In Gallagher and Kramer’s part II of The Hot Woman’s Handbook, hetero-normative language is rampant. The subsequent chapters all focus on heterosexual relationships, sex positions, dirty talk, voyeurism, and casual sex. I am sure many of you saw this blatant unwillingness to include a specific population of women and men, but what was their purpose in doing so?
Part II is all about how to “get it on” with your partner (of the opposite sex). Moving away from the self-satisfaction of masturbation and orgasms, Gallagher and Kramer move into a dialogue on the different facets of heterosexual sex. Chapter 6 describes the ABC’s of sex acts from the typicl “missionary position” all the way to “the grind.” There are intermittent helpful hints about how exactly to tell “your man” how to find your G-spot or how not to “dry up” while engaging in sex. And, of course, they don’t forget to “liberate” the men by claiming that actually, physical “size really doesn’t matter!” Every page seems the same, and is predictable. I am very unengaged from the reading while simultaneously thrown off-guard with over-the-top heterosexist language like when they are talking about size and shape of the penis and say, “Luckily, that difference isn’t about just one ideal but about getting two people to fit together right” (106). What about two people who technically don’t physically “fit together”? Also in chapter 6 is a brief section on birth control and the importance of having safe-sex, is that sufficient? Isn’t being safe an important part of having “sexual pleasure”?
Chapter 7 and 8 turn focus to sex toys and “dirty talk,” respectively. They give examples of different ways to use dirty talk and sex toys; they even have stories to back up their successes. If you were deterred to buy a vibrator/talk dirty because of you were worried what your boyfriend might think, you no longer have to worry. They all like toys/dirty talk too (italics added for sarcasm). Gallagher and Kramer, heterosexuality assumptions aside, should ask why we are afraid of telling our husbands/boyfriends that we own a vibrator or like to “talk dirty” instead of telling us “go ahead do it, they’ll probably enjoy it!”
Chapter 9 has a different tone to it. Gallagher and Kramer make a point of making sure that women know it is OK to like to be watched. Similarly, the criticize feminist film theory and its discussion of the “male gaze.” On page 144 they state, “as useful as this theory [the male gaze] may be in unveiling the power and prebalence of male fantasy, we are not stuck in passive position of a sex object for men’s pleasure…even when we are being looked at as sexual, we are looking right back.” I was taken aback by this comment. I agree that it’s fine and legitimate if women enjoy being watched, but is that because of the patriarchical power structures that have been in place for as long as we can remember? Are women truly feeling sexual from being “gazed” at or are they mistaking feeling “sexual” for feeling “hot” or “wanted” because that is what we have been taught to strive for?
Chapter 10 discusses the possibility to have heterosexual one-night-stands. The authors go through a series of locations/situations in which you can easily initiated sex with strangers. Included in these scenarios is “Workin’ it at the office” (assuming you are employed), “Checkin’ it out at the gym” (assuming you can afford a gym membership), “Maxin’ and relaxin” on vacation” (assuming you go on vacation- specifically vacation in
I especially disliked the interludes of “surrender the pink” where, at the end of each chapter, women tell there heterosexual sex fantasies. These stories contain explicit language and images that turn me off to sex. What I consider as sexy or liberating was not included in this book. While I did learn a few things (especially about masturbating), I was too offended by the explicit language, (that made me feel degraded and unsexy), that I took little away from the chapters. I know this is for a specific audience and appeals to a specific genre, but to what extent does that make it OK or acceptable? Further, to what extent are images of getting “slammed against a wall and fucked up the ass” associations or images of sex we have seen in the media/porn and not really what we desire? Will we ever be able to fully distinguish between the two? As much as I was critical of Levy (just see my above post) the more I read Gallagher and Kramer the more I start leaning in her argument’s direction.
Is CAKES Guide to Female Sexual Pleasure feminist?
3 comments:
Laura,
I agree with you on many of your points. While I read this book, I wonder who has actually purchased this book as a self help book or by innocent curiosity. I can see how this book would be very liberating for some women. I realize that there are many women in the world that have never really explored their sexuality because of shame or fear or even disgust.
But isn't there a way they can get the same points across without using such vulgar and sometimes violent language?
I think they go too far at sometimes. And the women that they supposedly interviewed interestingly enough use very similar language...
I also wonder the same things about voyeurism. Yes, some women do like being watched but is it real or is it something that has been so entrenched in our society that we live it without questioning it.
I sometimes wonder those very questions in my own life. I feel bad when I enjoy getting attention from males (or attention at all, but males in particular.) I feel like I need that sort of affirmation from a male to feel special or that I am desired. This is something that has been ingrained in to our society. Many women feel like they need acceptance and love and attention from men in order to feel self worth. That makes me sad and upset. I want this to change but I don't know how to change it.
That was a tangent.
Anyway, during our last discussion in class I realized that my response blog was very heat of the moment and emotion filled. I still feel a lot of the things I originally said but I understand the positive aspects of CAKE as well. It is definitely not for me but I can see how it can be a very informative book for many heterosexual women... Maybe their next book could be about female lesbian sexual pleasure...?
I agree with both of your concerns on voyeurism and CAKE's supposedly progressive reclamation of the "object" role. One woman's testimony reads: "women are brought up with our sexuality tied deeply to our experience as objects... It is important for us feminists not to condemn women for enjoying this role, because doing so stands in the way of women's sexual fulfillment" (144). I think the problem here is in the first sentence. WHY should we continue to use language and activities that put women's sexuality on display, and are not necessarily empowering and/or fulfilling in themselves?
"The CAKE Gaze" encourages women to view exhibitionism as sexually liberating and empowering, but I see "the gaze" as more about power dynamics between two people--which, if understood by both partners, can be empowering and erotic, but, if misunderstood, can also feel degrading and/or reminiscent of the patriarchal tradition of viewing women as sexual objects. The CAKE gaze could be a good way to play with power dynamics within the context of a safe sexual encounter or relationship, but I feel that CAKE's plan for empowering women needs to be about more than "liberating" women to explore their more sexually "adventuresome" side.
I feel that CAKE's language, including the quote I mentioned in class on Wednesday, "'Icing your cake' for the first time is surely more pleasurable, and often more significant, than 'popping your cherry.' After that, you wonder how you ever went without dessert" (39), perpetuates the image of women as sexual objects. I, personally, don't like to think of my body in terms of food, or "dessert," even if it's in the context of my own self-pleasure as the phrase "icing your cake" implies. While CAKE strives to encourage women to take charge of their sexual pleasure and feel entitled to having more orgasms, more often, I feel that they shortchange the importance of doing so in a manner that allows for different women to feel sexy in different ways. Not only does Part II focus almost entirely on heterosexual relationships, I've read in many blog posts and heard in class that CAKE's definition of "sexy" is not at all what many of us find liberating.
Laura, I appreciate hearing your passionate response. At the same time, I'd like to ask you to step back for a second and consider the opposite position. E.g. to what extent can we accuse a text that's directed to a heterosexual audience of being heterosexist? Furthermore, are Gallagher and Kramer oblivious to how some boyfriends/partners may not react positively to a sex toy? And are they oblivious to how when women enjoy being watched, it may in fact be because we've been socialized to enjoy it? Do they present one-night stands solely as a way to fight back?
Anne
Post a Comment