My first degree was in fact a joint Honours: Applied Psychology & Sociology. I took a particular shine to Social Psychology, but I did enjoy my Sociology lectures and got better marks in my Soc assignments than my Psych assignments.
I watched the author of this book on a YT video where, for two hours, the host and she talked about the sexual environment for women these days—young women, middle-aged and the elderly, but mostly the young, child-bearing aged women because they are the ones most at risk of being exploited. It was only near the end of the video that her book came up, meaning that the discussion that she and her intellectually equal male had was a genuine to and fro about the research and the findings, not a self-serving sales pitch. It was definitely grounded in feminist conflict, which in the mid 1990s England was not something we talked about; it was something we shoved under the pillow and forgot about as best we could.
Perry is a feminist that comes from the middle ground, criticising many (but not all) other feminists, especially the very vocal feminists, as well as acknowledging the history of the two sexes and the patriarchal system that used to exist before the sexual revolution in the 1960s. Patriarchy is still here, of course—some male bosses still ask for a blow job in exchange for a promotion, some male landlords still offer no-rent accomodation in exchange for sex on demand, and so on. Men are still far more likely to have excessively high desire for sex and violence, women are still far more likely to have excessively low desire for sex and violence, men are phenomenally more likely to rape and murder, women are phenomenally less likely to rape and murder (for example, women are unable to strangle and kill a man by putting her hands around his neck [she doesn’t have the physical strength to hurt him], whilst men are totally able to do this; etc.).
Which makes monogamous marriage so interesting, because when men get married—and *particularly* help make children and raise them—their testosterone goes down. A lot. Endless amounts of research shows that a stable, monogamous marriage (more so ‘straight’ than ‘gay’) is great for not only the couple and their happiness, but *very* beneficial for the children, who grow up happier and healthier having a dad around. Children who grow up without the influence of a dad/male have lower levels of happiness, health, and achievement—whether academic, relationship, or any other factor.
The downside of that is that stepdads are 40x more likely to kill their step child, or molest/rape them.
Perry’s exploration of the feminists’ double standards around sex work is riveting and disturbing in equal measure.
Feminists have held differing views on sex work, with some advocating for its abolition and others supporting decriminalization. The key double standard highlighted is that while radical feminists argue sex work reinforces the objectification of women and should be abolished, they do not make the same argument about care work which also perpetuates traditional gender roles of women as caregivers.
Radical feminists like Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin view prostitution as a form of violence against women stemming from patriarchal oppression. They contend that true consent is impossible in an unequal society, so all sex work is inherently exploitative. However, this stance has been criticised for denying agency to sex workers and perpetuating the “whore stigma” by deeming sex work immoral.
In contrast, other feminists argue that decriminalising sex work reduces harm to sex workers and challenges patriarchal norms around female sexuality. They contend the abolitionist position is paternalistic, ignoring sex workers’ voices and perpetuating the very “cult of female modesty” it claims to dismantle.
The double standard lies in radical feminists’ differing treatment of sex work versus care work, both of which can be seen as reinforcing traditional gender roles. While they condemn sex work as objectifying women, they do not advocate abolishing care work despite its links to viewing women primarily as caregivers. This inconsistency has been criticised as moralistic and disrespectful towards sex workers.
Sex workers are vastly made up of young women from lower socio-economic areas who turn to sex work to pay the bills, feed their children, and so on. But the workers from these backgrounds are held by society, and feminists, in vastly different ways than beautiful, wealthy, university-educated young women who earn thousands of dollars per hour/night/weekend/week being in the company of rich, powerful men. Whether the women have sex with the men is usually not the point—they are there so the man can show off his trophy and so, subtly, say to other men ‘look what I can score, I’m hot shit y’all’. If the women can hold their own at a dinner party and add to the conversation, rather than being a mute piece of eye candy, she is additional points for the man.
The sex workers from the lower socio-economic environments, and the foreigners and refugees, are far more likely to suffer intense pain from either rough sex or a client being violent in other ways. The reports suggest that this doesn’t happen so much with girls/women from the top end of the sex worker scale. If there is rough sex, it is negotiated beforehand, there are safe words in place and respected, and she will insist on being paid handsomely for the act. Women from the lower echelons will put up with just about any treatment because they need the money. Women at the upper end will bring to a halt anything they con’t consent to or think is degrading. She will often fly home or walk away from the business if she feels unsafe or devalued. She doesn’t need the money as much as the other women and so has more control over what happens to her body and her mind.
Sex workers from the lower end of the scale spend a lot of time while they are working telling friends and family—and any journalist who will listen—that they are having a great time and they are expressing their agency. When they leave the profession (either because they have passed their ‘use by’ date or they are too psychologically damaged to be able to attract and keep clients), the rose coloured glasses eventually fall off and they realise how scarred and damaged (think PTSD) they are as a result of their work. Quite a few then join anti-sex work groups, anti-decriminalisation groups, sex worker support groups, and so on. Many a famous porn star has, once their career in front of the cameras. is over, written autobiographies scathing of the porn industry and sex work in general. Many go into graphic detail about the various rips, tears, massive internal damage, and so on, that sex work inflicted on them.
Linda Lovelace was the star of the incredibly successful 70s porn movie Deep Throat. In her autobiography, she spilled the beans on what actually happened on set. It was never the ‘only’ 30-45 minutes of being on set that she was promised it would be. Very often it was 7-10 gruelling hours of being penetrated over and over again, day after day after day. Her work performing the act from which the movie got its name was actually performed with little to no preparation.
