Scan barcode
Reviews
The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century by Louise Perry
greden's review against another edition
2.0
I was predisposed to liking this book from the title and its premise. However, as I flipped through the pages, I've found that the author fell into the trap of being an ignorant prudish conservative who misunderstands the opposite side, does not seem to understand eroticism, and resorting to straw-manning attacking modern feminism. While the book had some tasty zingers against sexual liberalism, it read painfully as if written by an overconcerned conservative mother indulging in the most catastrophic outskirts of reports of rough sex, porn, sex work, assault, presenting no counter-weight to these problems. This type of reading makes for easily digestible mind-candy for conservatives, but if you want to change the minds of liberals, strawmanning their position will make your arguements fall on deaf ears. I've come to take whatever she writes with a grain of salt, even the things I'm predisposed to agree with, because she puts things out of proportion and is not interested in presenting a fair view.
There are plenty things to like about the book, and I'll start with that.
Her views on liberalism were good. She writes that social liberalism aims to free individuals from external constraints such as location, family, religion, tradition, and the human body, desperately trying to fight for the belief that we're free, subjective monads untethered and unbounded by the objective world, capable of radical free will. The problem, as Perry points out, is that when you aim at freedom, you get disconnection and atomization. Perry reveals some good commentary on why freedom is a poor ethical compass and how "feminism is about freedom" and sexual morality based on consent is deeply flawed and ineffective, particularily for defending the disadvantaged.
You could characterize Perry as a conservative or traditional feminist, in that she subscribes to evolutionary psychology and biological differences between men and women. To her credit, she holds the controversial view that rape is sexual. This is controversial and highly inappropriate because the "mainstream" way to think about rape is power. Personally, I find it difficult to make a distinction between power, sexuality, and biology when looking at this in higher resolution. On a lower resolution, I would ask why it's necessary to have a strict either-or. The book stimulated a thought that liberals are fanatic about the idea that rape is about power because sex-positivism, liberal feminism, Rousseau, and Marx go hand-in-hand. Since they view sexuality in such a positive light, granting a rape offender sexual motivations is somewhat excusing them. To punish these offenders in the worst manner, they turn to what is the root of all evil in their eyes. Liberal feminism is inspired by a Rousseauian-Marxist ideology, particularly radical feminism and the sexual revolution at large, which were heavily influenced by post-modernists such as Derrida and Foucault, along with Marx and psychoanalysts such as Reich, who said that power is the antithesis to all good things—it's the root of all evil. Power is patriarchy, which in their view runs opposite to sexuality and pleasure, which is matriarchy. Thus, it makes perfect sense to fanatically insist that rape offenders are motivated by power, making them inexcusable. It reinforces their philosophical underpinnings, giving rape offenders the moral status of the devil while keeping sexuality pristine.
Rousseauian thinking is a form of human exceptionalism, by which we are understood to be both uniquely detached from the normal processes of natural selection and uniquely corruptible by cultural influence. In other words, Rousseau is not compatible with the theory of evolution and rests implicitly on a religious creationism, where man is uniquely different from animals, for he has the only natural state which is deemed moral.
Liberal feminists are seeking to disenchant sex—removing its categorical uniqueness—by arguing that sex doesn't matter, using terms such as "casual sex" and "sex work is work." The irony is that the same women who say this are infuriated by men such as Harvey Weinstein who offer women career opportunities in exchange for sexual favors. We all instinctively know that a male boss asking for a blowjob is not the same thing as asking for a cup of coffee, even though neither of these favors is in the formal job description. Sex is different, it's unique, and it's important.Another irony is that liberal outlets such as The Guardian cry moral outrage at listings where men offer women free rent in exchange for sex, but at the same time, they want to legalize and destigmatize "sex work." Liberal feminists want to give women the freedom to sell sex because it's her choice, but at the same time, want to protect poor women from being sexually exploited by men in powerful positions. While this might seem contradictory, we must remember that most politics isn't made to be coherent but self-serving for those who subscribe to it. There's a saying, "The left eats itself," and this is a good example of this.
Perry notes that prostitution is the logical conclusion of liberal feminism. I've come to the same exact conclusion, in exactly the same words, so I was somewhat taken aback. Though, I would take it even further. If a woman subscribes to the ideals of liberal feminists and the sexual revolution, believing that the ideals of virginity and marriage are patriarchal lies and that sex is merely pleasureable nerve fibers rubbing together, she has no good reason not to prostitute herself instead of working a day job which she shows up to half-heartedly, solely for the cash, as prostitution sells normally up to ten times as much and is more pleasureable than her boring day, and safer source of sex than bringing random men from nightclubs while intoxicated. Thinking this through made me adamant in my position that the sexual revolution is far off track.
