Sex-Negative Good Men Project Bans “The Sex Positive Male”

The Good Men Project site censors any discussion of Kink, BDSM or Fetish Sexuality from my popular column.

The Good Men’s Project’s views on what defines sex-positive expression by good men and women, and what does not, was made clear to me recently. They censored my featured column on GMP, The Sex Positive Male. I was told I could no longer include any content referring to D/s-BDSM, Kink or Fetishsexuality.

This censorship occurred despite their editorial claim that the Good Men Project’s mission is to have “the conversation no one else is having.” They further emphasize exactly how open-minded they consider themselves to be. They declare how important it is to be open to more than one view about what constitutes good –“the question of what is good opens the door to huge philosophical implications. Where does goodness start and where does it end? Who is the judge of what is good?”

Well apparently the “who” in this case are the same people, who despite the above claim, ARE afraid of having me include this particular conversation no on else is having about kink and BDSM.

I was warned and even criticized by a number of peers who felt the Good Men Project took too narrow a view of mature healthy masculinity and sexuality when I first took on the column last April.

From my view as a sex-positive writer and advocate for sexual authenticity, honesty, education and research, the GMP had a significant audience to write for. I took them at their word about their stated intention. As long as they did not restrict what I could write about I was happy to offer my sex-positive views. I felt they were welcoming my professional experience and insights about the broad spectrum of sexual desire emerging in the culture globally, and its potential for conscious, empowering and healing expression.

My first column – “How to Welcome Your Male Sex Creature – 5 keys to being a sexually authentic, conscious and empowered man” had around 40,000 views and 7000 Facebook shares.

Due to the strong response, I was invited to write an on-going featured column two times per month under “The Sex Positive Male” byline. My column was going to run on Saturdays to avoid NSFW status. I submitted my second column, “Is the Problem Sex/Porn Addiction or Sexual Dishonesty?” and got this reply from my editor at the time…

“After reading your latest installment today, I realized the caliber of content–message, depth, etc.– needs to be a weekday spot. In general weekends are slow traffic for us, and too, a good place to put NSFW content.  But the quality of what you are writing deserves weekday attention. LOVE the depth of your material.”

In subsequent columns I focused on growing interest and news emerging about Kink, D/s-BDSM and Fetishsexuality, embodiment, sexual intimacy, sexual healing and other conscious sexuality topics. As a member of both the conscious sexuality and kink communities for over 15 years, and as a Transpersonal psychologist I had helped hundreds of individuals and couples maneuver the complexities of conscious engagement of their kinks. I felt I could offer a reasoned perspective about healthy practices to support the exploding, uninitiated interest in Kink generated by Fifty Shades of Grey and later the Jian Ghomeshi incident. My focus was always on conscious expression, sexual honesty, negotiated consent, embodiment, empowerment, healing past trauma and shame, and deepened intimacy and connection with partners.

The response to my column and messages to me privately have been exceedingly positive, encouraging and often outright grateful for bringing Kink so straightforwardly into the conversation.

I was very impressed that GMP had an expansive enough if not enlightened view to recognize the validity and prevalence of kink oriented sexuality. So it was a shock to receive a cease and desist order direct from the publisher.

“It is with regret that I tell you that from now on we will not be able to run sexually explicit content, and that includes references to graphic sex, kink, BDSM, fetishes and sexually suggestive pictures. You are welcome to contribute non-sexual content, of course…”

Of course…not! This sanitization of a significant dimension of human sexuality from GMP is equivalent to banning any content relevant to gay or lesbian sexuality 50 years ago. It is a slap in the face to anyone who identifies as a Fetishsexual just as it would have been to be excluded from writing relevant content for homosexuals back then.

sexual dignity

Just in case they may have lost their minds in a moment, I asked for clarification about what content specifically would be excluded… new psychological research that described aspects of Kink?… education about physical and emotional safety when engaged in D/s-BDSM? … case-studies that often show others that they are not alone in their own desires? …discussion of what conscious, negotiated consensual fetish explorations can look like? …descriptions of the ecstatic depths of Eros that can be reached, and the healing of old wounds, shames and fears inherited from a sex-negative culture? Did they really intend to whitewash the entire reality of Kink, Fetish and D/s-BDSM from their content?

