A Discussion of Gallagher and Kramer's, The Hot Woman's Handbook (Part III)

I was trying to understand why I have issues with Cake’s book. While I see the validity in creating a handbook completely dedicated to women’s pleasure, I discovered that it is the language that bothers me. In class, we have been discussing the need for a new language in which women can express their sexual desires and understand their multifaceted sexuality. However, I do not think Cake accomplishes this in the book. It is still confined by heterosexual language and active sexual descriptions that we have found problematic. I love how accessible the language is because of its raw quality but I have trouble with the violent language used, such as “gripping so hard that one leaves thumbprints” (197) or your partner telling you that you are “a little whore who deserves to be punished” (238). I am not naive to the fact that role-play and power play are fundamental factors of many women’s sex lives, but should this be the norm? What if I am not comfortable having my partner call me “Daddy’s little whore”?

In chapter eleven, The Porn Myth, Gallagher and Kramer deconstruct the notion that women are not visually stimulated. Many women sexually respond to porn and Cake wants to emphasize the need for porn focused on women’s pleasure. Mainstream porn has been marketed to men, and thus, the content focuses on the male fantasy, with the end being expressed through man ejaculating. Gallagher and Kramer express the need for porn that focuses on female pleasure not defined through this endpoint of male ejaculation. “We want to see ourselves on-screen and identify with the subject” (180). First, Cake assures women that porn can enhance their sexual lives and stimulate them along with men, and second, Cake demands that the porn industry start making porn that caters to women.

In chapter twelve, “Straight” as a Ruler, Gallagher and Kramer deconstruct the strict sexual orientation binary of being either hetero or homosexual. I think this has been a concern for many of us in the class because Cake tends to use language that reinforces heterosexual intimacy. But in this chapter an exploration of hetero and homosexual desires and acts are embraced. Cake expresses that many women who define themselves as “straight” have fantasies and sexual desires of being with women. This section appears to be geared toward women who have had heterosexual relationships but have either experimented women or fantasize about women sexually. Again, this is not tailored to women who are openly lesbians. It focuses on experimentation with both sexes. I loved their discussion of labeling and the brief history they gave (pages 208 to 209) on the societal construct of sexual orientation labels. I agree that these rigid labels need to be deconstructed to allow more freedom to experience all sexual desires with partners of both sexes.

In chapter thirteen, Power Play, Gallagher and Kramer discuss the issue of power dynamics within sexual interaction. Again, the main focus is power roles between heterosexual partners, so the discussion of lesbian sex is not addressed in full. Gallagher and Kramer understand the complication of discussing power dynamics in heterosexual relationships because for so long feminists have been fighting against the image of the submissive woman being a vessel of pleasure for the dominant male. But they stress the point that “letting someone else take control does not mean you are weak, and wanting control does not mean you are the bully” (226). I was interested in the idea that those who experience power in their everyday lives tend to want to be dominated in the bedroom. The feeling of “letting go” and being “dominated” is attractive to several women. However, this was the chapter that I had a lot of personal issues with the language. Cake seems to make being completely dominated, verbally abused, and sexually “taken” without consent to be glorified and sexy. While I understand that Cake is trying to say that if this is how you get off it is okay, not enough attention was given to women who do not like to be in the extreme submissive or dominant role. Is there a way to experience sexual pleasure without this extreme power dichotomy? Can power distribution be more fluid, a little of both, not so extreme as being taken or violently dominating your partner? Can this power be expressed using less violent language?

In chapter fourteen, Birth of the Cake Sam’ich, the idea of threesomes is addressed. The beginning of the chapter is dedicated to WMW (two women and one man) encounters and the second part discusses the “cake sam-ich” or MWM (two men and one woman) encounters. This chapter seemed very fantastical to me. Maybe it is because I associate threesomes with the porn industry and the construction of the male fantasy, rather than an actualized experience by everyday couples. I was interested in the discussion of gender again. I think I was more open to the idea of two women together with a man but could not imagine asking my partner to have a threesome with another man. I became very aware of our homophobic culture, especially regarding men’s sexuality. I found myself getting angry that I was more open to engaging in this act with another woman rather than another man!

I would like to reiterate the fact that Cake’s book was very enlightening in many ways but also limiting. The title says, “the hot woman’s handbook”, but even in their disclaimer Gallagher and Kramer express the fact that the women they are writing to and about are predominately “straight”. I feel as if there main purpose was to deconstruct taboos that have hindered women’s sexual exploration in the past and they do this by using extreme examples of women engaging in these taboo activities. However, I found it hard to identify with many of the definitions of a sexualized woman that Cake offered. I consider myself to be a sexually charged individual that is very open about my sexual desires and needs. Am I truly enlightened if I do not agree or wish to engage in many of the acts this book describes? Where do I fit as a sexual woman?