I can't resist echoing some of Perry's zingers against the liberal feminists. My favorite is when she points out that a 1950s women's wife guide was ridiculed for advising women to please men by having dinner ready when he got home and hiding housework from him to make it seem effortless. At the same time, liberal feminist magazines are filled with tips on how to please a man in the bedroom. Perry writes, "The only difference I can see is that the arse licking is now literal."
While I don't necessarily share her views that sexual acts or housework is necessarily female subordinate sycophancy, she has a good ability to spot ironies in liberal feminism, and that was a good line.
This brings me to what I disliked about the book.
Perry writes more like a modern "gotcha" journalist than a serious thinker and doesn't seem to have the confident, calm demeanor necessary to make me enthusiastic about a book. An instance of this can be seen when discussing Hugh Hefner, making assumptions of motivations of his behaviours which are actually unknowledgable. She presents her narrative counterparts as Ayn Rand characters, either pure evil or pure good. Perry tries to convince women to opt out of the sexual revolution, aka the "male pleasure machinery," by making it seem like it's all about "men vs. women," and that women are being tricked to men's advantage, as a sort of conspiracy of horny, dangerous, and powerful men. In other words, she's oversimplifying reality to create an appealing motivational narrative for women to become more sexually reserved, at the expense of the truth and an accurate perspective of men, particularly the moral status of their sexuality.
Perry's view on male sexuality was overwhelmingly negative, and she called for "taming men," as in decreasing their testosterone on a grand scale. The negative lens through which she views the world of sex is understandable considering she worked at a rape crisis center. Nevertheless, the reader needs to keep in mind that she has been "professionally-deformed," and thus does not give a balanced view, though I wouldn't necessarily expect her to. Perry writes with simmering fury, which makes her opt for a one-sided view.
To repeat an earlier point, I believe to successfully criticize the sexual liberation attitude, you should understand it. Moreover, you should present their best arguments and, and then refuse them, to convince the reader why they are false. Burning a strawman is doing nothing except preaching to those already on your side, blowing air into the conservative embers. Perry loses me completely when she says that the dominating aspects of men toward women are toxic, and BDSM is a legitimized version of this "toxic dynamic."
I should make a brief case for male domination. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, even women who are dominant in their own households feel a natural pity for men in other marriages where women are in charge. We have a natural aversion toward those kinds of arrangements. From statistics and observation alone, you can see that marriages where women are in charge are far unhappier than those where men are the leaders. Personally, ever since I understood that dominance is a wanted trait, women have responded more and more positively to me. It has taken me a long time, and I am still grappling with the idea, that emotionally healthy women in an egalitarian society may genuinely like and benefit from what seems to be disrespectful behavior, especially sexually. But with time, this has simply become undeniable, and I've been submitted into accept it as natural. Women have a natural inclination to want to be submissive to a man, and men have a natural preference for being the dominant one, in marriage and sexually. Sex is a way to express and play with this dynamic. Perry says male domination and female submission is simply toxic and disrespectful, but this is one of the base ingredients of sexual chemistry between men and women.
She has a whole chapter on choking, where she reports an "alarming study" that strangulation can cause strokes, miscarriages, speech disorders, seizures, and the list goes on. She rejects that there are any right or wrong techniques, quoting a researcher who says that she cannot see a safe way of choking without pressing on fragile structures. This reminds me far too much of old-school advertisements claiming marijuana will make you infertile and the old myth that masturbation will make you blind. This is just embarrassing to read. She makes choking seem as if everyone is mindlessly imitating porn or Fifty Shades of Grey at the expense of their health, or at the very least, women caught in the liberal sexual revolution trying to please violent, aggressive men by consenting to be strangulated, confusing his passion for contempt for her. Her best guess is that insecure women confuse violence for love, and that's why they like it.
