than anything I have ever known. The spiritual realm is every bit as real as the material realm, and there is a lot of darkness of the spirit in this town. Particularly poignant for me this weekend of the Folsom Street Fair, are memories of one of my dearest gay men friends who died, and who was heavily involved in the leather scene South of Market and I know he was abused by older men. I am just observing, from my age, the negative repercussions of unrestrained behavior, that is all. I know any rebels in this town would hate any restraint being placed upon them, so that is why I am a prayer warrior. I work in the realm of the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, and He and I walk the streets of this city, in prayer. Who knows, perhaps I offered a quiet prayer for one of you commenters, if you looked like you were in distress! I bless all the people commenting on this forum, especially Arthur, who I believe has a very good heart. The prayers I offer are never prayers of force. I am NEVER pointing any fingers of judgment. They are prayers that come directly from the incredible loving heart of my Savior, Jesus Christ, who is pursuing each and every one of you. He will not force,He will not punish, He will not harangue. I invite you to accept His invitation to "Come unto me,all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest..."

Posted by Guest Elizabeth on Sep. 26, 2010 @ 9:54 pm

Thanks to all those who have contributed to this thread on pornographic male violence against women. Below are responses to certain comments.

Johnny Wendell, you say:

“You are living proof that people who actively seek to be offended are rarely disappointed.”

I didn’t actively seek to be offended. The Guardian’s image of male violence against women is splashed in a big way on the front page of its paper in news racks all over the city.

Anathema, you say:

“Pretty sure the whole anti-sex feminism thing has gone the way of feathered hair, wine coolers, and earnest late-night dorm-room discussions of Andrea Dworkin.”

Your dismissive attitude toward feminism has existed ever since women started standing up to men and male violence.

Male violence against women continues. So does the need for feminist resistance.

Greg, you say:

“Arthur is white, he is middle class, living in a rent controlled apartment in a prime location, courtesy of the progressives he loathes.”

You continue to pull ad hominem falsehoods out of the air, without any regard at all for the truth, and then try to shift discussion away from the topic to your false ad hominem claims.

For the record, I’m gay and live in a rent-controlled apartment (horrors!). I’m not middle-class. I’ve never made over $25,000 a year in my life. My father worked all his life as an assembly-line worker in a chain factory.

My life is devoted to study and research. I support progressivism that is populist, intelligent, and good-natured. I do not support progressivism that is doctrinaire, anti-intellectual, and venomous.

Progressivism in SF was once of the former variety. But in recent years, it has degenerated into the latter variety. It’s time to rock the boat again and reform the reformers.

In any case, Greg, please stop you with your ongoing cascade of personal lies about people who happen to disagree with your dogmas. You are an example of what’s wrong with SF progressivism today.

Clean up your act.

Guest, you say:

“Think about this for a second -a gay man who hates men."

I am not attracted to men. I’m attracted to good men. Men who inflict violence on women are not good men.

To all, here are three questions:

(1) Do you regard violence as a good thing? If so, how do you distinguish yourself from animals?

(2) If not, how can you justify the eroticization of violence?

(3) Are we civilized yet?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 25, 2010 @ 8:25 pm

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

Posted by marcos on Sep. 26, 2010 @ 9:01 am

I wouldn't agree with "A more subtle, informed, daresay mature feminism now holds sway." though. The old feminism was probably just not fun and the chronic double standards were just to hard to keep up, so they needed something new to harass the rest of us with. Being "sex positive" makes people almost as annoying as the sex negatives were. Something like "I don't want to hear about it but you are going to tell me anyways right?"

The rape gene is probably really the sociopath gene. Just to split hairs here, the sociopath doesn't look on others as human beings.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 26, 2010 @ 10:25 pm

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.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 26, 2010 @ 1:37 pm

Women in power does not end sexism just like a black president in power does not end racism. The problem is structures of power-over and how they are abused, not who is driving power-over others.

Patriarchal males don't tend to marry powerful feminist women like Sarah Low Daly, they tend to marry much further down on the power scale.

Feminism is the product of women doing the theoretical and practical work of feminism, not of elected bodies, which tend to lag behind on these matters.

My thesis is that if men who would rape had a safe opportunity to get off, through publicly funded prostitution services, that would probably tamp down on their use of sex as power-over women in a violent manner.

My assumption is that if you get men off, the instigation of those who would rape to rape is diminished.

Patriarchal males do tend to criticize the feminist movement's various fragments from their rent controlled apartments in the Haight, however.

But you are correct, the San Francisco Bay Guardian is and has been a bastion of male clubbiness, with the women doing the real work of journalism, Savannah Blackwell, Tali Woodward, Rachel Brahinsky, Sarah Phelan and Rebecca Bowe.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Sep. 27, 2010 @ 12:37 pm

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

;-)

Posted by Greg on Sep. 26, 2010 @ 4:38 pm

Related articles

  • The Guardian Guide to Burning Man

    Our guide leads you to the best art and parties on the playa -- and helps you prepare for the journey of a lifetime

  • Cannabis Club Guide

    Cannabis Issue: Testing the tokes at Bay Area dispensaries

  • GOLDIES 2010

    Spotlights, please! Our 22nd annual Guardian Outstanding Local Discovery Awards celebrate the best and brightest in Bay Area arts and culture