Scan barcode
A review by thewildnorry
Real Sex: The Naked Truth about Chastity by Lauren F. Winner
Did not finish book.
I picked up this book expecting to be preached to. Instead I was preached at. It was as if Winner was flinging anecdotes and maxims and quotes from religious scholars in my direction. Reading this book reminded me of the time I was discussing a serious relationship problem with a married friend and she said, "Amy, once you get married, you'll realize that things like this don't really matter." I came into it expecting to be challenged as a liberal 20-something 2019 Christian. But it wasn't challenged because I had a hard time finding the overall Biblical evidence she provided strong or convicting.
The issues? The book was written by an author whose personal relational circumstances changed during its writing. She began the project as a single woman and then got engaged and married while writing the book. As a result, the perspective seems to shift from her initial goal of attacking the church and pop culture's stance on chastity and finding an actual Biblical explanation and instead falls back on party lines that become easier when you fall into the church's preferred state of being: marriage. (Not to say that this is true for *all* churches, but it is largely true for the American PCA church.)
Some of the book seemed to be just confusing and self-contradicting. For example, Lie #3: How You Dress Doesn't Matter where she discusses how our clothing choices affect our attitudes and therefore it's a shame that people dress down for casual Fridays at work, come to their college class in gym clothes, and don't dress up for church (she is not a fan of the "Come just as you are" policies). But then conversely, she blames societal structures and organizational leadership for the perpetuation of women dressing immodestly (because those are the clothes available) and yet still seems to put herself up as doing better--she shops vintage fashion stores because regular ones will diminish you into nothing but a "pair of breasts" (at least that is the take away I got from her anecdote about a house guest she had stay with her and her husband). Yet, she failed to address the societal objectification and oversexualization of women that contributes to her overall theory that society forces women to dress with low cut shirts, which in turn influences women to be more promiscuous. Who gave that power to a shirt? Who said that women's bare skin is more sexual than men's bare skin? Why can't the book urge that we change that instead? The argument is confusing and does nothing but package tradition with a shiny new cover.
The issues? The book was written by an author whose personal relational circumstances changed during its writing. She began the project as a single woman and then got engaged and married while writing the book. As a result, the perspective seems to shift from her initial goal of attacking the church and pop culture's stance on chastity and finding an actual Biblical explanation and instead falls back on party lines that become easier when you fall into the church's preferred state of being: marriage. (Not to say that this is true for *all* churches, but it is largely true for the American PCA church.)
Some of the book seemed to be just confusing and self-contradicting. For example, Lie #3: How You Dress Doesn't Matter where she discusses how our clothing choices affect our attitudes and therefore it's a shame that people dress down for casual Fridays at work, come to their college class in gym clothes, and don't dress up for church (she is not a fan of the "Come just as you are" policies). But then conversely, she blames societal structures and organizational leadership for the perpetuation of women dressing immodestly (because those are the clothes available) and yet still seems to put herself up as doing better--she shops vintage fashion stores because regular ones will diminish you into nothing but a "pair of breasts" (at least that is the take away I got from her anecdote about a house guest she had stay with her and her husband). Yet, she failed to address the societal objectification and oversexualization of women that contributes to her overall theory that society forces women to dress with low cut shirts, which in turn influences women to be more promiscuous. Who gave that power to a shirt? Who said that women's bare skin is more sexual than men's bare skin? Why can't the book urge that we change that instead? The argument is confusing and does nothing but package tradition with a shiny new cover.