Apparently, it never occurred to Perry to ask women who do like to be strangulated why they like it, and present a case for it, then explain some of the dangers of doing it wrong, and note how rough sex can be abusive. Instead, she straw-mans and catastrophizes the whole enterprise. What she does is read a report from a clinical psychologist who runs a gender-based violence program, especially in American prisons, and collected reasons from patients for strangling partners during sex. Perry writes, "Hampton's patients do not strangle out of love or any desire to heighten their partner's pleasure, they do it to show how powerful they are." I wish Perry focused more on the general population rather than domestic violence perpetrators, as the sample bias here is clear. She focuses on the extreme to invoke an emotional response in the reader, and this is the general flaw of the book.
It seems curious to me why strangulating a woman ought to be considered violence per se. If a woman requests a man to grab her neck during intercourse to increase her sensations and make her orgasm faster, why should this be considered violence? Certainly, it looks violent, but there's a clear distinction between pressing your hand into a neck to compress the airway and blood vessels out of anger to deliberately hurt her and grabbing the neck tightly on the sides. Both look the same, but it is only sexually naive people like our dear author who does not recognize the difference. During sexual excitement, what is normally painful becomes arousing. In the height of sexual arousal, the distinction between pain and pleasure melts into mere sensation. This is why what appears to be violent behavior isn't really abusive, and we can't use the same metrics of what is polite, respectful, and what is violent and aggressive in a sexual context. To take a benign example, I've had women explicitly command me to be more dominant in daily life, saying things such as "Can't you just please tell me what to do?" Perry paints the picture that women are merely "consenting" to rough sex or submitting to the man, not considering that they might play an active role in it, which paints a pathetic picture of the millions upon millions of women Perry calls "insecure."
She writes, "Any man who can maintain an erection while beating up his partner is a man to steer well clear of." This quote reminds me of when I was a child, watching National Geographic, and wondering why lions were so mean to each other while making love. They were growling, hissing, biting, and even swinging their sharp claws at each other during what is supposed to be a very intimate and romantic moment. Perry describes human sexuality and what is seen in porn much like I watched those nature programs as a child. She doesn't understand this aspect of human sexuality and frankly has no business condemning everyone else who does.
Frankly, many years later, I still don't understand why lions are so angry at each other while mating because, and I'm afraid I never will because I'm not a cat. But in the meantime, I've come across a possible neurological explanation: the part of the brain that processes sexual arousal and aggression is closely related in the amygdala, and neurological signals in a high state of arousal might, by accident, activate aggression too. Additionally, the hypothalamus regulates hormonal activity related to aggression and sexual arousal. Testosterone is associated with both aggressive behavior and sexual arousal. Aggression and sexual arousal have a feedback loop in terms of the hormonal, psychological, neurological, and dopaminergic. Though evolution should be assumed to have a purpose, features are only spandrels if there's sufficient evidence for it. I don't doubt it's no accident that aggression and sexual arousal are closely coupled hormonally and neurologically, as this coupling probably served an evolutionary purpose across almost all mammals.
Toward the end of the book, she says, "A society composed of tamed men is a better society to live in." In tamed men, she alludes to men with lower testosterone, "alongside their aggression and sex drive." In calling for a decrease in testosterone, it seems clear she does not care much for men's well-being, which makes me surprised she has been featured on podcasts such as Chris Williamson and Jordan Peterson, whose hosts probably have only read the title of the book. It's clear Perry has contempt for all that is male: their testosterone, sexuality, and interests. In discussing deadbeat dads, she says the reason children are so problematic without a father is because of the lack of materials men provide, and merely a helping hand in providing so that the mother can balance taking care of the children. This view of men as essentially problematic second-tier women is part of the problem. As long as we disregard the importance of masculine virtues in parenting, men will be seen as disposable and replaceable by the state, exacerbating the problem.
I think the book was a missed opportunity. She would have struck a better chord with me had she explicitly made the book about how lower-class women are getting screwed over by the opinion makers' elite. A characteristic I've found of sexual liberalism is that it's very glamorous and might work fine for the few at the top of the social ladder, but the same ideology trickling down into the masses, especially the women of the "lower classes," wreaks disaster. Luxury beliefs do not scale well into the general population. This isn't merely about naive people imitating porn; the real underlying problem is that the general population is trying to imitate the elite view on sexuality. Perry is right in pointing out the disenfranchised reality when women accept violent behavior. She also makes good points about the dark sides of pornography and sex work. But I wish she'd stuck to that, instead of going further, generalizing into oblivion and saying that all men who can maintain an erection while choking someone are to be steered clear of.
There are plenty things to like about the book, and I'll start with that.
