X Close

How vanilla is your sexual fantasy? Gillian Anderson's new book provides little more than light relief

'It seems likely that well-satisfied women have much better things to do than write down their innermost desires and send them to Gillian Anderson.' (Getty)

'It seems likely that well-satisfied women have much better things to do than write down their innermost desires and send them to Gillian Anderson.' (Getty)


September 6, 2024   6 mins

If you are a child of the Seventies or Eighties, chances are that your formative sexual education was considerably influenced by rifling furtively through a Nancy Friday book. Even today, thanks to well-thumbed titles like My Secret Garden and Forbidden Flowers, a generation of middle-aged women still dutifully have sex with their husbands once a month, enlivened by images of being sold to Bedouins or made to copulate with donkeys. The American journalist collected and organised the unexpurgated fantasies of hundreds of women — and later on, men — selling millions of copies in the process. And now, film and TV star Gillian Anderson hopes to update the genre with a new book out this week, called simply Want.

Billed as “a new book of fantasies for a new generation”, Anderson makes a conscious nod to Friday’s seminal oeuvre in her introduction, enquiring, Carrie Bradshaw-like, “how have women’s deepest internal desires changed?” For the purposes of girlboss science, ethnicity, religious belief, wage bracket, “sexual identity” and relationship status are recorded for each participant, though weirdly not age. And as with Friday’s written contributions, there is a lot of quasi-feminist posturing at the beginning of each section. “Sexual liberation must mean freedom to enjoy sex on our terms, to say what we want, not what we are pressured or believed we are expected to want,” we’re solemnly told. “Fantasies can help crystallise our wants and needs.”

One thing that definitely seems to have changed since the Seventies is that aesthetic standards in sex writing have improved, presumably honed by contact with a thousand self-published erotic novels on Amazon Kindle. In Friday’s day, the means of expression was often rough and ready but in Want it tends to be silky smooth. Devouring looks and quickening pulses are swiftly followed by competently handled flushes, swellings, openings, and so forth.

In this professionalised context, the odd bit of purple prose stands out all the more starkly. One image unlikely to leave me anytime soon describes “a saintly stake of flesh that points to the heavens, aloof and destined to do good” whose presence is soon to be felt against the protagonist’s “sopping dividing wall”. Other bits are simply baffling: “She pulls out a large onion and rubs it across my erection,” writes one contributor.

But perhaps a more interesting way in which desires seem to have changed over the decades is that they have got a lot more boring. Things like racial dynamics, incest, slavery, and bestiality — all casually included by Friday, to the point where it was hard to find much else in there — are absent from this collection, said to be the result of whittling down eight volumes worth of responses to the publisher’s call. In fact, this book is generally so vanilla that, perhaps anticipating disengagement from readers in advance, Anderson is forced to entice us with the promise that her own fantasy is included among the anonymous offerings. Certainly, this keeps the reader more alert than she otherwise might have been. Is it the one about the door handle, one wonders? Or maybe the one about the Weasley twins?

But since many of the main fantasy themes of Friday’s era still appear on message boards all over the internet, it seems likely that their invisibility in Want is not because women have become more repressed in the meantime, but rather because publishers have. Even in its relatively etiolated form, I presume extra fainting couches were required for this book’s sensitivity readers. The closest we get to genuine transgression of old taboos is a bit of water sports and a few tentative rape scenes, rushed through with evident embarrassment and a lot of editorial emphasis that — in this case only, for some reason — the fantasies absolutely do not crystallise the author’s “wants and needs”. Not all of the participants are so convincing. “I’d probably be super-upset if my actual dentist tried to fuck me,” writes one, with an interesting use of the word “probably”.

All this coyness makes something of a mockery of the collection’s main conceit: that it’s offered in the cause of freeing women from shame about what turns them on. Predictably, contributions are not even exclusively from women: “women” is described by Anderson as “an imperfect term” and there are male voices here too. Rather than boldly illuminating the wellsprings of the contemporary female libido, Want is probably more profitably read as a guide to respectable sexual mores in the 21st century. As with female-associated activities generally, there are a lot of unspoken rules. And frankly, the news for men who don’t identify as women isn’t great.

