Has anyone else read Nancy Friday's The Power of Beauty?  

I'm about halfway though it and find myself wondering if I'm the only 
one who alternates between admiration for some excellent insights and 
bemusement at a clearly confused young womens misapprehension.

65 responses total.

This item is linked between Femme Item 77 and Books Item 66.

Would you be so kind as to give us a sample of Ms. Friday's book,
Misti?  I'm curious...   (no yellow, though ;)  Thanks.

  I'd like to read it, having already read her other books, and not just for
the fantasies, which I might add are something to learn from. I think she has
a lot to say to women and men. I like her work.

I'd also be interested in seeing some excerpts from said book.

I haven't read this one, but I did the other about dreams (I haven't got it
at hand, so I don't know the title in english-->read it in Dutch).
Her views can add, and broaden, the perception of men towards women.
I haven't read yours, though.

Her book on the fantasy life of women was titles "My Secret Gardeb" and 
she had a previous book that I think was called "My Mother Myself", or 
something like that.

Sure, I'd be glad to enter some excerpts.  Friday has some interesting 
ideas and some really whacky ideas.  It's interesting to see the way 
she's blended them into a cohesive world-view.

(Don't have the book at hand right now, so I'll do that later.)

is it later yet misti? (hint)

Ooops.  I forgot.  I'll work on finding some representative passages.

The titles by her that i am familiar with are "My Secret Garden" "Forbidden
Flowers" "Men in Love" "My Mother Myself: How real life has changed Women's
sexual fantasies" the first two are collections of Womyns sexual fantasies
with analytical discusions of them.  The first one is unique in that it
includes taped interviews.  Men in love is a collection of men's sexual
fantasies with the same insights into them I am not however familiar with her
new book.  If it is anywhere as insightful as her earlier novels I am sure
it will be fascinating reading. I recomend any of these novels to dislodge
any feeling that any fantasy is abnormal.

So are these glamorous fantasies? Sick fantasies? Rape fantasies?
Or just "Red Shoe Diary"/romance novel type fantasies? Or fantasies
about being controlled and dragged into a sexual relationship...? 
Talking of which , for those of you who have read/used to read/ still
read romance novels - have you noticed that in 90% of them the woman
"just can't help it that the big , tall, handsome, dark hero is so
mean to her, and wants her bad and leaves her no choice but to do
him repeatedly on his private island, in his opulent house full of
expensive art, jewellery, clothes, yachts, servants etc. She just
is trapped in this terrible situation and wishes he'd stop tormenting
her like this and just go away (while all the time he thinks he's
expressing love by raping her, cuz he just can't put it in  words
or even admit his own feelings). So after she's hated him for a 
while, she suddenly realizes that she loves him bad (by now
usually she's pregnant) and now wishes that he'd love her, but
he obviously hates her and so she tries to escape - denouement:
he catches up with her and tells her all about how he can't live
without her and now it's so clear because he thought she was gone...
(Of course some others fill more paper with how he just wanted
his kid back, but this is a cloak for his real feelings i.e. he
wants her, but just can't admit it yet...)
 
And in between this plot, usually there's plenty of B.S, bla-bla, and
filler about cocktail parties and moonlit gardens.
 
Well, these are enjoyable for young girls who haven't been exposed
to any kind of sexual material before.... but really, the control
issue/ powerlessness bullshit is really exasperating.

Only a few (very few) of these romance novels have a more mature,
mutually respectful, consentual story...
 
Which brings me to my next question - what damage does this kind of tripe
do to young girls who are looking for some guidelines for conducting 
themselves in their love lives....I know that in general all of
society, the media (MTV, magazines etc) glamorize female helplessness
and fragility, powerlessness - but it's hurtful on so many levels
in so many spheres of life (work, relationships etc.) that it leads
me to conclude we (someone) needs to project more versions of STRONG
women who can still be FEMININE.
 
I know women like that, in real life. But not many in movies, TV, books...
 
I mean the good old plot of "woman in distres, man rescues woman" is
fine and entertaining and all that...as long as it does not portray the
woman as a WIMP. I mean, the woman may have been tied to the railroad
ties and HERO-MAN rescues her and fights off all the bad guys, fine,
but can the woman at least be shown to have a mind and a spirit??

Why can't they project images of women that MAY be vulnerable, fragile,
soft, feminine, curvy, small, delicate etc.  - but have a FREAKING
personality, a will, a code of life, a healthy self-esteem, a strong
character, an unbending purpose?

It's frustrating.

Well, I can't comment about romance novels because I've never
read one but I have read chunks of "Forbidden Flowers" and 
"Men in Love", both of which are interesting enough if
you aren't offended by soft-core pornography and are open
to hearing about how some men and women use sexual fantasies
as part of a healthy sex life.

I am all for using sexual fantasies as a part of a healthy sex life.
Maybe I'll check those books out.

Her first two books are collections of women's fantasies.  On second
thought, I'd maybe consider them more hard-core than soft porn. 

About romance novels - if the available selections are demeaning and
boring why don't women write better ones?  Why don't women demand stronger
heroines by not buying millions of paperbacks based on women as victims
waiting for men to make it better? 

The books are not the problem.

"Why don't women write better ones?  Why don't women demand stronger
heroines by not buying millions of paperbacks based on women as victims
waiting for men to make it better?"

Why, indeed.