Her views on liberalism were good. She writes that social liberalism aims to free individuals from external constraints such as location, family, religion, tradition, and the human body, desperately trying to fight for the belief that we're free, subjective monads untethered and unbounded by the objective world, capable of radical free will. The problem, as Perry points out, is that when you aim at freedom, you get disconnection and atomization. Perry reveals some good commentary on why freedom is a poor ethical compass and how "feminism is about freedom" and sexual morality based on consent is deeply flawed and ineffective, particularily for defending the disadvantaged.
You could characterize Perry as a conservative or traditional feminist, in that she subscribes to evolutionary psychology and biological differences between men and women. To her credit, she holds the controversial view that rape is sexual. This is controversial and highly inappropriate because the "mainstream" way to think about rape is power. Personally, I find it difficult to make a distinction between power, sexuality, and biology when looking at this in higher resolution. On a lower resolution, I would ask why it's necessary to have a strict either-or. The book stimulated a thought that liberals are fanatic about the idea that rape is about power because sex-positivism, liberal feminism, Rousseau, and Marx go hand-in-hand. Since they view sexuality in such a positive light, granting a rape offender sexual motivations is somewhat excusing them. To punish these offenders in the worst manner, they turn to what is the root of all evil in their eyes. Liberal feminism is inspired by a Rousseauian-Marxist ideology, particularly radical feminism and the sexual revolution at large, which were heavily influenced by post-modernists such as Derrida and Foucault, along with Marx and psychoanalysts such as Reich, who said that power is the antithesis to all good things—it's the root of all evil. Power is patriarchy, which in their view runs opposite to sexuality and pleasure, which is matriarchy. Thus, it makes perfect sense to fanatically insist that rape offenders are motivated by power, making them inexcusable. It reinforces their philosophical underpinnings, giving rape offenders the moral status of the devil while keeping sexuality pristine.
Rousseauian thinking is a form of human exceptionalism, by which we are understood to be both uniquely detached from the normal processes of natural selection and uniquely corruptible by cultural influence. In other words, Rousseau is not compatible with the theory of evolution and rests implicitly on a religious creationism, where man is uniquely different from animals, for he has the only natural state which is deemed moral.
Liberal feminists are seeking to disenchant sex—removing its categorical uniqueness—by arguing that sex doesn't matter, using terms such as "casual sex" and "sex work is work." The irony is that the same women who say this are infuriated by men such as Harvey Weinstein who offer women career opportunities in exchange for sexual favors. We all instinctively know that a male boss asking for a blowjob is not the same thing as asking for a cup of coffee, even though neither of these favors is in the formal job description. Sex is different, it's unique, and it's important.Another irony is that liberal outlets such as The Guardian cry moral outrage at listings where men offer women free rent in exchange for sex, but at the same time, they want to legalize and destigmatize "sex work." Liberal feminists want to give women the freedom to sell sex because it's her choice, but at the same time, want to protect poor women from being sexually exploited by men in powerful positions. While this might seem contradictory, we must remember that most politics isn't made to be coherent but self-serving for those who subscribe to it. There's a saying, "The left eats itself," and this is a good example of this.
Perry notes that prostitution is the logical conclusion of liberal feminism. I've come to the same exact conclusion, in exactly the same words, so I was somewhat taken aback. Though, I would take it even further. If a woman subscribes to the ideals of liberal feminists and the sexual revolution, believing that the ideals of virginity and marriage are patriarchal lies and that sex is merely pleasureable nerve fibers rubbing together, she has no good reason not to prostitute herself instead of working a day job which she shows up to half-heartedly, solely for the cash, as prostitution sells normally up to ten times as much and is more pleasureable than her boring day, and safer source of sex than bringing random men from nightclubs while intoxicated. Thinking this through made me adamant in my position that the sexual revolution is far off track.
I can't resist echoing some of Perry's zingers against the liberal feminists. My favorite is when she points out that a 1950s women's wife guide was ridiculed for advising women to please men by having dinner ready when he got home and hiding housework from him to make it seem effortless. At the same time, liberal feminist magazines are filled with tips on how to please a man in the bedroom. Perry writes, "The only difference I can see is that the arse licking is now literal."
While I don't necessarily share her views that sexual acts or housework is necessarily female subordinate sycophancy, she has a good ability to spot ironies in liberal feminism, and that was a good line.
This brings me to what I disliked about the book.