Reading between the lines, it seems that women should expect physical encounters with men to require imaginative supplementation in order to be successful. One writer, not even particularly into robots, puts the point baldly: “Robots are necessary for this fantasy because a group of real men could never focus on a woman sufficiently to participate.” In the main, contributors seem to fall into two groups: those who are not having sex at all, and those who are, but are thinking about having sex with someone else when they do.

Of course, this is scarcely a representative sample. It seems likely that well-satisfied women have much better things to do than write down their innermost desires and send them to Gillian Anderson. And there is also a big information gap here, since we are not told whether men also have to imagine hotter versions of their partners in order to get themselves off. I assume we never will know, since it is very hard to see how such a thing could get off the ground. Friday managed it once, but even then, she had to give the book the sappy name Men in Love — a title quite hard to reconcile with the image of two nurses chopping a man’s cock off after his final orgasm, as I recall.

“It seems likely that well-satisfied women have much better things to do than write down their innermost desires and send them to Gillian Anderson.”

In any case: according to Want’s subtext, ideally as a woman you should be bisexual, or more grandiosely “pansexual”: what seems like the vast majority of participants describe themselves this way. And whether you describe yourself as lesbian, bi, or heterosexual, based on the numbers exhibited here, fantasising about women is preferable to fantasising about men — even if in practice you say you only ever sleep with the latter.

Partly due to the obvious omissions of certain topics — priests but not imams, Bigfoot but not the family dog, etc. — it seems you should also be alert for the immoral aspects of your fantasies, which is somehow not the same thing as feeling shame about them (bad). One anxiety-ridden participant writes: “Every time I find a woman attractive, I fear that it will come across as predatory, and any time I find a man attractive I question my own feelings, wondering if they are true or if it’s the patriarchal conditioning of society.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, the same woman says she has never been kissed.

As this quote perhaps suggests, despite the clear ideological bent of the book, tantalising glimpses of reality sometimes break through. Hinting at a fascinating back story, the woman whose kink is to flush her knickers down the toilet says it started in her college dorm bathroom, but “I now do it in a safe manner in a way that cannot affect anyone other than myself”. Her other fetish is wetting the bed every night, which she does in practice: “It took over a year to fully commit to it, and I’ve never looked back.” (She too is single.)

Other fantasists also don’t sound particularly liberated or functional. One woman describes crying each time she imagines that her partner, unfaithful in life, has sex with another woman. Another laments that “it feels like my life is made up of sex dreams punctuated by an occasional real-life event”. Equally, there are those who seem unable to shake off worldly responsibilities entirely, even for a stolen moment alone. Writes one woman, imagining the aftermath of an energetic threesome: “Impressed and shaking with pleasure, I cover myself in a luxurious robe and offer crackers and dips to balance out the wine.”

The main subtext I drew from the book, however, is that there seems to be a new range of social “taboos” shaping some women’s sex lives. These are not taboo enough to be omitted entirely by the book’s censors, but still forbidden enough to become thrillingly desired. One woman masturbates at the idea of her boyfriend proposing. An exhausted mother and wife has an orgasm when she thinks of an anonymous couple having emotionally engaged sex. To the delight of the manosphere, no doubt, there are several feminists who want to be tied up. A woman who is fed up with planning everything for her exes wants someone who takes charge: “How about you do it for a change?”

Strikingly, three separate fantasies involve the simple act of a man ejaculating inside a woman, presented as something incredibly transgressive. And one woman dreams of vanilla heterosexual sex with a man who loves her, in a “clean suburban home”, yet is appalled by this: “This fantasy is the one that makes me feel fucking sick. What does that say about sexuality? About me?”

Perhaps we should not read too much into all this. Perhaps it is mostly just a case of grass being greener. For the record, there is also a “very shy” Buddhist who imagines being a male crime boss slapping a submissive blonde in the face before she gives him a blow job. There are asexuals dreaming of couplings, lesbians craving men, three women who long to have sex with themselves, and a “Church of England (lapsed)” heterosexual who imagines being a man watching his wife being gangbanged at a sex club.

Leaving the book behind me with some relief, though, I couldn’t help concluding that Anderson might be right: there are still some honest conversations about sex that we up-to-the-minute modern women are afraid and ashamed to have. I’m just not sure they are the ones Anderson has in mind.


