i actually find this to be pretty sexist. i mean, calling it "porn for women" indicates that it's for ALL women. we don't call conventional porn "porn for men," even though it is primarily consumed by men, because it's implying that all men should and do consume it. i think that it's also sexist towards men, by suggesting with a wink that they don't usually engage in these activities. my husband does the same amount of chores as i do and couldn't care less about sports. and while i definitley appreciate these things about him and are part of the reason why we're so compatible, i've never been consciously turned on by those aspects of his personality.

not to mention the fact that it's robbing women of their sexuality. i'm so sick of hearing that women A. LOVE SEX OMG, GIVING BLOW JOBS RULES!!!! or B. hate sex, can't have it because of a "headache" would rather eat chocolate and watch crappy romantic movies. personally, i would rather see a real book of erotica aimed at a female audience.

I'm kind of with doublefantasy here. While I appreciate it when my boyfriend does the dishes after I make dinner (or makes me dinner, or whatever), it doesn't exactly turn me on.

If I want something to turn me on, it's going to have to be a little more sexual than some guy in an apron.

we don't call conventional porn "porn for men," even though it is primarily consumed by men, because it's implying that all men should and do consume it.

I've also been basically saying this for years about different things. Like the fact that people say "male bimbo" or "man slut", implying that women are the only ones that can be sluts and bimbos.

And while I'm not turned on by pictures of sensitive-looking guys in aprons, there is something sexy about when my boyfriend makes me dinner or folds my clothes (we don't live together yet, so we don't have chores to split).

Are the men naked and wearing the aprons? Because if they're not. *yawn*

I agree with the comments on this thread. Cooking dinner for me is great, but that doesn't turn me on. Try a back massage and some well placed kisses for a start.

This would be brilliant if it were a satire. But the site to which this post links seems to indicate that it is not. So I'm not sure what to make of it. I'll agree with the posters before me - that there's nothing erotic about this picture. And I can't seem to shake the implication that women who categorize something this mundane as erotic have a limited sex drive and/or imagination.

I dunno. I have certainly been know to be turned on by a well-cooked meal or a small act of kindness at the right moment. What bugs me here is that they're trying to sell us back to ourselves as sexless. It may be true that some acts signifying a strong equal partnership can turn me on, but once I'm turned on I want to, y'know, actually have teh sex. If the book interspersed the photos of men (and maybe some photos of women, how 'bout that?) being equal domestic partners with pictures that, er... more directly helped me imagine having sex with them, I'd be a whole lot less offended.

Though the title and the cheesy pink home-design-show cover would still have to go, regardless.

Yes, just what women need, another tome telling them what they should like.

Can I get a book of guys who look like Ewan McGregor in kilts (or, hell, the actual Ewan McGregor in kilts) for my porn book? Pretty please?

I haven't read a lot of books or articles regarding a feminist perspective on porn, but this kind of makes me want to start. Also, it bugs me that there can never be any middle ground on women's sexuality. It's not like we're all going to be totally submissive or sex-kitten-y all the time, and it's not like we're going to be "bitches" who aren't in the mood all the time. Damn.

Yeah,I'm pretty sure that the only way that book would qualify as porn would be if those men were walking around naked or at least partially. I can't imagine anyone (not even my grandmother) finding this arousing.

you know, it really does scream "joke book" to me. the only two reviews on amazon say that they bought it because it's funny (i disagree, but that's not really the point). i can't figure out anyway that it really could be serious, but i don't know anything about the Cambridge Women's Pornography Cooperative to be able to tell.

If this is a joke, I find it unoriginal and not terribly clever. Didn't the Brawny website do something similar last year?

If it's not a joke, it's pathetic. What I find most irritating about it is the fact that they've slapped the "porn" label on it, and the message that passes on.

Calling the stuff in this book "porn" is essentially saying that expecting men to pitch in with chores, care about women's feelings, or treat women with respect is nothing more than an unrealistic fantasy, no more reasonable than a man with pornified expectations thinking all women should be beautiful, busty, perpetually horny sexually insatiable vixens who will do anything and never, ever say "no."

So, men are being unreasonable and indulging in fantasy if they expect women to treat them like they're an irresistable sex god.

Women are being unreasonable and indulging in fantasy if they expect men to treat them like human beings with thoughts and feelings.

