osprey_archer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
osprey_archer) wrote2020-07-04 08:52 am
osprey_archer) wrote2020-07-04 08:52 am
Entry tags:
Book Review: Come as You Are
Emily Nagoski’s Come as You Are: The Surprising New Science of Women’s Sexual Wellbeing is sort of a reread: I read parts of it years ago, but I was too embarrassed to check it out of the library. However, if you get an ebook no one can ogle your checkouts, so this time I did check it out and read it the whole way through.
There’s a lot of stuff in this book, but Nagoski’s basic thesis is that American society tends to treat women’s sexuality as Men’s Sexuality Lite: just like men’s sexuality, but not as good. For instance, men are more likely than women to feel spontaneous desire (you see an attractive person in the street and go “I’d like to lick that person like a lollipop”), so spontaneous desire is treated as the only real desire. Women are more likely to feel responsive desire (you weren’t thinking about sex till your spouse kisses the back of your neck, and then you’re like “Yeah! Sex sounds amazing!”), and this tends to be considered second-rate, if it’s counted as desire at all.
(But this is definitely a double bind situation: although spontaneous desire is considered the superior form of desire, women who experience too much of it are apt to be viewed as sluts/nymphomaniacs/etc, while women who are too far on the responsive desire end of the spectrum are called frigid. You just can’t win.)
As Nagoski points out, these are statistical tendencies, not universal truths. Enough men experience spontaneous desire that it has become enshrined as The Manly Way to Lust and therefore The Proper Way to Experience Desire, but there’s huge individual variation, men who don’t experience spontaneous desire and women who do etc., and also many people have the capacity to experience either type of desire depending on circumstances.
The book talks about a lot of other things - arousal non-concordance, attachment styles and sex, sexual trauma, orgasm, etc; responsive vs. spontaneous desire is the one I’ve been mulling over, because I feel like it’s got potential to add an exciting new vector of angst to romance novels if the characters’ experiences of desire don’t line up with what is culturally expected.
Although upon further reflection, I feel like spontaneous desire is something that readers expect from romance novels right now? That “Oh my GOD I want to lick you like a lollipop” moment. Hmmm.
There’s a lot of stuff in this book, but Nagoski’s basic thesis is that American society tends to treat women’s sexuality as Men’s Sexuality Lite: just like men’s sexuality, but not as good. For instance, men are more likely than women to feel spontaneous desire (you see an attractive person in the street and go “I’d like to lick that person like a lollipop”), so spontaneous desire is treated as the only real desire. Women are more likely to feel responsive desire (you weren’t thinking about sex till your spouse kisses the back of your neck, and then you’re like “Yeah! Sex sounds amazing!”), and this tends to be considered second-rate, if it’s counted as desire at all.
(But this is definitely a double bind situation: although spontaneous desire is considered the superior form of desire, women who experience too much of it are apt to be viewed as sluts/nymphomaniacs/etc, while women who are too far on the responsive desire end of the spectrum are called frigid. You just can’t win.)
As Nagoski points out, these are statistical tendencies, not universal truths. Enough men experience spontaneous desire that it has become enshrined as The Manly Way to Lust and therefore The Proper Way to Experience Desire, but there’s huge individual variation, men who don’t experience spontaneous desire and women who do etc., and also many people have the capacity to experience either type of desire depending on circumstances.
The book talks about a lot of other things - arousal non-concordance, attachment styles and sex, sexual trauma, orgasm, etc; responsive vs. spontaneous desire is the one I’ve been mulling over, because I feel like it’s got potential to add an exciting new vector of angst to romance novels if the characters’ experiences of desire don’t line up with what is culturally expected.
Although upon further reflection, I feel like spontaneous desire is something that readers expect from romance novels right now? That “Oh my GOD I want to lick you like a lollipop” moment. Hmmm.
no subject
Personally, I eat up love stories in which one partner experiences sexual desire but has to work through some trauma in order to be able to fully enjoy actual sex or to be a real partner to someone (*cough* Reciprocity *cough* -- and obviously more is going on there, but Bucky's fucked-up love-and-sex head is a big part of what draws me to that series).
no subject
Reciprocity!Bucky, God bless him, is a bundle of issues wrapped in a mystery inside an abrasive shell. Obviously if love HAS to be part of this whole love-and-sex thing, then Steve ought to be the one to supply it, right??