As if I wasn’t worked up and angry and snarky enough, I actually have people sending me thing to wind me up further. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good rage, but I’m just saying: sometimes I don’t go looking for stuff – sometimes it pops into my inbox.
So a good friend of mine and fellow lover of sex yet brimming with righteous rage at the way the sex industry ignores straight women (’cause women who love sex love sex with women too, right, unless they are homophobes or something) sent me links to these books with a note saying, basically, OMFG Jesus fucking Christ I am about to ex-ker-*spode* with en-rage-*ment!* What the fuck is this shit? They are taking the piss out of us now. For serious, can no one else see this? Fuckshitpiss! Okay, she didn’t quite say that, she’s not fluent in Bitchy Jones ragement speak – who is? – I just translated her for my amusement. Trust me, when you see what’s coming you’ll know why I was desperate to keep it light.
This is a set of two companion books. This is the first one.
It’s called Yes Sir. It’s – as you may have guessed – a mandom anthology. And, chaknow, that cover is so not my thing. It’s not even that it isn’t my kink. In fact – don’t tell – but I do kind of like spanking so long as it stays on the stinging side of fun.
But it’s a woman’s arse and hey, I’m already bored. Now, I’m no marketer, but making my eyes glaze over before I’ve cracked the spine? Not the main mission of a book cover, I would have thought.
(Also, WTF – is she wearing waders? Is this a homage to the cover of Spank a Fisherman Monthly)
Oh except I’m not *that* bored, because this is a set of two books, remember. And the other one is called Yes Ma’am, so bouceboucebouce that will have a hot, cute, ’bout to get spanked man’s arse on it. Right? Right?
Wrong.
What was that I heard? Was that three billion balls of rage ex-ker-spoding across the planet? I know, I know, just finish shouting and crying and then we’ll continue…
Let me tell you the saddest thing. No, actually the saddest thing is the appalling sexism. These books are about straight people. The stories are about het couples. Have you ever seen anything more: hey women? You like sex? – Well guess what, you can FUCK OFF. Oh, unless you want to stand around looking purty, you can do that, but you need to know, YOU COME SECOND IF AT ALL, BITCH (and I don’t mean that in a hot way.)
O for serious, feminists first raised this in the NINETEEN SEVETIES!
THE!
19!
70s!
CATCH UP. It’s just rude not to even grasp the basics at this stage.
Yeah, but the saddest thing other than that is that I would probably enjoy this book. Really. I know enough about the world of filth to know that this book probably has some nice stories in it. For a fucking start it has something by my personal Jesus Stephen Elliott in it, but there is no way I would have a book like that in my tasteful contemporary home.
Just. Look. At. It. !!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
Fucking headless woman in lamecore dominatrix drag. Or, if you are into mandom, a fucking headless woman in lamecore high-heeled waders. (If you are into men – oh, I don’t know… Gay porn? Gay porn or kill yourself are the basic options here according to the makers of Yes Sir and Yes Ma’am!)
Let’s do some ropey maths. There are more women than men – right? Men are more likely to be gay that women are to be lesbian. Therefore it follows that there are more people who are turned on by sexy pics of men that sexy pics of women. Right? Right?
I am ignoring bisexuals at this point because you’ll be happy either way. Therefore wouldn’t it actually make sense to have more sexualised images of men littering the place?
In fact, though, talking of bisexuals, I have a sekrit theory that one of the reason for the sex-positive-women-are-all-bisexual-anyway-(unless-they-are-homophobes-or-something) thing, is actually to do with the fact that in order to navigate in the choppy seas of the shiny new sexual economy women have to decide to find other women sexually attractive in order not to feel totally marginalised.
Course, that couldn’t actually be true, could it? That would be insane.
Notes on a Scandal
1. As I have mentioned once or twice before I am considering making some form of Bitchy Jones book. But god, I have nightmares about what they might put on the cover.
2. Regarding Spank a Fisherman Monthly: For a full list of magazines that exist only in Bitchy’s imagination send a large SAE to Bitchy Jones’s Imagination, Bitchy Jones’s Brain, The Edge of Fucking Reason.
32 Comments
August 14, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Just for the record, this bisexual asplode with rage when she saw that second cover. WTF, marketers, WTF?
August 15, 2008 at 1:15 am
While I also experienced the “head ’splode” from the second cover – I also have to mention that whatever they have her dressed in is the most unattractive thing. Ever. In existence. Seriously, it’s like a dead fish skeleton covered in shiny leather and wrapped around her ala the movie Alien.
Blech.
