Dass die Veröffentlichung des Buchs 1973 die Gemüter erregte, war schon aufgrund des Inhalts zu erwarten. In zahlreichen persönlichen Interviews, aber auch in Briefen und Telefonaten erzählen Frauen von ihren sexuellen Fantasien. Da war es nicht verwunderlich, dass ein Aufschrei durch das eher prüde Amerika ging.

Das Buch war eine schwierige Lektüre für mich. Zum einen war ich erstaunt, wie wenig sich die Erzählungen der Frauen, die Nancy Friday ausgesucht hat, voneinander unterschieden haben. Viele Frauen haben berichtet, dass sie mit ihrem Partner nicht über ihre Wünsche reden würden, weil sie Angst vor seiner Reaktion hätten. Da das Buch einige Jahre auf dem Buckel hat frage ich mich, ob das heute noch so ist und hoffe, dass sich das geändert hat.

Ein Teil der Frauen kam mir in ihrer Beziehung nicht nur unzufrieden, sondern auch unglücklich vor. Das konnte ich zwischen den Zeilen lesen, aber auch in dem fast schon übertriebenen Betonen wie glücklich und erfüllt ihr Leben doch ist. Einige Erzählungen waren aber auch erfrischend lebendig, aber das war nur ein kleiner Teil.

Teilweise war ich von den Erzählungen auch erschrocken. Teilweise vom Rassismus in den Fantasien, aber auch von Geschichten von Zoophilie in Fantasie und Realität und sehr viel Gewalt. Bei diesen Geschichten habe ich mich gefragt, warum Nancy Friday sie veröffentlicht hat und bin mir über ihre Absicht nicht sicher. War es nur aus Provokation oder der echte Wunsch, mit ihrem Buch Frauen zu helfen?

Hmm. I found this book difficult to diverge any real content from. Pretty basic concepts about how women view sexuality and exploration of taboos, but on top of that it was pretty poorly written. There seemed to be nuggets of good information here and there but its was kept vague and uninteresting because of its switching between "fantasy story" and "factual biography" mode.

Perhaps I missed something?

I enjoyed this book. It was a gateway into fantasies other women have and also made me feel less ashamed of mine. I was surprised to find out that so many women have beastiality fantasies and made me concerned about domesticated pets. However, the rest contributed to my fantasy rotation but not to the extent I expected them to.

Of its time - primarily blown away by the number of women married and/or with children in their very early twenties or earlier!?

Smut be smutting but there's smuttier on AO3.

Nancy Friday was excommunicated from religion of feminism for writing this book. Her friend who was by that point at the Feminist HQ Mz Magazine told her that women's fantasies are counter to the women's liberation, ie. they remove the main tool radical feminism had, which is the demonization of men for all their problems, and therefore, should not be spoken about. Friday's entire thesis in the book is that women teach women taboos, women's expectation of women's behaviour is the real oppression of women, and women in some way seek the escape of those oppressions in the arms of men, provided they setup the sexual premise in such a way as to avoid the responsibility for any impact on their social reputation with other women and can blame men. Her thesis on female rape fantasies, the most common form of sexual desire for human females, is interesting: she posits that rape is the perfect situation that permits a woman the fantasy setting of promiscuous sexual encounter with an unknown man but in a way where she takes no risks since she is not in control and can thus avoid any scrutiny or shame, placing the entire discussion of rape culture and the seminal obsession about rape apparent at any university campus of the Western world into a completely different (and understandable) context of psychological projection. This book is more popular than people admit, as can be gleaned by its ratings on Amazon, which further shows that modern feminism harbours major and socially-shifting myths and lies which it can only perpetrate for so long.

I was surprised at the great variety and the imagination of some of the brave women who chose to share their sexual fantasies. The number of women whose fantasies include a faceless person, a dog, a child, or a memory of sexual assault was especially surprising. The afterward describes a sense of transcendence of self or ego death in sexuality and that fantasy can be a sort of dress rehearsal for sex. In a way, fantasy can be a preparation for self acceptance and that in itself may be more valuable than any number of orgasms, or maybe just equivalent.

I found this book quite interesting up until the 35% mark due to the fact that the women having said fantasies were truly interesting and they described what they were thinking in such a vivd manner.
There was also an large input form the author on their experiences and alot of psichology and explaining on her part.

I liked that the book was structured into types of fantasies starting from weird places, personalities, voyeurism&exhibitionism to bondage,rape,incest,zoophilia,interracial etc...and each chapter had multiple females sharing their fantasy.

After 35% i found the structure to get both sloppy and uniinteresting , also many stories were quite boring and i had to skim through the pages, waiting for the next chapter and maybe some other interesting intro containing insights from the author. As the book progressed this wasn't the case and hence my 2 star out of five.

I remember when this book came out, and what a ruckus it caused. Ever since I grew out of the "imaginary friend" phase, I've been pretty clear on the difference between reality and fantasy, and on the reasonable uses of fantasy, to the point I could never understand why so many adult Christian males so condemn fantasy as escapist or are so down on imaginative wanderings. Nor did I understand the primarily secular male squalling over this book. But I'm wondering if the My Secret Garden review by Darth -- who says he is a guy – might shed some light on the subject:

"One more eye opening thing that I got from this, was the PURE fantasy. I always thought of fantasies as something you need to make come true. The fantasy for fantasy sake is another thing that just never popped into my head. Maybe the typical guy mind set of, 'Oh you want something, lets get / do / find / buy whatever it is...' is just too ingrained in our heads, but I liked the idea."