After 6 weeks, I have still not received any clarification or response. Their position is clear on the face of it.

They are afraid that by allowing this particular conversation no else is having to continue, others might judge them as actually believing kink, BDSM and Fetishsexuality were a normal, acceptable part of the sexual landscape. “Other’s” in this case are not readers, but advertisers and members of the board of GMP. The readers had nothing to do with the decision. As the publisher put it…

“There are several reasons, but they all have business consequences.

 –Two advertisers have brought it up as problematic and are asking to withdraw their advertising.

— Our Board of Directors is uncomfortable putting that content in front of investors and potential investors.”

How can the Good Men Project claim to support what is good for men, when the driving call is to cater to advertisers and investors – particularly ones that are either ill-informed, sex-negative, prudish, bigoted or all of the above? These are the views that have power over what GMP can publish? I do not have an issue with a business operating in its best interests. But I am disappointed that a popular publication that claims to be on a mission to create a culture of conscious men, wants a prominent community of Kinky, D/s-BDSM, Fetishsexuals to be kept in the closest out of sight. They may as well put a sign on their home page – “No Kinky People Allowed.”

If the Fetishsexual community were as organized and prominent as the LGBT communities are in this current era, this is the kind dismissal of a significant sexual community that would cause all hell to break loose in the virtual realms.

I would guess we are a generation or more away from Conscious Kink being considered a relevant and integral part of sex-positive culture.

It is still a challenge for most all levels of society to behold those who identity as Fetishsexuals and Kinksters, with a healthy, respectful regard. Instead there is the prevalent judgment that these “poor souls” must have been damaged or traumatized in some way, or they are outright products of the devil or evil.

What seems more damaging and traumatic, to me, are the outdated cultural, moral, social, political, legal, therapeutic and religious codes that are intended to make people feel afraid, ashamed, immoral, criminal, pathological, sick, disgusting, or dangerous regarding their authentic sexuality. Fetishsexuals are, in my opinion, about 2 generations behind the gay and lesbian communities who fought hard and still fight to be recognized as authentic representations of human sexual diversity. It will take a similar united effort by the Fetishsexual communities to preserve our freedoms, legal rights, and safeguard our dignity for ourselves and the generations that follow.

 

 

 

 

By | 2014-12-13T20:47:03+00:00 December 13th, 2014|Uncategorized|6 Comments

About the Author:

6 Comments

  1. buster December 15, 2014 at 5:29 am - Reply

    perhaps because both good and men, as far as constructs go, are the problem.

  2. Rose December 15, 2014 at 7:36 am - Reply

    When you say there is not enough in the community the bdsm, kink fetish community. You are right and if it were an issue about being transgender or GLBTQ there would be an uproar. I think that there are many in the Queer as well as the leather community that certainly have practices in the bdsm arena. I wish they would get behind you.
    I will talk to others in the Nwest about this and see what they will say and do. At least write to GMP.
    In regards to images I have to say that many have problems with images sometimes more than words. When there are long articles many never read it in its entirety. Pictures have always been problematic with advertisers. When it looks like the model and professional photographer that only implies or suggest one can get away with more, but when it looks like its “homemade” it puts a different implication, its more direct.
    I think it is wonderful that you do this work and so important, there are so many poseurs out there that credibility is of the utmost relevance for men/women that are looking for the truth about themselves.
    I will email the GMP and try to get others involved but few are willing to come out when there is controversy.
    I hope they reconsider and have you back on.
    The best to you
    Rose

  3. JR December 15, 2014 at 5:52 pm - Reply

    I am outraged but when the source of the suppression is known to be advertisers and loss of revenue I am not so surprised. Oh yes, let’s kowtow to the powers that be – the almighty dollar! What rubbish, you spineless weaklings!