August 15, 2008 at 2:34 am
This isn’t my kink even but my first thought was “Why have both books got girls on the cover???” Huh, huh??? I don’t want to hit guys (well not for fun anyways!) but you know some nice buff guy on the front cover never goes amiss!
Yep, gay porn or die. Sigh
August 15, 2008 at 2:47 am
OMG! You have no idea my friends and I have ranted about thses fucking books. What the shit is that?
Even having seen it before it makes my blood boil.
August 15, 2008 at 4:08 am
I am both a fan of your blog and the author of one of the stories in the “Yes, Sir” anthology. Usually your entries make me want to pump my fists in the air but this one made me sad. So, I feel I should respond.
It bugs me that conventionally attractive woman-parts appear on both covers. It bugs me that being a kinky woman is, too often, seen as being all about wearing uncomfortable outfits and spending a lot of money on toys rather than about wanting things.
But I urge you not to discount the books entirely. Yes, as you say above they have nice stories in them, and!
1. Rachel Kramer Bussel (the editor of both anthologies) has her women’s studies head on straight and has been outspoken in her support of a lot of feminist issues. Also, Cleis Press is an explicitly feminist publisher. I know that “feminist cred” doesn’t count for much when it comes to individual acts of sexism but it’s worth pointing out.
2. The majority of the authors are women writing about female desires (yes, desires for things other than being found desirable). Probably a majority of the readers are women as well.
3. Unlike internet porn, written erotica is (largely) women’s turf. Covers aside, when I read the stories in anthologies like this, I can honestly believe that they’re meant for me, instead of just being something I’m supposed to like because men like it.
August 15, 2008 at 6:27 am
Heavy sigh…
Yesterday, I clicked over to the Google headlines page to check the “news” (I’m not a hardcore news junkie, obviously). And in the health section I saw two stories: one about breast cancer and right underneath, another about prostate cancer. How nice, equal time for both sexes when it comes to cancer, huh?
Well, I didn’t even read the stories because I was so immediately fucked up about the pictures assigned to each headline.
The breast cancer story featured a soft-focus photograph of a young, perfectly proportioned woman completely naked from the waist up, posed with her back seductively arched and one hand coyly almost resting on one breast in a parody of a breast self-exam.
The prostate story picture? A medical textbook pencil drawing of the male reproductive system complete with flaccid penis.
Head ’splode!
So, today, here I was feeling quite relieved that I’ve already had my head ’splode for the week. But, oh how wrong I was… Just when I thought it was safe to open my reader, here we go again.
Is there to be no end to the ’sploding?
Again, I say… heavy sigh.
And, yeah, that is one serious-ass dead-fish-ugly outfit.
August 15, 2008 at 8:19 am
Maddy
1. The editor of these books calls herself a feminist
2. The publishers of these books call themselves feminists
3. The authors are mosly women.
I’m sorry I fail to see how these three facts you list don’t just make the dreadful, dreadful treatment of the women on the cover as looked at things rather than points of identification EVEN FUCKING WORSE.
God, I am still angry.
August 15, 2008 at 8:38 am
Yup. For me it all boils down to this: as a woman, these book covers do not validate MY desire for a man; rather, they reinforce the concept of my being the OBJECT of desire for him.
Please, someone, tell me: in what way is that “feminist”?
August 15, 2008 at 9:33 am
Always a nice way to start the day when up pops a new post from Bitchy Jones in Google Reader.
As a pain-loving (huge amounts) male who will admit to being turned on from time to time by reading porn, I can only say that (and this is from my perspective as I cannot claim any feminist credentials, even pretending):
1. The images do nothing to inspire me to read it even if I was curious about the whole Female/male Dominance thing
2. Why is there an assumption that even amongst males who may want to submit and be hurt that they will want to submit and be hurt by someone dressed as Desire so nicely puts it. (OK, I will put my hand up and say that I also do have a love of latex and all things tight and shiny but there is life beyond that)
3. Did they not see the truly terrible photograph on the cover of Psychology Today (http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2008/08/the-psychology-of-cheap-halloween-costumes-today.html) that violet blue et all dissed?
4. And please, finally, if I were to buy such a book would I want all around me, sitting on the plane or train, to know that I was a pervert?
Of course, I am now tempted to order the books of Amazon and cover them in brown paper as I now want to see what the stories are like. Will they take me further in my knowledge of submission or will they just give me a hardon and act as general wank fodder, in which case I can get all I want for free of the interweb and have a cock ’splode.
August 15, 2008 at 9:41 am
Bitchy please, please write a book, I would buy it. From experience though I think you will find you have little control over the image that the “suits” at the publishers would put on the cover.
