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.
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.