What do you think?
The Last Straight Woman: On Desiring Men
A fiercely intelligent, funny, and much-needed reality check on the state of heterosexual women.
The Last Straight Woman is a call to set aside the baggage of what female heterosexuality evokes, in favour of a definition of what it actually women liking men. No more, no less. That a woman is straight implies nothing about how conventional or submissive she is. It does not mean she wants to be accommodating to men generally.
Using that simple definition as its launching point, the book moves to the history of women’s desire for men, and how it is ultimately separate from much of the history of marriage. Phoebe then turns to the sexual revolution of the late 1960s, and to second-wave feminist critiques of heterosexuality—a pattern that repeated itself when early-2000s sex positivity gave way to post-#MeToo reticence. One sees men’s desires pitted against women’s need for safety, with women’s own lusts all but forgotten. She examines the ways everyone from queer theorists to evolutionary psychologists has cast doubt on the authenticity of women’s interest in men, as well as the frustratingly widespread notion that female sexuality is fundamentally about wanting others to find you attractive. She makes sense of a society where many young adults are 2SLGBTQI+ but a lot of the women so identifying lead effectively heterosexual lives. Is it men these women have gone off, or just the confining gender roles associated with being a straight lady?
The Last Straight Woman offers a way forward for straight women. In lieu of the sexy woman men are gazing at, why not be the woman too busy gazing at sexy men to have bothered with her own looks? Phoebe offers not a self-improvement PowerPoint, but rather an assortment of characters from 1990s British sitcoms, a rare world where the frumpy but horny straight lady had her day. She does not demand that 21st century women model themselves after supporting characters from long-forgotten television shows but rather merely consider the possibility that straight women are all one argyle sweater-vest away from true liberation.
The Last Straight Woman is a call to set aside the baggage of what female heterosexuality evokes, in favour of a definition of what it actually women liking men. No more, no less. That a woman is straight implies nothing about how conventional or submissive she is. It does not mean she wants to be accommodating to men generally.
Using that simple definition as its launching point, the book moves to the history of women’s desire for men, and how it is ultimately separate from much of the history of marriage. Phoebe then turns to the sexual revolution of the late 1960s, and to second-wave feminist critiques of heterosexuality—a pattern that repeated itself when early-2000s sex positivity gave way to post-#MeToo reticence. One sees men’s desires pitted against women’s need for safety, with women’s own lusts all but forgotten. She examines the ways everyone from queer theorists to evolutionary psychologists has cast doubt on the authenticity of women’s interest in men, as well as the frustratingly widespread notion that female sexuality is fundamentally about wanting others to find you attractive. She makes sense of a society where many young adults are 2SLGBTQI+ but a lot of the women so identifying lead effectively heterosexual lives. Is it men these women have gone off, or just the confining gender roles associated with being a straight lady?
The Last Straight Woman offers a way forward for straight women. In lieu of the sexy woman men are gazing at, why not be the woman too busy gazing at sexy men to have bothered with her own looks? Phoebe offers not a self-improvement PowerPoint, but rather an assortment of characters from 1990s British sitcoms, a rare world where the frumpy but horny straight lady had her day. She does not demand that 21st century women model themselves after supporting characters from long-forgotten television shows but rather merely consider the possibility that straight women are all one argyle sweater-vest away from true liberation.
Audible Audio
Published May 19, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
July 28, 2026
This is a book of essays about the experience of straight womanhood and the ways society misunderstands that experience. Not all of the author’s conclusions resonated with me, but there were some takeaways so good that I wanted to underline them (and would have, if I hadn’t been reading this in library ebook form). The author engages smartly with academic theory as well as pop culture (perhaps leaning a bit TOO heavily on examples from 20th century sitcoms, tbh) while working in some excellent jokes. This book made me think deeply about the different ways people experience attraction.
June 16, 2026
I was actually excited to read this book because: 1. I like men 2. I like a provocateuse now and then and 3. it actually deals with very real & layered social/sexual dynamics that feminism doesn’t want/know how to talk about!
