The F-word discussion

And now a novel from the author of How to Be a Woman! Who will be reading this with us this month?

I've got this and am eager to start reading it!

I got it recently from the library, just trying to finish up some books that are coming up due before I dive into this one. I'm excited to read it because I did enjoy how Moran's personality came across in How To Be A Woman.

I just realized how apt this is - we just finished comparing Jeanette Winterson's voice as a novelist and as a memoirist, and now we get to look at Caitlin Moran in the same way.

I'm curious about this book! I seem to be one of only a few people who did not enjoy HTBAW, so it will be interesting to see if I prefer her fiction. I assume it will carry the same opinions and voice as the memoir.

Taylor wrote: "I'm curious about this book! I seem to be one of only a few people who did not enjoy HTBAW, so it will be interesting to see if I prefer her fiction. I assume it will carry the same opinions and vo..."

I think you will like her fiction better, Taylor. I had a problem with her HTBAW too but I really enjoyed this story.

I am reading a really interesting book, Profiles of Female Genius, written by Gene Landrum. He talks about "thirteen creative women who changed the world." Lillian Vernon, Ophra Winfrey, Golda Meir, Jane Fonda, Estee Lauder, Madonna, Ayn Rand, Gloria Steinam, Margaret Thatcher, Mary Kay Ash, Liz Claiborne, Maria Callas, Linda Wachner (first woman owner of a Fortune 500 company, Warnaco [Warner and Olga lingerie, Fruit of the Loom, Valintino, Hathaway shirts, etc]).

Talk about "how to build a girl"!!!!

He choose women who created their own success and had not inherited their position; had staying power of at least 10 yrs of influence; their success or achievement had international influence; their achievement must have occurred in the last 40 yrs, (the book was published in 1994). I would like to see who he would choose in 2015!

They were mostly first born or their FATHER's FAVORITE; father often self-employed and a mentor; had FEMALE mentors; READ books early in childhood, creating imagination; goal-oriented workaholics; wanted to win; self-sufficient; charismatic, persuasive personality; intuitive "gut" decision-makers; high energy.

I find all of that very interesting. What a good model for a curriculum for teaching teenage girls, and boys. We need to tell fathers how important they are to their dgts. I remember when reading about the Presidents that many of them had strong Mothers who encouraged them. Landrum had previously written a book about male creative geniuses, where he says the mothers were dominant! Isn't that interesting? All the women idolized their fathers and some disliked their mothers!?!? (Callas, Fomda, Winfrey, Meir, Rand)

"Self-employed fathers and moving a lot in early childhood apears to have instilled confidence (self-sifficiency and autonomy) that prepared them to survive in the new and unknown environments they would face as adults. It gave them the confidence at a very early age, to know that they could survive as independent enities without depending on the corporate organization for economic survival."

Several went to all-girl's schools, interesting! That gave them female mentors who told them they could do anything, plus it gave them opportunities to be leaders. Having time to themselves to ruminate and imagine in combination with reading books was very important. "As children most were voracious readers and fantasized a great deal about larger-than-life heroines." ......" These women were often prima donnas in their families, a result of being first-born, only children or the center of the universe w/in their families."

There are a lot of other significant tidbits about making them creative geniuses. "The majority were intuitive thinkers with an innovative style of behavior, a PREFERENCE FOR BEING DIFFERENT with a right-brain macro-vision of the world of possibilities in life."

I haven't read their individual stories yet, but can't wait to get to them. In fact, I decided to buy the book, i'm reading a library book...........41 cents, plus postage on Amazon!!! What a find!

Jean

That sounds interesting, Jean. It sounds very absorbing.

I began How to Build A Girl the other day. Moran definitely re-asserts her flair for language right off the bat. I remember being tickled for the first few chapters of How to Be A Woman from all the vulgarity; and then I got used to it. This book is the same, except I'm still tickled when the main character's dad uses foul language so easily with his children.

Moran insists in a short introduction that this is a work of fiction, however it is a little hard to believe that it isn't drawn from her own youth. There is a lot of passion surrounding Johanna's love of the music scene and her job as a record reviewer for D&ME. She's building herself on the music of the 90's.

"I am eating this noise like mouthfuls of freezing, glittering fog. I am filling with it. I am using this energy. Because what you are, as a teenager, is a small, silver, empty rocket. And you use loud music as fuel, and then the information in books as maps and coordinates, to tell you where you're going."

This is exactly how I feel about music in my pre-teen/teen years (which happened in the 90's but on a different continent)!

