Debating Sexual Correctness: Pornography, Sexual Harassment, Date Rape and the Politics of Sexual Equality

by Adele M. Stan (Editor)

A glance here, a flirtation there, a moment of  misunderstanding. Have the new rules of feminist  politics gone too far? Since Katie Riophe's book  The Morning After helped spark a  national debate over the politics of date rape, the  media has focused on controversial sexual behavior  of all kinds. Proponents of what has come to be  called sexual correctness contend that we live in a  culture where date rape, pornography, and sexual  harassment are simply facts of life that demand a  new sexual standard. Opponents argue that these  claims are born out of a victim mentality they see  as pervasive in the modern feminist movement that  threatens to rob women of the gains of sexual  freedom. As the successfull Dell title  Debating PC did in 1992, Debating  Sexual Correctness brings together some of  the best known and most important voices in this  debate. From the editorial pages of magazines as  diverse as The New Republic and  Glamour, The New York  Times and Playboy, the  country's most thoughtful social critics define or  debunk this very controversial notion of sexual  correctness. Katie Roiphe, Camille Paglia, Naomi  Wolf, Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, and Susan  Faludi are only a few of the writers in this  provocative anthology that looks at a highly charged  debate that has encompassed a nation.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction

340 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1995

Reviews

[Kelley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Again, with 20 minutes to pick up something to read at the library lest I go mad with nothing new to read in the house, I grabbed a book that someone had left on the display shelf. Althought I've done a hyoooge series on the literature in this field for the old blog, this was a new book I hadn't seen -- probably because it isn't that good.

_Debating Sexual Correctness_ came out in the mid-90s, a response to the explosive issues that arose in th 80s and 90s: the sex wars, the rise of the cult of MacKinnon and Dworkin, incendiary political events such as the date rape trial of one of the Kennedys and the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings.

I basically skimmed through this book Sunday afternoon. I re-read the famouse Katie Roiphe whine about how cool she and her ivy leagues friends were and how uncool everyone else was. I read a critique of Roiphe's thesis in _The Morning After_ from Katha Pollitt who, in typical fashion, stomps on a young feminist but at least this time writes a deservedly crushing review of the tripe Roiphe tried to pass off as "well-researched" reporting.

Other than that the reason why this book isn't highly rated is that it was simply not timeless enough. It was a book of essays written specifically to an era, and with the exception of a few articles, the items included here are simply too journalistic to speak to anything more transient than the latest sexual/political scandal emanating from the halls of power. But the writers, speaking to a contemporaneous audience, don't do enough to educate the reader as to the events -- which lives a reader stumped as to what the author is talking about without proper context. It's generally the job of an anthology's editor to make sure the reader has a proper explanation of the context. In this case, the author falls short of that ideal.

It was worth reading, though, so I could be reminded of what a jackass Robin Morgan is. Henwood once described her as "scary." Yeah, that too.

[Katherine · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've officially kept this book from the library for waaaaay to long, thinking I'd finish it, but it's time to return.
Although a bit dated (1995), this was a great backgrounder for the feminist movement and filled in some of the gaps I had on both the history and pivotal figures.

Some of the lines that really stuck with me:

It's important to remember that the sexual revolution was experienced by women who were not raised to be feminists but, rather, a generation that was reared to please men. (p. xxii)

...They have convinced many of us that the standard for speech is what I would call a repulsion standard. That is to say we find the most repulsive person in the society and we defend him. I say we find the most powerless people in this society, and we defend THEM. That's the way we increase rights of speech in this society. (p. 30)

About the only generalization one can make is that pornography is the return of the repressed, of feelings and fantasies driven underground by a culture that atomizes sexuality, defining love as a noble affair of the heart and mind, lust as a base animal urge centered in unmentionable organs. Prurience - the state of mind I associate with pornography - implies a sense of sex as forbidden, secretive pleasure, isolated from any emotional or social context.... If feminists define pornography per se as the enemy, the result will be to make a lot of women ashamed of their sexual feelings and afraid to be honest about them. And the last thing women need is more sexual shame, guilt, and hypocrisy - this time served up as more feminism. (p. 42-43)

[Nicollesm]

Very informative book

[Verena · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this because I am doing an assignment on sexual harassment in the workplace and struggled to wrap my mind about some things (like "how the f do you not know that making lewd suggestions in a professional environment is sexual harassment, Mr Old White Dude?" or "why do we need to remind you to not randomly touch other employees inappropriately").
So I decided to give something older about this topic a go and see if it'll offer any insights to what might have been the attitude towards sexual harassment when today's old white men were younger.
All in all this was a frustrating but interesting read.
10/10 not quotable scientific work but interesting still.
10/10 makes you hate (some) men more - but tackling topics that question the integrity and humanity of our patriarchal society will do that, so that's kinda inevitable