Reviews
The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century by Louise Perry
dr_feline's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
cfaulstich's review against another edition
5.0
A provocative exploration of the costs of the sexual revolution on women. At times the argument goes too far, simplifying a complex situation like the choice to get divorced or not. However, overall an interesting and relevant book that argues against the current sex-positive feminism from a feminist perspective.
ciaochow's review against another edition
4.0
When people ask if I'm a feminist, I can't help but to answer, “I guess so, but also not really?”
Whether you agree with her or not, Louise Perry's writing is really thought-provoking. There were many parts of this book I really enjoyed and found myself agreeing with — from her firm attitude towards porn, to open discussions about loveless/violent sex.
An unyielding feminist and as someone who has worked closely with vulnerable women, Louise Perry writes from a unique perspective arguing against the belief that modern-day ‘sexual freedom’ is truly liberating. She is right, mostly.
But I can also imagine someone countering her argument by deeming it self-serving and insufficient. She encourages readers to ‘get married’, and that (monogamous) ’marriage is good’ - while her core argument for marriage is its commitment and stability (which I do agree with), where the institution of marriage is no longer respected in society, divorce seems like an eventual outcome anyway. (I suppose I think that as individuals we shouldn’t *just* get married as a solution, but rather we should envision a culture that respects marriage more.)
I don’t know if she addressed this, but there was also an inherent belief that women would/should end up with a significant other. In one of the last chapters she brought up that the older wave of radical feminists who pushed for childlessness ended up dying alone, because feminist friends and family would eventually isolate as their ‘bonds’ were not ‘durable’ (as compared to having a partner+children to look after her). I’m not convinced this was an issue of being childless/unmarried per se - but rather, the lack of strong companionship/friendships. Surely, if I'm reading her thesis correctly, unmarried women - comme the Rich Single Aunt Trope - should also be able to live just as fulfilled lives, without men? Happy to be proven wrong on my reading though.
I actually really enjoyed this book, and I think this makes some really interesting arguments.
Whether you agree with her or not, Louise Perry's writing is really thought-provoking. There were many parts of this book I really enjoyed and found myself agreeing with — from her firm attitude towards porn, to open discussions about loveless/violent sex.
An unyielding feminist and as someone who has worked closely with vulnerable women, Louise Perry writes from a unique perspective arguing against the belief that modern-day ‘sexual freedom’ is truly liberating. She is right, mostly.
But I can also imagine someone countering her argument by deeming it self-serving and insufficient. She encourages readers to ‘get married’, and that (monogamous) ’marriage is good’ - while her core argument for marriage is its commitment and stability (which I do agree with), where the institution of marriage is no longer respected in society, divorce seems like an eventual outcome anyway. (I suppose I think that as individuals we shouldn’t *just* get married as a solution, but rather we should envision a culture that respects marriage more.)
I don’t know if she addressed this, but there was also an inherent belief that women would/should end up with a significant other. In one of the last chapters she brought up that the older wave of radical feminists who pushed for childlessness ended up dying alone, because feminist friends and family would eventually isolate as their ‘bonds’ were not ‘durable’ (as compared to having a partner+children to look after her). I’m not convinced this was an issue of being childless/unmarried per se - but rather, the lack of strong companionship/friendships. Surely, if I'm reading her thesis correctly, unmarried women - comme the Rich Single Aunt Trope - should also be able to live just as fulfilled lives, without men? Happy to be proven wrong on my reading though.
I actually really enjoyed this book, and I think this makes some really interesting arguments.
ophaelias's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
A book with a great message that every young woman must read. Young women need to learn that sleeping with many men is not only not liberating, it has the potential to deeply wound. We must teach them so they do not have to learn the hard way. Because the hard way is very painful.
However, I agree with other reviewers that the book felt hollow at times. Personally, it is difficult to imagine having this sort of moral framework outside of a religious belief that prescribes a clear deontological ethic.
I also disliked the reductive evolutionary explanations that seemed to paint men as hyper-sexual immoral beings and women as their victims. It is true that the current pro-abortion, pro-casual sex, pro-pill cultural landscape accommodates the desires of very promiscuous men. But, I do not agree that this is the fundamental male nature, as men also possess emotion, consciousness, and the ability for moral judgement.