It's all just so much porno fantasy, right?

Perhaps it's a heavy hint aimed at men?

A realistic standard? I don't think so. This sort of thing makes me absolutely sick. Why fantasize about something I can never have?

I currently work at a Barnes & Noble, and we shelve this book in the "humor" section.

I actually had a conversation with some of my fellow female colleagues about this book when we first got it in. A couple of the women I work with found it really hilarious. I found it irritating, and said so. As with many of the women who have already commented, I found that, rather than contributing anything radical to the conversation about women and sexuality, it just plays on tired stereotypes about what appeal to Women (collective capital W). And the humor of is comes from the idea that it's unusual (therefore, humorous) for men to be doing these things--i.e. helping with housework or actually having a conversation. I find that offensive.

ah yeah.... can't I have a dinner cooked for me and my house cleaned in real life and watch two leather clad men going at it late it night? I don't fantasize about the former, both should be a given.

Watching the kids? Who said anything about kids? What HAPPENED?!?

Yeah. I think this also says something about it being a "fantasy" for men do be doing what appears to be defined as women's work.

Let's stack them up and a burn them.

Watching the kids? Who said anything about kids? What HAPPENED?!?

hahaha, right?! wtf?

this book would totally make me wet if my name was "Cathy" and I had the tendency to say, "ACK!"

I think I'd rather read Sweet Action.

http://www.sweetactionmag.com/

OK, I sort of hope this is just a bad joke. I'm against porn of any kind so I don't think "feminist porn" should have hot naked men writhing around all oiled up. But it's a slap in the face to say women would "get off" on things men should already be doing. This implies that men never WILL, do them, so keep dreamin ladies. And while you're at it, why not jerk off?

Bowles, I've had photos printed in that fine publication. Hopefully they will be off hiatus soon. :)

Whoa, it even uses that old standby -- poking fun at shopping for shoes.

Please.

If your male partner actually participates equally in your relationship, then guess what?
You aren't the audience this book was intended for!

Should the title have been "Porn for women with jerk longterm partners that exploit gender stereotypes" to better specify?

Sorry, Cambridge Women's Pornography Cooperative, but when a woman wants to get herself in the mood to do more than just cuddle, she needs fantasies a little stronger than... some guy baking her a cake. Granted, having her partner attend to her needs will do a lot to relax a woman enough to be able to start turning her mind to other things, but it's a bit much to call wishing for such attention "women's pornography". Personally, I'll take Violet Blue's A Smart Girl's Guide to Porn over Porn for Women any day.

Whoaaaaaaa. That is NOT what I fantasize about when I'm trying to get off. It involves a lot of things, ironing not being one of them. They are really trying to hold onto that last straw that women aren't sexual aren't they?

The point, Garrett, is that this isn't porn for any woman. It's a sad comment on how many people see women, men, and the relations between them. But being as it lacks any actual sexual content, I fail to see how it could be considered porn by any stretch of the imagination.

There's an old joke about a sexy man who goes into a bar and promises a sexy woman that he'll fulfill her deepest fantasy if she can sum it up in three words. Her response, and the punchline, is "Clean my house."

So I guess some publisher finally found a way to make money of an old barfly joke. I'm going to stick to porn that involves, you know, orgasms.

They use that joke in the movie Exit to Eden, Cindermoth. Rosie O'Donnel's character says it to her "slave". In the epilogue of the movie, after they've got a relationship of some type going, he paints her house.

Why do I know things like that?

"at least this kind of porn is emulating a realistic standard for once."

Right, because "real" men are all skinny and athletic and bronzed and wear designer clothes and live in designer houses with designer haircuts.

Totally realistic.

That is odd, Kimmy. So far as I know, nobody's claimed to have seen that movie in 12 years.

All I can claim is excessiveness of both boredom and movie channels back in the day. After awhile, I'd watch just about anything, and with eight or twelve movie channels, that's lots of bad movies.

That just made me sad.

Wow! That is SO not how I want to see men, emasculated, subservient. No, no, no! That is not in any way a turn-on to me and I resent the blanket description of it as porn for women. There was a very cute female comic a while back who did a porn for women bit. It involved a man saying things like "you look so thin in those pants," and "I love how your bag matches your shoes." OK, a little gay may be, but it made more sense than men in aprons. Men: Please do not put on aprons. Be manly but nice to us. That is the way we like you!!!

