Content warning for NSFW language and extremely (and I mean extremely detailed) descriptions of oral sex.
UPDATE: Good god, you wouldn't believe the amount of creepy messages I've received about this review. No, I will not be available to give you sex tips because I wrote a review about a book on sex tips. No, I am not interested in personal conversation about my sex life. Please stop being creepy about this towards me, or I'll have to delete the entire thing.
This is a manual on performing cunnilingus on women written for men. And it is just bonkers.
As the title suggests, it's about prioritizing a woman's pleasure for the hetero men who struggle with that, so, points to the author for trying to do a good thing. It's very much meeting m/f couples where they are, if sex to them is 2.5 minutes of thrusting in the dark that ends with a man's orgasm. And before I poke a bit of fun at some of the advice, I want to specify that my intention here is not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. The book consistently de-prioritizes PIV sex as the end-goal of intimacy, and instead focuses on oral sex as a main event, with the sole purpose of bringing women pleasure. This is a very positive thing, and is actually pretty radical, especially for a book published 17 years ago. I’m sure it’s done a lot of good for hetero couples in de-centering penetration as what sex consists of, and instead centering mutual pleasure as what sex is actually about. But its paradigm is of a one-size fits-all approach to oral sex, its instructions delivering several pre-planned and timed oral sex routines of varying complexity. Which is the central problem with the book. It conceptualizes oral sex as enacted on a passive, nonverbal woman. And it portrays oral as a one-size-fits-all routine a man deploys as a sign of his sexual prowess, rather than something specific he does to please one woman in response to what she likes.
But before we dive into all that, let’s start with the ludicrous aspect of the advice. What music should you play during oral sex? How about Ravel's Bolero? Or Whale singing? This is not a joke. These are two of the actual recommendations. WHALE SINGING. Can you imagine? Also, Bolero is now hilariously ruined for me, as it’s forever going to conjure images of the ideal soundtrack to She Comes First. Which beverage best accompanies the taste of a woman's vulva? Wine, of course. Specifically, Viognier. “[…]pick up a good bottle of Viognier from the Condrieu region in France; it possesses a rich perfume that’s redolent of apricot, peaches, and honey, and, when combined with the sweet nectar of her vulva, is the closest you’ll ever come to tasting ambrosia, the food of the gods.”
The sweet nectar of her vulva!! I also like how he feels the need to explain what ambrosia is to us plebs. I can just imagine a man rolling up to a woman’s apartment in 2005 for a third date, a chilled bottle of viognier in his hands, mansplaining these vulval tasting notes to her while being extremely proud of himself. How many bathroom texts did women send their besties in 2005, like, “I dunno, this one’s a bit creepy. He has this thing about viognier and the taste of pussy? I’m kind of freaked out? Maybe call me later to make sure he wasn’t an axe murderer?”
We’re not done here. How should you structure your oral sex session? Consult Aristotle's Poetics, of course. I, too, have read the Poetics. I am only disappointed? That seems like the wrong word? Maybe disappointed in a schadenfreude type of way, that the author did not use this opportunity to work in some hamfisted congruence between orgasm and Aristotelian catharsis or expound on feminist-friendly porn and theatrical mimesis. I am woman: behold me out-wanking the author over Poetics references.
As these examples show, this reading experience is a disconcerting mishmash of pretentiousness and hokey wordplay ("coreplay" is the author’s punny way of designating oral sex that isn't "foreplay," ugh). The book’s concept, aside from making tedious comparisons to the Elements of Style, as in, the writing guide, is to develop these oral sex "routines." They involve a template of set, timed moves that are supposed to universally work for every woman. Things like "two minutes of your tongue performing long vertical licks, with every fifth lick being horizontal." She is supposed to come on command after the finishing move like this is a set of videogame instructions (no insult intended to the gamers in the room). As if women don't want different things when it comes to getting off. There’s some concession to "listen to what she wants," and "see what works," but the whole template idea very much fights that by choreographing the event like a dance routine. There’s no recourse to, “after this stage, check in with her and ask her what felt best, then do that for a bit.”
