The Yes, Sir and Yes, Ma’am covers
A while ago I wrote in this space about my admiration of Bitchy Jones. She addressed a lot of the low-level feelings I had about not really fitting in with kinkland, including the sexism of mainstream femdom and the “if it’s me dominating you, why am I the one who feels like a sex object?” sadnesses I experienced the first and only time I dipped my toes into the dominant end of the pervert-pool.
So, when she wrote a post titled ‘Prepare to be Enraged’ about the sister volume to Yes, Sir, I knew I would need to respond.
Let me tell you the saddest thing. No, actually the saddest thing is the appalling sexism. These books are about straight people. The stories are about het couples. Have you ever seen anything more: hey women? You like sex? – Well guess what, you can FUCK OFF. Oh, unless you want to stand around looking purty, you can do that, but you need to know, YOU COME SECOND IF AT ALL, BITCH (and I don’t mean that in a hot way.)
I have to admit that I’m very sympathetic to her point. In such gender-complementary hetero volumes, why do (slim, white, conventionally-attractive) women appear on both covers? I can only assume it’s because that’s what the marketers think will be the most eye-catching on a shelf. Given the preponderance of bare male chests on the covers of romance novels and female-oriented erotica sites like Ellora’s Cave, I have to wonder about their market research. Also, we all know that female sexuality isn’t about looking pretty and, with specific exceptions, being kinky isn’t about having a closetful of shiny outfits.
At the same time, I own some shiny outfits myself. Sometimes I wear them. The times that I’ve worn them and the times I’ve felt objectified or ashamed or put second have not overlapped. In fact, my biggest sexual humiliations (and not the hot kind) occurred when I was wearing very ordinary clothes.
Bitchy does concede that the cover isn’t necessarily reflective of the quality of the content. It’s worth pointing out that Cleis Press is explicitly a feminist publisher and Rachel Kramer Bussel is active in feminist concerns. Bussel also responded intelligently a few months ago to a similar criticism of Dirty Girls.
In the end I’m of two minds. As much as feminism and sexual expression are bound up in each other, they can frequently be difficult to reconcile. I frequently find myself making excuses for one side or the other and often wind up thinking to myself that it’s best not to dive too deep.
On one hand, yes, sex is for women too! We can/should be pursuing our own desires and having sex on our own terms.
On the other hand — wanting to have sex with men frequently means seeking male approval in some form. And isn’t that what we’re trying to get away from?
Being simultaneously sexual and a serious person with serious concerns is still a luxury largely reserved for men, who will often sneer at a woman wearing a revealing Halloween costume (not to be taken seriously) even if they know she reads Kierkegaard in her spare time, and even though there are men at the party dressed like Sexy Cop.
I wish erotica publishers would put more hot men on covers of erotica volumes, especially the ones intended for hetero female audiences. But is sneering at the woman on the Yes, Ma’am cover, regardless of the content of the book, anything like the Serious Man at the Halloween party sneering at Sexy Nurse?
I can’t figure it out. Best not to dive too deep.