Erik P:

I think you know I was talking about the actual content of what the men were doing in the pictures, not their bodies: it's a lot more realistic for a guy to wash the dishes than a woman to take it in the face. But you're right about the models, good point.

*grumble grumble*

my live-in boyfriend does the dishes, takes out the garbage, cooks roughly half the meals and lately i still dont want to have sex. my sex drive is independent of the state of my home. this book sounds like its just going to make men angry at being poked fun at and going to make women do more of that annoying nudge nudge wink wink "dontcha wish yr man would buy you flowers and do the laundry, irene?" and then the women laugh and laugh and laugh and guess what, I CHANGE THE DAMN CHANNEL on the stupid sitcom where the schlubby guy gets the hot wife and she acts like his mother all the damn time.

as to the comment above me, please don't use the collective we. i think men in aprons can look adorable (see "colbert cooking with feminists")and i dont even kno what being "manly" means. if were going by standard gender binaries then i would be the "manly" one in my relationship, im the one who guesses at whats wrong with his car, im the one who hates cuddling, im the one who struggles with monogamy and despises housework and who likes their body flab cellulite hair and all. my boy is the insecure one who hates his body who cleans and does laundry and doesnt even know how to check his own oil or change a tire.

and why cant men be subservient? why cant there be power play and role reversals? thats the sort of thing that turns ME on. and what does "emasculate" mean except take away traditional patriarchal ideas of masculinity. good. emasculate all of them.

im not picking on you, or not trying to, i just disliked being lumped into the collective "we". i want hot men being sexually submissive sometimes and sometimes i want big strong men being sexually dominant and sometimes i just dont want any men at all, but never ever do i want a man complimenting how my shoes and bag match. im pretty sure i dont even HAVE shoes and bags that match.

Trilby:

Kindly speak for yourself and yourself only. You oppose this publication because you consider the models "emasculated and subservient", as if house work as a whole went against some universal principle of manliness.
Plenty of men who work around the home are what is traditionally considered to be masculine, and I resent the implication to the contrary (ie. that house work is feminizing).

On the other hand, and perhaps more importantly, no, not all women want manly men. My boyfriend is far from what is traditionally considered manly; bakes and sews, is into theater and musicals, and has better fashion sense than I do. That makes me more attracted to him, not less, which just goes to show you that generalizations of any kind, especially in regards to sexuality and sexual preferences, are ridiculous.

errm, actually the comment was to trilby, a new one appeared while i was grumbling. sorry.

I have to agree with the others, that's not hot, and it's not even clever or funny. I just find it sort of mildly insulting actually. Like, you REALLY think that's what we FANTASIZE about? :\

I feel inundated by this kind of cliched crap lately. Did we just go back in time 50 years?

My wife is in agreement with most of these commenters in that images of men doing housework are not by definition arousing. But she says there is a connection. If men did more housework, or in general made more of an effort to share in the burdens of cohabitation, their wives/girlfriends would have more time to think about or devote to sex.

Having time, energy, a clean apartment, and being at peace with my domestic partner are conditions that may enhance the likelihood that I will think about sex in relation to said partner. They are not, in and of themselves, sexy. If pornography is supposed to be arousing, I want something more evocative of physical sex acts than baked goods and a vacuum cleaner.

And while I have been conditioned to desire a particular "masculine" body type, his doing housework or other caring activities neither enhances nor detracts from his manliness in my eyes.

Agreed that this is a tired joke.

It's "Porn For Women" For Men. It's the other male fantasy, the one that says we don't have to actually be sexy to be desired, because women's sexuality is "reactive" and under our control.

Based on all the actual porn for women I've read, this would be porn for women if there were two guys, and they investigated aliens and fought crime, and then they came home and made out with each other like crazed bunnies.

Porn does not involve people cleaning the house. If we're just talking about something hitting emotional buttons and appealing to an emotional fantasy, then pictures of cute babies are porn for women (no, not literally porn because the emotion involved isn't sexual, but yes, I have deliberately looked at pictures of cute babies to get a hit of the emotional "awwww, cute!" fix... men washing the dishes would fall in a similar category, I think.)

