The book has done its job.īut yeah, it's also a fun read. So, if this book helps to break down those stupid stereotypes, and lets someone feel better about their thoughts, fantasies, and sexual cravings, then good.
A woman with a similar amount of experience is a skank, a slut, a whore (or "hoo-er" as my mother used to say). A young male is encouraged to go out and "sow his wild oats" (and what a stupid expression that is), where a young woman is supposed to stay away from exactly that sort of guy, keep her legs crossed and never think of sex.Ī guy who's had a lot of sex is a stud, or a cocksman (yet another ridiculous expression) and is admired. I've never understood this stupid, arbitrary split between the sexes when it comes to sex. I guess the thing that I found the most shocking about this is the premise that women weren't expected to have rich, sexual fantasies in the first place. The subject matter is quite enjoyable, and as a guy, got the desired effect out of me on several occasions. But most of it, while I'm sure it was mind-blowing for the 70s, is now stuff you can access with a few clicks of your mouse (after putting your browser into incognito mode).Īs for the subject matter and the writing.the writing is average, and most of the fantasies are quite truncated, seeming to finally get to the good stuff, and just.end. Yeah, it goes some places I don't dig (mutilations, and a shocking amount of sex with dogs, donkeys, and horses). My step-dad was into this stuff.īecause yeah, it's also basically light porn. As others have stated, it purports to be about "research" but I also know it was the kind of book I used to find stuffed down under the basket of magazines in my parents' washroom. Otherwise, this one is past its best before date.
#Nancy friday stories update#
An update of Friday's project might be interesting.
#Nancy friday stories free#
The text is available free online.Rating: I'm sure it was great in its day. Thought it might have some insights.Recommended for: students of gender studies and sexuality, students of the 1970s, people who are 40 years late learning that woman enjoy sexual fantasies.
I remember this book being mentioned in women's magazines extensively through the late 70s and 80s but I never paid it any attention. To each her own, I guess.Why I Read This Now: I was doing some research for a project I'm working on and had been following internet rabbit holes when I came across it. I was surprised to see it tagged as erotica here on LT, and even more surprised to see reviews on GoodReads that talked about how sexy and titillating they found it. I think this is a relic whose time has passed.So, in conclusion, I didn't find the analysis that I was looking for, and the fantasies bored me. And I was surprised to hear about so many women who got married at 18 or 19. A lot of the fantasies were unintentionally sad, as they revealed young women who had poor sex education and are now in horrible marriages. Overall, the book felt very dated, and not just the places where the woman fantasizes about getting it on with a guy wearing a flowered shirt and purple velvet bellbottoms. There is a vast range of fantasies, so something for everyone I suppose, but they all have the same voice. She must have edited them heavily, because the word patterns, word choice, and tone are the same throughout the book. Many women who did have them thought they were freaks, and many men thought himself so sexual proficient that no woman he touched would "need" to fantasize.The book is structured with Fridays's pseudo-psychological commentary interspersed with the fantasies that she collected through letters, phone calls, and interviews. Apparently at the time, people didn't believe women even had fantasies, or it made them uncomfortable to admit it. In 1973, Nancy Friday published a large collection of answers to an ad she placed looking for women to tell their deepest darkest sexual fantasies.
0 kommentar(er)
