How I Got Tricked Into Buying a Book by an Ultra-Conservative "Feminist"
... because The Guardian and many others advertised "The Case Against the Sexual Revolution" as brave and urgent. Can conservative feminism really save us from hook-up culture?
There are books where you can predict the review before you even start reading. But with The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, I didn’t know my final judgment until the moment I opened the Word document. This book by conservative feminist Louise Perry left me speechless and dispirited. And still, I have to admit that it actually started promisingly—and was even recommended by The Guardian as the “Book of the Day.”
“This is a provocative book. More than once, its author says the unsayable. It is urgent and daring and brave. It may turn out to be one of the most important feminist books of its time.”
Other glowing praises also compelled me to read it. For example, this one:
“This is a marvellously essential book, brilliantly argued. Perry has written the most radical feminist challenge to a failed liberal feminism. For love of womankind, and based on her profound reading of scientific, cultural and historical material, Perry (...) has dared argue that (...) the so-called sexual revolution failed women, especially young and poor women.”
— Phyllis Chesler, writer, feminist, and psychologist
The challenges facing modern heterosexuality have been evident at least since the rise of celibacy movements such as 4B in South Korea. I thought, “Perhaps what we truly need is a form of sexual counter-revolution,” and proceeded to click “buy.”
What’s it about?
The Case Against is (supposedly) a kind of guide for sex in the 21st century. The British author Louise Perry, just 32 years old, declares war on liberal feminism and advocates for sexual chastity. Her argument: Hook-up culture uses women as cannon fodder (!) for sex-hungry men who only have one thing in mind: spreading as much sperm as possible because they are evolutionarily and biologically programmed to do so.
In Perry’s world, which is partly informed by her experiences as a worker in a rape crisis center, women are saints and men are monsters. At least the unmarried ones lol. Of course, Perry firmly believes in the physical and psychological differences between genders (yes, for Perry there are only two genders) and argues that there’s no safer place for a woman than in a monogamous marriage.
And while I wanted to disagree with her on all these points, Perry – who studied at the prestigious Oxford University – sometimes managed to silence my inner critic (at least temporarily) with good arguments. But let’s start at the beginning.
The Fight Against Liberal Feminism
In The Case Against, liberal feminism, as we know it from the internet, women’s magazines, and the books of our favorite authors (Karley Sciortino, Roxane Gay, or Dolly Alderton), is radically dissected.
“Few liberal feminists are willing to draw the link between the culture of sexual hedonism they promote and the anxieties over campus rape that have emerged at exactly the same time. If they did, they might be forced to recognize that they have done a terrible thing in advising inexperienced young women.”
— Louise Perry
Perry opposes “compulsive sex-positivity,” which is what we understand today as a free, self-determined, BDSM-inclusive sex culture. She repeatedly worries about sexually active young women, who are, in her reality, victims of a hypersexual culture that convinces them to think sex is nothing special.
The table of contents alone shows how radical her theses are.
In her book, she presents eight theses, all of which more or less lead to the same conclusion: sex is dangerous for heterosexual women – so you’re better off avoiding it, especially before marriage! In the chapter “Loveless Sex is Not Empowering,” it sounds like this:
“The liberal feminist narrative of sexual empowerment is popular for a reason: it is much more palatable to understand oneself as a sassy Carrie Bradshaw, making all the decisions and challenging the patriarchal status quo. Adopting such a self-image can be protective, making it easier to endure what is often, in fact, a rather miserable experience. If you're a young woman launched into a sexual culture that is fundamentally not geared towards protecting your safety or wellbeing, in which you are considered valuable in only a very narrow, physical sense, and if your only options seem to be either hooking up or strict celibacy, then a comforting myth of 'agency' can be attractive.”
— Louise Perry
This myth, Perry argues, is based on naivety about the “true nature” of male sexuality. Young women allegedly don’t know that, for evolutionary and biological reasons, men are generally much better suited for emotionless sex and find it much easier to view their sexual partners as interchangeable.
Perry divides men into the stereotypical categories of “Cads” and “Dads.” Cads are to be avoided because they’re only after quick sex, while women would be better off finding a “Dad.” Before any sexual encounter, a woman should ask herself: “Would I have children with this man?” and then decide whether she really wants penis-in-vagina intercourse with him.
Due to ignorance, women could easily mistake being desired for being valued. How can one disagree with Perry when she writes that young women, in particular, are often exploited and abused by men, especially when statistics back this up? In these passages, I found myself nodding along and agreeing with the ultra-conservative Perry.
Consent is Not Enough
“This fact becomes clear when we look at the twenty-first-century university campus, where the gospel of sexual liberation is preached loudest and where BDSM societies and 'Sex Weeks' are the new normal.”
— Louise Perry
Yes, heterosexuality has its pitfalls. But: A gospel of sexual liberation? Give me a break. What about all the studies showing that Gen-Z has less sex than any generation before and is struggling with increasing loneliness? And where exactly can one sign up for this “Sex Week”? Perry’s small lapses in attention expose where her true sympathies lie (hint: towards the right).
Perry criticizes that even the much-cited concept of consent is insufficient and is often used to justify what is essentially violence against women. I’d like to quote Perry’s words directly here so her tone isn’t lost in my review. In the chapter “Violence is Not Love,” she writes:
“The liberal feminist appeal to consent isn't good enough. It cannot account for the ways in which the sexuality of impressionable young people can be warped by porn or other forms of cultural influence. It cannot convincingly explain why a woman who hurts herself should be understood as mentally ill, but a woman who asks her partner to hurt her is apparently exercising her sexual agency.”
— Louise Perry
Yes, this part hit different. Perry argues that the liberal feminist concept of consent is based on a flawed assumption: that who we are in the bedroom differs fundamentally from who we are in everyday life.
Despite the pop-cultural portrayal of BDSM as a harmless, giggly thing where wealthy businessmen regularly hire female dominatrices for spanking sessions, these relationships are not typical. And: Perry (unfortunately) has a point here.