Hello
We’re pleased to announce an AMA with writer and campaigner Louise Perry in the wake of her new book The Case Against the Sexual Revolution. The thread is open for questions now and Louise will come on to answer them on Thursday and Friday.
Louise Perry is a columnist at the New Statesman, a features writer for the Daily Mail, and the Press Officer for the campaign group We Can’t Consent To This. More about Louise’s book:
“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 a tiny minority of high-status 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 read by all men and women uneasy about the mindless orthodoxies of our ultra-liberal era.”
Please ask your questions from now - though the thread will be open until Louise has finished answering questions.
As always, please remember our guidelines - one question per user, follow-ups only if there’s time and most questions have been answered, and please keep it civil. Also if one topic is dominating a thread, mods might request that people don't continue to post what's effectively the same question or point. (We may suspend the accounts of anyone who continues after we've posted to ask people to stop, so please take note.) Rest assured we will ALWAYS let the guest know that it's an area of concern to multiple users and will encourage them to engage with those questions.
Many thanks,
MNHQ
MNHQ have commented on this thread
AMA
AMA with Louise Perry, author of ‘The Case Against the Sexual Revolution’ - 14th July
JuliaMumsnet · 12/07/2022 10:33
user1477391263 · 15/07/2022 04:45
I'm broadly in sympathy with your expressions of concern about the pornification of popular culture and the general trend of young women putting up with shoddy, half-arsed relationships where the guy expects sex without any particular commitment in return. Don't even get me started on things like schools and universities presenting a sanitized vision of sex work and encouraging young women to think this might be normal or empowering.
Re marriage: I discussed this a bit on the Mumsnet discussion board thread on your book, but: my concern is that there may be only so many decent guys (I mean, ones who are actually capable of committing to marriage and then being passably good spouses and fathers afterwards). I personally insisted on marriage myself and will be talking to my own daughters about the financial and personal risks that young women take when they have children with men who refuse to marry them based on weedy excuses.
Butliving in a country where virtually all births take place within marriage and unmarried motherhood is very tabooI'm also uncomfortable aware of the tradeoffs involved here. The result of these taboos mean very high rates of long-term singlehood and a lot fewer babies being born. Demographers generally agree that in developed countries, strong taboos on out-of-wedlock births and low fertility rates go together. Of course, that's destabilizing to society in all kinds of other ways, in the long term. And then there is the issue of so many people just being single and lonely throughout their lives.
Is it better for babies to just not get born in the first place, rather than to be born into less-than-ideal relationships, and is it better for women to stay single rather than have a less-than-ideal partner? How do we balance the societal need for babies to get born, against the challenges of children being born into unstable relationships, mothers' boyfriends, stepfathers and the like... and how do we manage these tradeoffs? I'm skeptical of the idea that we can just make all men into satisfactory partners; I feel quite sure that a large minority of men simply lack the personality traits necessary to be a good husband and dad, and that this is probably one of society's hard-to-solve issues.
t1lly · 14/07/2022 23:25
I'm looking forward to reading your book, after coming across a few of your articles. I suppose my question is a bit leading, because the alternative is too depressing, but do you see any hope on the horizon that teenage girls today might see through and push back against the normalisation of things like 'rough sex' and what to my generation looks like straightforward abuse? How can we as a society and individuals support this generation of young women who I think are growing up subject to extreme pressure, from men and other women, to conform to certain behaviours?
CherrySocks · 14/07/2022 20:32
If you were to answer this just in bullet points on the back of an envelope:
What practical action steps can be taken to improve matters on all the issues you raise?
And at what level can action steps best be taken? eg by individuals, by campaigning groups, by schools, through government policy, and even globally?
Legrandsophie · 14/07/2022 20:14
I haven’t read the book yet (sorry) but do read your articles and follow you on Twitter.
How far do you think the rush to embrace sexual liberation was influence by capitalism (since it very much was an American invention) and how much of what we see as liberal attitudes to sex in the modern media is merely commodification?
PacificState · 14/07/2022 16:58
Hello - I love your column in the New Statesman and seeing/hearing you in the media. Thank you for being such a good advocate.
What's your take on how issues around violence against women play out in UK party politics? Would you ever endorse a political party? Do you think Labour tends to be stronger on VAW than the conservatives (or the other way around of course) or do you think it comes down to handful of genuinely committed MPs in various different parties?
louisemperry · 15/07/2022 16:03
I think it is like steering between Scylla and Charybdis. The feminist instinct to reject claims of biologically-rooted difference at the psychological level is coming from a very understandable desire to reject scientific sexism (e.g. the "missing five ounces"), which has historically been used to exclude women from public life. From this has developed a further effort to reject biologically-rooted difference at every level, including denying the existence of strength and size differences. Eventually you end up arguing, for instance, as Laurie Penny does here:
"Strict gender segregation is seldom questioned, which conveniently allows women’s events to be sidelined while ensuring that no sportsman will ever be beaten by a woman. But dividing sports by gender isn’t natural or inevitable."
Penny is being completely consistent within the liberal feminist ideology, which is all about emphasising sameness between men and women. She's also proposing a policy that would seriously harm female athletes, as I think most Mumsnetters would agree.
My argument is that we don't have a choice about acknowledging biologically-rooted difference. It's there, whether we want to accept it or not. An effective form of feminism starts from recognising sexual asymmetry and working with it, however challenging that might sometimes be.
MissusPongo · 14/07/2022 08:37
Hi Louise
I've bought your book and am looking forward to reading it.
I agree with the premise that the sexual revolution has benefited men more than women. However I worry that making a case for social change based on biologically-rooted differences between the sexes gives ammunition to those sexists who would like to see women back in the kitchen. There are plenty of people who would be glad of any reason to dismiss concerns over things like equal pay. It feels a bit like steering between Scylla and Charybdis. I'd be interested in your views.
StillWeRise · 14/07/2022 09:37
I'd be interested to know if you think there was a golden moment, where women were freed (or free-er) from reproductive and cultural limits on their sexuality, yet we hadn't reached the excesses we face today. Do you think it was an inevitable downward slide? And if you could imagine the sexual revolution without the subsequent IT/SM revolution, would that have mitigated the harms ?
Zerogravity · 14/07/2022 09:23
There aren't many questions on this thread but I just wanted to say I have ordered the book and it looks really interesting. Sadly, I won't have read it in time for today's chat! I am particularly interested in the relationship between feminism and christianity and other religions. As a lapsed Christian, I often feel that (liberal) feminism scorns any hint of women not wanting sex (or at least promiscuous sex) as a backlash to organized religion. Looking forward to reading your views.
boupdeflouff · 14/07/2022 08:40
Why do you choose to write pieces for the Daily Mail?
MissusPongo · 14/07/2022 08:37
Hi Louise
I've bought your book and am looking forward to reading it.
I agree with the premise that the sexual revolution has benefited men more than women. However I worry that making a case for social change based on biologically-rooted differences between the sexes gives ammunition to those sexists who would like to see women back in the kitchen. There are plenty of people who would be glad of any reason to dismiss concerns over things like equal pay. It feels a bit like steering between Scylla and Charybdis. I'd be interested in your views.
Don’t want to miss threads like this?
Weekly
Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!
Log in to update your newsletter preferences.
You've subscribed!
SlowingDownAndDown · 13/07/2022 15:37
I agree that chivalry is generally a good thing. Misogynists tend to resist it. I enjoy telling people that ladies have social superiority but it doesn’t always go down too well. What are good ways to promote that idea? Is it actually desirable in work situations or does it interfere with people’s perceptions of equality?
In the past sex trumped age in terms of precedence. Would you want to go back to old men giving up their seats to young women, for example.
SquirrelSoShiny · 14/07/2022 21:25
Darn I missed this
bubblesbubbles11 · 13/07/2022 01:24
Did you really say on that interview "where Byonce goes we all follow". (like it put a ring upon it)
If yes. Hmmm.
I don't disagree with your ideas but how are you proposing to implement them in mainstream politics?
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.