BUT ultimately felt this analysis didn’t give quite enough credence to the problems and disparities that continue to exist between men and women.
The author’s bias is pretty clear as a woman who apparently has never been mistreated by men, or experienced any inklings of queerness in herself. Good for her I guess 🫡 but this bias made her stance a bit one dimensional from my perspective.
My final note is that I enjoy pop culture chit chat as much as the next person—and there is truly such a gold mine of present day hetero female pop culture material to reference (trad wives, the romance novel industrial complex, etc, etc) it was an odd choice to spend 60% of the book recapping obscure 20th century sitcoms. It got to feel a bit like listening to people recount their dreams lol. Very meaningful to them, no doubt.
BUT ultimately felt this analysis didn’t give quite enough credence to the problems and disparities that continue to exist between men and women.
The author’s bias is pretty clear as a woman who apparently has never been mistreated by men, or experienced any inklings of queerness in herself. Good for her I guess 🫡 but this bias made her stance a bit one dimensional from my perspective.
My final note is that I enjoy pop culture chit chat as much as the next person—and there is truly such a gold mine of present day hetero female pop culture material to reference (trad wives, the romance novel industrial complex, etc, etc) it was an odd choice to spend 60% of the book recapping obscure 20th century sitcoms. It got to feel a bit like listening to people recount their dreams lol. Very meaningful to them, no doubt.
May 22, 2026
This was almost a 4/5 but the skewed (+ increasingly so as the book goes on) sitcom-episode-recap-to-social-commentary ratio got just a tad tiresome for me. Sorry to all the Channel 4 re-run enjoyers out there! I’m sure you folks will get a kick out of the other half of this book’s page count.
For real though—television is a form of content that is analyzed best in the form of a video essay. Phoebe Maltz Bovy should unironically start a YouTube channel.
Rest of the book was quite compelling and insightful though! My biggest complaint outside the TV stuff is that this book feels like 95% a negative project (people sure have difficulty acknowledging straight women’s sexual attraction to men in 50 different ways, huh?). A little bit more space could’ve been used to elaborate on what sorts of changes in the culture she’d like to see re: perceptions of straight women’s sexuality, even if rooted in just her personal wishes and experiences. That being said, the frumpy women and himbo stuff is a nice sprinkling of a positive vision and was interesting to think about
For real though—television is a form of content that is analyzed best in the form of a video essay. Phoebe Maltz Bovy should unironically start a YouTube channel.
Rest of the book was quite compelling and insightful though! My biggest complaint outside the TV stuff is that this book feels like 95% a negative project (people sure have difficulty acknowledging straight women’s sexual attraction to men in 50 different ways, huh?). A little bit more space could’ve been used to elaborate on what sorts of changes in the culture she’d like to see re: perceptions of straight women’s sexuality, even if rooted in just her personal wishes and experiences. That being said, the frumpy women and himbo stuff is a nice sprinkling of a positive vision and was interesting to think about
July 3, 2026
This is an easy and sometimes amusing read, though I think the author, despite her ability to deconstruct "queerness" as an orientation, has still not quite figured out why heterosexuality works the way it does. She also professes to a libido that appears nowhere in evidence and is still incomparable to the supposed exaggeration of male libidinousness, which while she realizes exists, fails to map the social consequences thereof and why so many cultural institutions were built to channel and regulate it (some mechanisms of which necessarily required things of women and worked because women on average have substantially lower interest in promiscuous sex).
I can return to say more, but it's unclear whether Bovy has specified the problem with straight women today. If their desire is so malleable that social conditions and experimentation weigh so heavily on them, they aren't civilizationally changing in the way the innate male drive has been. Young male syndrome? Paris? Genghis Khan, anyone?
I can return to say more, but it's unclear whether Bovy has specified the problem with straight women today. If their desire is so malleable that social conditions and experimentation weigh so heavily on them, they aren't civilizationally changing in the way the innate male drive has been. Young male syndrome? Paris? Genghis Khan, anyone?
