'The Case Against the Sexual Revolution', Louise Perry

I checked out the reviews. I’m always more interested in the critical ones, especially with nonfiction, and potentially polarizing topics like this. A five star review can say all the nice things in the world, but all it really means is, “this book appeals to my biases.” A critical review can and often does mean only the opposite, “this book challenges my biases,” but they are relatively more likely to deliver reliable information and decent critiques. This book only has three written reviews at three stars or less.

One says it represents a better feminism than the mainstream, but still reveals a myopic, porn-informed view on men. One says they were impressed with the composed professionalism of the author during interviews, but the book itself is riddled with profanity. A four star review corroborates the profanity, and suggests it isn’t suitable for teens which tells me there’s probably potentially triggering content for us addicts and should be at minimum approaches with caution. The one star review simply says “Want Me” by Tracy Clark-Flory is a deeper treatment of sex culture.

The four and five star reviews say it’s a well researched, powerful critique of how the Sexual Revolution as she is currently promoted and practiced by mainstream feminism is actually detrimental to women, benefitting only a small population of hyper-successful men. Essentially, one of the messages from the black pill community, but in a higher voice. I actually don’t disagree with that assertion. I’d just like to know the pushback. Is it actually well researched? Is the data she’s using solid, and has it been properly interpreted? Don’t know, the mainstream feminists are silent on this book, thus far.

Worth considering, I’d say. And if the subject intrigues you, maybe “Want Me” is also worth a look. Probably dispels some myths propagated by P, anyway.

 

This is exactly what radical feminists have been speaking about 50 years ago.

 

The dissonance between defending porn as a sex/woman positive influence, and actually supporting women, a good point to make. If she makes the point cogently, I support it. However, that leaves the door open for a different genre of “ethical” porn where women are treated better, and I’d argue that is also ultimately not good for women, or men. For different reasons, obviously, and if we were going to have porn I’d rather it wasn’t violent or degrading, on camera or behind the scenes. But I’m one of those extremists. Not anti-sex, but definitely anti-porn.

Yeah, I’m a little unsure about what it is. It’s a former professional sex writer’s memoirs, and I know it deals with the intellectual side, but I don’t know if it descends into the salacious or erotic at any point. The algorithm may be promoting the author’s other work, or books similar to the bulk of her bibliography.

The complaints about it are that it only represents white liberal women’s point of view and it’s a memoir from the middle of her life, so doesn’t represent the full breadth of a life so it’s too early to be championed as the voice of a generation. Fair enough, but that sounds like a critique of the advertising rather than the content itself. Maybe it’s great for what it is.
The top critical review has its own recommendation, which makes this one twice removed from “The Case Against the Sexual Revolution.” They say to read “Kolyma Tales” by Varlam Shamalov, which is about a Soviet concentration camp and frankly doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand.

 

I've come across critical reviews in Counterfire, Law & Liberty and Areo.

Skim-reading the reviews she seems to be against rough sex, couples who don't get married and couples who don't want to have children. I'm not so pro-marriage or children. I'm not completely opposed to it but I don't plan to ask a woman to marry me. I think civil partnership is better than marriage. As for rough sex, I think everyone is different. Some people like it, and some don't, it's a personal preference and neither preference is wrong.

 

Louise sounds English, an English Rose?

 

Thanks for finding these. I like academic intellectual and I can read it, but it’s taken me a while to process because I’m out of practice.

Counterfire says Perry has identified a problem other feminists agree exists, and offers a coherent, well delivered argument for her solution. The problem is, her solution is the opposite of other feminists. Rather than lean in and complete the work of the Sexual Revolution, Perry wants to shift into reverse and return to monogamy, and societal restrictions on pre-marital sex. She wants this because it will keep men under control. She acknowledges that will also restrict female sexuality, but she’s willing to give that up in exchange for material protection for women and children. Counterfire points out she’s also dispensing with progress in women’s labor. They want women to secure their own material protection by working, but Perry already accounted for that. She claims, according to science, most women don’t want careers, either. They’d rather have a reliable mate and provider than all the potential sex, and a spot in the corporate rat race. Not that Counterfire is convinced by Perry’s science in the first place, claiming those evolutionary biology ideas have already been debunked. Counterfire’s end assessment is predictable for a left wing publication; they say we need to finish the Sexual Revolution by taking control of sex culture away from men completely. As for the labor angle, obviously, Capitalism is at fault.

