So I was shopping today and came across this book: Porn for Women. Described pretty accurately online as -- Pictures of men in compromising positions - wielding vacuum cleaners, spatulas and flower bouquets - complete with accompanying quotes such as "I love a clean house" and "I love what you've done with your hair" (A rather slim volume with a comparatively large price tag).I didn't really find it all that funny, largely because I just don't fit the stereotype of a women who want to eat cake, have a spotless house and blather on to a man about topics he clearly isn't interested in.
Besides, porn for women is, um, porn. All humor aside isn't this saying that women by definition have no salacious interest in sexy pictures and prose? I do realise it's meant to be post-modern wry stereotyping but honestly, why do we need to invent 'acceptable' stereotyping? If I pick up a book called 'Porn for Women' I want there to be some cock in it...
BTW check out Part Three of December's discussion about choosing a Publisher.
May habeus greenus
16 comments:
You're not the only one without a sense of humor. I heard about this book, and it drives me nuts. I'm with you. If someone advertises porn for women (at least heterosexual women), then yeah, I want to see some naked men, with full frontal nudity, preferably doing some very... interesting things to each other. I just visited a women's "erotica" site the other day, and guess what? Plenty of pictures of nude women in a variety of poses. There was also a gallery of "hunks," but not a one of them showed either full frontal or full rear nudity. Why do that? Don't people get that heterosexual women want to see **naked men**?
Ugh, I hadn't heard about this. How irritating.
Emily, I'm glad someone else feels the same way! The day I turn on videos of guys dusting and get all hot is the day I know I've either been dead or lobotomized.
Post a Comment