May 26, 2026
This book probably didn't help me better understand anyone in my life, and to make matters worse, most of the cultural touchstones critically examined therein don't resonate with sitcom avoiders—I'm almost the perfect non-target audience. That said, I couldn't put the book down and consumed the entire volume over the course of a holiday weekend, so the writing itself must've been quite compelling.
May 30, 2026
A terrifically fun gender studies book that goes where most 2010s-era sex positivity failed to: the idea that female heterosexuality might be less about *being* desired than about desire itself.
June 19, 2026
Land acknowledgment for wife guys
June 23, 2026
A mostly interesting and incisive response to the current strain of feminism in progressive circles and an attempt to unload the baggage that's heaped on the idea of being a straight woman (basic, trad, shallow, etc).
This would've been an easy 4 stars, but the final chapters lean far too heavily on recaps of 50 year old sitcom episodes. It feels less like examining case studies to make a point than listening to a clueless party guest explaining their hyperfixation. The conclusion is the worst offender; it barely summarizes the book's thesis and lands with a splat after gushing about 5 or 6 different TV shows without stopping to take a breath.
This would've been an easy 4 stars, but the final chapters lean far too heavily on recaps of 50 year old sitcom episodes. It feels less like examining case studies to make a point than listening to a clueless party guest explaining their hyperfixation. The conclusion is the worst offender; it barely summarizes the book's thesis and lands with a splat after gushing about 5 or 6 different TV shows without stopping to take a breath.
July 2, 2026
3.29/5
This did not have me, mind you, I'm not the target audience. The target is clearly the sliver of Cis-Het women who want to believe that this "fag fad" is leaving them behind. The bullseye is the need for someone (Phoebe Maltz Bovy) to shake her until she accepts her brain-body relationship and just enjoy the _members_ of MANkind.
This did not have me, mind you, I'm not the target audience. The target is clearly the sliver of Cis-Het women who want to believe that this "fag fad" is leaving them behind. The bullseye is the need for someone (Phoebe Maltz Bovy) to shake her until she accepts her brain-body relationship and just enjoy the _members_ of MANkind.
June 4, 2026
Okay, I have Thoughts on this book! Firstly: the structure was definitely interesting but fundamentally did not work for me overall—the focus on sitcoms and the sort of episodic analysis grew tedious quickly and frankly distracted me rather than augment or illustrate any points Bovy was trying to make, though I do appreciate the pop culture lens here, I just think it could've been done far more effectively with a different structure. As for the content/ideas themselves: the book is undoubtedly, at times, compelling and wryly incisive. Bovy is cannily attuned to the precarity and problems of a certain thread of pseudo-feminist thinking that imagines women *solely* as the Receivers of others’ desire and never the Desirers themselves, and I really appreciated this specific line of analysis throughout the book. It's so refreshing to read a book that argues against the pathologizing of women's desire as an inherently unreal or redundant thing; many women do *actually* desire men and I think that queer theory (which is my Lifeblood so I owe it everything lol) is (justifiably) far more concerned with investigating the ways heterosexuality is an oppressive and compulsory force for women rather than engaging with what actually *is* genuine or desire-oriented within it. It's just not the angle that queer theory tends to take up nor does it necessarily need to, but I did appreciate Bovy's insistence that actually, women's desire for men is not always 100% the effect of comp het or a thin and unsexual force. Yes, women exist who want men more than men want them, which is a reality that I think feminist thought has yet to actually fully engage with in a substantive way, though I'd love to see a deeper analysis of how this demographic of women-who-want-more-than-they're-wanted overlaps with colonial/Eurocentric ideas of beauty, ableism, fatphobia, racism and such, though I understand that's not exactly the terrain Bovy is trying to take up. But kudos to her for a lot of the ideas and contradictions she raises here, though what disappointed me was how, overall, this was a largely negative project that points out a lot of valid, interesting observations and problems without ever really seeking to imagine what positive reimaginings might emerge in the future.