That’s an argument as complete and coherent as they admit Perry makes, but you have to wonder at their hubris. Do they really think men will roll over and cede complete control of sex and sex culture to women? The solution they propose has no compromise built in. Followed to its ultimate conclusion, I believe the radical feminists are the only semi-realistic branch surviving today, and their solution of gendered segregation is also unrealistic.

Counterfire takes issue with the science Perry relies on, but Law & Liberty claims Perry’s attempt to ground feminism in scientific reality is an admirable one. However, they think feminism is a lost cause and she should dispense with it altogether. “Feminism,” L&L claims, “is the mother of awful public policy going back to Prohibition and needs to learn humility if it expects to have policy influence."
L&L’s first genuine criticism of “The Case Against the Sexual Revolution” is Perry’s mistake of unequally applying evolutionary biology. It’s fine to accept that men and their general sexual preferences are the way they are because of evolution, but when it comes to BDSM and the evident female proclivity toward submission, that, according to Perry, is all society’s fault. Furthermore, Perry herself doesn’t like BDSM, so it naturally has to be removed for everyone.
The real beef L&L has with Perry, though, is her lack of respect for the concept of sexual consent. It’s unclear how the argument is originally built in “Case,” but it seems Perry claims consent, the only ethic the Sexual Revolution allows, is all but worthless. Not so, Law and Liberty claims, and the author appears to have legal, cultural, and educational experience to back it. Consent is weak, they admit, but invaluable, historically rare in civilized cultures, and not the ironclad defense against litigation that Perry imagines. Her contempt for it is misplaced.

Law & Liberty is largely supportive of “Case,” while Counterfire is not. Perry set out to convince feminists, but her arguments are going to be more welcomed by the right.

Areo agrees that Perry handles the relationships between sex, biology, and culture differently based on gender. Male desires she finds problematic and distasteful are a product of their biology, aided and abetted by the misguided Revolution. Female desires of the same nature are, for Perry, fully attributable to cultural conditioning. They bring an even more serious charge than either Counterfire or Law & Liberty, though. Areo claims “Perry’s efforts to fuse a radical feminist analysis—in which men and women are represented as different classes with distinct and antagonistic interests—with traditional conservative sexual morality lead to arguments that are inconsistent and unserious.” This is the clear indictment Law & Liberty hints at, but fails to explicitly state. Perhaps L&L refrained because they mostly agree with Perry. Regardless, it’s a short article so there isn’t elaboration on exactly how Perry’s arguments are inconsistent or unserious.
Aero believes humans are too varied and willful to be governed by any sexual ethic. On an individual level it’s easy to agree, but on a macro scale, it is impossible to deny institutions that dictate sexual mores such as religion, politics, the courts, and entertainment, has massive impact. Traditional monogamy wasn’t invented or enforced by a general herd movement, neither did the problems Perry complains about just arise from the pill. In both cases there were intentional choices by leadership, administrated from the top down, that influenced how we behaved. To throw up your hands and tell all humans to do their own thing is incredibly naïve on Aero’s part.

The point of all this was to determine if is this a good book? Should we read it?
All three critical reviews agree “Case” is a well written book, which is more than most can say for their partisan ammunition. It showcases the current science, and demands feminists contend with it. Last I checked, though, NoFap only has one ardent feminist, and she’s of the radical variety that already agrees with Perry’s critique on most porn (she defends female driven, “ethical” porn) and prostitution. We aren’t Perry’s target audience, and her demands for a counter revolution are not for male benefit. However, it’s not hard to see how the notorious Revolution has disadvantaged the average male. Black-pillers are full of bitter complaints of how only the ultra-successful men are getting any tail these days, and this forum is full of men who are, to be blunt, so fucked up by our only realistic sexual option, some of us can barely function in polite society.