Kathleen Stock is an UnHerd columnist and a co-director of The Lesbian Project.
Docstockk

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

65 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark HumanMode
Mark HumanMode
3 months ago

This is the article we read without indicating so by commenting. Kathleen does a good job of leaving me as untitillated as she clearly was by the book.

Right-Wing Hippie
Right-Wing Hippie
3 months ago

competently handled flushes
I think we have Kohler’s new advertising slogan!

Brett H
Brett H
3 months ago

It’s possible that the most boring thing in the world is someone else’s mind.

Dylan Blackhurst
Dylan Blackhurst
3 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

Quite possible the truest thing I’ve read in the comments.

David McKee
David McKee
2 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

I disagree profoundly. Finding out how the world looks through someone else’s eyes is fascinating. It’s only their sexual fantasies which are (apparently) derivative and dull.

William Shaw
William Shaw
2 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

The book sounds so very boring, but I suppose some women will want to read it. I predict disappointment.

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
3 months ago

I wonder if Stock’s view of this book confirms a prejudice of mine.

While, clearly and splendidly l, gay people have become free, straight sex has become more self-conscious and less free. We had some fairly wild adventures as a young couple and, while discretion was necessary, there seemed less judgement. Sex for fun was more usual.

Friday’s book was pretty wild and guilt free. The women who wrote seemed to have no qualms about enjoying their fantasies.

David Morley
David Morley
3 months ago

Well yes, because if you belong to the category that used to be called “normal” almost everything you think and do is now suspect and a trigger for self examination and guilt. As per the woman worrying about having internalised the patriarchy.

You could always redefine yourself as “queer” of course – a category that gets more inclusive by the day.

David McKee
David McKee
3 months ago

It’s all a bit sad, isn’t it? These fantasies sound about as erotic as a Tesco shopping-list.

What turns a person on is intensely personal. If doing it in a muddy field, wearing nothing more than your welly boots, floats your boat, then it floats your boat.

Still, I can’t help thinking some (most?) women need to put their backs into their fantasy sex-lives.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
3 months ago

Excellent article. It’s funny how it is often so obvious what the fantasist wants but she refuses to acknowledge it, see the fantasy of having vanilla sex in a suburban home with a loving husband.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 months ago

Well, with respect, I don’t think I shall be picking up Gillian Anderson’s book anytime soon. The most titillating thing for me about the article was the word “etiolated”. Maybe I’ve got some kind of word fetish.

Dylan Blackhurst
Dylan Blackhurst
3 months ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Words really do have power then.

David Hewett
David Hewett
3 months ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Clearly you are not a botanist.

Graham Stull
Graham Stull
3 months ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Imagine being tied up, the only light in the velvet bedraped bedroom from the candles whose wax the Bibliographer drips on your unclothed body.
“Dactylomegaly,” he whispers in your ear, and your body shudders.
“Obloquy,” the Bibliographer insists. You writhe against the bounds, loving yet hating every syllable he utters.
Now he is leaning fully over you. You feel the heat from his breath against your ear as he exhales the word “osculate.”
And you lose all control…

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
2 months ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

We should meet

Stephen Kristan
Stephen Kristan
2 months ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Katherine… maybe we should connect. I’ve been enchanted by ‘etiolated’ for decades.

Zaph Mann
Zaph Mann
2 months ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Me Too! Really

John Riordan
John Riordan
3 months ago

How immensely exhausting all this sounds.

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
3 months ago
Reply to  John Riordan

I know. I think I would rather have a nice cup of tea. But it doesn’t half make your wil lie sore

David Morley
David Morley
3 months ago

In any case: according to Want’s subtext, ideally as a woman you should be bisexual, or more grandiosely “pansexual”: what seems like the vast majority of participants describe themselves this way. And whether you describe yourself as lesbian, bi, or heterosexual, based on the numbers exhibited here, fantasising about women is preferable to fantasising about men — even if in practice you say you only ever sleep with the latter.

Because in our oddly moralistic day this is worthy rather than pervy.

Stephen Kristan
Stephen Kristan
2 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

It’s just another step along the path of expunging men from the gyneverse [my word].

David Morley
David Morley
3 months ago

What a missed opportunity. A lot of men still seem to be massively naive about the scope and wildness of female sexuality – but this book doesn’t seem to offer much enlightenment.