P x
August 15, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I really wasn’t impressed by the samples of the Yes Ma’am stories. Also how many “man doms” do you think are going to be reading Yes Sir? Really the submissive women should be the ones having the fit. I don’t see myself buying either and yeah the covers really don’t help.
August 15, 2008 at 5:00 pm
BJ: “In fact, though, talking of bisexuals, I have a sekrit theory that one of the reason for the sex-positive-women-are-all-bisexual-anyway-(unless-they-are-homophobes-or-something) thing, is actually to do with the fact that in order to navigate in the choppy seas of the shiny new sexual economy women have to decide to find other women sexually attractive in order not to feel totally marginalised.”
Well, if you want to buy into some kind of ‘hot bi babe’ media cliche… Me, I’d rather take the bisexuality of writers like Susie Bright and Carol Queen as honest statements of their sexual identity.
As for the book covers: I get your point, but then the fastest way to catch a potential reader’s eye would be with a het couple in the relevant roles – and that does leave the small matter of what they might wear that says ‘hot BDSM erotica’ that isn’t, as you say, lame.
August 15, 2008 at 5:05 pm
a fucking headless woman in lamecore high-heeled waders
That’s silly. If you want women in waders, why, you only need to get this bitchin’ calendar:
http://www.womeninwaders.com/2008.htm
Sheesh.
August 15, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I’m sorry I fail to see how these three facts you list don’t just make the dreadful, dreadful treatment of the women on the cover as looked at things rather than points of identification EVEN FUCKING WORSE.
The cover is not chosen by the authors or the editor: the cover is chosen by the marketing department. And regardless of how feminist the content producers of a publishing company are, the marketing department will be stuffed full of people who have had drummed into their heads by their teachers and mentors, that you ONLY use a sexy-looking man to sell something if you are selling TO gay men.
I can imagine (moreover) that if anyone tried to tell the marketing department “no, we’ll have a sexy-looking man on the front cover of the femdom anthology” the marketers would sneer and say “we can’t afford to make feminist points with the cover, we have to get them to buy the book”.
Sales figures would make no difference, either: there’s a phrase for “it worked even though it broke the rules” – it’s a non-recurring phenomenon.
(Hi, by the way! This is not my kink, but I love your blog: there can never be enough good funny angry feminist writers.)
August 15, 2008 at 10:57 pm
the sex-positive-women-are-all-bisexual-anyway-(unless-they-are-homophobes-or-something) thing
Oh thank the shackled Greek Gods I wasn’t just imagining that.
August 16, 2008 at 3:46 am
Both covers are ugly. I know I ought to be enraged by the sexism, but I can’t get over the low quality of the photographs. Also, the covers are pornographic enough that many bookstores aren’t going to want to display these books, which seems dumb from a marketing perspective.
August 16, 2008 at 11:24 am
Bitchy, I love you.
After seeing these covers I ranted for over an hour to my man (he also reads you, and thinks you’re great).
What I can’t phathom is how FAR the heads of marketing ‘professionals’ are up their own asses! I mean, it seems a very simple bit of logic to me:
1. Who is your primary audience for erotica: women
2. What is the sexual orientation of the women portrayed in the book: hetero
3. Who are hetero women (the primary audience – come on marketing you can follow along here) attracted to: men
4. What do you use to get your primary audience’s attention: what they are attracted to — i.e. MEN!
I know it’s 4 whole steps, but seriously WHY is that so fucking hard?!
August 16, 2008 at 7:08 pm
A female friend of mine published her anthology of femdom-malesub stories with just a guy in only chains and silver bodypaint on the cover. In my local LBGT bookstore, the book was shelved with all the maledom-malesub books. If that is happening in other stores, it is likely hurting her sales.
You’re right, there is an aversion to deploying or recognizing the male body as the object of the female gaze. The assumption is that men and women have different gazes.
August 16, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Yeah it’s SOOOO much less marginalizing to be bi.
August 17, 2008 at 4:48 am
This post is spot on. I share the same the theory with you about women in the so-called “sex pos” movement.
Also, ex-ker-plode is my new favorite word and I hope you don’t mind if I borrow it.
August 18, 2008 at 3:25 am
I know women who enjoy dressing up like that because it they like how it makes them feel. Some dress up and spend a few hours just lounging around the house because they enjoy the way it feels.
Plus, studies show that women are more prone to buy magazines with attractive women on the cover rather than photos of attractive men on the cover. (Playgirl magazine no longer in print is a good example of this).
August 18, 2008 at 10:54 am
@Axe, sorry, gotta pull you up on the PlayGirl thing. The reason women didn’t buy that magazine is because it was SHIT, not because there were men on the front cover. The reason it was shit? None of the men pictured inside had erections and if there’s one thing guaranteed to put a horny woman off her stroke, it’s the image of an unaroused man. If magazines/books don’t provide explicit/fantasy material with women – as consumers – in mind, then we are forced to look elsewhere. Hooray for internet porn!
