Scan barcode
A review by zen
Finding Normal: Sex, Love, and Taboo in Our Hyperconnected World by Alexa Tsoulis-Reay
3.0
I bought this book for the last two chapters, I’m not gonna lie.
I’ve always been interested in what we consider to be “normal”. It feels to me like most people I know, most people I interact with, have an idea of “normal” that’s not theirs but society’s. They’re just repeating things because it’s the “normal” thing to do and when you ask for clarifications they simply cannot answer. So I certainly enjoyed how this book dove into the assumption that “normality” is a specific set of universal rules, which really isn’t the case.
The first three chapters—on ethical non-monogamies, age gap relationships and asexuality—were kinda boring because I consider these 3 things to be completely normal and even part of my daily life. It was nice, though, to see an outsider like Tsoulis-Reay go into these discussions with an open mind and lots of empathy. She’s a nice guide for someone who’s struggling to understand these concepts because you can follow her struggles and see how she untangles her feelings by asking questions to other people and herself. Still, the ethical non-monogamies chapter was a little too short for my liking, but that’s because the topic is so broad and the book simply touched on the tip of the iceberg. For example, all of the protagonists of this chapter had open marriages—other configurations are not explored.
The last two chapters are… a different can of worms.
The “consensual” incest chapter was easier to swallow maybe because at the end it was implied that every and any incest relationship is inherently abusive. (And also both people are human. Which is kinda important.) I understand why that happened—and I’m happy that Shelly managed to escape her abusive relationship with her father—but at the same time I feel like the chapter was kinda lacking at the end. What about relationships that are not abusive? Do they exist? If they do, what makes them not inherently abusive? There were so many questions that weren’t even brought up. I would’ve loved (as much as the word “loved” can be used in this context…) to see a deeper dive into the discussion.
As for the zoophilia chapter. That was bad, I gotta admit it. It was deeply upsetting in more than one way. I’m glad I read it because it seriously asked some needed questions on our ethics towards animals. If we’re gonna use the whole “animals can’t consent” argument, we do need to ask ourselves why it’s so easy to overlook consent when it comes to animal breeding and/or the meat market as a whole. I think this chapter highlighted a lot of our hypocrisy when it comes to what is normal and what isn’t. It was still disturbing, though. Some of the questions asked... I mean, I feel for these people and for what they’re going through. The fact that they can’t talk about it really doesn’t help because they can’t even find the help needed to not hurt other living beings. But if there’s no informed consent, then there is no consent, I think.
Also, one thing that irked me is that at some point Paul talks about a furry website. Tsoulis-Reay did not explain what furries are. If someone doesn’t already know the term, after reading this book they’ll probably make the (wrong) connection between furries and zoophiles. That does a disservice to the furry community that’s not harming anyone—be them human or animal—and already has to suffer because of prejudice from outsiders.
All in all, the book wasn’t that bad, but it was barely a primer on most of these topics. I think that was the point: to spark a conversation. But still…
I’ve always been interested in what we consider to be “normal”. It feels to me like most people I know, most people I interact with, have an idea of “normal” that’s not theirs but society’s. They’re just repeating things because it’s the “normal” thing to do and when you ask for clarifications they simply cannot answer. So I certainly enjoyed how this book dove into the assumption that “normality” is a specific set of universal rules, which really isn’t the case.
The first three chapters—on ethical non-monogamies, age gap relationships and asexuality—were kinda boring because I consider these 3 things to be completely normal and even part of my daily life. It was nice, though, to see an outsider like Tsoulis-Reay go into these discussions with an open mind and lots of empathy. She’s a nice guide for someone who’s struggling to understand these concepts because you can follow her struggles and see how she untangles her feelings by asking questions to other people and herself. Still, the ethical non-monogamies chapter was a little too short for my liking, but that’s because the topic is so broad and the book simply touched on the tip of the iceberg. For example, all of the protagonists of this chapter had open marriages—other configurations are not explored.
The last two chapters are… a different can of worms.
The “consensual” incest chapter was easier to swallow maybe because at the end it was implied that every and any incest relationship is inherently abusive. (And also both people are human. Which is kinda important.) I understand why that happened—and I’m happy that Shelly managed to escape her abusive relationship with her father—but at the same time I feel like the chapter was kinda lacking at the end. What about relationships that are not abusive? Do they exist? If they do, what makes them not inherently abusive? There were so many questions that weren’t even brought up. I would’ve loved (as much as the word “loved” can be used in this context…) to see a deeper dive into the discussion.
As for the zoophilia chapter. That was bad, I gotta admit it. It was deeply upsetting in more than one way. I’m glad I read it because it seriously asked some needed questions on our ethics towards animals. If we’re gonna use the whole “animals can’t consent” argument, we do need to ask ourselves why it’s so easy to overlook consent when it comes to animal breeding and/or the meat market as a whole. I think this chapter highlighted a lot of our hypocrisy when it comes to what is normal and what isn’t. It was still disturbing, though. Some of the questions asked... I mean, I feel for these people and for what they’re going through. The fact that they can’t talk about it really doesn’t help because they can’t even find the help needed to not hurt other living beings. But if there’s no informed consent, then there is no consent, I think.
Also, one thing that irked me is that at some point Paul talks about a furry website. Tsoulis-Reay did not explain what furries are. If someone doesn’t already know the term, after reading this book they’ll probably make the (wrong) connection between furries and zoophiles. That does a disservice to the furry community that’s not harming anyone—be them human or animal—and already has to suffer because of prejudice from outsiders.
All in all, the book wasn’t that bad, but it was barely a primer on most of these topics. I think that was the point: to spark a conversation. But still…