If they were *naked* men cleaning the house, that might be different... but no, this ain't porn.

I've been creating my own version of porn for women since 2000 and was kind of surprised to discover that this book had been released. When I first saw the title I was excited, but then I realised what was inside.

I mean, I quite like the idea of naked men doing housework, but these guys aren't nude.

I've posted about this on my blog:
http://www.msnaughty.com/blog/2007/03/20/porn-for-women-book/

I suspect that this book is going to create more misconceptions in the media about women and porn. For years I've been fighting the idea that "women aren't visual" and that they don't like sexually explicit material. Usually people announce that romance novels are all women like. Now we can add "men doing housework" to that.

This lame book is a lose-lose on two levels: If the "Cambridge Women's Pornography Cooperative" is really a front for group of men, then the authors have sexist (and simplistic) stereotypes about what arouses women; however, if the Cooperative is indeed comprised of females, then the sexist stereotype of "women aren't funny" comes to mind.

The less said about this, the better.

making me dinner should be a standard, not something I fantasize about.

I completely agree. Except I'm a guy, and that somehow equates to me being sexist. Why can't a guy want to be cooked for as well? Because it's been used as a stereotype? And now we have books of "housetrained" men that apparently is the female equivalent of porn? Wow.

I personally hate porn that depicts perfect bodied, tanned, fake-breasted woman who just want their vagina's pounded by some man with a huge penis... because that's an unrealistic view of woman, men, and sexuality in general.

so, of course, I am not for a book full of unrealistically depicted men either... SORRY.

To move towards a more healthy sexual attitude, pornography should be geared toward an more average man and average woman participating in fun, healthy, mutually satisfying sexual activities.

Looks like the authors took notice that maybe not all women find this book hilarious. Check it out: http://www.chroniclebooks.com/blog/?p=191

I believe the word porn in the title was meant to grab attention and be humourous. Set something up then give them the opposite...it's a comedy principle. The joke here is that we don't get what we expect. "Porn" turns out to be something else entirely...

Yes, I am with you "making me dinner should be a standard, not something I fantasize about." But, unfortunately, I don't believe the standard has been met yet.

My sisters are a lot older. They both have children. When I hang with them and their friends, I (sadly) see how this book is still very much necessary.

One of my sisters sent me the viral email of photos from the book yesterday with the words "dream on" typed in the body.

Humour is a great subversive medium. 20 years ago I don't remember women joking about this stuff. Nor 10. I think it's good that we are starting to. Aloud. With pictures.

Heya, I've been religiously studying feminism and so far this site seems the most authoritative on the subject.

As for the subject... Lemme get a little egocentric and talk about ME ME ME...

I've always found discussions from feminists about men needing to do housework and the like odd... because I grew up in a household where my father did all the cooking and dish-washing (my mother is a wildly successful academic).

I've grown to the same thing. Why do I do all the cooking and housework too? Coz I just love to cook. I LOVE to cook for people. I love spending 10 hours preparing elaborate meals (ok, i cheat with a little pre-prepped stuff)... but I love it :) I also love to clean and just spend hours making every little part of a space look nice and tidy. I have a talent for making apartments look photo-pretty :)

Into studying this subject... I'm somewhat confused on... What the goal is of feminism in this regard? I can't seem to find a consesus between the different feminist sites.

Is the goal that men and women do all housework 50/50? If so, I feel that would rob me me of what I love to do, because I do a 100% of the cooking and cleaning... And it would force my partner to do what she hates to do... so we can achieve this 50/50 range.

Is the goal that all men on this planet must do housework sometimes? Again, that doesn't seem very democratic either... in fact, it's sexist.

If you want a men cooking for you, don't marry a man who hates to cook.

Isn't the actual thing about respect and equality? If they respected you, even if they absolutely despised and sucked at cooking and cleaning, they should at least do an equal amount of bringing dinner from outside, or hiring a cleaning person half the time... That sounds fair :)

I can see that, even if this man hates to cook, if he respects you, he'll find a way to make up for it.

In other words... I'm sort of confused about some feminists concentrating on the actions (men cooking, cleaning) instead of the actual mindset (respect and fairness).

Doesn't it seem more effective to focus on the root of the problems instead of the symptoms?

Isn't the root into respect and a fairness mindset?