For me, this book felt way too uninterested in taking up the actual inequities and undeniable violence embedded into the normative, dominant version of heterosexuality that exists in American culture. I especially feel that Bovy's reading of Jane Ward's The Tragedy of Heterosexuality fundamentally misunderstands the theoretical impulses that govern Ward’s book and Bovy takes what felt like an exhaustingly defensive stance against Ward’s analyses of heterosexual dynamics. I would be way more interested in reading a text that engages fully and honestly with the ideologies that structure and dominate how heterosexuality actually tends to operate—almost inextricably from patriarchy—and that doesn’t deny this reality but rather seeks to reimagine and recuperate heterosexual desire *anyway*. Maybe I’d like to see an approach to investigating women’s desire for men as an affectively tangled, thorny form of cruel optimism (hehe Berlant, yes I'm annoying sorry) that nonetheless is very real and not in need of disavowal. We can engage with the ways patriarchy and misogyny have (imo, indisputably) structured the *dominant, normative* models and representations of heterosexuality without forcing women to relinquish/disavow their heterosexual desire altogether. I don't think these aims are mutually exclusive but I felt like this book did too much work to defend and soften the very real inequities of hetero dynamics rather than engage with those realities.
For me, this book felt way too uninterested in taking up the actual inequities and undeniable violence embedded into the normative, dominant version of heterosexuality that exists in American culture. I especially feel that Bovy's reading of Jane Ward's The Tragedy of Heterosexuality fundamentally misunderstands the theoretical impulses that govern Ward’s book and Bovy takes what felt like an exhaustingly defensive stance against Ward’s analyses of heterosexual dynamics. I would be way more interested in reading a text that engages fully and honestly with the ideologies that structure and dominate how heterosexuality actually tends to operate—almost inextricably from patriarchy—and that doesn’t deny this reality but rather seeks to reimagine and recuperate heterosexual desire *anyway*. Maybe I’d like to see an approach to investigating women’s desire for men as an affectively tangled, thorny form of cruel optimism (hehe Berlant, yes I'm annoying sorry) that nonetheless is very real and not in need of disavowal. We can engage with the ways patriarchy and misogyny have (imo, indisputably) structured the *dominant, normative* models and representations of heterosexuality without forcing women to relinquish/disavow their heterosexual desire altogether. I don't think these aims are mutually exclusive but I felt like this book did too much work to defend and soften the very real inequities of hetero dynamics rather than engage with those realities.
August 9, 2026
Deeply, deeply shallow. Maltz Bovy seems to have spent a little too much time on a TERFy side of some social media (quotes some famous TERFs and some of the *Slate* comments use the term “trans-identified”. She insists she’s not a terf, and I do genuinely believe she’s not lying, though when you feel the need to clarify that’s not usually a great sign… she generally seems to accept that trans people are real - but she tends to spend a lot of time deciding which of the people she’s quoting are “sufficiently trans” etc… she quotes buck angel to prove that certain people aren’t transitioning enough to justify using their pronouns. Slick move lmao) and seems to have absorbed their fundamental inability to identify the actual culprit of the issue that they’ve noticed. Plus (of course) their obsession with trans people… for a book by a cis straight woman about being straight, you’d think she’d spend some more time talking about people who are neither trans nor gay. It’s crazy that I as a person who has read the book about being a straight woman by a straight woman know what she thinks about trans people. Just to be clear. She is in particular very exasperated with the “prevalence” of trans men. She refers to straight women as the “most maligned” group of people, which is frankly asinine.
Minor “spoilers” (if a Think Piece with no thought behind it can be said to have spoilers) below:
It’s, like, almost there. She’s identified an issue (heteropessimism) and then somehow arrives at the conclusion that the issue is primarily that gay people have such political cachet as to make the concept of straightness uncool in a way that matters.
She identifies an issue (that being in a relationship with a straight man sometimes carries with it an implication of being conservative) and claims that trans women are exempt from it (factually untrue. Arguably this attitude is even more pervasive for people who are “already queer”). She does not, for example, note that this belief is so widespread because of the history of marriage, or attempt to suggest any ways straight women should be able to “reclaim” the idea of heterosexuality by being in some way more “modern.” Quite honestly I was expecting a full chapter on how polyamory is actually oppression or something. This bit just reads very woe-is-me.