According to sources, Linda Lovelace (real name Linda Boreman) says she was coerced and sexually assaulted during the production, and that the film is considered genuine rape pornography by Lovelace herself. A Wikipedia article states that “Lovelace later wrote that she was coerced and sexually assaulted during the production, and that the film is genuine rape pornography.” This directly contradicts the claim in a Reddit post that she was “dedicated to prepare for her role.”
The Wall Street Journal article also notes that “Though it was touted as a celebration of female sexuality, ‘Deep Throat‘ can be seen as a study in the male control of female sexuality.”
While actress Amanda Seyfried did watch pornography to prepare for playing Lovelace in a 2013 biopic , there is no evidence that the real Linda Lovelace willingly prepared or trained for Deep Throat in any way.
But back to Perry and her book. Perry’s thoughts are science-based, facts-driven from academic research. It’s not based on an agenda, or either feminist or conservative ideology.
Perry also reflects that in the early 1994 a large billboard over a major road in London with supermodel Eva Herzigová looking down at her breasts enclosed in a padded bra and the words, ‘Hello boys’ writ large and proud across the billboard caused accidents on the road and outcries in the press and parliament. I was working in London in 1994 and saw the billboard many times; accidents really did happen on the road by the billboard. Men ran into the car in front of them, crossed into the other lane, and so on; the billboard did indeed cause a stir.
The popularity of Wonderbras surged dramatically following the launch of this campaign. The “Hello Boys” ad is credited with transforming Wonderbra from a relatively niche product into a global phenomenon. The campaign was a massive PR success, generating extensive media coverage and public attention. It was reported that the campaign provided $50 million worth of free publicity for a $25 million product line. The ad was so impactful that it was voted the greatest poster of all time in a 2011 poll.
In the long term, the success of the “Hello Boys” campaign had a lasting effect on the Wonderbra brand. It not only boosted sales significantly at the time but also cemented Wonderbra’s place in advertising history. The campaign’s legacy continued to influence the brand’s marketing strategies, as seen in subsequent revivals and modern twists on the original concept, such as the “Hello Me” campaign launched in 2018, which aimed to reposition the brand around female self-empowerment.
Fast-forward to 2024 and you can walk down any shopping centre or road and you will notice that the majority of the images are of beautiful young women in lingerie. Women—and I know this will come as a shock to many </sarcasm>—have been hyper-sexualised, and girls as young as 13 are very intimidated by the new reality. Perry then goes on to talk about why the most strident feminists are happy to, and indeed, encourage this. And how there are little or no places or media where young girls can go for advice. Except Perry lets us in on a secret for these girls and very young women kept for the final chapter—listen to your Mum.
Here’s some examples of what magazines supposedly for the empowerment of women are actually writing (article titles):
- Cosmopolitan Magazine:
- “Sex Tricks Only Cosmo Would Know: 20 Earth-Quaking Moves That Will Make Him Plead for Mercy — and Beg for More” .
- “21 Mind-Blowing Sex Moves You’ve Never Tried Before” .
- “99 Sexy Ways to Touch Him: These Fresh, Frisky Tips Will Thrill Every Inch of Your Guy” .
- “How to Climax Together: A Sure-Fire Technique That Takes You Both Over the Edge Simultaneously” .
- “Little Mouth Moves That Make Sex Hotter” .
- General Themes in Women’s Magazines:
I cannot recommend Perry’s book enough. Whether you are a man, or a woman, in my opinion you need to listen to this audiobook or read the paperback.
And I’m a man, so I’m always right.
From the book’s blurb:
“Ditching the stuffy hang-ups and benighted sexual traditionalism of the past is an unambiguously positive thing. The sexual revolution has liberated us to enjoy a heady mixture of erotic freedom and personal autonomy. Right?
“Wrong, argues Louise Perry in her provocative new book. Although it would be neither possible nor desirable to turn the clock back to a world of pre-60s sexual mores, she argues that the amoral libertinism and callous disenchantment of liberal feminism and our contemporary hypersexualised culture represent more loss than gain. The main winners from a world of rough sex, hook-up culture, and ubiquitous porn–where anything goes and only consent matters–are men, not the women forced to accommodate the excesses of male lust. While dispensing sage advice to the generations paying the price for these excesses, she makes a passionate case for a new sexual culture built around dignity, virtue, and restraint.
“This counter-cultural polemic from one of the most exciting young voices in contemporary feminism should be listened to by all men and women uneasy about the mindless orthodoxies of our ultra-liberal era.”
This is the sort of competition today’s teenagers and adult women face. Are these teenagers and young women scared? They should be, for a whole lot of reasons, including that the boys and men masturbating over images like those in the gallery just above (click on one of them to see the images larger) are desensitising themselves and so are less likely to be able to satisfy the teenage girls and adult women (and themselves) when they meet them and hook up. And they will be comparing real girls and women against the women in the images above. And the women above are all beautiful with flawless skin, which is what I asked for when I took 90 seconds to create each one of them. It took me much longer to write the prompt specifying what I wanted than it took the AI graphics engine to pop the images out.
Mothers and fathers, you need to be educating your daughters about how the rules have changed since when you were a teenager, and how they can best learn the skills to protect themselves in an age of increasing male violence against women. The sexual revolution that started with the arrival of the pill, which promised women so much freedom and the ability to have casual fucks just like men enjoy, turns out to be a false god.
The extensive data clearly shows that women’s mental and physical health is worse, the hookup culture and emotionless sex does their emotional life no good at all. Men love it, because it is giving them exactly what they have been asking for—guiltless sex, lots of it with the variety of lots of different partners, wham bam thank you ma’am. It turns out that women’s health is directly causational to this current culture. The more carefree sex they have, the more anxious and depressed they become.
Meanwhile, men are having their cake and making her eat him too.