I was one of a handful of leaders of the sexual revolution which peaked from 1973 to 1975. I was in the media. At the time I was a human sexuality professor at The University of Georgia, and at Syracuse University. The revolution encouraged sexual pleasure with consent and with honesty and responsibility. It was not detrimental to women, as is argued in a recent book by a young journalist who was not alive during or close to the revolution.
Louise Perry is a 30-year-old author of The Case Against the Sexual Revolution. She wrongly assumes women did not enjoy casual sex and friends with benefits. She states that “Female pleasure is rare during casual sex.” None of this is true. Many women enjoy casual sex. Some do not, but most women probably enjoy serious sex and sometimes casual sex.
The book is biased in that she attempts to criticize sex positive feminism, stating that we need to be concerned with more than mutual consent. Her views are clearly influenced by her work with rape victims. Rape is violence. It is not sex.
Perry confuses what happened during the revolution with today’s problems. She has no sense of playfulness or humor. Everything is dead serious. She cites Andrea Dworkin, who equated heterosexual intercourse with rape. Dworkin was a sex negative feminist.
She assumes the revolution only benefitted men. This is simply untrue. Women became more sexually satisfied and uninhibited, and they absolutely loved to initiate sex. The revolution was supported by liberal feminism. Her book is an attack on sexual freedom and liberalism. She concludes that monogamy is the only legitimate sexual choice, and she says we should all wait a few months before being sexual, preferably in marriage. This is like the 1950’s!
Perry reminds me of the Mars/Venus split where men and women are said to be opposites. None of this is true. There are more similarities than differences in what the sexes want and enjoy, including sexually. She equates porn with the revolution, but there is no supportive evidence for this. She uncritically mentions NoFap, a sex negative site that argues against masturbation, which is a healthy form of self- love. Again, this is present day—not what happened during the revolution.
Perry wants to equate sex and violence in many cases. Sounds like Dworkin. How could a young journalist know much about the revolution or about men? Most men are not violent, nor are they rapists.
The actual sexual revolution was nothing like Perry’s depiction of it. She is not a historian or a sex researcher. She is a journalist. She lacks the credentials to offer this book as “a new guide to sex in the 21st century.”
Liberal feminism emphasizes consent, choice and common sense. So do I. Perry fails to acknowledge any of this. For a more accurate view of the revolution, see my TED Talk at the bottom of my home page.
In my sex therapy practice I see plenty of clients who are out of touch with their sexuality because they believe the generalizations so focused on in this out-of-touch book.