She observes a fact (women are less prone to using hookup apps à la grindr) and determines that female and male sexuality must be wholly different - surely there is no societal training implanted into women (writ large, of course) that could disincentivize them from pure-sex-hookup-apps.
She reads a quote from someone who self-identified throughout their life as “A butch lesbian”->”A straight trans man”->”a gay trans man” and concludes that the reason he never considered himself a straight woman is because of the societal pressures to not be straight as a woman, which are (checks notes) lesser than the pressures to be cis? She makes absurd claims about the lives of people she’s never met based on experiences she doesn’t have. Surely the issue isn’t the gender roles that are often forced upon people in straight relationships - especially women. Surely the problem in this particular person’s life was that he wasn’t allowed to be a straight woman societally, and not that the social role of “girlfriend” carries with it some complexities that, I don’t know, maybe a trans man wouldn’t be comfortable with!
You should read this (in particular the chapter “Are Straight Women Gay Men”) if you have a hankering for genuine idiocy that will do nothing but piss you off. The fact that someone published this - and didn’t just laugh at her submission - is proof that gay people don’t run the world like she seems to think.
Minor “spoilers” (if a Think Piece with no thought behind it can be said to have spoilers) below:
It’s, like, almost there. She’s identified an issue (heteropessimism) and then somehow arrives at the conclusion that the issue is primarily that gay people have such political cachet as to make the concept of straightness uncool in a way that matters.
She identifies an issue (that being in a relationship with a straight man sometimes carries with it an implication of being conservative) and claims that trans women are exempt from it (factually untrue. Arguably this attitude is even more pervasive for people who are “already queer”). She does not, for example, note that this belief is so widespread because of the history of marriage, or attempt to suggest any ways straight women should be able to “reclaim” the idea of heterosexuality by being in some way more “modern.” Quite honestly I was expecting a full chapter on how polyamory is actually oppression or something. This bit just reads very woe-is-me.
She observes a fact (women are less prone to using hookup apps à la grindr) and determines that female and male sexuality must be wholly different - surely there is no societal training implanted into women (writ large, of course) that could disincentivize them from pure-sex-hookup-apps.
She reads a quote from someone who self-identified throughout their life as “A butch lesbian”->”A straight trans man”->”a gay trans man” and concludes that the reason he never considered himself a straight woman is because of the societal pressures to not be straight as a woman, which are (checks notes) lesser than the pressures to be cis? She makes absurd claims about the lives of people she’s never met based on experiences she doesn’t have. Surely the issue isn’t the gender roles that are often forced upon people in straight relationships - especially women. Surely the problem in this particular person’s life was that he wasn’t allowed to be a straight woman societally, and not that the social role of “girlfriend” carries with it some complexities that, I don’t know, maybe a trans man wouldn’t be comfortable with!
You should read this (in particular the chapter “Are Straight Women Gay Men”) if you have a hankering for genuine idiocy that will do nothing but piss you off. The fact that someone published this - and didn’t just laugh at her submission - is proof that gay people don’t run the world like she seems to think.
July 13, 2026
If I'd read this quickly, as I tend to do, I might have given this book a much lower score. after all, she has a knee-jerk negative response to sex-realism feminists (like Louis Perry and Mary Harrington), calling them conservatives who don't call themselves conservative (interesting how some groups get a reverential capitulation to their declared identities, but not others). It's meticulously foot-noted and there isn't a cultural moment, essay/article, or internet controversy missed. And read slowly, I really *got* Maltz Bovy's wry tone and enjoyed the humour of her writing. But it doesn't flow.... As in, I learned (and remembered) a lot while in the process of reading, but can't really recall much of it now. Or simply: it's missing the thesis with supporting main arguments that you usually find in non-fiction.