On the other hand, Perry’s proposal has been tried before. We got a lot of prostitution and shame/guilt/fear driven behavior for our trouble, not to mention the persecution of sexual minorities. If we did decide to return to enforced monogamy as a culture, that’s a detail we’d have to address.

I’d say the book is worth reading. I’ll probably buy it, whenever I decide to charge my e-reader again. If nothing else, Perry gives us another reason to hate porn, and dissolves some of the lies it sold us. There aren’t loads of gorgeous women sleeping with everyone but you. Sex isn’t just for pleasure. Love is never free, and that’s why it’s worth so much.

 

For this reason alone, I think Perry shouldn't write about things she is ignorant about. She should have made some research before deeming ANHR a source relevant enough for her arguments and solutions.

When she says nature, she needs to consider the fact that our closest relative in the evolutionary three are matriarchal great apes where it's the females who monopolize the decision making, food sharing and pretty much regulate all the aspects of social life. If she wants to include any aspect of evolution in her arguments, she needs to consider this very important fact, before making any conclusive statement that science supports the idea that most women dont't want careers.

@Meshuga , it seems she didn't rely on evolutionary biology but evolutionary psychology which is as speculative as regular psychology can be. Her main stone base was "A Natural History Of Rape", a study with contradictory points at it's foundation, which led many biologists to discredit it's veracity. You can see in these two articles (1 and 2) why ANHR wasn't taken seriously by biologists.

And personally, I can also point out elements of it that are highly inconsistent. One example is that the authors based their argument of rape being either a behavioral adaptation or a byproduct of adaptive traits, on the observations they made on incests and other species while ignoring our other closest relatives beside the chimps: the bonobos, the same matriarchal great apes I mentioned in the beginning and whose society lacks cohersive sex acts.

 

The complaint Perry and other feminists have against the Sexual Revolution as it currently is, is essentially there’s too much masculine influence. From the Counterfire article

As far as I can tell, this means this branch of feminism believes the Sexual Revolution has helped women recognize they are sexual beings, but they have yet to learn how and when to express their sexuality, and to seek sex, on their own terms. In general, of course.
I can’t speak for them since I haven’t read their books, but I imagine the next step for them is to take female expressions of sex away from male control, especially in popular media. So, more films and streaming shows written and directed by women, fewer songs about sex performed by women but written by men. Of course, more porn directed by and designed to appeal to women. This matches their other goal of empowering women in general.

I understand why. When I look at the depiction of men, not just sexually but any general behavior, in female controlled spaces, it’s hard not to visibly cringe. I’m a hobbyist in fiction writing, and I see it in the romance genre constantly. Male writers do the exact same thing to women all the time, objectifying them, putting them on display, making them perform for the male’s gratification. We’re addicts, we know.

The question is, can they make it happen, and if they can, will it accomplish what they think it will? Women made Kim Kardashian popular, by watching her insipid show. I can’t think of a single better example of over the top, contrived, fake-on-every-level sexuality than that circus.

And that won’t do much to change male behavior, either. Men will continue seeking and consuming the media they want, rewarding the behavior they want.

If Perry and the papers and books she cites are correct, the problem isn’t the way women are depicted. It’s how both men and women behave when they have options. Some women want a lot of sex. Some men want to settle down. In general, though, more women want to settle down than want to sleep around, and more men want to sleep around than settle down. That means a few hyper-sexual women for a lot of hyper sexual men, but it gets worse. Historically, women like the most successful, most dominant men, and they are willing to share with other women if it means they get to be with the best. It’s not their first preference. Of course they’d love to have him all to themselves, but given the option of being one of the king’s harem or the wife of a shopkeeper, they’ll go with the king almost every time. That has meant polygamy, and all advanced civilizations* have abandoned that model because it destabilizes the nation. When the majority of men can’t even realistically compete for a mate, they become angry, violent, and a pain in the ass to everyone else. That’s why enforced monogamy, the control of both female and male sexuality, is a brilliant compromise. Men don’t get to sleep with a lot of women, but they do have a decent shot at getting one, so there is reason to compete and better themselves. For women, they don’t get the king, or even the duke, but they do get a decent man so they make do. The real benefactors here are children, who get the attention and resources from their parents and aren’t left at home while mom and dad both are pursuing new relationships.