Saying that women are more prone to buy magazines with women on the cover might have something to do with the fact that, ooh, ALMOST NO WOMEN’S MAGAZINES EXIST WITH MEN ON THE COVERS, which says far more about market provision, than it does about market demand. Left with solely female images to choose from, what choice do women have? It’s become acceptable, as Bitchy points out, for women to hop on the ‘ooh, of course I find women attractive!’ bandwagon, but that has more to do with the fact that it’s still deemed so unacceptable for us to say ‘I like cock, give me some pictures of penises, please’.
As the saying goes, make it, and they will come, and in terms of material geared and focused towards female desire (as opposed to being a desirable female), I would argue that that is, quite literally, true.
August 18, 2008 at 10:59 am
I don’t get it. Where’s the picture of the second book?
Oh, wait. I get it now.
August 18, 2008 at 11:14 am
“I know women who enjoy dressing up like that because it they like how it makes them feel. Some dress up and spend a few hours just lounging around the house because they enjoy the way it feels.”
Okay, maybe it’s coincidence but I can’t help noticing that this kind of comment is nearly always made by men. I’m not saying that you’re lying, I’m sure dominant women did tell you they love to dress up like your trashy fantasies for their own enjoyment – I’m just wondering what their motivation for telling you that could have been.
August 18, 2008 at 12:33 pm
OK, I’ll hold my hands up as a woman that -occasionally- likes to wear a bit of rubber, because it turns me on (in and of itself), so I suppose it’s fair to say that some women do indulge in a rubber fetish. But, Axe, what you’re arguing, is that because of that, that somehow explains why both these book covers have images of women on them, and I fail to understand that. What about the fact that I like to look at men dressed in rubber? Where is that represented? In any erotica book -supposedly- geared towards (straight) women, why am I being sold the idea that women should be the object of desire and not the subject/eg. reader? It’s as if women don’t objectify men at all, and we all know that’s not true. What is true is that sexism is endemic in publishing; these covers illustrate that perfectly.
August 18, 2008 at 6:18 pm
You’re so right. And so funny. Please write a book. It would kick arse in more ways than one.
August 18, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Bitchy, I saw this website and thought just of you….
August 19, 2008 at 12:50 am
Even if there are women who like to dress up in rubber and sit around the house, that doesn’t make the covers OK.
There are probably men who like to lounge around their houses in leather G-strings, so why not put them on the cover?
These covers have nothing to do with what women want, or even what they like to wear.
August 19, 2008 at 3:18 am
I have a theory for the covers: they simply put pictures of the same woman on both books, to save money. See? Not sexist, just cheap.
August 20, 2008 at 12:20 pm
As the saying goes, make it, and they will come, and in terms of material geared and focused towards female desire (as opposed to being a desirable female), I would argue that that is, quite literally, true.
Yeah, I remember the late 80s/early 90s boomlet in ‘porn mags for women’ – For Women, Ludus, Women Only, Women on Top, Playgirl – they all died a slow death, either for the reason the Girl With A… mentioned or because (I suspect) of the the assumptions that ‘nice girls’ didn’t read/want that kind of thing. Given the changes in sexual culture in the UK since then (the internet, legal hardcore, Ann Summers, this blog), it must be about time someone had another go, complete with male erections (there must be a market beyond Scarlet…). I can see Bitchy and the Girl With A… as resident columnists already.
September 1, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I love you, Bitchy.
I am a steaming pot of rage. Pop cultural representations of female domination leave me feeling alienated, baffled, hopeless. A true dominant accomplishes more in the spontaneity of her actions than any thigh-high boot donning, PVC dress wearing, “mistress” with a whip can ever hope to.
October 12, 2008 at 4:37 am
When I first came out to myself, “Yes, Ma’am” was one of two books on kink I found in the sexual health section of the bookstore I was trapped in for eight hours. Two. I read it (hidden behind the pages of another book so no one could see the cover) in about three hours, and the whole thing left me with, “Ummm…” I was trying to explore my sexuality, and it seemed all the people who shared my sexuality were really homogeneous (homogeneous and liked things that were not what I wanted), at least according to this little sliver of femdom. Definitely off-putting.
Since then, in my desperate bid to find something that *did* fit my sexuality (miserable failure), “Yes, Ma’am” stands out as a prime example of the mediocre stereotypes of femdom that apparently I am doomed to slog through for the rest of my days.
Women in waders are way sexy. But not the kind on the cover of the first book.