So if they can’t talk openly to their wives and girlfriends, where should they look?

Vesselina Zaitzeva
Vesselina Zaitzeva
3 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

“So if they can’t talk openly to their wives and girlfriends, where should they look?”
——-
If a man can’t talk openly to his wife or girlfriend, then there is a huge problem in that relationship. Ditto if a woman can’t talk openly to her husband/boyfriend.
And this is true not only about s3x, but pretty much about any topic.

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
3 months ago

Quite so. When asked for advice on pleasing women sexually the advice should be “ask her what she likes”

David Morley
David Morley
2 months ago

And then just wait for the Bedouin to arrive?

Vesselina Zaitzeva
Vesselina Zaitzeva
2 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

Sorry, I did not understand your point. If you could elaborate on it, it would be really good. (I am serious).
My point was that if in a relationship people cannot talk openly and sincerely about things that are important for them (whatever the topic migh be), then there is a problem in that relationship.
—-
A bit off: it seems that your comment was also kept for a long time in the purgatory and reappeared with a big delay (like my other post below). In such cases, I always suggest writing to UnHerd Support. Their moderation system is dismal and the more people complain about it, the better chance we all have for the system to be replaced with another one that, hopefully, will not remove absolutely innocuous comments.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
2 months ago

Not very realistic. Among men, women are infamous for never saying what they really mean (eg. him-“what should we do for dinner?”; her-“I don’t know. What do you want?”).
And I wouldn’t be surprised if women tended to think the same thing about men.

Vesselina Zaitzeva
Vesselina Zaitzeva
2 months ago

I think that you indirectly confirm my point.
If someone does not say what they really mean, then there is a problem with communication, i.e. with the relationship.
In my view, it is perfectly realistic to be able to maintain open, sincere and mutually respectful communication.
Yes, even between a man and a woman 😉
—–
Edited to add: this comment was removed immediately after I posted it and re-appeared 17 (yes, seventeen!) hours later.
And this given that I wrote immediately to UnHerd Support.
Am seriously considering cancelling my subscription.

David Morley
David Morley
2 months ago

Or there’s always:
He: What do you like?
She: You shouldn’t have to ask me

Vesselina Zaitzeva
Vesselina Zaitzeva
2 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

But I would believe that it would be hardly helpful if you start asking other women what the woman you asked in the first place likes. What do you think?
Btw, if a woman replies like she did in your example, this is definitely a sign that she has some serious psychological problems.
If someone refuses communication and cooperation (again, in whatever field, it’s not only about s#x) and tries to guilt-trip the other party (in your example, punishing the man for asking, because her reaction is meant to be a punishment), this should be a serious warning for the other party that they are in for a very unhealthy future and are already in a very unhealthy present.
—-
Sorry, have just seen that you were replying to Mr Scaduto, not to me, but hope you don’t mind me replying to your post 🙂

David Morley
David Morley
2 months ago

Agree with all you say. But the complaint from men, that women expect them to be mind readers, is not a rare one. And the complaint from women that men shouldn’t have to be told is equally common.

You may have been lucky – but communication problems between men and women seem to be pretty common.

Vesselina Zaitzeva
Vesselina Zaitzeva
2 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

Yes, I agree, this is a situation that can be encountered all too often, unfortunately.
I would disagree with you, though, about the “luck” factor. It’s a matter of choice: I just believe in open and honest (yet tactful, hopefully) communication, I consciously chose this line of behaviour a long time ago and this is what I do.
Makes life significantly easier, for sure. At least, mine…
[wanted to add a smile emoji at the end, but am afraid that the moderation system will take down my comment for another couple of weeks because of that. That’s also related to the topic of (mis)communication…]

Vesselina Zaitzeva
Vesselina Zaitzeva
2 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

I wrote a reply, but the moderation system removed it immediately. Hopefully, they will kindly restore it in a week or two from now…
[sigh]

Sandy Henderson
Sandy Henderson
3 months ago

It’s an inevitable result of the current attention economy that people clamour to ‘expose’ their public private selves to an audience, swathed in pudeur and pseudo-self-awareness, a bit like uploading your own home movies to an Islington Pornhub with all the head shots edited out. And then we get to read a Kathleen Stock expose to mask our own prurience and other non-u urges, rather than permit ourselves to read the real thing. On both sides of the fence, it’s shame masquerading as shamelessness. Reassuringly British.