The idea that a fantasy has to be something you want, much less something you would actually try to make come true, is completely alien to me, but I wonder if that's why some guys are so incredibly threatened by fantasy, and by sexual fantasies in particular. Christian guys worry that their own sexual fantasies are things they truly want on some level, while Friday's books include multiple stories about secular guys who are incredibly threatened by their girlfriend/wife's sexual fantasies -- and by the mere fact that she has them! Maybe if these guys could get their heads around the idea that fantasy and reality are not the same thing, and that many women have fantasies they have no intention of actually trying to live out, ever, they might be able to mellow out a bit.

I was also intrigued by what "J" says, in this introduction to (the first edition?) of My Secret Garden:

"… many of the women in this book regard their sexual fantasies as more intimate than the sex itself, [however] the men felt that their masculinity was threatened ('how could any dream be more satisfying than me?') These readers were especially furious at the fantasies where women imagined their husbands were movie or sports stars during their lovemaking. (A common male fantasy, by the way, is to imagine while he is making love to his wife or girlfriend that she is Raquel Welch, Ava Gardner or whoever else excites him. The double standard seems to extend even to dreams.)"

I include the whole thing so you can grind your teeth along with me on that last parentheses, but I'm really sharing it for the first line, which I think is true of most women -- women are far more willing to have sex with a guy than to tell them their sexual fantasies, while guys happily share their sexual fantasies with their locker mates as a bonding exercise. And I wonder if pornographic addiction is a greater danger to those who do not have their own sexual fantasies (and thus create them in that sort of shared environment) than it is to those who stick to the fantasy they created.

Pornography presents a very specific and, for many women, very unappealing view of sexuality, and I think the real problem is that we are not presented with enough valid alternatives. Some etymologists say that pornography is "the writing of prostitutes," and modern western pornography is about anonymous women who say no to nothing sexually serving men. By that standard, this book is not pornography -- but it probably turns some people on, or certain chapters or stories do. While there are certainly non-pornographic fantasies in here (fantasies that are woman-centered; or grounded in love; or with no actual sexual contact between human beings), it doesn't really present a coherent alternative to pornography, either. But it does offer hints of various alternatives.

Along with my bewilderment about what seem to me irrational fears about fantasy in general, I have also never understood the argument, common in conservative Christian discussions, that although the Bible does not outright forbid masturbation, masturbation must be wrong because of Jesus' statement "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28) The argument is that masturbation is wrong because it encourages you to break the commandment about coveting someone who belongs to someone else (or to themselves). But many people's sexual fantasies do not involve actual people at all, either because the people in the fantasy aren't real, or because their sexual fantasy doesn't involve people, as in this one:

“…I imagine I am at the shore with the water running out from under my feet. The dizziness and the feeling of flight are overwhelming. I am being sucked out to sea. It is incredible…”

Granted, maybe male sexual fantasies are more limited and predictable (although I have my doubts about that). Sure, if a man’s having sexual fantasies about women who don’t want him, or who are married or committed to someone else, or who are living beings and he knows in his heart he’d like to make his sexual fantasies about them real, then, yeah, I see that as something the Matthew passage condemns. But I don’t see where Jesus’ words apply to people who don’t sexually fantasize about real people, therefore I don’t see how he is in any sense forbidding masturbation for everyone. And if someone can’t masturbate without sexually coveting someone who isn’t theirs, then it isn’t the masturbation that’s the real problem.

But the book isn't really about masturbation, even if some people use it that way. Speaking personally, this book is as often a turn off as a turn on, and most of it is just intellectually interesting. One reason I like it is because it is a nice reminder that people are unique and different and not like me. That said, I do not agree with Martin Shepard in the Afterword when he says these women are “representative of the average women.” Going back to Kinsey’s studies it’s pretty clear that people who volunteer for studies on sexuality are of a particular type – “exhibitionist” is a bit too strong a term, but uninhibited is in the vicinity – and that more reserved personalities avoid them and so are under-represented. Over and above that fact, this book is the equivalent of a “self selected survey,” and the evidence against those being “representative” of the average, whatever the subject, is overwhelming.

Still, I do think Friday offers a reasonably broad range of fantasies and female experiences here, and I like that she has one lady who thinks “all this business about orgasms must be a lot of twaddle” because they don’t do anything for her. I had a friend once tell me she didn’t like to orgasm because it left her wound up; like this lady, she preferred to be aroused into a state of relaxation. I thought that profoundly weird at the time, but I also admired her for laying claim to her right to have her own sexuality, and I’m glad this lady Friday quotes is comfortable with how her body works as well.

