Though we here at the Cambridge Women’s Pornography Cooperative pride ourselves on our cutting edge research, we’re not above giving credit where credit’s due. And, this past week, we learned of some rather hot and sudsy findings from our peers in academia. Specifically, this MSNBC article, Gals make passes at guys who wash glasses came our way.

The findings?

*According to a May 2007 in American Journal of Public Health, a guy who pulls his own weight around the house isn’t just hot, he’s a boon for his lady’s health.

*Research conducted by Laurie A. Rudman, a psychologist at Rutgers University, also seems to point to a hot soapy love connection. Her study… found that men with feminist partners reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.*Researchers at the American University of Beirut studied 1,652 married couples and found that wives whose husbands were minimally involved in housework were 60 percent more likely to be distressed. “Our results showed a significant association between husbands’ involvement in housework and their wives’ psychosocial health,” wrote Marwan Khawaja, author of the study.

Marwan and Laurie: we could have saved you the grant writing! What’s not to love about a guy up to his arms in Dove?

Naturally, though, we’re gratified to have confirmation of our little Cooperative’s instincts. And those field findings do help explain why we’re constantly going back to the presses on our first book, Porn for Women, which now has 160,000 copies in print.

Which reminds us, it’s time to call the boys in shipping and order another tractor-trailer load.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Never a dull day at the Cambridge Women’s Pornography Cooperative (CWPC). Driven by demand for our first book, Porn for Women, the CWPC lab is running at full tilt as our team analyzes the reams of data collected from our most recent study, Porn for New Moms. Hot stuff! (Stay tuned: We’ll publish those findings in the spring.)

With that knowledge in hand, we’ve begun research for Phase 3 of the Porn for Women analysis. We know everyone wants different things, so we’re asking a brand new batch of recruits to tell us what really turns them on - and we need you!

So what’s your ultimate Porn for Women fantasy?

Tell us in the comments section below (ok, be anonymous if you’re shy). And please feel free to enlighten your friends with this call to action. We’ll gather the best responses into our forthcoming collection of Porn for Women.

Popularity: 13% [?]

We’ve noticed something really interesting here at the Cambridge Women’s Pornography Cooperative (CWPC). Like proud but nervous parents headed to a parent-teacher conference, we read our first book’s reviews on Amazon with bated breath. Hearing what people think of our work is more than mildly obsessive. But we just don’t know what to make of our baby’s grades: all A’s…and F’s?! Talk about extremes. In Amazon’s five-star rating system, Porn for Women has received zero lukewarm 3-star ratings, just resounding applause or jeering boo’s. Guess you either love it or you hate it.

So, our book gets some really negative reviews:

“In a world where real progressive women are out to demonstrate that their sex can have ambitions as grand and respectable as men, this book decides to step in and say ‘All women care about is housework *tee-hee!*’ One page features the model saying ‘Why don’t I buy a minivan so you can drive something fun?’ What’s the message here? That it’s better to be dependant on your partner’s income than to go out and earn a car by yourself?

Um, no. The message is, why should I drive the rumpus room on wheels? Let him drive it, and I’ll take the Audi TT convertible.

Is that sexist? Do I even care when the wind is blowing through my hair and my husband is kicking away empty juice boxes? The message is, let’s not assume Mommy is going to get the short end of the stick just because she’s Mommy. I think you’ve got it completely backwards. That review continues:

“No, I’m not going to buy a book of trite jokes that perpetuate gender stereotypes in order to deliver a passive-agressive [sic] point to you, honey.”

My! I think we could use a little porn for women in our lives, couldn’t we? This book may be exactly what you need. That, and a spell check. Fortunately, not everyone misunderstands this book. Here’s another review from a more clued-in reader:

“As an ardent First Amendment supporter and a feminist scholar who has done lots of research on sex work, porn, etc., I fully support women who enjoy ‘regular’ porn, or feminist porn that includes, well, sex, as this book does not. But to the reviewers who slammed this particular book for its ‘offensive’ assumption that women only find housework sexy, I think you’re missing the point. The book is not reifying…”

Oooh! “Reifying!” We like her!

“…the notion that women do not like sex. Nor are they claiming that ‘regular’ porn and this brand of ‘porn’ are mutually exclusive, or that women can’t appreciate both.”

Amen!

“They are merely expanding the concept of what’s considered sexy, what can be considered a turn-on, and what can be defined as sensual. Rather than narrowly define what is sexy as that which is explicitly sex-oriented (and such a narrow definition would be more offensive, I would think, than any photo in this book), this book evokes a spectrum, and encourages people to find the sensual in the everyday. And c’mon, anything that can make dull chores more exciting should be celebrated!”

Exactly. Isn’t having a partner who does the laundry, cooks dinner, changes the litter box, and generally shares in the household responsibilities a turn on? Damn right. If for no other reason than it lets me not worry about that stuff. And FREE TIME is sexy. Because when I’m not worrying about making dinner and cleaning up the house, my mind wanders to things that are much more fun…

—Betsy, Research Assistant, CWPC

Popularity: 9% [?]

Oh, stop it.

We cannot believe the uproar caused by our little book, Porn for Women! It wasn’t like we invaded a sovereign Middle Eastern country, or single handedly brought back leggings! People, please calm down.

Most of you love our porn. But, apparently, some of you hate our porn. And some of you just can’t make up your minds. So, today I’ll step out of the Cambridge Women’s Pornography Cooperative’s (CWPC) lab to address a few of the negative comments our book has received. Maybe in the end you’ll warm to our cold hard facts.

Complaint #1: Porn for Women implies that this porn will appeal to all women because women respond sexually as one robotic Borg. OK, I admit that we took some artistic license with the title. We toyed with Porn for Lots and Lots of Women, Porn for Most of the Women We Know, and Porn for Women, Except for the Women for Whom This Porn Isn’t. None of them quite had the ring of Porn for Women.

Seriously, aren’t we getting a little bit picky here? Do you think that the person who wrote The Dangerous Book for Boys was certain that all his ideas would in fact appeal to all boys? (Actually, judging by its freakishly rapid sales, maybe he did). No. Look, we tested this porn. We had actual women of all ages, shapes, sizes, and political bents come to our laboratories and view images. We had sensors, heart rate monitors, and all kinds of bio feedback devices. We found that stuff like this:

Figure #1:

I love a clean house

was more appealing to most women than this:

Figure #2:

Bottom line: this book is based on hard science. Rock hard science.

So we can’t apologize for the breadth of our material’s appeal. It simply IS appealing to a lot of women (OK, OK, not every single woman). It may not be for you, but a lot of us think this stuff:

Figure #3:

I like to get to these things before I have to be asked

is totally hot.

Next time we’ll address this question: is Porn for Women belittling women’s real needs by turning us into domestically obsessed, easy-to-please, empty-headed lap dogs? My goodness, we’ll have to think about that one.

-Gloria, Lab Manager, CWPC

Have something to say to us at the CWPC? Please post a comment below.

Popularity: 16% [?]