One last thing to note is the language. I'm lost on some of the English vernacular. Like "blag." Her dad says things like, "that's not on!" and "it was so blag," and the curses...

Anita wrote: "That sounds interesting, Jean. It sounds very absorbing.

I began How to Build A Girl the other day. Moran definitely re-asserts her flair for language right off the bat. I remember being tickled f..."

I love the quote. I'll have to try to find a copy of this soon. And I hear you on the language... I have a foot in the door because my partner is English and uses crazy words, particularly curse words, around me all the time. I'm used to it now, but at first I was always like "Um, what?" It's even funnier, now that I understand, watching other people try to make sense of what he is saying haha.

My sister and I were laughing at the swear words on this list the other day: http://www.buzzfeed.com/danieldalton/...

... like we were really busting up. I showed it to my partner and he was like "Oh yeah, those are good. I said Wazzock in front of my gran once and got a smack." hahaha

If you still want to know, "That's not on!" means, "That's not okay" or "that's not acceptable" and even I'm not sure on the blag, but blagging usually means a bit like winging it? Sort of making it up as you go along and faking it a little bit e.g. I blagged my way through the interview

Yeah, some of it I can just kind of figure what it means given the context, but it's nice to just know what it means right out rather than a general concept. Thanks Sorrel.
Taylor that list was hilarious. Such a beautifully bright and expressive language!

I finished the book and have to say that ity just continued to develop and grow on me. The general theme of coming of age was there, but it carried through music, sex, teenage angst, family, self worth and so much more. The story really shifted and changed with Johanna.

I'm good with Moran's voice. I find it refreshingly blunt and honest. I get that some people find it base and vulgar. To each their own, but I really enjoy her. I'll be picking up Moranthology when I get a chance!

Just got to this party, but looking forward to reading this -- been on my list for awhile.

I just started this - some seriously funny stuff here!

I was reading this in a coffee shop today and I kept bursting out in laughter, in spite of my best attempts to stifle myself.

About 3/4 done. From a feminist critique standpoint, there is a lot of interesting ideas that are bandied about in the story line -- I'll list off a few I've noticed for further discussion.

a. Socio-economics and gender, combined with left/right political critiques
b. Body image acceptance, i.e. compare and contrast Johanna and her mother in particular
c. Sexual empowerment
d. Sex/gender in the work place

Moran is definitely in the sex-positive camp of feminism. As a male, I am much more a fan of the sex positive feminists.

I'm curious why a couple of earlier commentors didn't seem to like HTBAW. I haven't read it yet, but at some point probably will. Another constant critique of Moran is her language, but it certainly seems to match the working class voice of the protagonist.

This is a side note, but vulgar language in fiction wouldn't really come up in reviewing say Philip Roth or Norman Mailer. Why is Moran's "vulgarity" in her fiction such an issue? Mostly I would be intrigued to hear why the language is offensive, but even more to understand how that works into a feminist mindset.

(On a side note, I believe myself to be as feminist as a guy can be, what with a wife who is a novelist/poet, four daughters -- three of which work in the arts -- and a granddaughter. Making the world a better place for women in society and the arts and literary world is a big deal to me.)

Oh -- Scooooby Dooo. Hysterical

And along with my other comments, this interview with Lauren Holmes at Electric Lit discussed at least some of the same issues I raised in my previous post.

http://electricliterature.com/seeing-...

I have to admit that I was having so much fun reading this that I'm not sure the analytical part of my brain was functioning much. So I only have some tentative reactions to your points.
a. The class analysis was so built in to her character that I'm not sure it was ever questioned, although it was funny when she found herself unconsciously echoing her dad. How do the gender politics and the class politics intersect? I'll have to think about that one.
b. Body image, I can't recall Johanna's mom saying anything on the subject - what have I forgotten? Johanna herself is interesting on the subject. She says that she's too fat, but I don't ever see her hesitating or excluding herself from something as a result. She's self-deprecating about her size, as she's self-deprecating about almost everything else about herself, but I don't think she actually has a negative body image.
c. The sexuality is more troubling. Is she truly sex-positive? She certainly doesn't seem to be having much fun. She's getting zero sexual satisfaction out of her adventures. She starts out searching for her own self, to have her own needs met, and settles for just "fitting in" and using her adventures as conversational fodder. I see this as the opposite of sexual empowerment!

Alexa wrote: "a. The class analysis"

I finished the book yesterday, so I have so more concrete ideas about these topics and I'll try and discuss without spoilers as best I can.