If you concentrate on educating men on the mindset, then the proper actions come automatically.

Trying to define all the proper micro-details and actions of how a man should behave to (not be a sexist) in all infinite kinds of contexts in existence... seems rather ineffective.

As you need to slump actions in simplistic categories like "go cook, go clean". And then seeing men actually preventing their partner (who loves to cook), to prevent her from cooking because they read somewhere they need to cook.

Obviously, concentrating on the end actions is an infite game that never ends.

Why not concentrate on the mindset... How men should view women. How they should perceive women and what they need to know about women, the truths and facts about women.

Most men get educated about how to perceive women from the sexist, consumerism-sponsored media.

I'm really really confused by a lot of the different feminist literature concentrating on the actions, and with each feminist blog defining the ideal action differently (based on the context the author has in mind)... There are an infinite amount of contexts.

I haven't seen much in the form of re-education... Attempts at re-educating men's *mindsets*. Just a lot of ineffective attempts at categorizing every single imaginable action that any man could ever undertake, in every possible context ever... and then classifying them as bad or good.

I feel in my initial (newbie) studies, that most of the current feminist movement seems to be stuck in a never-ending quest of fighting symptomps instead of curing the disease, the ilness itself (misogyny, sexism, dis-respect, chauvinism)

Try dealing with men who are stereotypical jerks who are misogynist, sexist, disrespectful and\or chauvinist.

The type of guy who treats non-white women as exotic and dumps you when you get even a little fat.

All the guys I've ran into throughout my life were always like that.

I also cook and clean, which is very difficult when your sleep schedule is different from everyone else's.

To be honest, I would find it to be a miracle if a man did some chores for me...

Kim... you said...

"Try dealing with men who are stereotypical jerks who are misogynist, sexist, disrespectful and\or chauvinist.

The type of guy who treats non-white women as exotic and dumps you when you get even a little fat."

Try to associate these two sets of words:

1) phD, intellectual, author, successful,

2) sexist, chauvinist, jerk

It's kinda hard, right? That's coz the two don't tend to go together. If you keep meeting jerks (and don't want to)... I can pretty much bet you're not meeting intellectuals or upper-middle and upper-class men. If you're in enviroments filled with scum-men, change the enviroment.

Try and search for Joss Whedon's wikipedia bio. That dude is an all out renaissance man (has all those 1. characteristics).

Any wonder he's the boyfriend to one of the authors of this site?

Alex,

"I haven't seen much in the form of re-education... Attempts at re-educating men's *mindsets*. Just a lot of ineffective attempts at categorizing every single imaginable action that any man could ever undertake, in every possible context ever... and then classifying them as bad or good"

More than likely because the end goal of feminism is not male re education.

In regards to your last point to Kim, are you actually saying that categories one and two that you refer to are mutually exclusive? It seems to read that way when you assume that Kim is not meeting any upper middle class and upper class men, thus the reason she hasn't found the antithesis to the bumbling, sexist, chauvinist jerk. I would suggest that sexism comes in all economic stripes and layers of cultural sophistication.

Al, awesome point. I just realized that I miss-communicated and made it seem like misogyni and sexism are *exclusive* to certain classes.

That would be very ignorant of me to do indeed :) I mean it's just been very recently that we've been hearing about some really high-profile sexual harassment cases, like doctors, lawyers etc... So ditto, it's present in all levels and spheres.

I was and am pointing out the fact that there are huge differences in misogyny and sexism based on the environment. There are no "perfect environments", and yet there are enviroments where it's virtually impossible to "always meet one jerk after the other". These tend to skew more towards better-educated and modernized enviroments. Like organizations linked to feminism.

If one is always meeting one misogynist after the other... chances are, they aren't at the best possible environment.

Goal Of Feminism: I am still a newb at studying all of this. Trouble is, I'm getting so much contradictory information from all over the place... There doesn't seem to be much of consensus on many points.

