mrsjackflash's review against another edition
2.0
I was really disappointed in this book. I really really wanted to like it but I had to stop at page 103 out of the 166 pages that have actual content (the rest is bibliography.) The introduction had some interesting aspects about the author’s life and how it connects to the subject, but everything else felt like it was meandering and the bulk of the I formation was concepts I was already familiar with and would have preferred to hear about more in-depth, but sadly this book did not deliver. I guess I could recommend it for a reader who has little-to-no knowledge of gender studies but only if they’re comfortable with dry academic texts.
huntjr's review
2.0
Beginning and end was okay. The middle seemed to drag on and didn’t always come back around to the books thesis. It wasn’t disorganized nor was the information irrelevant, but I didn’t think it was connected well.
mihrreader's review
Ran out of time to finish reading it, but it was incredibly interesting and extremely informative. I'll definitely reread it.
someonelikeblue's review
informative
reflective
slow-paced
very informative. in audiobook-form some passages dragged a bit.
justabean_reads's review
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
This book is largely about the boundaries between what we now call straight and gay, how they formed, how they can be blurred, and what purposes they serve. I think I managed to give Nenya a twitch describing it, because it could seem like the author (who is queer) is trying to erase gay identities, but her point isn't that people aren't same-sex attracted, but that most of the boundaries we're currently going with are a) very new, b) based more on middle-class Victorian moral panic than on science or rationality.
The point being, that if we made up a demarcated concept of "normal sexuality" at some point in the 1800s—and are still ride or die with it now, even though massive other factors in how relationships and marriages work has changed in the last few hundred years—then we may be due for a rethink.
I felt like the author was tap dancing with facts a bit in the middle, but in the end concluded that that more underlined her point than weakened it. The book is well put together and argued, but on the other hand, I'm not completely sure of the intended audience. Curious queers and allies maybe?
The point being, that if we made up a demarcated concept of "normal sexuality" at some point in the 1800s—and are still ride or die with it now, even though massive other factors in how relationships and marriages work has changed in the last few hundred years—then we may be due for a rethink.
I felt like the author was tap dancing with facts a bit in the middle, but in the end concluded that that more underlined her point than weakened it. The book is well put together and argued, but on the other hand, I'm not completely sure of the intended audience. Curious queers and allies maybe?
makz_marie's review
5.0
This book didn't turn out to be quite what I'd hoped it would be - I was hoping Blank would delve into more ancient instances of sexual fluidity, such as the socially-sanctioned premarital male/male relationships of ancient Greece. That example is mentioned, briefly, but Blank barely touches anything earlier than the 1800s with any depth.
This book gets 5 stars anywhere.
It may not be what I thought it was, but it's still a fascinating historical look at the social construction of heterocentric ideals of love and romance. I'd recommend it to absolutely anyone with any interest in queer scholarship.
This book gets 5 stars anywhere.
It may not be what I thought it was, but it's still a fascinating historical look at the social construction of heterocentric ideals of love and romance. I'd recommend it to absolutely anyone with any interest in queer scholarship.