Part of her character is attempting to fit in, so the conflicts play out along gender lines, along class lines, as well as more objective distinctions. The class disagreement blows up at the end and in a way incorporates her sexuality arc with the "threesome" scene at the end. This felt more like a critique of the British class system, with gender on the periphery.

Her mother calls her a "big, black crow" and continues to make similar comments throughout. This from a mother that was pregnant with twins that no one knew about until right before they were born because of her insane running regime. Maybe, I'm more sensitive to the body image stuff and mothers, due to my personal interactions. She brings up her "fat" too much for it to be merely self-deprecating. She is in a constant struggle to incorporate her corporeal self into her identity.

She is definitely sex-positive from the outset -- masturbating is the first scene of the book. She definitely uses sex as a power play with the males. She seduces and destroys in classic succubus fashion. She is also consistently making sure her sexual needs are met, even as the men (who I must say don't come off too well) fall in the outer-Goldilocks ranges, i.e. too little or too much. Her ability to yield sex in her interactions with men is the pure exercise of female power to achieve her own ends. She also learns through the course of the book to wield it even more powerfully by withholding. To show her sex positive stance, I refer you to the list of the things she wants to keep as part of her at the end of the book.

Finally, the couple of pages on cynicism were fantastic.

Yikes, I didn't see the mom that way at all.

A crow? Even a big crow is still just a bird! No elephants or pigs here. Nope, I just don't see that as a statement on size, but rather a statement on mood and dress.

And while the twins were unexpected, later on she gives some clues about seasons and stuff that left me thinking she only got to about 4-5 months before she realized she was pregnant - I don't see that as an insane running routine but rather a middle-aged woman with irregular cycles and with enough extra weight to not notice more.

"Seduces and destroys?" Who got destroyed? Her needs NEVER got met! She never got any sexual satisfaction from any of those men. She may be trying to get some power, but I don't see her achieving a thing except satisfying others. She's just a child, thinking this is the way grown-ups behave. I don't see any "female power" here at all, just some very childish attempts to fit in. It's on her list because she's still hoping to finally find what she knows is possible. She knows that somewhere people are having fun with this and she wants to be one of them!

I think you're confusing Moran's disposition to write about sex as sex positivism in Johanna. I see her as wanting to have sex, lots of sex, and allowing men to run the show because she wants to do it well and right but doesn't know how. She's assuming that like most other aspects of life that the woman being submissive is the proper way of doing sex right.
I believe that part of the story is about her developing a sex positive mental state, though, and that by the end of the book she's beginning to head that way by seizing her sexuality as hers and hers alone to control. It's part of her journey.

Like I said in my first comment, Moran insists that this is a work of fiction, but you can read Moran's views very clearly. Moran is sex positive. Moran is blunt, honest, and aggressive. She writes Johanna as a blank slate that will eventually develop Moran's own beliefs and views.

Johanna and Moran both have body image issues. I think we all do at some level. But while Johanna constantly refers to herself as fat, or awkward, loud, whatever, she doesn't let it stop her from being herself. She's internally horrified at the things she says and does, but she does them anyways (Scooby Doo). I think this is just another example of Moran commenting on Johanna throughout the book. It's more like Moran is telling us what Johanna thinks or feels, but Johanna hasn't figured herself out yet.

I don't really know what to say about the vulgarity. Vulgar language is vulgar language. I agree that women tend to be judged more harshly for crude behavior or language, but it's crude no matter where it comes from in my opinion. Not that I mind because I like Moran.

As for the mom's constant comments, I'm a little concerned because I seem to have overlooked them too. I don't have the book anymore, but I have to wonder if I've glazed them over because I assume it's normal for a mom to subtly and not so subtly body shame her daughter? Is it so socially ingrained that I don't even see it for what it is? That's a scary thought!

So I went looking for the mom comments and this is what I found.
P. 53, "Mum immediately frets about what I'm going to wear to be on television - 'You'll have to wear your dad's jeans - you're too fat for your old ones.'"
P. 56, "At home we have no mirrors in the house - not one. Mum won't have them." (She says it's for bad luck, but this seemed related - and not body-image obsessed.)
P. 85, "'You've changed. Wearing black all the time. It's like having a big fat crow trapped in the house,' Mum says one day as I come down the stairs. 'A big fat crow, flapping at the windows. It's depressing. Can't you wear a nice dress?'"
P. 92, "'It's like having a big black crow moping around the house,' my mother confirms.
'You've already used that line,' I tell her.
'I'm your mother,' she replies. 'I can call you a big fat crow ten times a day, if I like.'"
P. 150, "How Mum had become an angry ghost, who didn't like who I was now." (I see this as evidence that it was the clothing, etc that Mum was objecting to, not body size.)