Casual sex is also very unsatisfying for many men, whether they know it or not. In the book, she makes the case that such casual pseudo-relationships harm women more than they harm men (at least in the early stages of life). I used to think like this, but now I disagree.
I am more inclined to agree with Jordan Peterson, who argues that casual sex is detrimental to both sexes. Although men have no danger of getting pregnant and remain generally less affected by sexual diseases, engagement in rampant casual sex nurtures development of the psychopathic tendencies that facilitate such behaviour. Although psychopathic traits might seem beneficial, those individuals are highly pathological and do not live regular spiritually fulfilling lives of genuine human connection.
Moreover, engaging in something so meaningless and devoid of love or romance, where even the main goal of utilizing the mating strategy, reproduction, remains unfulfilled, allows men to remain perpetual children. It squashes a man’s initiation into the responsibility and respectability of fatherhood. He never lives up to his potential, and he never challenges himself enough to really learn what he is made of. Plenty of men will take risks in the work place but crumble at the thought of fatherhood. Why? Because it requires you to be a much better man than you are, and many men do not want to attempt living up to that ideal.
These downsides may not be as physically deadly as a woman’s potential consequences for sex, but they are psychologically deadly and there exists no quick pill or procedure to fix the situation.
Therefore, I would argue that casual sex also deeply harms men. It is just less obvious and we are less accustomed to recognizing it precisely because we view men as emotionless creatures that thrive when they fuck and swiftly fuck off. We would do well to challenge those beliefs.
These negative consequences of casual sex do not occur when men are in their 40’s or 50’s, but rather occur immediately, when the loveless self-gratifying acts they engage in corrode both their morality and their potential.
This is an unusual case of loss, where the loss is not of something already present, but of something that could have been. Many people who have experienced such a loss know it is a life of immense emptiness. This absence is a heavy weight to carry, and it often leads people straight into nihilism.
However, I agree with other reviewers that the book felt hollow at times. Personally, it is difficult to imagine having this sort of moral framework outside of a religious belief that prescribes a clear deontological ethic.
I also disliked the reductive evolutionary explanations that seemed to paint men as hyper-sexual immoral beings and women as their victims. It is true that the current pro-abortion, pro-casual sex, pro-pill cultural landscape accommodates the desires of very promiscuous men. But, I do not agree that this is the fundamental male nature, as men also possess emotion, consciousness, and the ability for moral judgement.
Casual sex is also very unsatisfying for many men, whether they know it or not. In the book, she makes the case that such casual pseudo-relationships harm women more than they harm men (at least in the early stages of life). I used to think like this, but now I disagree.
I am more inclined to agree with Jordan Peterson, who argues that casual sex is detrimental to both sexes. Although men have no danger of getting pregnant and remain generally less affected by sexual diseases, engagement in rampant casual sex nurtures development of the psychopathic tendencies that facilitate such behaviour. Although psychopathic traits might seem beneficial, those individuals are highly pathological and do not live regular spiritually fulfilling lives of genuine human connection.
Moreover, engaging in something so meaningless and devoid of love or romance, where even the main goal of utilizing the mating strategy, reproduction, remains unfulfilled, allows men to remain perpetual children. It squashes a man’s initiation into the responsibility and respectability of fatherhood. He never lives up to his potential, and he never challenges himself enough to really learn what he is made of. Plenty of men will take risks in the work place but crumble at the thought of fatherhood. Why? Because it requires you to be a much better man than you are, and many men do not want to attempt living up to that ideal.
These downsides may not be as physically deadly as a woman’s potential consequences for sex, but they are psychologically deadly and there exists no quick pill or procedure to fix the situation.
Therefore, I would argue that casual sex also deeply harms men. It is just less obvious and we are less accustomed to recognizing it precisely because we view men as emotionless creatures that thrive when they fuck and swiftly fuck off. We would do well to challenge those beliefs.
These negative consequences of casual sex do not occur when men are in their 40’s or 50’s, but rather occur immediately, when the loveless self-gratifying acts they engage in corrode both their morality and their potential.
This is an unusual case of loss, where the loss is not of something already present, but of something that could have been. Many people who have experienced such a loss know it is a life of immense emptiness. This absence is a heavy weight to carry, and it often leads people straight into nihilism.
zuzanna_glowacka_slapa's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
medium-paced
4.0
Content Warnings
Minor: Sexual assault, Sexual harassment, Rape, Sexual violence, and Violence