We’re already seeing this crop up in the United States. It’s in this forum all the time. Black pill dudes preaching how women only go for the alphas, so you might as well not try. MGTOW, baby. Retain that semen, just to spite the wenches.

Of course, enforced monogamy isn’t a perfect solution either. Some men still cheat, some hire prostitutes. And women cheat, too. People are different, but they are all a mess. Just messy in unique ways.

*”Advanced” is a relative term, and Islam is a hot mess. They’ve made contributions to art and math and literature, I get it, but the Ottoman Empire fell apart in 1922 and Islam hasn’t produced a competitive civilization since

 

I’m sorry, I’m not following how A Natural History of Rape is connected to the quote you used. I’m making that claim third hand, from the Law & Liberty article. Helen Dale states,

It’s easy to simply observe behavior to draw those conclusions. Of course there are the biological limitations of pregnancy, birth, and early motherhood that get in the way, but many women consciously choose it. I think a lot of them, if asked, would say they want both motherhood and a career, and I’m acutely aware of the pressure women feel from other women, that is, these hard-charging feminists in control of the narrative of what a good woman is, to “have it all.” The cold reality is, most women can’t. Only the wealthy ones who can afford to farm out their child-rearing responsibilities to poorer people can “have it all,” which means the average woman has to choose. They consistently choose family. My wife would leave her job yesterday if I could provide anything close to what she can.

In regards to A Natural History, I wasn’t familiar, but the Counterfire article discussed it. I do find it odd, the claim that rape is exclusively, or even primarily, about reproduction and not power. The sheer number of rapes that are done to non-reproductive victims such as the very young or old, animals, and other men, seems to suggest a social dynamic or even raw lust, as opposed to a reproductive strategy, however primitive. That seems a peculiar source to rely on, especially given that Perry’s entire motivation was sparked by working with rape victims. However, “many scientists dispute” is hardly the damning accusation Counterfire seems to think. Many scientists dispute everything. It’s kind of the point of science. I remain dubious about that claim about reproductive rape, though, it would take a lot to convince me.

All of that said, I wouldn’t draw any conclusions about human behavior as sophisticated as sex from apes, one way or another. Humans are shaped by biology, environment, and their own choices. That’s part of the deep problem Perry is stabbing at, is biology the primary determining factor for human behavior, or is it environmental? We don’t know, but a consistent complaint from all three articles was that Perry wants to let women be what she believes is their biological selves, while forcing men to subvert their own lecherous nature. I think both men and women need to compromise if they expect to live with one another, and I think monogamy is such a compromise. Maybe she emphasized the female advantage because she wanted to appeal to that grrrl power.

What’s your preferred solution to this problem? Proceed with the Sexual Revolution, like the LibFems? Gendered segregation, like some of the RadFems? Monogamy, like Perry suggests, even though you despise her source material*? Or are you still trying to persuade men to admit they are sinners and surrender all their autonomy to you and your ideology?

*note, I’m also dubious if that source. I mention it because I’ve noticed this habit of yours where you blow past the parts where we agree, and fixate on a handful of stupid details that hardly matter to me, and it makes interactions most unpleasant from this end

 

It depends on the cultural context in question. If you researched matriarchal cultures, you'll see that both sexes have the freedom to explore and pursue sexual adventures, this is not a results of biological matters alone, it's magnitude is mainly modulated by the cultural standards more than anything. With different social outcomes, we witness different results.

This is where you misunderstand the message of feminists. Their emphasis on the importance of careers comes from the fact that, like you said, many women would rather want motherhood and their careers and that it's external, cultural, circumstances that stand in the way of working mothers.