I guess there might be a touch of body-shaming going on there, but I don't really think it's the heart of things. And then we're left asking, to what extent did the mom think that "it's normal for a mom to subtly and not so subtly body shame her daughter? Is it so socially ingrained that I don't even see it for what it is?"

The mom doesn't have a lot of appearances in the book, but even in their last conversation food and size seem to come up (not to mention the black clothing thing). Sorry, on a Kindle so I don't have the page numbers, but at 94% of the book, Johanna and her mother have the following dialogue:

After telling her mother she will be coming to visit, her mother replies:
"I'll put a chicken in the oven. Just a small one."
I put my arms around her.
"You'll always be my baby," she says in a small voice.
"Your big, black, depressed baby?"
"My big, black, depressed baby."

Thanks Alexa for tracking down those other quotes -- saved me the trouble. Those jumped out at me as a male reader, maybe because as men, we are highly socially conditioned to not mention or remark on women's weight -- a big, no, no. I can only speak from my own personal family experience, but weight and even "looks" shaming is one of the most difficult things our society heaps on women.

Now on to my other pet "male" topic. Alexa, you wrote Her needs NEVER got met! This isn't true. From the first paragraph she was meeting her sexual needs. When she was left unsatisfied after a sexual session, she took control and finished herself. But just getting off and having needs isn't the entire sexual story.

Anita mentioned that Moran is sex positive in her real life incarnation and that sex positive attitude permeated the book. Moran captures what my favorite female authors all get about sex -- women wield power because of their sexuality, especially over men. We talk about the "War of the Sexes" a lot, we don't talk a lot about the "War of Sex." Dolly/Johanna was a "War of Sex" warrior. Yes she was young, so she is on a learning curve about her sexuality, but she does learn. She learns that she has power by allowing sex to happen and power by not allowing it to happen. I took her resolution at the end of the book to "Having sex with as many people as possible" as her acknowledgment and appreciation for her sexual power. Yes, it is in the nascent stages for her, but she isn't going to give up that aspect of female power.

One thing that I noticed that there was also the "romance" angle in this story amidst all of the music, rebellion, class warfare, sexual politics, and family drama. This is the romance of Johanna and John Kite. I wanted to cynically go after it, been then I thought of the late quote on cynicism, "For when cynicism becomes the default language, playfulness and invention become impossible." Besides, don't we all want our life stories to read a little bit like a romance?

Kent wrote: "...women wield power because of their sexuality, especially over men...."

Something about this really bothers me, but I'm not sure if I can put it into words.

I don't think feminism is or should be about power games. A woman forced to use sexuality as her only way of asserting power just feels to me like another variation on patriarchy. Am I naive to think that good sex includes mutual satisfaction?

Alexa wrote: "Something about this really bothers me, but I'm not sure if I can put it into words.

I don't think feminism ..."

I think feminism is in fact about about power games in my most basic understanding of the concept. Feminism was in many ways set up as a critique of the patriarchal power structure.

In what was first and second wave feminism, the feminist line of thought split down two paths -- pro-sex and anti-sex. Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon expounded a feminist view that all sexual intercourse with men was tantamount to rape (I over exaggerate and over-simplify, but there is a reason this camp of feminists occasionally find themselves aligned with fundamentalist Christians on some women's issues.

Moran's views as seen through Johanna are no where near this feminist position. Men and women are not equal in some respects. Our genders and sexuality alter experiences. My view of feminism that I think is the strongest is when a woman fully embraces her sexuality and as part of that understands how that sexuality alters her dealings with men. Take it from a guy, when women wield their sexuality on you, it is a power and powerful. As Johanna is in the beginning stages of learning, with great power, comes great responsibility.

If you want women to reach their full potential in the society, they cannot ignore their sexual side, just like men cannot ignore theirs. This is why I think this book and others like it play an important role in fostering feminist thought. Feminism needs to embrace sexual power to reach its full potential. And with great power, comes great responsibility.

Alexa, in your comments I see the belief that male/female relationships should be mutually sexually and emotionally satisfying -- a belief I completely support. My critique of the book was that it had a sex positive slant in the realm of feminist theory, not that the sex itself was positive, because a lot of it wasn't.

While it is not my place to say what feminism is or should be today, historically it's not been about promoting power games.

