SBD: desperate for a man?

[jmc_bks]

I picked up a Brenda Jackson category this weekend; I'm in an epic slump in terms of new reading, and it looked vaguely interesting.  Plus, I've heard a lot of good things about Jackson's stuff.

General observations:  huge font and margins; did not stand on its own well (part of a series); serious continuity problem -- the heroine makes dinner reservations for the two of them at the restaurant in the hotel...but after dinner they have to get into their car and drive back to the hotel.  WTH?  Unless they were staying in some gigantic hotel complex, a car shouldn't have been necessary.

But the thing that really snagged my attention was the heroine's musings about her sex drive.  She'd been single for 8 months and needed to get some, but didn't want to buy a vibrator or other sex toy because that would imply that she was desperate for a man.

Let me repeat:  buying a sex toy means that a woman is desperate for a man in the mentality of this character.  And also of this author?

There's so much judgment wrapped up in that sentence that I don't know where to start.  

First, buying or using a sex toy means a woman is desperate for a man?  Whoa, all the lesbians in the world would disagree.  As would all of the women who have bought toys with their (male) sex partners.

Second, the implication that self pleasuring is desperate in general?  Pisses me off.  Because it is also, by implication, wrong.  This irritates me to no end.  Because that says (to me) that guys can wank and their sex drive is okay; women shouldn't wank and their sex drives should be limited.  The Biochemist sent me a link to a review of a book on sexuality a while back that implied that women don't wank.  *snort*  Uh, okay, you keep thinking that, reviewer.  Wish I could find that link.

Third, the idea ties the heroine's sexual impulses to other another being.  Yes, sex is great and we should all have more of it.  But the inference here is that she feels like she should only get off if a man is involved.

Actually, I guess all of my outrage boils down to this:  in a genre that is supposedly written by women, for women, that is "empowering", the dated idea that a woman's sexuality has to be entirely tied to a man, that self-pleasure is desperate makes my head spin.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

HEY, I just read this same sort of thing a few weeks ago. I thought, meh, makes the book look dated, but didn't get indignant. Just figured it was pre-Jocelyn Elders (the surgeon general who got canned for saying masturbation wasn't so bad) But these days, yeah, it's worth a spot of indignation. When I think back to that I'm amazed at how far we've come in the last few years (heh, she said come)
kate r

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

If this had been a book written 15+ years ago, it probably wouldn't have caused my Linda Blair episode. But it's a 2008 book, a June or July Kimani release.

[jperceval.livejournal.com]

And what's she supposed to do if she has a lousy lover? Suppress her urges?

Bah.

[(Anonymous)]

one hopes, in a romance, that she'd get a new lover.
kate r

Me = judgemental

[(Anonymous)]

When I hear that sentiment - a reluctance to get a sec toy - all I can think is what an uptight little nun she must be, and how horrible in bed. And I can't believe in the HEA of any anti-masturbators.

That's my opinion and I stick by it.

Re: Me = judgemental

[(Anonymous)]

sec = sex

and this is Beth, btw. Merry SBD!

[(Anonymous)]

Oh... gnash

RfP (http://www.readforpleasure.com)