Feminists are aware that the average woman has to "chose", and the root cause isn't her career or even motherhood, it's the fact that most childbearing and housekeeping responsibility falls on the woman and few men equally share these tasks.

This byproduct of gender roles is the very thing that pushes the average working mother to make a 'choice', and many times that choice is family only because men, mostly driven by the egocentric fear of being "emasculated", won't make any compromise.

When it comes to "corrective" social pressure, most of it is experienced by career women who have ambitions aside from family and children than the other way around. They are the ones who get the "when are you going to get married?" and later "when are you going to have kids ?" More than than SAHM get "when you're going to work ?".

Feminists mostly focus on these problems when discussing women's participation in the work force, which is interpreted by many as them invalidating SAHM. But the reality is that they want to ensure that women have a reasonable range of choice in these matters where none of the issues mentioned will have weight.

Also I agree with you that we have a lot in common. I only made that remark because you said that Perry relied on evolutionary biology. I just wanted to point out that it's evolutionary Psychology that she used, and the exact source she borrowed her solutions from.

 

This is not the point I was making. I was only underlining one inconvenience in ANHR. If the authors decided to draw conclusions by observing other creatures, then it's completely incoherent to ignore the ones who are closest to us.

 

Not quite, first of all it depends on the scientific field these scientists belong to. When it comes to more "concrete" disciplines with tangible (thus objectively refutable) findings, like math, experimental sciences or biology, instances of disagreement will be highly unfrequent as disproven ideas are removed from the corresponding discipline altogether. In these fields you will find more agreements than disagreements.

However, when it comes to domains that are speculative in essence like evolutionary psychology, you will find as much , if not more, disagreements than agreements. When your base is speculative, you shouldn't be surprised when your peers find logical contradictions and loopholes, moreso if they have expertise in more "concrete" disciplines.

Once your basic argumentative ground is shown to be riddled with scientific or logical inconsistencies, your theory loses half of its credibility.

 

Seriously, now you are strawmanning me ?

 

That's exactly the problem with Perry's argument. She argues that rape is, at its base, "mostly driven" by the biological desire to procreate. And some of her most prominent claims, including the one about science indicating how women are"naturally" career avoidant, appear in ANHR.

 

Hardly. I have the quotes from personal correspondence to remind you, if you want.

Are you avoiding my question, in attempt to stay on topic? What is your ideal solution to the problem Perry addresses in her book? Should we return to monogamy, like she proposes? Should we lean into the Revolution, like the LibFems want? Should we declare men and women inherently at odds with their goals, and segregate for protection? Or do we force men to submit to a matriarchy?

 

I am not avoiding the question, I just find that impression amusing. I never understood why anyone would think that about me, or about feminists in general. Most of them can hardly compare to the most benign black pilled bros and incels, yet for some reason the people see feminists as the more problematic group.

As for the problem Perry raises in her book, you need to be more specific, are you referring to the aspects of sexual revolution that need correction ? Or the problem of rape in general ?

If it's the former, the first baby step would be to reclaim the sexual revolution by addressing aspects of it that are inherently misogynistic or promote unhealthy power dynamics between partners, as well as acknowledging that women are just as visual as men while exploring the reasons why they don't express that side of them more.

For the second issue, the solution would be to dissociate the notion of sexuality from any form of ownership and gendered power dynamics, denormalise the notion of women being sexual objects, as well as reform our spoken language. Since, when it comes to sex, our languages contain elements that reflect the power disparity patriarchal societies attributed to each gender.

For a phenomenon that is mainly a byproduct of the how cultural notions sustainably influenced perceptions regarding masculinity and femininity, male and female sexuality, gender roles, and the power disparity between sexes, a complete social and cultural revision is needed. One that takes into account these important variables. Because it's not reproductive instincts that constitute the primary drive for rape, nor is every healthy and fertile man already predisposed enough to be a rapist.

Monogamy has many advantages, but I don't believe adopting or rejecting it will have any noticeable effects on rape rates. I don't believe that monogamous arrangement alone suffices to offer women any significant empowerment, at best it might just provide some minor conditions for its concretisation.