When I was deeemed old enough for the sex talk, I was taught that a woman allowing me to have sex with her was called rape. I was of course NOT taught that sexual intercourse is tantamount to rape but simply that she ought to be more motivated or paid for the service.
Yet I was also taught to be critical not only of the likes of Dworkin (not that her name would have come up) but of feminist academics and writers generally.
I suppose you could say I got a sex-negative education but hopefully there is a better way of being sex-positive than to promote manipulation, exploitation and sexist antagonism.

Apologies for the drive-by posting.

Outis wrote: "While it is not my place to say what feminism is or should be today, historically it's not been about promoting power games."

Just for clarification, I am not saying that feminism is about power games, but rather critiques of power in gender relationships. I don't think that can be done effectively if feminism doesn't acknowledge the inherent sexual power in women. Moran and other writers like her are exploring that in their work and doing it in a positive fashion.

In fact, I think the best feminist perspective would be hostile to manipulation, exploitation and sexual antagonism, while acknowledging the female's inherent sexual power.

I'm kind of at a loss of how to respond anymore. I don't see where Johanna's needs were always met. She wants to have sex but wanting to have sex and having positive sexual experiences with a partner are two different things. She constantly submits to her partner's wants and desires. Laying next to her partner and masturbating because he fails to even try to satisfy her sexually is not sex positivism. Not at all. It's the opposite, like Alexa suggested early on in this conversation.

It's obvious to me that Johanna is having mentally and emotionally unhealthy sexual relationships. It's so obvious to me. She isn't expressing her sexual desires to her partners, she's letting them run the show. She's just showing up. This is part of growing up, I'd assume for a boy and a girl. However, boys and men are assumed by both men and women to be the dominant person in sexual relationships. Any girl that learns to express her desires and get her needs met is already ahead of the game. (I'm obviously only referring to the relationship scenarios in this book between Johanna and her male partners, and not excluding other relationships that just aren't the issue here)

Kent wrote: "Take it from a guy, when women wield their sexuality on you, it is a power and powerful."

Right here is the issue. This is your male perspective of sexual power in women. You're interpreting a woman that has a sexual awareness as a woman wielding power over a man. I think the issue is internalized sexism. Johanna wants to have lots and lots of sex, and does have lots and lots of sex, but she isn't having lots and lots of healthy sexual relationships.

This is uncomfortably close to saying that women who are perceived as attractive and sexual by men are knowingly and purposefully attempting to wield power over men. I think you can see the dangerously slippery slope around this line of thinking.

It isn't until she confronts her last partner (I forget his name, but the rich one with the girlfriend/ex-girlfriend who pretty much takes over her desire to be the dom in the relationship) and leaves his parents' house that she begins to take control of her own sexuality. This is after multiple partners and interactions in which she internally expresses her sexual desires but doesn't attain them physically.

I would ask that you stop and reflect on whether Johanna is really "wielding power" over her sexual partners, or is she simply fumbling through unhealthy interactions. Her mental and emotional states begin to slip and she becomes angry and unhappy as the book progresses until the end when she destroys the girl she built to begin building again.

I believe that any "inherent sexual power" that women may have is simply a creation of the patriarchy. It is a power exercised by the disenfranchised, by the under-class, to attempt to even the balance just a bit. In a society of equals that "power" would disappear. I also think that exercising that "power" can be just as damaging to the wielder herself. I think Johanna was damaged by those encounters, just as she was damaged by the cigarettes (which she also kept on her list). She isn't yet as wise as she could be, just a bit wiser than she was.

Personal opinion, rather than feminist theory, but it seems to me that a truly sex-positive view would involve the ideas that yes sex can be wonderful, but that doesn't mean that all sex is wonderful. Sex where one partner is paying zero attention to the needs of the other is exploitation, and if the only recourse the exploited one has is to withhold sex, that's a fairly poor option.

We cross-posted there Anita - yes, that was what I was trying to say!

Alexa wrote: "I believe that any "inherent sexual power" that women may have is simply a creation of the patriarchy... In a society of equals that "power" would disappear."

Agree. "Like"

Alexa wrote: "In a society of equals that "power" would disappear."
Or rather it would not be seen as inherent to one gender.

Anita wrote: "Alexa wrote: "I believe that any "inherent sexual power" that women may have is simply a creation of the patriarchy... In a society of equals that "power" would disappear."

I disagree with the idea that sexual power is a creation of the patriarchy and that having it disappear would be a good thing. (This is the Dworkin line of feminism that I strongly disagree with and that alienates men from the feminist cause.) Sexual power is a creation of biology.

