Sarah's review
Bonk
by Mary Roach
Actually, I think the book is about sex RESEARCH rather than about sex by itself. It is an interesting social commentary just seeing what kind of sex-related research can get funding.
that's the exact comment i was going to leave. it's a compendium/overview of research, and she does suggest how and why certain things get studied and certain things don't. any book "about sex" is going to leave someone out. she is not an academic writer; her book is journalistic and told (somewhat) from her point of view, as if she's taking you on her research trip. i don't see why she should make a special point to use sexuality-neutral language. i appreciate your point here, i really do, but it sounds like you are looking for something that you're not getting, then crying "heterosexism!"
Claudia, quite right. her book is about "RESEARCH". but her research, and that of scientists, seems just a wee bit limited to me. there is a *whole world* of sex that does not primarily involve intercourse. i mean, even for straight people.
katy, well if we approach writing about sex with the attitude that someone is going to always be left out, then someone certainly always will be. thankfully i'm not really holding out for universal inclusion here. however, some indication that intercourse isn't the be all and end all of sex would be nice. since, you know, it isn't.
i don't recall ever saying that she should use sexuality-neutral language. that would be exceedingly silly. what i meant to say was that her book would be more interesting if she widened her definition of sex a bit. seriously, i think she does ALL her readers a disservice.
oh and, yeah, i AM looking for something i'm not getting, namely the assumption that maybe not everyone is straight (among other things). so yeah i think it's perfectly reasonable to say the book's a bit heterosexist. since, you know, that's what heterosexist means.
I haven't read this book yet, but I am looking forward to reading it soon.
I do appreciate the point that folks often say "sex" when they mean "intercourse." If people mean "intercourse," why can't they just say "intercourse"?
Anyway, Sarah, thanks for pointing out what you see as flaws with the book. I still want to read it, but feel like I am going into it with a bit more knowledge.
Sarah's review
Bonk by Mary Roach
Sarah's review
rating:
bookshelves:
fancypants
okay i didn't REALLY read the *entire* thing. But I read like 85% of it and skimmed the rest. And for the most part it was pretty hilarious. I had some problems with it thought. I felt like I spent the whole book waiting for her get to the point about people having different kinds of sex. The book, supposedly, is about sex. But it's never really clear how she defines sex. She (and scientists) seem to be working mostly from a sex-as-intercourse assumption. This was most clearly illustrated when she and her husband volunteered to have sex in a lab so scientists could take an MRI of it. But then when she described it, it really didn't sound like what i think of as sex at all. I don't want to project feelings on to her too much, but it didn't sound like she was involved or turned on by it at all. It didn't sound like two people having sex. The way she described it, it sounded like she could have been a doll that her husband was having intercourse with. Orgasm was certainly never mentioned ...more
Actually, I think the book is about sex RESEARCH rather than about sex by itself. It is an interesting social commentary just seeing what kind of sex-related research can get funding.
that's the exact comment i was going to leave. it's a compendium/overview of research, and she does suggest how and why certain things get studied and certain things don't. any book "about sex" is going to leave someone out. she is not an academic writer; her book is journalistic and told (somewhat) from her point of view, as if she's taking you on her research trip. i don't see why she should make a special point to use sexuality-neutral language. i appreciate your point here, i really do, but it sounds like you are looking for something that you're not getting, then crying "heterosexism!"
Claudia, quite right. her book is about "RESEARCH". but her research, and that of scientists, seems just a wee bit limited to me. there is a *whole world* of sex that does not primarily involve intercourse. i mean, even for straight people. katy, well if we approach writing about sex with the attitude that someone is going to always be left out, then someone certainly always will be. thankfully i'm not really holding out for universal inclusion here. however, some indication that intercourse isn't the be all and end all of sex would be nice. since, you know, it isn't.
i don't recall ever saying that she should use sexuality-neutral language. that would be exceedingly silly. what i meant to say was that her book would be more interesting if she widened her definition of sex a bit. seriously, i think she does ALL her readers a disservice.
oh and, yeah, i AM looking for something i'm not getting, namely the assumption that maybe not everyone is straight (among other things). so yeah i think it's perfectly reasonable to say the book's a bit heterosexist. since, you know, that's what heterosexist means.
I haven't read this book yet, but I am looking forward to reading it soon.I do appreciate the point that folks often say "sex" when they mean "intercourse." If people mean "intercourse," why can't they just say "intercourse"?
Anyway, Sarah, thanks for pointing out what you see as flaws with the book. I still want to read it, but feel like I am going into it with a bit more knowledge.