A Discussion of Ariel Levy's, "Female Chauvinist Pigs" (Chapters 3 and 4)

One of Levy’s underlying themes in both her chapters focused on gender identity and women within raunch culture denying the traditional stereotypes of being a “girly-girl” by adopting a “masculine persona”. I was fascinated by this phenomenon because I have always been taught that women need to celebrate their femininity and that masculinity has been equated with power for far to long. What Levy describes in these chapters is women embracing a hyper-masculine identity and becoming empowered through participating in what has socially been conceived as men’s activities, such as stripping, porn, and enjoying looking at the idealized female body.

In Levy’s third chapter, she defines the title of her book, “female chauvinist pigs” (FCPs) through interviews and observation of women who discarded the “girly-girl” role and as Levy explains, are “creating a new sort of loophole of women who are ‘not like other women’, who are instead ‘like a man’” (96). These FCPs have distain for any women that are overly focused on their feminine appearance and yet, they believe that these women represent “sexiness”. Similar to men, FCPs must enjoy looking at these overtly sexualized women and beneath their cool exterior claim to posses this vibrant sexualized energy that drives raunch culture. In earlier chapters, the materialized definition of “sexy” was a skinny, large-breasted, woman, who was not afraid to take-off her clothes and show her body to the world. It is this narrow definition of “sexy” that has victimized both men and women within raunch culture. In my opinion FCPs struggle with gender socialization, expressing the belief that a man exudes power in society, especially in the sexualized arena. It is not trendy to identify with “feminine qualities” anymore; it is the masculine identity in which these women entertain sexual power. Levy believes that as long as people view womanhood as something to escape from, womanhood will be subordinate to that of manhood. It is difficult for me to identify with FCPs because I have always celebrated my difference from men, celebrated my femininity. I do not wish to let go of these differences and assimilate with this hyper-masculine identity in which I objectify and exploit women’s bodies… my body.

In Levy’s fourth chapter, she continues her gender discussion on a group of lesbian women that are called “bois”. Bois are described as women that take on the physical appearance and mentality of boys. The argument is that boys in society experience the most sexual freedom without consequences, even more so then men, who have family and career responsibilities. The idea that young men are noncommittal and enjoy many sexual partners is extremely appealing for these women. While butch women identify with the stereotypical masculine physical appearance, bois go beyond this, by also adopting the mentality of being a man. It is manhood that represents sexual liberation for these women. Again, I return to the concern with associating masculinity with power and sexual fulfillment in life. If this becomes the standard for a sexually liberated woman, all the fundamental aspects of women’s sexuality become obsolete, perpetuating a system of male sexual dominance. While, I enjoyed reading about these women who are beginning to play with gender roles and perhaps start blurring the binary of being either female of male, the fact that masculinity becomes the desired identity can have harsh consequences on the greater population of women.

I have very mixed feelings about this book so far. The idea that I can experience power through being more “manly” is upsetting to me because I am not a man… there are fundamental differences in being a women that I refuse to deny. I do not have a place within this new age, raunch culture, and yet, I do not see myself as a girly-girl or a woman not in tune with my sexuality and sexual desires. Where do I fit?

Expectations for the Seminar

I am excited to learn about the Third Wave because so much of my previous women studies have focused on the positive and negative repercussions of the Second Wave, or as we call it in our house “ Mama’s days”. While the Second Wave was responsible for bringing political and public awareness to the issues that plagued American women, many gender issues today were either overlooked or introduced in the “feminist agenda” later. I am interested to learn how this new wave of feminism (or gender rights) tackles the issues prevalent in today’s society that were not the focus during the 1970s and 1980s. I am fascinated by this idea of “feminisms”, pluralizing the term because the group “women” consists of multifaceted identities and experiences. I also hope to learn about activism within the realm of gender studies. As stated in our first class, gender studies is not simply theory but also has the ability to be practiced and shared with the larger community.

I have dedicated the last two years of my St. Olaf career to learning about women; it is finally time for me to start sharing my opinions with a group of people equally dedicated to the study of gender inequality. While I am still formulating my thoughts on certain issues, my time abroad on Global has helped me solidify many convictions I have surrounding issues of women’s sexual and reproductive health. I hope to bring these experiences to the table, especially the issue of cultural sensitivity versus potential health risks, in regards to women’s sexuality. Many of the cultures I witnessed were entrenched in patriarchal values, thus, hindering the flourishing and creativity of both genders. I heavily focused on the oppression of women within these cultures, and now hope to explore how the socialization of men in a hyper-masculine environment affects the way women and men communicate and experience relationships together.

I cannot wait to discuss all these issues revolving around genderized roles and sexuality with you all!