Hot sluts!

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

culture@sfbg.com

SEX ISSUE Forget those uptight pricks: sluts are awesome. There's no shame in harboring a voracious appetite for sexiness in all its myriad expressions. Combined with a well-developed ethical stance and safe practices, it's one of the joys of being human. In honor of the enormous, charitable Folsom Street leather and fetish fair (Sun/26, 11 a.m.–6 p.m., donations requested. www.folsomstreetfair.org), we wanted to honor some of our favorite local sluts with the pervy attention they want and deserve. 

>>CLICK HERE FOR PICS OF OUR FAVORITE HOT SLUTS!

SLUTTIEST CELLULOID

You've always wanted to watch your neighbors bang, right? Well moan enthusiastically in honor of the Good Vibrations Indie Erotic Film Festival, which every year puts the call out for the cream of the amateur blue filmmaker crop, then assembles the spunkiest for your viewing pleasure at the Castro Theatre. You too can be in the audience, which will ooh and aah its approval to choose the sexiest, steamiest home-screw, the lucky winner receiving a $1,500 money shot. So how does SF get it on? This year's 12 finalists include preggo smut (Jeannie Roshar's "Bun in the Oven"), good old-fashioned wordplay like Benjamin Williams' "The Filth Element," and sci-fi sexin' ("Orgasm Raygun" by Martin Gooch). The fest precedes a range of specialty nights around town coordinated by Good Vibes, including Lebso Retro: A Dyke Porn Retrospective (Wed/22 at the Women's Building). It's gonna be a hot ticket, so grab a seat, relax your rear, and revel in the sight of sexy San Francisco.

Thurs/23 pre party: 7 p.m., $10; screening: 8 p.m., $10. Castro Theatre, 429 Castro, SF. (415) 621-6120, www.gv-ixff.org

 

SLUTTIEST QUEEN

"I'm so honored to be named Sluttiest Queen," inimitable alternative drag goddess Suppositori Spelling tells us. "It's nice to see that my work hasn't gone unnoticed. I have so many performances that require nudity that when I drop my skirt lately it's often met with a wave of yawns from my audience. I think they're more shocked by the presence of panties nowadays." (Her audience, found at her raucous weekly drag show Cocktailgate — Sundays, 9 p.m., $5. Truck, 1900 Folsom St., SF. www.trucksf.com — sheds a few panties themselves when she's on stage.) "I could tell you stories so dirty hot that this paper would burn like a Koran in Florida" she continues, "but I'm so shy and reserved. I will say this, though: as far as the queer sex scene in San Francisco goes, we seem to be in the flush of a renaissance. I keep stumbling upon things that even make me blush — like the gentleman who preferred a visible handjob on public transportation during rush hour as foreplay. But I encourage whatever floats your boat or creams your Twinkie. I just want to clarify, however, that "ouch" is not a safe word!"

Suppositori emcees the Seventh Street stage at Folsom Street Fair from 11 a.m.–2 p.m., followed by a special performance at 2:30 p.m., and then a "hanky code" themed Cocktailgate at its regular time.

 

Comments

I do except Burning Man!

-marc

Posted by marcos on Sep. 27, 2010 @ 12:28 pm

PLEASE reconsider such a cover in your next sex issue or put an "18 and up" cover over the cover! The Guardian is available on every other city block in newspaper vending boxes that are eye-level with toddlers and small children. Up until today, my six year-old had never heard or read the word "Slut." I suppose he might see it scratched on the door of a public restroom or overhear it on a city street, but seeing on the front page of omnipresent city paper makes it harder to dismiss as a silly or bad word. "If it's so silly or bad, why is the newspaper using it?" Moreover, he now associates women with the term sluts thanks to the nude woman on the cover. TO THE EDITORS OF THE GUARDIAN: CHILDREN LIVE IN THIS CITY. HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR THEM AND THEIR PARENTS!!

Posted by Leigh on Sep. 26, 2010 @ 7:57 pm

Especially as the kid dodges the dirty needles left in the street by the junkies, wonders what all of those emaciated women are doing in the doorways in the Tenderloin and what the sad throngs of homeless folks are doing all over Market and Civic Center, let alone the fellows in the Castro with their cheeks hanging out of their chaps, yes?

You wouldn't want to corrupt the child's mind with a "dirty" word after those harmless images, now would you? That's the important thing.