Equality in sex would be a disaster. Biology isn't patriarchy. We should all be equal in respect and treatment under the law, but our biology dictates what we find attractive. The object of attraction has power over the thing it attracts -- this is true of both genders and of same-sex attraction. Sexual power is one type of power and Johanna spends much of the book learning about hers and comes away with, I believe a more healthy attitude about sex. This is a key part of her character arc.

I am genuinely curious why being more self-aware of her own sexual power and identity is a slippery slope. She was mindlessly wielding her sexual power throughout most of the book to disastrous results for both herself and the men. This seems to be your main criticism of her sexual experiences. The more aware of the power she has, the more able she is to use it wisely. It is the opposite of a slippery slope.

Let me say that I think Anita is right in her critique of Johanna's sexual relationships, in that they were unsatisfying and not particularly healthy. I apologize for my lack of clarity. I think Moran was creating a sex positive character even though she had negative sexual experiences. Johanna actually is a nice counter to the "internalized sexism" I got jabbed with. Johanna doesn't conform to any so-called models of feminine beauty or feminine behavior. She is her own person and she has (as do we all) sexual power. She is young and learning to use it, but she has it and it isn't because of any male's internal sexism.

On a final note, the romance angle of this book with John Kite loses all of its tension if you take out the sexual power dynamic. The entire relationship (Johanna's most healthy one oddly) is fraught with sexual tension and power dynamics.

I would have to ask you to please tell me how you define "sexual power." Do you mean that women are attractive to (heterosexual) men? (And therefore you think women are less attracted to men than men are to women?) Or do you mean that men have more desire for sex than women do? (And therefore you see this as a biologically fixed trait?)

We live in a society where women are strongly socialized into believing that sex (frequent or in excess of the norms) makes them "whores," (as well as risking pregnancy). As I understand it, the entire point of the sex-positive movement is to urge women to take back their right to have sex, when and as they choose, from the belief that no, women do indeed have just as much desire for sex as men do (and that contraceptives allow them to exercise this choice). So by insisting on "female sexual power" aren't you indeed claiming that women don't actually want sex as much as men? This somehow ends up implying that women, not wanting sex, should do it anyway, because men will then give them what they want - is that what the point of sex-positivism is?

I'm late to the party here, but wanted to weigh in. I definitely didn't feel like there was a strong sex-positive message. Johanna is sexual, but that doesn't equal sex positive. Anita said it best: "I think you're confusing Moran's disposition to write about sex as sex positivism in Johanna. I see her as wanting to have sex, lots of sex, and allowing men to run the show because she wants to do it well and right but doesn't know how. She's assuming that like most other aspects of life that the woman being submissive is the proper way of doing sex right."

Johanna was obviously super down for sex, but she didn't know how to articulate what she wanted from her partners. She frequently put up with what the man wanted despite how it made her feel, including taking a giant penis that physically injured her and tolerating painful slapping when it made her uncomfortable only because she wanted the guy to enjoy himself. She consistently put her needs second and disassociated from what was happening to her body. She and she alone brought herself satisfaction, and SILENTLY as that guy literally Shhhh'd her during her completion, which is so rude and not ok. She seemed to be very hung up on the quantity of sex she was having but was not at all concerned about the quality, which should be priority #1.

Sex positive to me is being aware of yourself mentally and physically when it comes to sex, and being able to direct and achieve positive and pleasurable experiences that you and your partner(s) enjoy together. Johanna was learning how to do this, but it wasn't until the end that she made any revelations. I was also slightly disturbed by her statement near the end that she would "never say 'no' and always say 'yes'". Moran may not have been referring to sex with this and moreso life in general, but the message could definitely be misconstrued and dangerous. The concept of CONSENT fits in here and a lot of what happened to Johanna was without her direct consent. I think what would have been more appropriate for Johanna to realize after all her sexual adventuring is that she is allowed to say NO. She doesn't, in fact, always have to be game for what's going on and that's ok!! Learning how to say NO was a huge thing for me as a teenager/20-something and I think that would have been a far more valuable lesson for her to have learned. I didn't really get the "always say yes" thing, it actually really annoyed me.

Alexa wrote: "I would have to ask you to please tell me how you define "sexual power."

Sorry Alexa, seems we are on about a 12 hour time difference on when we get on Goodreads. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify. Having someone find you attractive gives you sexual power. This is experienced differently in men and women, but I would define for this discussion, "sexual power" in women in particular as understanding how their sexuality impacts those around them.

For lack of a better explanation, I can best illustrate it with a personal experience where I was the subject of the seemingly ubiquitous male gaze from male homosexuals. As a straight male, having a room full of men lust after me solely for my body was one of those experiences you don't forget -- and I felt sexual power(a lot of it). From talking with my wife, I would say that what I experienced was similar to what most women experience at certain times (and it is completely different than the male experience of sexual power).