Perry writes more like a modern "gotcha" journalist than a serious thinker and doesn't seem to have the confident, calm demeanor necessary to make me enthusiastic about a book. An instance of this can be seen when discussing Hugh Hefner, making assumptions of motivations of his behaviours which are actually unknowledgable. She presents her narrative counterparts as Ayn Rand characters, either pure evil or pure good. Perry tries to convince women to opt out of the sexual revolution, aka the "male pleasure machinery," by making it seem like it's all about "men vs. women," and that women are being tricked to men's advantage, as a sort of conspiracy of horny, dangerous, and powerful men. In other words, she's oversimplifying reality to create an appealing motivational narrative for women to become more sexually reserved, at the expense of the truth and an accurate perspective of men, particularly the moral status of their sexuality.
Perry's view on male sexuality was overwhelmingly negative, and she called for "taming men," as in decreasing their testosterone on a grand scale. The negative lens through which she views the world of sex is understandable considering she worked at a rape crisis center. Nevertheless, the reader needs to keep in mind that she has been "professionally-deformed," and thus does not give a balanced view, though I wouldn't necessarily expect her to. Perry writes with simmering fury, which makes her opt for a one-sided view.
To repeat an earlier point, I believe to successfully criticize the sexual liberation attitude, you should understand it. Moreover, you should present their best arguments and, and then refuse them, to convince the reader why they are false. Burning a strawman is doing nothing except preaching to those already on your side, blowing air into the conservative embers. Perry loses me completely when she says that the dominating aspects of men toward women are toxic, and BDSM is a legitimized version of this "toxic dynamic."
I should make a brief case for male domination. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, even women who are dominant in their own households feel a natural pity for men in other marriages where women are in charge. We have a natural aversion toward those kinds of arrangements. From statistics and observation alone, you can see that marriages where women are in charge are far unhappier than those where men are the leaders. Personally, ever since I understood that dominance is a wanted trait, women have responded more and more positively to me. It has taken me a long time, and I am still grappling with the idea, that emotionally healthy women in an egalitarian society may genuinely like and benefit from what seems to be disrespectful behavior, especially sexually. But with time, this has simply become undeniable, and I've been submitted into accept it as natural. Women have a natural inclination to want to be submissive to a man, and men have a natural preference for being the dominant one, in marriage and sexually. Sex is a way to express and play with this dynamic. Perry says male domination and female submission is simply toxic and disrespectful, but this is one of the base ingredients of sexual chemistry between men and women.
She has a whole chapter on choking, where she reports an "alarming study" that strangulation can cause strokes, miscarriages, speech disorders, seizures, and the list goes on. She rejects that there are any right or wrong techniques, quoting a researcher who says that she cannot see a safe way of choking without pressing on fragile structures. This reminds me far too much of old-school advertisements claiming marijuana will make you infertile and the old myth that masturbation will make you blind. This is just embarrassing to read. She makes choking seem as if everyone is mindlessly imitating porn or Fifty Shades of Grey at the expense of their health, or at the very least, women caught in the liberal sexual revolution trying to please violent, aggressive men by consenting to be strangulated, confusing his passion for contempt for her. Her best guess is that insecure women confuse violence for love, and that's why they like it.
Apparently, it never occurred to Perry to ask women who do like to be strangulated why they like it, and present a case for it, then explain some of the dangers of doing it wrong, and note how rough sex can be abusive. Instead, she straw-mans and catastrophizes the whole enterprise. What she does is read a report from a clinical psychologist who runs a gender-based violence program, especially in American prisons, and collected reasons from patients for strangling partners during sex. Perry writes, "Hampton's patients do not strangle out of love or any desire to heighten their partner's pleasure, they do it to show how powerful they are." I wish Perry focused more on the general population rather than domestic violence perpetrators, as the sample bias here is clear. She focuses on the extreme to invoke an emotional response in the reader, and this is the general flaw of the book.
It seems curious to me why strangulating a woman ought to be considered violence per se. If a woman requests a man to grab her neck during intercourse to increase her sensations and make her orgasm faster, why should this be considered violence? Certainly, it looks violent, but there's a clear distinction between pressing your hand into a neck to compress the airway and blood vessels out of anger to deliberately hurt her and grabbing the neck tightly on the sides. Both look the same, but it is only sexually naive people like our dear author who does not recognize the difference. During sexual excitement, what is normally painful becomes arousing. In the height of sexual arousal, the distinction between pain and pleasure melts into mere sensation. This is why what appears to be violent behavior isn't really abusive, and we can't use the same metrics of what is polite, respectful, and what is violent and aggressive in a sexual context. To take a benign example, I've had women explicitly command me to be more dominant in daily life, saying things such as "Can't you just please tell me what to do?" Perry paints the picture that women are merely "consenting" to rough sex or submitting to the man, not considering that they might play an active role in it, which paints a pathetic picture of the millions upon millions of women Perry calls "insecure."
She writes, "Any man who can maintain an erection while beating up his partner is a man to steer well clear of." This quote reminds me of when I was a child, watching National Geographic, and wondering why lions were so mean to each other while making love. They were growling, hissing, biting, and even swinging their sharp claws at each other during what is supposed to be a very intimate and romantic moment. Perry describes human sexuality and what is seen in porn much like I watched those nature programs as a child. She doesn't understand this aspect of human sexuality and frankly has no business condemning everyone else who does.
Frankly, many years later, I still don't understand why lions are so angry at each other while mating because, and I'm afraid I never will because I'm not a cat. But in the meantime, I've come across a possible neurological explanation: the part of the brain that processes sexual arousal and aggression is closely related in the amygdala, and neurological signals in a high state of arousal might, by accident, activate aggression too. Additionally, the hypothalamus regulates hormonal activity related to aggression and sexual arousal. Testosterone is associated with both aggressive behavior and sexual arousal. Aggression and sexual arousal have a feedback loop in terms of the hormonal, psychological, neurological, and dopaminergic. Though evolution should be assumed to have a purpose, features are only spandrels if there's sufficient evidence for it. I don't doubt it's no accident that aggression and sexual arousal are closely coupled hormonally and neurologically, as this coupling probably served an evolutionary purpose across almost all mammals.
Toward the end of the book, she says, "A society composed of tamed men is a better society to live in." In tamed men, she alludes to men with lower testosterone, "alongside their aggression and sex drive." In calling for a decrease in testosterone, it seems clear she does not care much for men's well-being, which makes me surprised she has been featured on podcasts such as Chris Williamson and Jordan Peterson, whose hosts probably have only read the title of the book. It's clear Perry has contempt for all that is male: their testosterone, sexuality, and interests. In discussing deadbeat dads, she says the reason children are so problematic without a father is because of the lack of materials men provide, and merely a helping hand in providing so that the mother can balance taking care of the children. This view of men as essentially problematic second-tier women is part of the problem. As long as we disregard the importance of masculine virtues in parenting, men will be seen as disposable and replaceable by the state, exacerbating the problem.
I think the book was a missed opportunity. She would have struck a better chord with me had she explicitly made the book about how lower-class women are getting screwed over by the opinion makers' elite. A characteristic I've found of sexual liberalism is that it's very glamorous and might work fine for the few at the top of the social ladder, but the same ideology trickling down into the masses, especially the women of the "lower classes," wreaks disaster. Luxury beliefs do not scale well into the general population. This isn't merely about naive people imitating porn; the real underlying problem is that the general population is trying to imitate the elite view on sexuality. Perry is right in pointing out the disenfranchised reality when women accept violent behavior. She also makes good points about the dark sides of pornography and sex work. But I wish she'd stuck to that, instead of going further, generalizing into oblivion and saying that all men who can maintain an erection while choking someone are to be steered clear of.
mersell's review against another edition
5.0
A much-needed look at what the sexual revolution has cost women. The content is difficult to get through, because Perry writes frankly about sexual violence in its myriad forms, but this frankness is necessary to her argument. She systematically tears down the ideas that sex isn't special, consent makes anything okay, and women can approach sex in the laissez-faire way of the stereotypical man. This book is a well-written mic drop.
My only disappointment is that Perry relies heavily on evolutionary psychology, and neglects the science that demonstrates that sex produces chemicals in both men and women that drive bonding. Her overreliance on evolutionary psychology leads to a view of men that isn't very generous, and the idea that the sexual revolution hurts men too doesn't really come through.
I would not recommend this book to everyone, simply because the content requires a mature reader, but Perry's argument and ideas are solid.
My only disappointment is that Perry relies heavily on evolutionary psychology, and neglects the science that demonstrates that sex produces chemicals in both men and women that drive bonding. Her overreliance on evolutionary psychology leads to a view of men that isn't very generous, and the idea that the sexual revolution hurts men too doesn't really come through.
I would not recommend this book to everyone, simply because the content requires a mature reader, but Perry's argument and ideas are solid.
gracekugrena's review against another edition
informative
fast-paced
5.0
Louise Perry does an excellent job in deconstructing the sexual revolution and its impact on not only feminism but on modern day culture and relationships, and alot of it isn’t pretty . A must read for young men and women
piabo's review against another edition
4.0
Honestly, a very belief-challenging read! This book attacks some of my "liberal" views and gives interesting thought experiments and scientific data.
While I generally think this is such an important approach and that we should all be more open to this kind of thinking without dismissing it immediately, I was not convinced by every argument.
I am definitely no expert in this field, but I do feel like some proposed solutions were a bit over the top/pessimistic/conservatist without a reason. I think we should all invest more resources in finding humane and realistic solutions to the disparities shown in this book.
The print version of this book apparently has a forward by Kathleen Stock, a feminist very critical of trans people's rights. From what I see, is this book not transphobic. The author was very clear to repeatedly highlight that gender is always a spectrum and that we can never judge an individual based on the overall data. I will have to read more to be able to make a final verdict.
While I generally think this is such an important approach and that we should all be more open to this kind of thinking without dismissing it immediately, I was not convinced by every argument.
I am definitely no expert in this field, but I do feel like some proposed solutions were a bit over the top/pessimistic/conservatist without a reason. I think we should all invest more resources in finding humane and realistic solutions to the disparities shown in this book.
The print version of this book apparently has a forward by Kathleen Stock, a feminist very critical of trans people's rights. From what I see, is this book not transphobic. The author was very clear to repeatedly highlight that gender is always a spectrum and that we can never judge an individual based on the overall data. I will have to read more to be able to make a final verdict.
jonnyconsequence's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
4.0
phoebesmiles's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
medium-paced
4.0
I've never been so captivated by sociology before!
It's full of studies and logical conclusions that counter almost every modern message we hear. Perry exposes them as simplistic and harmful - these ideas that many people don't even think to question. I come away wanting to discuss it in detail with all of my friends.
I don't agree on everything, and it's certainly not light reading, but I'm so glad it was recommended to me.
It's full of studies and logical conclusions that counter almost every modern message we hear. Perry exposes them as simplistic and harmful - these ideas that many people don't even think to question. I come away wanting to discuss it in detail with all of my friends.
I don't agree on everything, and it's certainly not light reading, but I'm so glad it was recommended to me.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Domestic abuse, Rape, Sexual violence, Abortion, and Sexual harassment
janbo's review against another edition
5.0
An insightful critique of modern liberal feminism from a feminist perspective, this book eloquently addresses one of the most significant self-sabotages feminism has introduced: the sexual liberation. The book highlights several ways in which this pursuit has harmed women and, in some instances, benefited (at least some) men:
- Encouraging promiscuity has devalued female sexuality and the power of sexual selectivity.
- Discouraging male protectiveness as condescending has channeled male aggression into destructive tendencies.
- Casual sex is not desired by most women but is by many men and it is even less fulfilling for women, though not healthy for both.
- While engaging in sex without love or "having sex like a man" is generally ill-advised, it is particularly detrimental for women if even possible.
- Reducing sexual morals to the single criterion of consent supports sexual perversions, which are predominantly present in men.
- This degradation in morals also facilitates the exploitation of women in pornography and other forms of prostitution, aided by feminists normalizing "sex work" and valuing expressions of sexual freedom.
However, the author narrowly falls short of generalizing this underlying cause and overarching problem with feminism: forcing women into a male framework. Ironically, by judging women by male standards, feminism erases what makes women sublimely remarkable and pushes them into situations where they are bound to lose.
- Encouraging promiscuity has devalued female sexuality and the power of sexual selectivity.
- Discouraging male protectiveness as condescending has channeled male aggression into destructive tendencies.
- Casual sex is not desired by most women but is by many men and it is even less fulfilling for women, though not healthy for both.
- While engaging in sex without love or "having sex like a man" is generally ill-advised, it is particularly detrimental for women if even possible.
- Reducing sexual morals to the single criterion of consent supports sexual perversions, which are predominantly present in men.
- This degradation in morals also facilitates the exploitation of women in pornography and other forms of prostitution, aided by feminists normalizing "sex work" and valuing expressions of sexual freedom.
However, the author narrowly falls short of generalizing this underlying cause and overarching problem with feminism: forcing women into a male framework. Ironically, by judging women by male standards, feminism erases what makes women sublimely remarkable and pushes them into situations where they are bound to lose.