This is how I got it so far:

1) Goal of feminism, total and absolute equality... i.e. breaking every last glass ceiling

2) Ok... So what's the method of achieving this? From all that I am seeing in my as of yet amateurish study... (i might be missing some subtleties)... But from what i'm seeing, the vast majority of articles, books, blogs, activities, protests

concern the following 3:

a) Empowering women by fighting all these powers that are working to lower girls' self-esteem and give them limiting roles and limited notions of "femininity"

b)Fighting sexist, chauvinistic and misogynistic behaviors in the male population (rape, sexual harassment, gender-based berating, forcing women into tight gender roles in the household etc...)

c)Working towards enacting and putting to power legislature that protects and gives to women the proper rights... both in the judicial system and in the workplace as well as in terms of her own body (abortion etc...).

How does that look so far? That's a kind of a summary of what i've been able to puzzle together so far.

The notion of re-education is from what I noticed about b... I have noticed... and again i'm a newb, i might have not even read all the right literature yet... But so far i've noticed (in terms of b)... that most of the actions in this area tend to be action-oriented - like campaigns to stop sexual harassment, motions to enact harsher laws about rape, re-educating people at the workplace on communication.

I might even be totally off on the a, b, c thing though...

Sorry to geek out on the Joss Whedon issue, but I believe he's happily married to a woman who is not associated with this site. I think lots of people here just generally love him.

Try to associate these two sets of words:1) phD, intellectual, author, successful 2) sexist, chauvinist, jerk. It's kinda hard, right?

I'd like to speak for those of us who have spent a lot of time in academia and say, "No. No, not at all." Lots of educated people use their smarts to justify assholery. If you look you can find feminist men in every walk of life. I found mine in academia but I also found a lot of jerks. Privilege doesn't necessarily lead to enlightenment.

You know, at some point these comment threads should close out on their own accord.

Alex,

Looks like you've been doing your homework. :) I'd offer only two points. One, while equality may be the goal, it is far from the reality with the current cultural and societal playing field. Realize that when approaching an issue from a feminist perspective, that assertion is a major part of the framework of feminist theory. It may seem obvious, but for myself, when feminism was new to me, it was something I needed to be reminded of often, lest I come off looking like a sexist idiot who should just really shut the f&%$ up and listen instead. Which often times, can be the best response.

The other point is that this site and others like it offer a wealth of information and resources if you are sincere in broadening your perspective. Read some of the archived posts and get a sense from the articles and comments on where theory and lived reality intersect. I've found if you are unsure of a point being addressed, an issue, etc. and you don't dominate, but ask other commenter's sincerely and respectfully, they are usually more than happy to offer you their perspective. Good luck.

Alek, I agree with you. Changing mindsets is the most important thing. Re-education is really the only thing that will help advance feminism. And changing mindsets is not something we can legislate. It's much harder to achieve. But it IS something we feminists are working hard to accomplish. Whether it's fighting stereotypical depictions of women (and men!) in the media or challenging rigid gender roles, we DO try to get the feminist message out there, in addition to advocating different laws.
If men do 50% of the housework but feel emasculated by it, or cheated somehow, we have not accomplished our goal. It's paramount to change the way people view gender and sex. Then they will WANT equality.

Hey Al, thanks for the tips on comments and how to broaden my education on this area.

(sexist comment coming:) Being a man I might have a little trouble being trying not to dominate and be respectful... The societal macho programming is kicking in hehe. :)

I'm trying and learning how to learn and go about asking, trying to be humble about it, every day more and more.

Again thanks for all the help. :)

Thanks for the article and all the links. It's an interesting read as "catcalling" doesn't exist in my culture. I've only ever seen it on american tv.

It makes me wonder what part of the culture it's connected to.

We might not have cat-calling here, but we also don't have any urban-emotions either. In other words, we don't have catcalling here, but we don't have people being friendly and courteous in public either.

One might think then it's linked such that... Lack of emotions in urban-areas = lack of catcalling.

But that can't be entirely true, as there are areas in asia and latin america where everyone is friendly to everyone else as if they are lifelong friends... Literally if you're waiting for a bus, everyone will have a nice chat with you, young, old, male, female...

But they don't have cat-calling in those countries either.

It'd be interesting to find out where catcalling was born and why.

Re: mindsets. When it comes to changing them, try changing your own first. By that I mean , don't assume it's your job to clean the house. Don't even assume it's your job to delegate and organize these and the other duties like shopping, laundry, and gift buying etc.

When I was married we cleaned the house 50/50 and I have to say that it wasn't easy to sit there and not feel weird about it at first.

But it did get easier.