FFWD Weekly
Copyright © 2000. All Rights Reserved

Letters by FFWD Readers Re: How hot is too hot? (Splice, May 4) Busted! You've been caught with your misogyny hanging out! How could you even contemplate publishing an image so blatantly hateful to women. Naked, bound, gagged and fearful?! The only thing that distinguishes this picture from one of brutal sexual assault is that the thing forced into her mouth against her will is a funnel tube from the bottle of sauce (predictably labeled "hot" and oddly resembling a penis). Don't even try to say that this article is simply information about a "marketing leap." The fact that you quietly state the truth, that this picture is an image of "violent S&M," doesn't exonerate you. And saying "it's hard to imagine [this] causing fantasies of the sexual kind in anyone but the truly disturbed" doesn't excuse you and shows that you understand exactly nothing about the true nature of the sexual abuse of women. This picture does not illustrate anything sexual, but does clearly communicate that a woman is to be subjugated, degraded and injured. These, the desire to subjugate, degrade and injure, and not sexual desire, however it may differ from one individual to another, are the motivation for rape, which is what this picture portrays. Other than the two phrases I mention, your entire article is a free plug (pardon the pun!) for the product, its advertising and its promoters. Fast Forward has some fine writing in it. This piece, however, has me wondering exactly how far you would go in your rush to sell advertising to stay afloat. I know one thing – no one who cares about the safety of women will buy this product, or support those who promote it. Gayl Veinotte, via e-mail Re: hot sauce I want a paper to read with information and commentary about Calgary. It is even better if that paper offers an off-mainstream view, like Fast Forward. But I do not want to feel violated before even reading a word. The photo of the XXX Rated Hot Sauce was such misogynist hatred. It shows a woman in obvious distress and in an indefensible position. She cannot breathe, she is not enjoying herself. And while the article accompanying the picture questions this fantasy as "disturbed," it does not mention the larger issue of gender-based violence. Why is this picture here? Did you need to propagate this image? Did you intend to steal the shock value? Is it a coincidence that I just heard a news report on the radio about rape? No. Do you see this picture as a reflection and perpetuation of an idea that women are objects, titillating when overpowered and controlled? I also want to inquire as to the cartoon featured in Mr. Smutty which portrays a monkey sucking the nipple of a female. The caption refers to the health of the monkey’s "bones." I understand the proposed premise of capitalism and tits, but I still have some questions about the cartoon itself. Why does the woman portrayed in the cartoon not have a head? Why is she white and buff and sporting "perfect" breasts? Why is the monkey turned on? Is the woman not obliterated in this cartoon? So I’m not sure what course of action to take. Do I cease to pick up your paper? Do I develop a "thick skin" and ignore the burning in my gut? Do I accept these images without thought or question or response? My answer to these is "No." I like Fast Forward, but I am uninspired by the misogynist slant I see. Please recognize it, explain it or cease it. M. Snesrud, Calgary

| Back To This Issue Table of Contents | Back To Main Index |