  4. Galen December 16, 2014 at 6:02 am - Reply

    Jaeleen Bennis Unfortunate call by GMP. I won’t be sharing any of their articles anymore.
    December 13 at 2:15pm · Unlike · 2

    Ryan Orrock Unfortunately the biggest players get “taken over” and “mainstreamed” in virtually any space.
    Yesterday at 5:02am · Unlike · 2

    JacoPhillip Crous WHAT!?!
    Yesterday at 8:53am · Unlike · 1

    Randy Ralston “It is with regret that I tell you that from now on we will not be able to run sexually explicit content, and that includes references to graphic sex, kink, BDSM, fetishes and sexually suggestive pictures. You are welcome to contribute non-sexual content, of course…”

    This is very bad…
    Yesterday at 3:51pm · Unlike · 3
    Galen Fous Mtp

    Susan Evergreen Hericks Galen, I was a follower of GMP before you started writing your column and I specifically went to the site to read many of your excellent columns. It is so disappointing that, out of fear of losing advertising and displeasing the powers that be, GMP w…See More
    Yesterday at 8:35pm · Like

    Jaye Reyes outrageous suppression of truth… the almighty dollar and advertisers!Arian Bloodwood GMP has the audience and the business focus, but they like keeping things ‘simple’…
    December 13 at 2:34pm · Unlike · 1

    Susan M Block How can we become, raise up and love “good men” when they censor the discussion of sexuality?
    December 13 at 4:09pm · Unlike · 5

    Lisa Byrne How surprising and disappointing to hear.
    December 13 at 4:25pm · Unlike · 1

    Steve Burford I won’t censor it
    Yesterday at 1:14am · Unlike · 1

    Roseline Pouinard You can’t have good men by keeping them in the dark, by censoring talk on any sexual fetish, kink conversations or education. Keeping it in the closet has never worked.
    Yesterday at 1:22am · Unlike · 3

    JacoPhillip Crous Manhood and masculinities cannot be isolated from sexuality. Might as well try to separate sleeping and eating from the male condition too.
    There is something sinister and unhealthy behind this new wave of censorship.
    Censorship is despotic!
    14 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 1

    Joelle Casteel I am so glad to know that you have your own website- never knew that before you had to post this article there. That is really a shame that GMP did this to you, removing your insightful comments from their “conversation”

    Susan M Block Censoring the discussion of sex fosters “bad” men
    December 13 at 4:10pm · Unlike · 3

    Chelsea Raw
    December 13 at 4:34pm · Like

    Akshay Dave · Friends with Ruby May and 7 others
    Anyone else notice what their abbreviation/initials sound like if said out loud? Especially used in a sentance eg “The GMP restricts……”
    Mayhap the board doth protest too much……See More
    December 13 at 6:21pm · Unlike · 1

    Radyance Stormkiss Wow. That is really a shame that they would want to leave out such an important dynamic. I don’t get it.
    Yesterday at 4:13pm · Unlike · 1

    Ruby May So sad Galen Fous Mtp. Especially seeing as your articles seemed to have such a huge resonance in people. Is there an email address that people can write to, to complain, should they feel compelled?
    22 hrs · Like

    Ruby May @GoodMenProject on Twitter! Let’s tell them what we think!
    20 hrs · Unlike · 1

    Apollo Lee Adama Always had the impression those “good men” were a set of self-hating wimps.
    19 hrs · Unlike · 2

    Rebecca Lowrie Wow, don’t even know what to say.
    21 hrs · Unlike · 1

    Ruby May @GoodMenProject on Twitter…Go and have a go at them!
    20 hrs · Unlike · 4

    Rebecca Lowrie Will do! Also shared this on my Sexual Alchemy page and tagged them in that. x
    20 hrs · Unlike · 2

    Drew Gerald Bummer
    23 hrs · Like

  5. Chelsea Demoiselle (Raw) December 20, 2014 at 9:05 pm - Reply

    Time to organize then. I will be unfollowing GMP on various social media venues.

  6. Diana M. Joice February 14, 2015 at 11:55 pm - Reply

    I have been watching GMP for a while now.
    It simply does not reach the level of men’s work like the ‘ManKindProject.org’ does.

    I’d say you get a foot in there and be off far better.

    Juiciest Wishes,

    Diana

Leave A Comment