Actually, there are lots of romance novels that Don't fit garima's plot
outline. I have read them since my teens off and on (really good as mind
candy/popcorn when you're feeling depressed, I find), and the strong
heroine who doesn't have sex and who tells the hero off for being stupid
and macho is now a stock character as well. Erm. There are as many romance
types as there are sf novel types -- there are regencies (usually those
are less heavy on the sex and more heavy on the comedy of manners and 
the social scene in the 1810--1825 era of England -- often in these, the
heroine is an unconventional woman who is chafing under social restrictions,
and I quite enjoy them, on the whole), contemporary (modern day, usually
in subcategories of single-mom-meets-eligible-guy, angel falls in love with
person they're supposed to help, um, fantasies about sheiks, Italians,
Spainish men (all supposedly very hot-blooded) and a thousand more I can't
go into -- most of these have strong heroines these days, independent
women, though the more Mills&Boone types are fun to read, since they are
both totally innocent and totally ridiculous (no real sex in the Mills&
Boone types, anything of that nature is OFF-screen) -- and the more, um,
advanced lines can be quite steamy), supernatural (ghosts, goblins, vampires,
etc.), futuristic (usually very very bad sf/fantasy about really stupid
space opera, I'm sorry, but I *hate* this type, since I like sf, and this
isn't sf!), erm, then you have the "historicals", which can be bodice-
rippers of the really disgusting he-rapes-her, she-falls-in-love kind (Sweet
Savage Love is a prime example!) or actually reasonably well-researched
novels that just happen to have a love scene or two and thus get marketed
as romances or medievals (which I think are also quite stereotyped and 
have more he-rapes-her-she-loves-him plots, for what reason I'll never
know!) and probably a few more kinds that I haven't mentioned.

I have thought about writing a romance or two, and I have actually gone
through and analyzed several of the books I have, both the ones I absolutely
hate and the ones that work for me, and it's really quite a stylized and
signifier-full language that the writers use -- very much an art, rather
than supermarket-fodder....

Well, as a guy I can't really speak for how girls are influenced by romance
novels, but I think in my case the effect was the opposite of what garima
mentions - at least, I don't _think_ I've turned into a testosterone-crazed
rapist :)

You read a lot of romance novels, orinoco? I thought the readership was
99.99% women.

I remember the Mills & Boons, and the Barbara Cartlands....
Really silly and demeaning. 

So Mary, are you saying the women thrive on this treatment of the 
subject (he-rapes-her-she-loves-him-like-a-wimp-that-she-is) ?
You're saying that women secretely like being dominated, being passive?

I'm saying there are a whole lot of women who enjoy reading 'em.  Reasons
vary.  Some loyal readers are maybe looking for simple mind candy with a
predictable storyline at a 4th or 5th grade reading level. (I get this
same experience with cheesy 1950 horror films).  Other fans might be
finding the victim-fantasy thing a safe bit of auto-eroticism. And there
are no doubt some women who have been reading romance novels since they
were little girls and these paperbacks have become tried-and-true 
comfortable old friends.

I'm sure there are other, maybe better and more accurate reasons
for the popularity of the romance-novel genre.  But my Zingerman's
#73 has just arrived and I'm hungry. ;-)

A few points to add to what mary's saying...

It's possible to fantasize about something without wishing it would actually
happen to you - to enjoy the idea but not the real thing.  So I think it makes
perfect sense that the sort of romance novels you describe would be popular
even among women who don't want to be dominated and men who don't want to be
dominant.

I don't know that I've read a _lot_ of romance novels - I've read my share,
certainly.  (I think part of it is that my friends and I were all extreme
geeks in middle school, so rather than learning about sex from my friends I
was learning about it from cheesey paperbacks.  I must admit, they don't
really hold much appeal for me anymore)

Well, I suppose that it's true that you can enjoy the idea without
ever wanting it in reality.... True.

What's a #73, Mary?

A #7 with a #3 on the side ...

#73 is smoked turkey, Muenster cheese, guacamole, tomato slices, Russian
dressing, on farm bread, grilled.

And don't forget the pickle (old dill).

I really want one!!!

(Your taste in pickles passes the test)

Sounds good, except for the tomato.

Sounds really , really good.
Maybe Mary should write for us a sensual fantasy of taste, smell and
touch revolving around the #73.
Yes.

I'd like it even better if they cut off the crusts - Zingerman's bread crusts
always cut up the inside of my mouth.

This response has been erased.

But that would take all the challenge out of it.

Actually I have asked, and they did do it.  THey looked at me like I was some
kind of low-life scum, however.  (Not really.  I just imagined that they
might.)

Oh , but the crust is the BEST part... MMmmmmMMMmmmMMM!
They bake their breads without any baking soda, I hear.

(This drift reminds me somewhat of an item someone entered
 a long time ago, on beastiality.  For a short time folks
 talked about having sex with animals, then it drifted,
 and what followed was a lively discussion of cute squirrels and
 their backyard antics.)  (Only on Grex.)

So basically, you're comparing Zingermans' food with bestiality.  Hmm...

I suppose that's something to think about the next time I'm eating there.

Or not...

Really, it's a very small step from intimate and oral contact with the 
innermost parts of a ham sandwich to [[insert your wildest barnyard fantasy
not involving farm machinery here]].  Only a prude could believe otherwise!

<i struggles to keep a straight face>

What have you got against farm machinery?

It's a somewhat larger conceptual step from eating the ham sandwich.
Unless you've got dentures, this is....

No, if your analogy is going to hold up, the ham sandwich would need to be
wearing dentures.

Baking soda?  Does anybody bake bread with baking soda?  Or were you
expecting something unyeasted?   (in re #32)

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss