Scan barcode
A review by nastian
A Curious History of Sex by Kate Lister
4.0
Not sure if I'd give it a 3.5 rather than 4 just because of the conclusion.
So the reason I'd give it a 4 is because although it was incredibly interesting I had a hard time ignoring the cringey wordplay that mercifully went down a notch later on in the book.
I'm really glad that the difference in white western perception of sexuality was acknowledged.
Definitely worth a read, but here's why I'd knock off another half a point.
It really could have done without the weird examples of opposites at the end: "for every pansexual polyamorous person there's a heterosexual monogamous person that thinks gay people shouldn't exist, ..., something something vs a guy who is annoyed he can't harass women, sexually open person vs asexual person who doesn't understand what the fuss is all about" ( I somewhat paraphrased as I can't remember the exact wording but these were the pairings!)
Kinda left a sour taste even though the whole book was excellent until this conclusion bit. Kinda weird to put the onus of the "good guys" on poly non-straight sexually liberated people as opposed to monogamous asexuals who are placed together with a sexual offender.
Obviously being a predator and homophobe is problematic, compulsory heterosexuality and monogamy are a thing, but they're not the same thing! Why are heterosexuality, monogamy, asexuality painted as the opposite of progress? I say this as a queer non-monogamous person. I hope in future reprints (and it's definitely worth a reprint) this bit is looked into. Maybe even worth doing a chapter on asexuality as well.
So the reason I'd give it a 4 is because although it was incredibly interesting I had a hard time ignoring the cringey wordplay that mercifully went down a notch later on in the book.
I'm really glad that the difference in white western perception of sexuality was acknowledged.
Definitely worth a read, but here's why I'd knock off another half a point.
It really could have done without the weird examples of opposites at the end: "for every pansexual polyamorous person there's a heterosexual monogamous person that thinks gay people shouldn't exist, ..., something something vs a guy who is annoyed he can't harass women, sexually open person vs asexual person who doesn't understand what the fuss is all about" ( I somewhat paraphrased as I can't remember the exact wording but these were the pairings!)
Kinda left a sour taste even though the whole book was excellent until this conclusion bit. Kinda weird to put the onus of the "good guys" on poly non-straight sexually liberated people as opposed to monogamous asexuals who are placed together with a sexual offender.
Obviously being a predator and homophobe is problematic, compulsory heterosexuality and monogamy are a thing, but they're not the same thing! Why are heterosexuality, monogamy, asexuality painted as the opposite of progress? I say this as a queer non-monogamous person. I hope in future reprints (and it's definitely worth a reprint) this bit is looked into. Maybe even worth doing a chapter on asexuality as well.