Graham Cunningham
Graham Cunningham
3 months ago

Great review. As Kathleen Stock has remarked previously “Men are pretty much banned from making any generalisations about women good or bad” so it has been inevitable in our time that the taking down of the “new range of [sexual] social taboos” has had to come from women like her. It seems to me that they have emerged from what I would call a kind of militant androgyny. And in particular from ‘Third Wave’ feminism’s grand dame of androgyny Judith Butler. It never ceases to amaze me how someone whose ‘philosophy’ seems mostly a projection of her own personal hang-ups ever came to be so hugely influential on those 21st c. sexual mores. Here is some Wikipedia gobbledegook on her: “For Butler, “men” and “women” are categories complicated by factors such as class, ethnicity, and sexuality…..[she challenges] assumptions about the distinction often made between sex and gender, according to which sex is biological while gender is culturally constructed. Butler argues that this false distinction introduces a split into the supposedly unified subject of feminism. Sexed bodies cannot signify without gender, and the apparent existence of sex prior to discourse and cultural imposition is only an effect of the functioning of gender. Sex and gender are both constructed.” https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/shall-we-dance
All in all, not very sexy is it?

Dylan Blackhurst
Dylan Blackhurst
3 months ago

For Judith Butler see also word salad.

Duane M
Duane M
3 months ago

The power of social construction seems really quite amazing, almost miraculous. As a working biologist, it would never have occurred to me that society, just by thinking so much about gender, could cause embryos to develop ovaries or testicles, vaginas or penises. Wow! Judith Butler seems to have discovered a new mechanism for evolution, and maybe for the whole universe. It’s all just one big shared socially constructed idea! Who’d a thunk it?

Roddy Campbell
Roddy Campbell
2 months ago

‘Sex and gender are both constructed’

Hopefully not as badly as Ms Butler’s writing. Or the human race wouldn’t have survived.

Dylan Blackhurst
Dylan Blackhurst
3 months ago

“Every time I find a woman attractive, I fear that it will come across as predatory, and any time I find a man attractive I question my own feelings, wondering if they are true or if it’s the patriarchal conditioning of society.”

Proof. If any was needed. Some people can read way too many books and have too many ideas spinning around in their heads.

Life is short. Get on and live it god damn it!

Russell Hogg
Russell Hogg
3 months ago

I probably shouldn’t say it but I’m not altogether sorry Kathleen was hounded out of academia. She is such a pleasure to read. Their loss, our gain.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
3 months ago
Reply to  Russell Hogg

Sounds like a fantasy to me (except it happened).

Fam Barr
Fam Barr
3 months ago

This is the funniest article I have read in a very long time. Thank you Kathleen! Good pub fodder for a Friday night.

Bobs Yeruncle
Bobs Yeruncle
3 months ago

I laugh when I ever watch a mainstream film now when it has a heterosexual ‘sex’ scene. In nearly every case now the women cannot be on the bottom because its just not girlboss so it leads to the most formulaic scenes where the woman throws the man on to his back so she can be on top (I mean this in the broad literal and figurative sense). So for example in ‘Jack Reacher’ the slim, petite female ‘throws’ the hulking musclebound macho titular character beneath her. Its laughable how censorious and self censoring many have become to meet the perceived uniform ‘woke’ narrative.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
2 months ago
Reply to  Bobs Yeruncle

I always assumed that was so the viewers could get a better view of her t*ts, something for which I’m always grateful

Jack Robertson
Jack Robertson
2 months ago
Reply to  Bobs Yeruncle

Hang on, isn’t Jack Reacher played by Tom Cruise?
Most women could pick him up one-handed and pop him in their purse. Like a discreet, well-designed sex toy.

Vesper Stamper
Vesper Stamper
3 months ago

Gillian Anderson must have joined the Junior Anti-Sex League at some point. Too bad, Scully.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 months ago

Having turned every other facet of human existence into something pathological, one should not be surprised that sex is going down that road. I’m also struck by the number of chronological adults who cannot write a simple thought without the need for the ubiquitous f-word, which today has all the gravity of saying “green” to due to misapplied overuse.

