Bay Guardian Isn't So Progressive When It Comes to Getting Naked

Bay Guardian Isn't So Progressive When It Comes to Getting Naked

By Erin Sherbert Wed., Jul. 20 2011 at 2:30 PM

A while back we gave the San Francisco Examiner a hard time for its bizarre female-unfriendly practices -- and we stand by it! But it turns out that strained gender relations seem to be a problem even for local newspapers at the other end of the political spectrum.

The San Francisco Bay Guardian's cover today gives us a full-frontal view of nudists at the beach. Great -- who doesn't want to see naked people for free? But the trouble with this picture is that we only get a true eyeful of the bare-assed women, while the fellas have their manparts hidden. (One is figleafed behind Psychology Today. Maybe Reader's Digest wasn't beefy enough?)

Women ... stiffed again

So, basket or not, the Guardian isn't brave enough to show us what these guys have packed for the picnic.

Aside from it being a terrible photo, it reminds us of those old Cinemax After Dark movies where women's breasts are overexposed while men's penises are tucked primly away -- even during those endless sex scenes.

So while the Bay Guardian might try to pride itself on being militantly progressive, it appears the newspaper's standards on how to represent women aren't much different than those of the conservative Examiner -- and that's the ultimate insult.

Follow us on Twitter at @SFWeekly and @TheSnitchSF

Tags:

Cinemax After Dark, endless sex scenes, naked women, progressive newspaper, Psychology Today, San Francisco Bay Guardian, San Francisco Examiner

We Recommend

Miles to Code

Nudists are usually the last people you want to see without clothing anyway - regardless of gender.

Halloweeen05

'ahh men' to that! Lol

Robert Kessler

Agreed. This is the ultimate insult to....something. Uh...the ultimate insult to penises! That's it. No...um...the ultimate insut to women because they don't get to SEE penises! Yeah! No wait...the ultimate insult to the community for not being genitalia-neutral! No...the ultimate insult to gay men for ignoring THEIR right to see penises. No no no...it's the ultimate insult to people who want to see genitalia everywhere! No wait...it's the ultimate insult to Jerry Garcia because he had a SMALL penis! No wait...it's the ultimate insult to atheists because they're prevented from seeing penises because of Christian morality! No...I know I know...it's the ultimate insult to PENISES for keeping them in the closet!!!!!@5ee32e8786af1954b3dc362f7f740926:disqus Awww...you guys just don't understand, man...it's the Nazi state we live in Amerikkka that has all these "rules" and stuff.....

Caitlin

STOKED for the SF Weekly male full frontal cover!

LibertyHiller

I don't see any genitalia anywhere on that cover; at most, all I see is hair. So where's the double standard, exactly?

Media Mogul

Even feminists would rather not see a floppy dick on the cover of a magazine. I think we can all pretty much agree the nude female form is preferable to a tattooed guy's wrinkly toad.

Brock Keeling

Jesus Christ, that was stupid.

Messa313

Pretty sure you just missed the point, bro.

MrEricSir

SFBG takes a "do as I say, not as I do" stance with regard to progressive issues. Just look at their union busting efforts.

Flemingrandolph

Right on!..The feel good 'pseudo left' is often not so subtle in it's anti-labour , anti-union stance. 'Whole Foods' and so forth. Won't eat certain grapes but very pick 'n peck otherwise...