I believe this book is important, but it’s really a coup to take a topic this interesting and turn it into something so tedious. And I could definitely have done without the rant against “the Matriarchal Feminists’ anti-male agenda” at the beginning, and the constant refrain of “all sex-shaming starts with our mothers.” No, it doesn’t. I’d love to see a modern version of this.

It's a collection of women's sexual fantasies, author collected over the years. Some of them from interviews, the other ones from anonymous letters where women reveal their souls and innermost secrets. If you think you can imagine how that sounds, I would challenge you that you can't. Some of them are from the sphere of usual and ordinary life, because that's where the very material - lego bricks of imagination - comes from (where else), but some... some will knock you out of your shoes. That is, if you wore ones while lying in bed in the middle of night listening to this. If you are, it's ok. What you do in the privacy of your mind or your bedroom is your own thing and it's all ok. As long as shoes consent, that is.

If you're a man, this book is the most direct glimpse into the "mind of the enemy", that "secret garden" you can never approach to because women keep it hidden and remote even from their very selves, due to their goddamn upbringing or even goddamner need to keep the appearances. You need to earn their trust and if you don't fall victim to emotional ebola or bankrupt in the process, there might be real person for you waiting on the other side. But there's no guarantee.

Because, in all likelihood, she's not even aware herself of miracle her mind and body are capable of. And if she is, she's likely caught in mind games thinking she has to be some special, prescribed thing for you to love her, not realizing the only thing she has to do to completely knock you out is stop doing what everybody else is.

Of course, asshole men who say they want one thing (lady in public, whore in bed), but actually act all high, mighty and judgemental when they get woman open to sex in all its beautiful shapes and forms because, in actuality, they just can't keep up with sexual dynamo she is, don't help this situation.

This book might give you some ideas on riches waiting on the other side of the wall and help you decide if you're really ready for them.

Aside from false info in this book , some lines just state how ignorant the author is like : I do not know why in this particular age women start to mastrubate (8 -12)? Maybe just maybe because this is the age where girls hit puberty?
And the racism OMG, I just do not know why western people can not consider black race as part of people , they just categories them always as different people

womens discusting fantasies from the 1970s

My Secret Garden by Nancy Friday is not particularly well-written, but it remains an important and fascinating work. Originally published in the 1970s, it presents a collection of women’s sexual fantasies, offering insight into desires that were rarely discussed openly at the time. While some of the narratives feel repetitive or overly embellished, the book’s significance lies in its frank exploration of female sexuality and its challenge to societal taboos.

As a middle-aged man, I found it especially interesting to see how these fantasies reflected deeper psychological and cultural influences. It’s a revealing, sometimes surprising read that underscores how much—and how little—attitudes toward sex have changed over the decades. I plan to read Men in Love, Friday’s companion book from the male perspective, to see how the two compare.

This was an important and controversial book when it was first published and having seen more than my fair share of online discourse about people being disgusted by women's fantasies, I feel like it still is today. Reading the fantasies of all these different women and recognising your own or else being completely taken aback that anyone could fantasise about THAT was really fascinating. And - well - also just plain hot at times, because, let's face it, this book is very much more smut than serious piece of sociological research.
On the other hand, some of it was rather repetitive and I felt like the author psychoanalysed a bit much. Sure, she may have a point with some of her explanations of where certain fantasies originate, but assuming it's the same for every woman with a similar fantasy just feels utterly simplistic.

I wasn't sure about this one but gave it a go. I don't know the meta of this book (like if it was meant to be feminist or not), so I'll just share my thoughts.

First, the bad:

There was too much moralizing or normalizing, instead of letting the reader (listener) decide on their own how normal they think these fantasies are. I mean don't try to convince people either way. Whoever picks this book is already tuned-in and curious. There is no need to defend anyone, it is what it is.

There was much filler in between the actual fantasies that could have easily been edited out. Just give us the fantasies one after the other please, no need to drag it out.

Only when it came to bestiality was I thown off, but each to their own. So yeah, there are few wtf ones.

The good:

We get a sneak peek into some women's fantasies, which were timeless. I couldn't really tell if this was a fresh or an old book, but apparently it's old. It's reassuring that there "was always sex, kinda like today" several decades ago. I believe most of the fantasies were adorable or cute and if these girls just came out with them to their spouses it would have been a good test, to see if they are worthy of continuing the relationship (by their men fulfilling the desires), or running away scared (apparently they would not be a good match after all, if the girl has to hide things). Same would be true when the genders were reversed. What was made apparent is that girls have less ways to live or act out their fantasies, because the lesser availability of male witches, or they just live their life in hiding afraid of being labeled or whatever. But it was eye opening that of course they are sexual creatures, more than guys would think. Pephaps the sample size of interviewees is not representative (most likely), but still it was an interesting read (listen).

No me ha gustado nada, pensé que me aportaría algo más y parecía surrealista lo que leí

Couldn’t finish the last 100 pages or so. Read this after reading Want by Gillian Anderson, and it’s interesting reading the “OG” on women’s sexual fantasies. Unfortunately, compared to Want, it’s not structured as well, the stories are quite redundant, and it doesn’t have any trigger warnings nor are the more illicit content focused into sections so they tend to pop up throughout the book. Again, like Want, women are quite gay

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?

According to this book, it’s pretty clear that most women fantasize about powerful masculine men with a brutal, dark side. It’s kind of ironic that feminists nowadays have determined masculinity to be a poison that should be eradicated from society. As one woman in the book said, these strong masculine men are often not available, since they’re in such a high demand, so she had to contend with someone lesser. Perhaps there’s a connection there? The good old “If I can’t get them, nobody should.”

The book has some other feminist talking points about oppression and victimhood of women and undoing the basic differences between men and women but other than that, considering it was written during second wave feminism, it is pretty tame compared to feminism in recent years. Besides, most of the author’s analysis of women’s fantasies is sensible and useful. I can only imagine what some of today’s prominent feminists would write about this topic.

Whatever the opinions or ideology of the author, the fantasies sent in by the women are brutally honest and unfiltered by any ideological framework. This is why this book is a tremendously valuable source of insight for men and perhaps also for other women. Nevertheless, writing as a man, I feel like this side of womanhood is something that is rarely encountered by men and yet is an important aspect of understanding women. So what can we learn here as men? First and foremost, whatever anyone says, masculinity, masculine strength and power with an integrated darker side of the persona are exceedingly desirable by women and should be cultivated. Secondly the general themes that women fantasize about, revolve around the man handling, dominating and controlling the woman so that should definitely be something to think about. Other than that, as long as trust and loyalty is established, men shouldn’t be intimidated by their partners’ fantasies as they can be a source of much joy and pleasure.

I started off confused when reading this as the author's comments didn't strike any chords with me at all, and then I realised that it was published decades ago. It's very dated.

'You could say that a woman’s life was made for fantasy. All those idle hours, the boring repetitive jobs that her hands do automatically, the endless opportunities to reflect, construct and reconstruct. In a sense we were born to dream, to stay at home... it is how most men dream of us. Even today’s superwomen who leave the house to go to work ...'

'This lifelong habit of rumination is what makes women so good at fantasy; daydreams are often as close as they ever get to what they really want. A man finding desire upon him can pick up the phone, go see someone, ask a girl out, or order one.'

I'm pretty sure this is not true of either men or women.

There's no doubt that this book was important in its time and if women still find it valuable then more power to them and the author. I was just bored.