Power is such a loaded word and probably wasn't the best word choice, but the sexual attraction invades relationships and it behooves us to learn how our sexuality impacts the other gender. I've seen in your earlier posts that relationship equilibrium is important to you and I fully agree, but feminism (as this thread shows I believe) is quick to abandon the female sexual power because of how men behave.

Taylor addresses this a little bit in her comment. Johanna "put up with what the man wanted", yet Johanna's entire experience was feeling her power and learning about it. I can actually point to evidence in the book -- Johanna begins by the feeling of overwhelming sexual desire.

Location 3455 68% "[I]n the yearnings of a masochist I hear a furious sexual hunger like my own. A man who wants to be dominated has the same desperate, almost incoherent need to be subsumed that I feel."

Johanna then makes lists of her observations about her sexuality and like a mad scientist tests them out on the real world. She misunderstands her sexual power as sadistic, partly because of her perceived notions that it is her sexual duty to please men.

Location 4054 80% "Really, I should be in charge of all this. I feel a bit I am like the Bob Dylan of sadistic fucking, and have turned up at a party and offered my sexual genius to the room . . . I'm still terra-forming me . .. Perhaps this is the day I find I am secretly a masochist"

Just a quick note on this before I conclude -- Johanna has confused S&M power dynamics with her inner sexual power. She's learning about it, but the socialized role playing of sexual power games has confused her and lead her astray. (S&M within the S&M tribe is a socially accepted method of playing out the erotic potential of sexual power differentials.)

Johanna struggles with understanding her own sexual power, but when she starts to get it, she really gets it.

Location 4346 85% "But now -- now, it feels like an unexpected rainburst of power . . . 'Let's get one thing straight, [followed by a very long, very funny list and concluding with] It's pervy for me to be fucking you. Not the other way round. I pulled you. . . . 'I was objectifying you. . . . I'm not your 'bit of rough.' You're my bit of posh. . . . YOU FUCKERS WILL BOW DOWN TO ME." (Taylor, I think this was her learning to say not only "No", but "HELL, NO!" which I took as one of the book's central messages, all the while not throwing sex out with the refusal bathwater.)

Johanna gets that her sexual power comes from who she is and actually is something she has been using against men and not in a particularly positive fashion for her or her partners. This is the awareness she gains through the book and I think it is a very sex positive and pro-female sexual power message.

If Moran were here, I would bet she would agree with me because of what she writes. Fiction is where we explore in a more intellectual way as opposed to say the dungeons of S&M, how sexual power dynamics play out between the genders.

I had brought up the romance angle, because I think that men's sexual power is illustrated for women in the romance novel. The things that make men attractive to women get played out in the romance genre, which is why men generally are unmoved by romance novels. See A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the World's Largest Experiment Reveals about Human Desire.

John Kite had male sexual power over Johanna and wielded it like a champ, even when he was smashed. His conversation with Johanna at the end is telling about Johanna's budding sexual power and John's control of his.

Location 4899 96% "How will we not have sex at some point? You're a you, and I'm a me. It's just the age thing right now, babe. Too young."

"Too young? I'm seventeen," I say, with all the huffy world-weariness I can.

"Not you, Dutch -- me. I'm far too young for you. I'm hopeless."

Self-deprecating and letting Johanna save face all in one witty comment, while avoiding sex with a 17 year old fan.

So that is my more full literary critique of what I saw as Moran's illustration of sexual power in this fictional account.

In answer to your other questions Alexa:

Yes, women are attractive to heterosexual men and homosexual women. The converse is also true. Men are attractive to heterosexual women and homosexual men.

I don't think gender attraction is more or less for women or men. I do think attraction plays out necessarily different between the genders. Kinsey put everything on a scale and that was probably wise. We are all human, not robots. I also don't think sexual desire is gender based. Some women want it more than some men and vice versa.

I'm not sure how my "female sexual power" got construed into women not wanting to have sex as much as men or not being able to say "no". I've never thought that or believed either idea. I think women have and use their sexual power with men, but that has no relation to their desire for relations. The best writers, male and female, explore this sexual power dynamic.

Beyond your choice of words, I think it's fair to say that I'm not the only one struggling to understand what you're trying to say, Kent.
You wrote earlier "take this from a guy" so take this from another: I don't understand what great power attractive women have on you. Instead of telling us how men and women are essentially like, perhaps you could start by explaining more clearly your own experience with what you call "female sexual power". Like, do you imagine you would somehow be under the power of a stranger who behaves as in this book, regardless of how attractive they are?

