Copstick says the Erotic Review will have almost exclusively male writers on her watch because she doesn't want the magazine to be "drowned in estrogen." She adds, "I think women, too many of them, whether it's nature or nurture or politics, they're not straightforward about sex." See, it's okay that she's basically calling most women inhibited prudes, because she used the phrase "nature or nurture." She's so enlightened! She continues,
It's almost like writing about food ... Ladies who lunch, should not really write about food because they don't really love food. They don't salivate at the thought of a great steak.
We get it: women only like salads and hand-holding, so they obviously can't write about primitive, manly desires for food and sex. Is it nature or nurture? Who knows! Point is, men are way more in touch with sex than women are. Like how they know exactly where a woman's clitoris is, and how to make her orgasm. Or perhaps women's pleasure isn't the kind of thing Copstick thinks it's important to be "straightforward" about. She's clearly the expert, though — since she "loves sex," she is able to capture the correct "scratch and itch burst of endorphins" that makes good sex writing. Most women are frigid and hate sex, so they know nothing of the joys of "itchy" erotica.
Besides its obvious all-women-suck-but-me exceptionalism (so handily exemplified elsewhere by Megan Fox), Copstick's assertion is just plain wrong. In a few minutes, we thought of the following steamy female sex writers: Annie Sprinkle, Anais Nin, Susie Bright, Pauline Reage, Erica Jong, Anne Rice under her pseudonym A.N. Roquelaire, and Rachel Kramer Bussel, whose In the Flesh Reading Series includes many more women reading their erotica — including, on July 16, Megan. We bet you can think of other women writers whose take on sex is a lot more than "straightforward."