that said, here are the memorable takeways:
1. Queerness functions as a proxy for complexity. Taylor Swift became more interesting or relatable (and certainly worthy of more respect) when she was projected to be potentially gay. "Examined thru a Straightness Studies lens, Taylor Swift is either an airhead or a serious artist worthy of attention." p.113
2. Yes - there are now Straightness Studies and they are mostly helmed by outside observers, namely queer scholars and intellectuals. Weirdly (in the face of the decade-deep 'own stories' trend), Maltz Bovy excuses the lack of heterosexuals with "This might seem counterintuitive but makes perfect sense. If you are straight, you're probably not giving straightness itself much thought." p.90 (Except isn't this book's existence a direct challenge to that assertion?)
3. Thank god I'm not the only one who sees this: the so-called concern for straight women acts as a mask for their mockery.
4. The viral "Cat Person" story (which always mystified me) showcases a sexuality of *being* desired over actual desire. This book is trying to state that women do possess desire.
I guess, ultimately, I just don't agree with Maltz Bovy who thinks that straight women's preponderance is a forever given. That heterosexuality in practise will continue regardless of the names we give it or the identifies we profess to have. (Damn I hate post-modernism's destruction of language. As a writer, I'm surprised Maltz Bovy hasn't a stronger attachment to the tools of her trade) Fads come and go but sometimes fads come and stay. Eight years ago Miley Cyrus said she might be married but she wasn't a boring straight lady - heteropessimism might be here to stay.
that said, here are the memorable takeways:
1. Queerness functions as a proxy for complexity. Taylor Swift became more interesting or relatable (and certainly worthy of more respect) when she was projected to be potentially gay. "Examined thru a Straightness Studies lens, Taylor Swift is either an airhead or a serious artist worthy of attention." p.113
2. Yes - there are now Straightness Studies and they are mostly helmed by outside observers, namely queer scholars and intellectuals. Weirdly (in the face of the decade-deep 'own stories' trend), Maltz Bovy excuses the lack of heterosexuals with "This might seem counterintuitive but makes perfect sense. If you are straight, you're probably not giving straightness itself much thought." p.90 (Except isn't this book's existence a direct challenge to that assertion?)
3. Thank god I'm not the only one who sees this: the so-called concern for straight women acts as a mask for their mockery.
4. The viral "Cat Person" story (which always mystified me) showcases a sexuality of *being* desired over actual desire. This book is trying to state that women do possess desire.
I guess, ultimately, I just don't agree with Maltz Bovy who thinks that straight women's preponderance is a forever given. That heterosexuality in practise will continue regardless of the names we give it or the identifies we profess to have. (Damn I hate post-modernism's destruction of language. As a writer, I'm surprised Maltz Bovy hasn't a stronger attachment to the tools of her trade) Fads come and go but sometimes fads come and stay. Eight years ago Miley Cyrus said she might be married but she wasn't a boring straight lady - heteropessimism might be here to stay.
June 26, 2026
As a kid, I used to read copies of YM or Seventeen that my sisters left lying around the house. If not for that early introduction into how girls see boys, though, I would most likely believe that straight women are not attracted to men at all. Popular discourse of the last fifteen years has not only made straight women sound anachronistic and hopelessly uncool, it has made being a straight women feel politically untenable.
And this is not a fringe position, evidently. Bovy cites figures and stats and sources that show just how fed up some women are with the heteronormative cis lifestyle. The lengths some Gen Z women will go to avoid being dubbed "straight" while still nevertheless dating and having sex with men are remarkable.
Bovy writes clearly and persuasively. There is a bemused quality to her observations, a good-natured exasperation. Her voice is the best part of the book, actually. At first I was confused by just how much of it consists of analyses of British sitcoms, but then I read Bovy's bio on the back flap: "[Relating] contemporary North American issues to 1990s British sitcoms" is her métier.