The book you reference apparently endeavours to understand male sexuality by looking at the porn searches performed by some AOL users while looking at cherry-picked fanfic and such to understand female sexuality... exercising one's confirmation bias doesn't lead to understanding.
Even if your ideas about men and women were scientifically based on mean behaviours in your culture, people such as myself would object to the notion that such data behooves us to conform to any expectations. That's got more to do with caring for individual freedom than any of your feminist waves.

Outis wrote: "Beyond your choice of words, I think it's fair to say that I'm not the only one struggling to understand what you're trying to say, Kent.
You wrote earlier "take this from a guy" so take this from ..." I'm really ruing having done my glib "take this from a guy" throw away line.

Bottom line on my personal experience I stripped for a room full of gay men in San Francisco and experienced what it felt like to be desired by the male. I don't know if a heterosexual male can get any closer to understanding what happens to women when men desire them. The very best word to describe what I felt like is powerful. I saw men looking at me in the same way I looked at and desired women. There is a power in being sexually attractive. You can't eliminate that from discussions of women and men and their interactions.

As for whether I would feel the power of a stranger acting like Johanna -- absolutely. She is a force of nature. You would have to be blind to not feel the sexual power of someone like that in real life.

I read a A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the World's Largest Experiment Reveals about Human Desire and was referencing it primarily to point out that men and women on average react to different types of sexual stimuli -- which we all undoubtedly do. This doesn't mean we have to conform to cultural or societal norms, but we should pay attention to them.

I'm unclear what your last sentence is about.

Here's another way of looking at it. If "female sexual power" is a direct result of the gaze of others, then all a woman can do is respond or not to it. She is not the actor, but only the passive responder to the impulses of others. True mature sexuality would involve becoming aware of and responding to one OWN's desires.

In Johanna's defense, she isn't responding to the desires of others, she is the one who appears to be initiating most, if not all, of those encounters. Her mistake is in not following up, in not insisting that her desires needed to be paid attention to. It is all those men that she slept with who believed in female sexual power, who thought that her only required action was to say "yes" or "no" and that after that they would get all the goodies.

Or maybe they thought all she wanted was attention? See beliefs about hysteria.
Out of curiosity, do you happen to feel "power" when you believe that men are looking at you in that way?

Kent, my last sentence was kind of in response to you having brought up a split within feminism (and an author you disapprove of, repeatedly).
You wrote that some feminists were alienating men but ironically, it's what you're saying that I perceive as oppressive. I don't want to drive this thread further off-topic so in case you want to read more about my problems with essentialists: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Power is a two edged sword. Johanna is coming of age and learning. I agree with Alexa's assessment that a mature sexuality involves becoming aware of and responding to one's own desires (something I tried to point out in detail with textual references in the book), but an even more mature sexuality would incorporate not only personal desires, but the desires of sexual partners and their needs (also what I was pointing out with John Kite's response to Johanna and a maturity that comes only with understanding one's own, as I would call it, sexual power).

When someone finds you sexually attractive, whether male or female you have influence and power with that person. This is the feeling I had when being gazed at, a feeling of I could get whatever I wanted from those men. I didn't happen to want anything and was under no physical or social threat, so it wasn't negative in any way, but it was a form of power or influence. The physical and social power of men historically is the power that so often overwhelms discussions like this. I am not denying those abuses of power, nor am I saying that there aren't massive historical problems that need to be addressed, but I am saying the most inclusive view of feminism needs to incorporate female sexual power into the equation, otherwise an important aspect of life and about the interaction of the genders is missed. I think Moran accomplishes a partial exploration of this topic in the book and she does a great job.

To the extent that there is a split in feminism between sex positives and sex negative, I'll side with the sex positive every time. I admit much of my belief about women and sexual power comes from my interactions and discussions with my wife. I have a long history of reading and relating positively with sex-positive feminists like my wife, so I am assuredly in that camp and my feminist views are colored by that. Not sure how that makes what I am saying oppressive, just putting my beliefs and philosophy into a historical context.

Not to go off topic either, but if you read my earlier posts, you would know that I am not an essentialist, although I probably respond to women sexually in what many would say was an essentially heterosexual male response. I have carefully noted that the power of being sexually attractive to another cuts across gender and sexual preference boundaries and can be highly individualized. Interestingly to get back on topic, something Moran does in the book, adding the dimensions of the homosexual brother provided a nice foil to her own sexual awakening.