I also like the lady who says she likes things to be left to the imagination, and complains that she’s told her husband this, but “my husband tends to parade his ‘parts’ in front of me, even though I've asked him not to, and [even though I've] mentioned that our sex life might improve if he didn't.” But I’m also rolling my eyes over the bonehead she’s married to. She’s fine with being naked for him, because she knows that’s what turns him on, so why can’t he do what turns her on? I feel sad for the ladies in this book who can’t bring themselves to talk about such things with those they love, but the really depressing stories are the ones where ladies outright tell their guy what works for them and he wants nothing to do with it.

I do agree with the guy who wrote the Afterword that, when it comes to fantasies of all kinds, “intellectual dissections represent a rational approach to what is essentially an irrational process.” I think people can often explore and understand their own fantasies and what those fantasies mean, because individuals have access to their life experiences and other personal quirks. But anytime someone starts saying, “people have this fantasy for this reason,” or “that bit of symbolism always means such and such,” I think they’re telling me more about their personal issues than about whatever that fantasy or symbolism means for anyone else.

And I agree with the Afterword that not everyone has sexual fantasies, and that no one should feel pressured to start fantasizing in order to feel normal. When this book first came out, it was women who fantasized who needed the reassurance that it could be healthy. Now, I sometimes think it’s people who don’t fantasize, or who may not be that interested in sex, who need some social support.

Sex is not the be all and end all our society makes it out to be. For some people, sex is just not that big a deal, and that’s okay too. And for some, it’s not a big deal sometimes, and is a big deal others. I had six full term pregnancies, and I know my body’s sexual responses can change dramatically and rapidly sometimes. Most hormonal changes don’t hit so fast or so hard, but I’m sure they happen, and both of you adjusting to how your body is working right now, without getting all fussed about preferring the body’s old way, can make a big and positive difference. That lady’s fantasy about the sea gets one thing right; sex, like the sea, is ever the same, and constantly changing.

Finally, while this book is more Friday’s idea than Fridays actual work, and I don’t think Friday’s the greatest writer when she does have her say, I often agree with her, or my past self does. I think My Secret Garden captures a lot of thoughts women were having and cultural ideas they were struggling with at the time. Too many of those problems are still with us, but it's nice to look back and recognize there’s been progress on some fronts.

One thing I will say for this book is that it can do wonders for a person (me) who feels concerned or disturbed about the things that occur in their fantasy life. Chances are you will feel virginal and innocent after reading some of the darker taboos in this book.

My first problem with this book was not its subject matter ... it was the delivery. I'm not a psychologist so anything stated here is only opinion and experience. That being said, as Mrs. Friday points out ... women's fantasies tend to be extremely complex. The setting/situation is often a means to an end be that the removal of inhibition, control, accountability or the shedding of moral/social/gender constraints. I felt this book did a very poor job of representing what these fantasies meant on a personal level to the person relating them and in that sense there was something akin to exploitation about packaging them as a general representation of women who have any one of the given fantasies shared in the book.

Ultimately, what I cannot abide, is the inclusion of the admission of criminal activity. If this had been a book of male fantasies and a man had confessed to having molested an 11 year old girl and then marrying her 2 years later, this would not be acclaimed as a treatise on male sexuality. That man would be rightly demonized as would the book, author and publisher. Can anyone say double standard? That poor little boy!

I listened to this one on Audible, which made for some interesting car rides.

In this collection, Nancy Friday asked women to share their sexual fantasies. It is amazing how many women responded and, even more astounding, how many admitted to some pretty graphic fantasies, not all of which involved men. The breadth of fantasies was so wide that Nancy broke them down into "rooms" within an imaginary house. This enabled her to organize the fantasies into chapters with a specific focus.

No matter how strange a woman's fantasy might be, it is hard to believe it wasn't covered in this book. Seriously. I try not to judge, but there were some bizarre things shared with her that made me slightly uncomfortable. And I'm not one to get squimish usually.

It was an interesting social experiment that challenged the idea that women were less sexually minded then men. I think it was especially so when it was published in 1973.

Ok admittedly I did not read all of it. I was interested because of Contrapoints' "Twilight" video and Gillian Anderson's new book, which is kind of a 21st century companion piece to this one. I'm fascinated by Nancy Friday as a person, I watched some of her interviews, and I do commend her for publishing this in the 1970s. Some of the things that are in here are absolutely vile, and not avoidable (I was already planning on skipping a couple chapters). That's why I could not finish this book lol. But I guess if you're going to publish a book like this in the 1970s you might as well not censor it at all, and add weird Freudian analysis. Friday is clearly not a scientist, but she does astutely observe some of the tropes that still exist in women's erotic fiction today.

There's a lot to appreciate in this pioneering catalog of women's sexual fantasies. As a sex therapist I found much of the material in this book matched fantasies I hear about in the office. In fact, I ended up using one of Friday's informants' fantasies in Chapter 4 of my book, Love Worth Making.

The chief problem with the book is/was methodological. There are so many over-the-top fantasies represented here, that I had the distinct feeling Friday's informants were outdoing each other trying to make their reported fantasies as thrilling as possible.

Power of suggestion, perhaps. If you know you're communicating to someone writing a book about sex fantasies, it wouldn't be surprising if that might stimulate you to fantasize in overdrive -- or at least to claim you did!