Posted by Guest Johnny Wendell on Sep. 26, 2010 @ 8:47 pm

"If it's so silly or bad, why is the newspaper using it?"
No six year old said that.
And if one had, sorry lady, it's your job to raise your kid.
It is not the responsibility of the rest of society to make itself COMPLETELY child friendly to protect your sensibilities, which, let's face it, were the ones actually offended.
Sex is a part of human existence.
Get over it.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 27, 2010 @ 5:19 pm

Here are some responses to you post above, marc –

You say:

“Women in power does not end sexism just like a black president in power does not end racism.”

We agree on this point.

However, excluding women from power does not end sexism, either.

You say:

“The problem is structures of power-over and how they are abused, not who is driving power-over others.”

The problem is both.

If a group is excluded from the power structure, its needs and rights will be neglected, at best.

You say:

“Patriarchal males don't tend to marry powerful feminist women like Sarah Low Daly…”

Is this the same Sarah Low Daly who moved to Fairfield to get away from her husband?

You say:

“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.”

True. But it helps if elected bodies don’t engineer revanchist backslides, as happened in January 2001 with the SF board of supes.

You say:

“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.”

It would help some men. But not those who get their rocks off precisely through committing acts of real violence. Not to mention men who get their rocks off by murdering their sexual partners in the act of sex.

You say:

“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.”

The women you mention do make contributions. However, the Guardian’s policies and priorities are set by guys. When was the last time The Guardian ran a serious article about male chauvinism in SF politics?

Also, take a look at the ads in The Guardian and the subjects of most articles. The paper is largely aimed at young, single, straight, male stoners and hipsters.

Which is fine. They’re entitled to have a journalist voice just like anybody else.

But what’s progressive about it?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 27, 2010 @ 8:14 pm

"However, excluding women from power does not end sexism, either."

The presence of women advancing through a patriarchal power structure, if anything, is a function of how well women who see patriarchal power are able to assimilate themselves into the patriarchy. There are rare exceptions.

"If a group is excluded from the power structure, its needs and rights will be neglected, at best."

The control of the power structure over who is able to wield power-over is what neglects needs and rights. It is nearly impossible to use power-over to achieve power-to along with power-with. The only time power-over concedes is when its own reproduction is threatened.

"Is this the same Sarah Low Daly who moved to Fairfield to get away from her husband?"

Are you now clairvoyant? I thought that Daly was to have had sent Sarah away? Their family choices are theirs and theirs alone.

"True. But it helps if elected bodies don’t engineer revanchist backslides, as happened in January 2001 with the SF board of supes."

If anything, government has served the needs of women in need better since 2001 than it had during the female dominated Boards of Supervisors in the 1990s.

"It would help some men. But not those who get their rocks off precisely through committing acts of real violence. Not to mention men who get their rocks off by murdering their sexual partners in the act of sex."

There are always end point extrema that are criminal no matter what, but by the fact that they are at the extremes means that they are not very prevalent at all, indeed rare. But the vast bulk of the bell curve of sexual abuse would be eliminated were such men satisfied through safer means.

"The women you mention do make contributions. However, the Guardian’s policies and priorities are set by guys. When was the last time The Guardian ran a serious article about male chauvinism in SF politics?"

When I used to ask my mom "Why, if there was Mothers Day and Fathers Day, when was Childrens Day?" she would respond "every day is childrens day." So with the SFBG, when the editorial climate is determined by the same men, with their same friends and same political fixations, every day is patriarchy day at the SFBG.

The Guardian is all that we have, and compared to BeyondChron, is a stellar journalistic outlet. We're fucked.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Sep. 28, 2010 @ 10:51 am

In the entire discussion prompted by the Hot Sluts photo, I haven't noticed anyone mentioning the fact that violence implies force. If a man hurts or rapes a woman, or does something to her that she objects to, he is using force. I think that is the issue. However, I don't see how feminism is being set back, or societal violence perpetuated - by a man spanking a woman who likes being spanked (or vice versa). If it's all consensual and everyone is getting what they want, I don't see the problem. To criticize safe, consensual acts performed in private is not progressive, it's Puritanical.

Posted by Shanan O. on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 3:36 pm

Calling a consensual spanking "violence" makes about as much sense as calling consensual borrowing "theft," or calling a boxing match "assault."

You seem to be saying that a certain set of people's sexual preferences are not OK. Spanking might not be sexy to you, but there are many, many people who like to be spanked. I assume you mean well, but it seems to me that when you condemn the celebration of the kind of sex that many women want to have, you're taking an anti-feminist position.

Posted by Guest Noah on Dec. 02, 2010 @ 11:31 pm

reading the phrase 'celibate Jesus lady" made my nuts tingle.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 04, 2011 @ 9:11 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