The section where she dismantles the oft-repeated claim that women do not desire men sexually so much as enjoy the thought of men desiring THEM is the best part of the book. Another strong section is the one where she analyzes another of the central tenets of Ban Men Feminism: that heterosexuality is an imposed social construct and without it, most (if not all) women would either pursue relationships with other women or remain single for life. Bovy also traces just how contemporary culture got to the point where it is now assumed that all straight women find male attention to be, at best, an imposition and, at worst, dangerous.
I hadn't exactly thought about it before but I can totally see how some straight women are unable to relate to the stance of someone like supermodel Emily Ratajkowski, who views almost all male attention as gross and unwanted. But I can now also see why those same women might bite their tongues when it comes to defending their own desires.
This was a good read. Not a polemic, but not a personal memoir either. A strong peice of cultural criticism.
And this is not a fringe position, evidently. Bovy cites figures and stats and sources that show just how fed up some women are with the heteronormative cis lifestyle. The lengths some Gen Z women will go to avoid being dubbed "straight" while still nevertheless dating and having sex with men are remarkable.
Bovy writes clearly and persuasively. There is a bemused quality to her observations, a good-natured exasperation. Her voice is the best part of the book, actually. At first I was confused by just how much of it consists of analyses of British sitcoms, but then I read Bovy's bio on the back flap: "[Relating] contemporary North American issues to 1990s British sitcoms" is her métier.
The section where she dismantles the oft-repeated claim that women do not desire men sexually so much as enjoy the thought of men desiring THEM is the best part of the book. Another strong section is the one where she analyzes another of the central tenets of Ban Men Feminism: that heterosexuality is an imposed social construct and without it, most (if not all) women would either pursue relationships with other women or remain single for life. Bovy also traces just how contemporary culture got to the point where it is now assumed that all straight women find male attention to be, at best, an imposition and, at worst, dangerous.
I hadn't exactly thought about it before but I can totally see how some straight women are unable to relate to the stance of someone like supermodel Emily Ratajkowski, who views almost all male attention as gross and unwanted. But I can now also see why those same women might bite their tongues when it comes to defending their own desires.
This was a good read. Not a polemic, but not a personal memoir either. A strong peice of cultural criticism.
July 4, 2026
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this book, aside from the fact that the author has thought way harder about female sexuality than it has ever occured to me to think about.
This book seemed to cover 3-4 entirely separate areas, and I wish it had chosen to focus on just one:
* The idea of "straightness" being synonymous with "boring" or "narrow-minded", and how this is playing out (in both queer communities and straight communities) in the ways people identify themselves.
* How female sexuality is depicted in media (as explored through lots and lots and lots of references to very old sitcoms). Some analysis were interesting, but I would have LOVED some more up-to-date examples like Game of Thrones, instead of hearing recounts of Keeping Up Appearances and The Golden Girls episodes.
* The actual exploration of women's sexuality, from whether all women are "naturally" sexually fluid, to how women feel or express desire, to whether women are more turned on by how someone is turned on by them. This was the most interesting part of the book.
* And other parts exploring the links between sexuality and politics (ie, women turning their relationships into political battlegrounds).
The author is clearly intelligent and well-reasoned, but the book still felt weirdly shallow to me.
How TV sitcoms portrayed female sexuality in the 70s and 80s says more about TV standards at the time than how women actually feel about desire or themselves. When the author spoke about queer people pitying "the poor straights" for living such miserable little lives, I was befuddled as to whether this perspective is one wide-spread enough to warrant discussion, or whether it's just the opinion of a small vocal minority (or even just something designed to be inflammatory for clicks).
I applaud the author for challenging some perspectives that have gained prevalence over the last few decades, and for proudly standing up for straight women everywhere (we exist!). But I couldn't help but feel like she was asking the wrong questions, or looking in the wrong places for her answers.
This book seemed to cover 3-4 entirely separate areas, and I wish it had chosen to focus on just one:
* The idea of "straightness" being synonymous with "boring" or "narrow-minded", and how this is playing out (in both queer communities and straight communities) in the ways people identify themselves.
* How female sexuality is depicted in media (as explored through lots and lots and lots of references to very old sitcoms). Some analysis were interesting, but I would have LOVED some more up-to-date examples like Game of Thrones, instead of hearing recounts of Keeping Up Appearances and The Golden Girls episodes.
