Ok ok ok. How to describe explain this book make the points I want to make about it. I think this book would challenge a lot of people in my life. All of my close friends certainly. I think they wouldn't get it and would dismiss it harshly at the same time I encourage them to actually read it. The analysis was whatever rudimentary boring takes that are dated in modern feminist critism. But the stories the fantasies. They are real. From real people and they tell you so much more. It's a perspective so impossible to see for most people most of the time and that means something. However much people would hate this (and I get that) it is certainly interesting and important.

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.

My Secret Garden is an important book, but it's very firmly a by-product of it's time. Friday's insistence to accept all fantasies, regardless of their content, as acceptable, permissible, and novel because of their impact on sexual pleasure and gratification, it's difficult to not ask questions about how these fantasies relate to the socio-political backgrounds of the women who have them. True, fantasies may not be related to a cultural context but rather a personal context, or it may be impossible to read the origins of a fantasy from a person's history; however, it's telling that there are consistent images and motifs running through fantasies, so much so that Friday groups them into various rooms in one very kinky house. It's also telling that Friday comes to certain fantasies that once had traction but admits that they have shifted over time to the point of becoming obsolete. If a fantasy can become obsolete due to cultural shifts, there is more to them than simply getting off.

That being said, I understand Friday's reluctance to contextualize fantasies. My Secret Garden was fighting for the legitimacy of female sexuality and female sexual fantasy. Raising questions about where the fantasies come from undermine the goal of assuaging female guilt and repression regarding their sexuality, and given the current cultural climate of purity policing, Friday's book could have easily become another tool of sexual oppression. Nevertheless, for a 21st century reader invested in sexual politics and intersectional feminism, the scope of the book is limited. Friday produced a necessary first step, but we have a long way to go.

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.

There’s no denying the significance of My Secret Garden – it was a bold and necessary book in its time. I’m deeply sympathetic to Friday’s project: she affirms women’s fantasies without shame, and the result is vivid, curious, and often confronting. I appreciated how readable it was, and how deliberately she shapes a thesis – from my reading at least, that fantasy is a natural and valuable way to explore one’s sexuality.

But while I respect the book’s aims, I found her analysis frustrating. She tends to treat fantasies as *always* symbolic, emotionally abstract metaphors rather than sometimes just being what they seem. That’s especially clear in her reading of same-gender fantasies – she’s quicker to suggest women are yearning for more gentleness in their sex lives than the (far) simpler explanation that they might just be a little fruity… seems like that entails an unnecessary number of psychoanalytic hoops to default to jumping through.

Her use of Freudian psychology also weakens the book’s critical force – complex or queer desires are flattened into clichés like ‘penis envy’. And she’s inconsistent in her analysis, refusing to comment on incest fantasies because she’s ill-equipped to analyse them psychologically, but jumping into others, like bestiality, with flimsy pseudo-theory.

More than anything, I wish Friday took fantasy more seriously – not just in terms of harm or taboo, but in terms of character. Take the fantasy involving a coercive teacher… Friday brushes it off as harmless because it’s ‘just a fantasy’. But some desires signal *who we are* and how we relate to power. Whether or not they harm others, some fantasies may reflect or encourage vicious tendencies – we should be willing to interrogate that.

But my wishing is futile, because if the book had been more critical, it wouldn’t have done what it needed to do at the time of its release, so... I liked this book quite well enough for what it was, and I can appreciate it as a product of its time. However, as much as I think it was exactly what it needed to be - and successfully was - for liberating women’s sexuality in the 1970s, reading it in 2025, I personally found it just okay. Interesting, glad I read it, but ultimately left me wanting. I’d love to see this topic done more justice in a cultural landscape where we can be more critical, ask harder questions, and get more out of the venture.

Always good for us blokes to get a window into a world like this. Have to be in the know... and all that.

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!

Although this is an old book (1970's?) the themes and dreams of people are ultimately timeless and this book proves it. In it I found out things about women that are not meant to be judged or maybe not even understood, just accepted. In fact I'm confident that many of the women who shared these stories/fantasies have no idea why they get turned on by them but nevertheless do. That's the thing about guys- we often don't feel comfortable about things we don't understand. Well, at least for me, after I was about four stories in I had to turn off the need to understand and just accept and then almost like magic a new higher level of understanding was born. I was forced to put my ego down and learn what goes on in the mind of a woman that rarely comes out of her mouth. I'm hoping that with what I now know, I will be able to cultivate more trusting open relationships with women and implore any man who wishes the same to get this book.

I would like to unread this / delete it from my brain.

NOT for the faint-hearted about sexuality. I was not only surprised, but pretty deeply shocked at some of the fantasies women told for this book. I learned that I am still pretty much a prude AND that my own fantasies are more emotionally and romantic based, than having to do with pure sexuality.

Part of me wishes I had not read this book, but part of me is glad that it helped me learn a few things about myself and my morals and boundaries.

I kept hearing about this book as evidence that "women like sex, too." I didn't really need a book to tell me that, but what this book does show is how sexual women really are. They have a lot of sexual fantasies, some quite kinky that men would be surprised to hear about.

I skimmed through some of it, but it is definitely a book to check out, especially if you are hesitant about being sexual around women. Women are sexual creatures too, and this book definitely shows that.

The first research, published in 1973, of women's sexual fantasies, at a time when women were believed not to have sexual fantasies. Not a book for binge-reading ... or public transport.