The idea of checking in with your partner, responding to her feedback, and modifying what you’re doing is not at all part of the process in the template. And I will acknowledge that there are some general pieces of advice that counter this. The man is told to ask the woman if he can watch her masturbate to see what she does, and he’s told to tell her that he wants her feedback. But everything about the flow of the templates undermines this. This book is incredibly step-by-step in its advice, often highly repetitively, with the relevant parts of template 1 copy-pasted word-for-word into template 2. So, if “communication during the act” and “learn from what she likes specifically” were a significant part of the process, they ought to have been included in the routines explicitly.
The main assumption book, which is a bit toxic to both men and women, is the paradigm of a dominant man who’s going wrest orgasms out of a woman who’s mostly lying there passively, not directing the action, who doesn’t speak words to communicate what she wants. The emphasis is upon looking for non-verbal signs of arousal, things like darkened labia and rapid breathing and wetness, escalating stimulation until the woman produces these signifiers. When, I mean, receiving oral doesn’t make you mute? “Just like that?” or “try this” or “harder” or “lighter” are all things you can say? The book’s lack of ongoing verbal consent is most problematic when it comes to ass-play. It is not sufficient for a man to, as the book directs him, indicate with exploratory touches that he is heading there, before he sticks a finger up her ass. Here is what the text actually says: “If it’s your first time [doing anal penetration], tease the general environs a bit with your finger and be sure to give her clear physical cues that you’re ‘approaching and entering.’” Just NO. That is a QUESTION you ask the person who gives you CONSENT for that. It’s not your power sex move you spring on her unannounced that’ll thrill her with the surprise of being unexpectedly anally penetrated, because there’s a difference between touching that area and entering that area.
I’d say verbal consent should apply even for penetrating a vagina with one’s fingers, and hopefully that’s pretty standard these days. Maybe she doesn’t want your fingers, bud! Maybe the external touching is doing it for her. But of course, a default inserting fingers stage is like step 4 of template 2 or whatever, no consent asked for.
Even when the author recommends letting the woman take control of the action - temporarily, of course! We can’t let go of the paradigm of the man in control. The intention for a woman riding a man’s tongue is for the man to "wear her out." Like, heaven forbid it would be pleasurable or enjoyable for her, or them both, for her to be in control. It has to be conveyed with this gross attitude of ‘let her think she’s really doing something.’ The metaphor used is a boxing match, where the man is going to "rope-a-dope her" by letting her tire herself out with blows so he can pummel an orgasm from her with his tongue when she’s exhausted herself. Oh my God, what on Earth. I guess Dworkin was right, and hetero sex really IS inherently an act violence after all. (/s)
I do recognize this is a seventeen-year-old book whose common assumptions do not quite reflect our current times. Even so, I think its assumptions about sexual techniques gained through sex research are still prevalent enough to comment upon. In this book, SCIENCE is often used to declare that when it comes to pleasuring women, some things will work, while other commonly given advice won’t. The book states, accurately, that the clitoris, with its large internal structure surrounding the vagina, is far more sensitive than many places within the vagina. But the book uses Kinsey’s research to declare that the insides of women’s vaginas past the clitoral cuff aren’t really that sensitive, so don’t use penile penetration to get her off, ever. But then it also re-labels the G-spot as “the clitoral cluster” that you stimulate with only your fingers because they can target it more easily than a penis. However, some women like penetrative sex for getting off, not in the least because it’s easier to move responsively, taking some control without hurting themselves against harder objects like fingers. Why dismiss something if it works for a particular woman? While countering the coital imperative is a positive thing, sweeping advice about what gets women off and what doesn’t as commonly get women off replaces one set of over-constraining sexual assumptions with another.
Finally, the routines themselves, the kinds of touches in them, at the suggested intensity and pacing, will only work on women who can bear to have their clitoris directly touched, and who like moderate to aggressive stimulation at a typically rapid pace for ten minutes at a time or more. Some women don’t like that kind of intense touching for that duration, and it simply doesn’t work for them. They could subject themselves to the whole orgasm routine while experiencing only an escalation of numbing sensation in response to overstimulation, being actually further away from orgasm at the finale than at the start. On some women, almost every single move recommended will be too much and too hard and therefore will not work. There should be a far more varied range of intensity within the recommended techniques, including adjacent-area touches that don’t have to escalate to direct ones, as well as whisper-light direct touches that aren’t fast-paced, with the focus on finding out what feels good, not presuming a set of assumptions about what will feel good. Overall, the emphasis should be on discovering what actually works for that woman individually without the template.