Duane M
Duane M
3 months ago

Dear Kathleen,
Thank you for reading that book so that I don’t have to.

Alan C
Alan C
3 months ago

I always thought that “pansexual” referred to someone who would f*** anything.

Benedict Waterson
Benedict Waterson
2 months ago

Many women fantasise constantly about sex with the Prophet Muhammed, but this is unfortunately taboo for sexually repressed Western women, who have no outlet for their fantasies.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
2 months ago

The figure of a semi-naked Christ on a cross is so obviously an example of sexual imagery that it became passé.

Bored Writer
Bored Writer
2 months ago

As a gentleman of advancing years who was until relatively recently very interested in (heterosexual) sex and fortunate enough to be attractive to a surprising number of women, I would nowadays prefer the legendary cup of tea. When one is not susceptible to carnal drives one judges the objects of one’s previous desires on criteria that are not dominated by physical appearance. As a result I now have far fewer interactions with women. By and large they aren’t very interesting. However I do now have a dog who does not appear anywhere in my biannual sexual fantasy.

Dylan Blackhurst
Dylan Blackhurst
2 months ago
Reply to  Bored Writer

Thank you. I’m currently slumped semi drunk on a hotel bed laughing at this post.

Doug Pingel
Doug Pingel
2 months ago

She rubbed an onion up and down it. So come on. Was it Spanish, Red, Brown or perhaps even Pickled. Did she do it to enhance the taste or mask it? We afficionadoes need the detail.
PS Good article Ms Stock.

Lewis
Lewis
2 months ago

The discussion this sort of article is meant to provoke or perhaps the insights that are supposed to be acquired from studying it, are so remote from my life experience that I believe I must be living on a different planet from the author.

General Store
General Store
2 months ago

The entire topic speaks to narcissism, hyper individualism and kind of corruption of indolence. And it’s like organizing your life or a cult around sausage rolls, or pot noodles. Kind of juvenile. Sex is great – in its place, in marriage, in the context of conception and child rearing. First stop widespread obsession with sexuality and sexual identity and fantasy. Next stop demographic collapse. Long live the Amish.

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
2 months ago

The Weasley twins? It’s not just me then.

Matthew Powell
Matthew Powell
2 months ago

Strictly only ideologically approved fantasies are allowed these days. It sounds like the morality police are living rent free in these women’s heads.

Roddy Campbell
Roddy Campbell
2 months ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

Fabulous comment. Thank you.

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
2 months ago

It’s worth analysing why erotic fiction outsells any other genre now thanks to a huge female readership.
One factor is the accessibility of ebooks on mobile phones which can sell for as little as a dollar and don’t have to be found room for in a handbag (they’ll also electronic and discrete).
The female erotic fiction market is also a signifier of sexual dissatisfaction. App dating has actually created more inconvenience, turning the culture against the ‘bar chat-up’ as an instrument of harrassment and male chauvinism.

Lord Plasma
Lord Plasma
2 months ago

Very, very funny article KS. An absolute dismantling of the collective insanity engulfing us. Thank you.

Brian Doyle
Brian Doyle
2 months ago

There are many Academic Papers upon Human Sexuality
Most of which are based on the real world and not fantasy
And should you care to seek out and study with a open mind then you very quickly realise that Anderson scribbles are nothing more that a make money exercise

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
2 months ago

“I’d probably be super-upset if my actual dentist tried to f**k me,” writes one, with an interesting use of the word “probably” – I spit my tea out at this. I think Kathleen should treat us to a few quotes from this book once a month.

David Pogge
David Pogge
2 months ago

My experience listening to thousands of people talking about their lives – and sex lives – makes it clear to me that the kind of people who contribute to this kind of drivel are very atypical of humanity, over-educated to the point of stupidity, and self-absorbed to the point of being trivial. It is no surprise that “a celebrity”, especially “an actress” would offer something like this an consider it a representative and worthwhile contribution

Gary Chambers
Gary Chambers
2 months ago

Sign of the times when sexual fantasy has become a bland commodity. It sounds more like an exercise in rampant consumerism than unbridled lust. The book hardly sounds like it’s very provocative. Positively flaccid by the sound of it. Expect to see plenty of copies in your favourite charity shop very soon.