A review by caitlin1599
A Curious History of Sex by Kate Lister
4.0
This was one of the most enjoyable non-fiction books I have read in YEARS. Lister just *gets* how to have fun with a reader. Very much enjoyed the section on *the c-word* (don't know if goodreads will let me keep my review up with including it lol) but it gave justification to the argument I have been passionate about for years and will I be referencing it now when people side eye me for using that word? YEP.
I was fully expecting to give this a 5/5 but it's had to be a 4/5 for 3 key reasons:
1) Sometimes I felt there wasn't enough depth to sections. Okay this might be the history degree coming out but I just felt myself wanting a little more in certain sections. FOR EXAMPLE, within the section about Sex and Food Lister mentions coffee and the belief throughout the late 17th / 18th century that coffee was related to impotence. However, she doesn't go discuss how that belief partly came about due to racism and xenophobia against the Turks who drank coffee prior to its import to England! Now, yes, that may on first glance not appear to relate to sex, YET THE ENGLISH CRITICISED TURKS FOR BEING OVERTLY SEXUAL TOO! So their beliefs about coffee were incredibly counterproductive and highlights just how silly we have all been for hundreds of years! It's small aspects like that where I would have loved to just have had a few more sentences.
2) NOT ENOUGH QUEER CONTENT. Apart from a tiny chapter about male sex workers, there really wasn't much discussion about queer sex. In fact, I don't even think lesbians got more than a few sentences, if that. I just don't quite understand why there wasn't more about queer sex. And before anyone starts with "well we just don't know about it because of the past"...yeah that's a load of crap and I'll prove it.
3) This book is clearly written for a reader who has sex. Now you may be like "so?" but I feel that as an asexual reader I need to mention this because it did start to bother me. Obviously I understand that the majority of the population are allosexual / have sex and I do not believe that Lister was intentionally excluding asexual / people who do not have sex. However, Lister repeatedly used phrases / made statements that suggested the reader has sex / masturbates / etc. and was 'in' on the jokes she was making. Now this in itself isn't a problem, but when Lister was SO SO SO careful with her language throughout the book, ie. the section on the sexualisation of women of colour where Lister reiterates that she, as a white woman, will never understand the issues in the same was as women of colour, it just became a bit like "huh". There are plenty of people who do not have sex out there: aspec individuals, those who are celibate by choice, individuals who are sufferers from PTSD due to assault, the list is quite frankly endless. Yet to make these lexical choices that almost exclude those readers it felt a little bit jarring.
I was fully expecting to give this a 5/5 but it's had to be a 4/5 for 3 key reasons:
1) Sometimes I felt there wasn't enough depth to sections. Okay this might be the history degree coming out but I just felt myself wanting a little more in certain sections. FOR EXAMPLE, within the section about Sex and Food Lister mentions coffee and the belief throughout the late 17th / 18th century that coffee was related to impotence. However, she doesn't go discuss how that belief partly came about due to racism and xenophobia against the Turks who drank coffee prior to its import to England! Now, yes, that may on first glance not appear to relate to sex, YET THE ENGLISH CRITICISED TURKS FOR BEING OVERTLY SEXUAL TOO! So their beliefs about coffee were incredibly counterproductive and highlights just how silly we have all been for hundreds of years! It's small aspects like that where I would have loved to just have had a few more sentences.
2) NOT ENOUGH QUEER CONTENT. Apart from a tiny chapter about male sex workers, there really wasn't much discussion about queer sex. In fact, I don't even think lesbians got more than a few sentences, if that. I just don't quite understand why there wasn't more about queer sex. And before anyone starts with "well we just don't know about it because of the past"...yeah that's a load of crap and I'll prove it.
3) This book is clearly written for a reader who has sex. Now you may be like "so?" but I feel that as an asexual reader I need to mention this because it did start to bother me. Obviously I understand that the majority of the population are allosexual / have sex and I do not believe that Lister was intentionally excluding asexual / people who do not have sex. However, Lister repeatedly used phrases / made statements that suggested the reader has sex / masturbates / etc. and was 'in' on the jokes she was making. Now this in itself isn't a problem, but when Lister was SO SO SO careful with her language throughout the book, ie. the section on the sexualisation of women of colour where Lister reiterates that she, as a white woman, will never understand the issues in the same was as women of colour, it just became a bit like "huh". There are plenty of people who do not have sex out there: aspec individuals, those who are celibate by choice, individuals who are sufferers from PTSD due to assault, the list is quite frankly endless. Yet to make these lexical choices that almost exclude those readers it felt a little bit jarring.