* The actual exploration of women's sexuality, from whether all women are "naturally" sexually fluid, to how women feel or express desire, to whether women are more turned on by how someone is turned on by them. This was the most interesting part of the book.
* And other parts exploring the links between sexuality and politics (ie, women turning their relationships into political battlegrounds).
The author is clearly intelligent and well-reasoned, but the book still felt weirdly shallow to me.
How TV sitcoms portrayed female sexuality in the 70s and 80s says more about TV standards at the time than how women actually feel about desire or themselves. When the author spoke about queer people pitying "the poor straights" for living such miserable little lives, I was befuddled as to whether this perspective is one wide-spread enough to warrant discussion, or whether it's just the opinion of a small vocal minority (or even just something designed to be inflammatory for clicks).
I applaud the author for challenging some perspectives that have gained prevalence over the last few decades, and for proudly standing up for straight women everywhere (we exist!). But I couldn't help but feel like she was asking the wrong questions, or looking in the wrong places for her answers.
July 3, 2026
I had to speed read this because it was due at the library earlier than I realized.
I felt like this was a “woe is me, I’m a straight woman.”
A lot of the pop culture references felt dated as well, I would have liked more recent references (other than Taylor Swift, which seemed to be a favorite/not favourite of this author).
I agree that there is a narrative that it’s gross to like men, but straight women have hardly been the most oppressed group (compared to the LGBTQ+). Like, sure it may feel strange to like men, when there are people saying that men give the ick, but I feel like that’s a small minority and not actually a problem? Are we too online? Maybe it’s a sign that men and the patriarchy have fucked us all, and this is a reflection of that reckoning.
I felt like this was a “woe is me, I’m a straight woman.”
A lot of the pop culture references felt dated as well, I would have liked more recent references (other than Taylor Swift, which seemed to be a favorite/not favourite of this author).
I agree that there is a narrative that it’s gross to like men, but straight women have hardly been the most oppressed group (compared to the LGBTQ+). Like, sure it may feel strange to like men, when there are people saying that men give the ick, but I feel like that’s a small minority and not actually a problem? Are we too online? Maybe it’s a sign that men and the patriarchy have fucked us all, and this is a reflection of that reckoning.
August 3, 2026
Having read a few weeks back, I suppose what I'll remember most about this one was the Himbo discussion, which I doubt will take up much mental space going forward. The same cannot be said of the bathroom soap dispenser mention; what male monster are out there not dealing with this? Did they not, as I did, have to specifically buy a see through glass dispenser as they got completely and utterly annoyed with the non-clear prior bottle that one could not tell when it was close to being empty or would overfill it with soft soap getting everywhere? Do they not specifically purchase the fluid soaps that are less perfumy in a futile effort to keep overbearing scents down to a minimum in the bathroom? Who are these layabouts? And how do I become one amongst their ranks?
May 25, 2026
I find that the book indeed covers an underrepresented subject - or a subject that, let's say, feels underrepresented in current times. It tackles many popular myths, there were many moments in the book I felt 'finally, someone said it out loud, and someone from the mainstream media establishment, no less'.
June 1, 2026
Such an engaging read a hugely readable, eminently quotable corrective to all the frantic online handwringing about falling birth rates, heteropessimism, the manosphere and the death of romance. People, we’re gonna be just fine. And women are still going to want men.
Did Not Finish
June 2, 2026Enjoyable I just kept finding myself choosing to listen to other books over this one. I may pick it up again but for now I'm moving it off my currently reading list
July 1, 2026
Your ignorance is showing when you make fun of asexuals. It isn't ok and encourages discrimination.
Read
July 9, 2026Sao ko để tao viết hả
July 10, 2026
this was not what i thought it was gonna be... for someone so against woke opinions she sure makes a lot of woke opinions.. one good point sandwiched between two unhinged opinions... how sad
September 8, 2026
Funny and interesting.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews