Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.82 AVERAGE
3.82 AVERAGE
informative
medium-paced
Katz places the normative category of heterosexuality under the microscope, reviewing and commenting on its history in American & European literature that often focuses on challenges to the system in the form of the 'abnormal' (ex: 'homosexuality' or feminist discourses). I was impressed by his analysis of key texts and found it very thought-provoking. At the end of it all I find that the definition of heterosexuality (in all its historical specificity) still remains elusive.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
I was originally drawn to this book by its title. History from the dominant identity (e.g. heterosexuality) is so often treated as the default and not examined in the same way as other identities (e.g. queer people) so I was curious what this would be about. As the title suggests, the author dives into heterosexuality, looking at the way it has been perceived in the past (including past meanings, including a meaning as a sexual "disorder") and sometimes comparing this to discussions about homosexuality.
The author notes in the preface how much easier it has become to access information about heterosexuality now than it was when he wrote it. Despite that, this still makes for an interesting read. I enjoyed the earlier chapters the most as the historical aspects were fascinating, including the way that heterosexuality was originally used as a way to distinguish people from the then "normal" and expected attitudes towards sex. I really enjoyed how use of the term and the history of being straight are intertwined with queer history as opposed to just being the unexplored default (which has its own interesting nuances) it is usually propped up against.
Although I did overall enjoy this work, I didn't always agree with some of the arguments being made, especially in the later chapters. They were still interesting to read of course, but I do wish some ideas had been expanded on to give more nuance/criticism. At times some of the lines of thinking were a little dismissive or simplified (even when one considers this limited to a western perspective) or just felt a bit uncomfortable. Although not badly intentioned, the "everyone's a bit bi" attitude of some of the arguments (some not by the author but these could have been criticised more, especially the quoted line aboutwomen choosing to become a lesbian and leaving husbands ). I don't know how much of this stems from me being asexual (the existence of which is briefly alluded to but not included in discussions) and therefore not fitting on the gay-straight spectrum and not feeling like I fit into the blurring of homosexuality and heterosexuality - I remain an outlier. This is not a criticism of the author of course! Especially given the time it was written vs when asexuality started gaining traction. But sexuality is more complicated than it is sometimes depicted.
The author notes in the preface how much easier it has become to access information about heterosexuality now than it was when he wrote it. Despite that, this still makes for an interesting read. I enjoyed the earlier chapters the most as the historical aspects were fascinating, including the way that heterosexuality was originally used as a way to distinguish people from the then "normal" and expected attitudes towards sex. I really enjoyed how use of the term and the history of being straight are intertwined with queer history as opposed to just being the unexplored default (which has its own interesting nuances) it is usually propped up against.
Although I did overall enjoy this work, I didn't always agree with some of the arguments being made, especially in the later chapters. They were still interesting to read of course, but I do wish some ideas had been expanded on to give more nuance/criticism. At times some of the lines of thinking were a little dismissive or simplified (even when one considers this limited to a western perspective) or just felt a bit uncomfortable. Although not badly intentioned, the "everyone's a bit bi" attitude of some of the arguments (some not by the author but these could have been criticised more, especially the quoted line about
Content Warnings
Moderate: Biphobia, Homophobia, Misogyny, Lesbophobia
Minor: Racism, Sexual content, Slavery, Acephobia/Arophobia
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
slow-paced
Truly, I enjoyed the beginning of this book the most. Discussing Victorian and pre-20th century mindsets was more fascinating to me but I enjoyed the conclusion
Interesting and easy to follow. Katz gives great and believable examples to suggest that heterosexuality is as much a social construction as homosexuality.
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
fuck yeah
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Chunky review ahead! Includes some spoilers.
First of all, even though the title clearly notes "heterosexuality", it is tempting to pick this up thinking that it's discussed only in relation to homosexuality. As the author clearly notes in the first pages, it is not. This thinking reveals how much heterosexuality is overlooked, so much so that we don't consider analysing it. Katz pulls it out of the obvious, the self-evident, by actually talking about it. In his words: "to openly name heterosexuality, and to speak explicitly and at length about it, removes it from the realm of the taken-for-granted, subjecting it to the dangers of analysis—and the possibility of critique."
Weeks before I picked up this book, I was discussing sexuality with my boyfriend. Casually, I said "I just don't believe in heterosexuality anymore." He didn't quite understand what I meant with it, and I didn't know yet how right I actually was with this statement.
So in this book we discover that heterosexuality is a myth. A constructed (sexual, historical) identity, just as every other hue of the rainbow side of society is. We haven't always lived in a society where the heterosexual/homosexual distinction is used to define individuals, but we do think of past times as if these categories apply naturally and are biological, especially the heterosexual category.
What was most revealing to me is that heterosexuality is intrinsically linked with toxic masculinity and gender violence. Saying it now, it's most logical, but heterosexuality only exists with the creation of a sharp difference between man and woman. And with difference comes power. Gender roles give way to manly, aggressive men, and delicate, submissive women. The author does not discuss at length that the generative sex standard is a tool for women's oppression, but it certainly is implied. He even admits that "the early-twentieth-century focus on physiological and gender dimorphism reflected the deep anxieties of men over women, and the changing ideals of womanhood and manhood."
Which means that we need to dispose of gender altogether for the patriarchy to end. According to the author, Ti-Grace Atkinson's theory preaches that women must "commit suicide" as a gender, because we will never escape the oppression that is so intrinsically merged with the feminine identity. I am not surprised seeing this implemented among the gen Z collective, with the rise of the non-binary genders and identities.
Furthermore, a first definition of heterosexuality is rooted in a book that is deeply problematic: It takes hetero, christian and white norms as good and healthy, dooming everything else as perverted and sick. A second, later definition of heterosexuality by Freud defines gender roles even more tightly. This probably explains why alternative people lean not only politically but also sexually into the counter-culture. After all, "the making of the middle class and the invention of heterosexuality went hand in hand."
It also explains why biphobia is so ingrained in society, perpetuated by both hetero and homo counterparts. Bisexuality cannot exist in a binary structure, where roles, sexuality and identity are made up of opposites. Accepting bisexuality means admittig that these things are fluid and do not fit properly into boxes, ergo the whole structure crumbles away.
First of all, even though the title clearly notes "heterosexuality", it is tempting to pick this up thinking that it's discussed only in relation to homosexuality. As the author clearly notes in the first pages, it is not. This thinking reveals how much heterosexuality is overlooked, so much so that we don't consider analysing it. Katz pulls it out of the obvious, the self-evident, by actually talking about it. In his words: "to openly name heterosexuality, and to speak explicitly and at length about it, removes it from the realm of the taken-for-granted, subjecting it to the dangers of analysis—and the possibility of critique."
Weeks before I picked up this book, I was discussing sexuality with my boyfriend. Casually, I said "I just don't believe in heterosexuality anymore." He didn't quite understand what I meant with it, and I didn't know yet how right I actually was with this statement.
So in this book we discover that heterosexuality is a myth. A constructed (sexual, historical) identity, just as every other hue of the rainbow side of society is. We haven't always lived in a society where the heterosexual/homosexual distinction is used to define individuals, but we do think of past times as if these categories apply naturally and are biological, especially the heterosexual category.
What was most revealing to me is that heterosexuality is intrinsically linked with toxic masculinity and gender violence. Saying it now, it's most logical, but heterosexuality only exists with the creation of a sharp difference between man and woman. And with difference comes power. Gender roles give way to manly, aggressive men, and delicate, submissive women. The author does not discuss at length that the generative sex standard is a tool for women's oppression, but it certainly is implied. He even admits that "the early-twentieth-century focus on physiological and gender dimorphism reflected the deep anxieties of men over women, and the changing ideals of womanhood and manhood."
Which means that we need to dispose of gender altogether for the patriarchy to end. According to the author, Ti-Grace Atkinson's theory preaches that women must "commit suicide" as a gender, because we will never escape the oppression that is so intrinsically merged with the feminine identity. I am not surprised seeing this implemented among the gen Z collective, with the rise of the non-binary genders and identities.
Furthermore, a first definition of heterosexuality is rooted in a book that is deeply problematic: It takes hetero, christian and white norms as good and healthy, dooming everything else as perverted and sick. A second, later definition of heterosexuality by Freud defines gender roles even more tightly. This probably explains why alternative people lean not only politically but also sexually into the counter-culture. After all, "the making of the middle class and the invention of heterosexuality went hand in hand."
It also explains why biphobia is so ingrained in society, perpetuated by both hetero and homo counterparts. Bisexuality cannot exist in a binary structure, where roles, sexuality and identity are made up of opposites. Accepting bisexuality means admittig that these things are fluid and do not fit properly into boxes, ergo the whole structure crumbles away.
**Read for my 2021 gender and sexuality comprehensive exams**
Not a bad book, had some interesting ideas but not that interesting to me... I appreciated the arguments at the start of the book about the shifting in language and medical terms, and then the feminist analyses of heterosexuality that were discussed but the middle part of the book dragged a bit for me. I'm also just really, really tired. I've been reading too much non-fiction and sociology.
Not a bad book, had some interesting ideas but not that interesting to me... I appreciated the arguments at the start of the book about the shifting in language and medical terms, and then the feminist analyses of heterosexuality that were discussed but the middle part of the book dragged a bit for me. I'm also just really, really tired. I've been reading too much non-fiction and sociology.