What do you think?
Rate this book
Age of Sex Crime
The sexualized serial murder of women by men is the subject of this provocative book. Jane Caputi argues that the sensationalized murders by men such as Jack the Ripper, Son of Sam, Hillside Strangler, and the Yorkshire Ripper represent a contemporary genre of sexually political crimes. The awful deeds function as a form of patriarchal terrorism, “disappearing” women at a rate of some four thousand annually in the United States alone.
Caputi asks us not only to name the phenomenon of sexually political murder, but to recognize sex crime in all of its various interconnecting manifestations.
Caputi asks us not only to name the phenomenon of sexually political murder, but to recognize sex crime in all of its various interconnecting manifestations.
244 pages, Hardcover
First published June 15, 1987
1 person is currently reading
188 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 27, 2019
Simultaneously dated and prescient.
June 1, 2013
Seriously. Disturbing.
And all too relevant, unfortunately.
And all too relevant, unfortunately.
March 20, 2018
This book was published in 1987, but unfortunately it is still so relevant in 2018. A truly amazing read for anyone interested in gender studies and/or crime.
September 19, 2021
wow, this was fascinating! as someone with a guilty interest in true crime, this really helped me process a lot of the content that i used to mindlessly consume. a slept-on feminist classic, and one that i hope receives more attention following the recent revival of interest in second wave feminist theory.
April 14, 2023
Caputi's places the murder of women in a larger sociological framework showing how crimes like those of Jack the Ripper are part of a larger structure of misogyny.
ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: SEX CRIM COMES OF AGE: 1
; 1: THE RIPPER REPOSITORY: 14
; 2. THE RIPPER REPITITIONS: 33
; 3. CRIME FORMULAS: 63
; 4. PROFESSIONAL VICTIMS: 93
; 5. COMPANION IDEOLOGIES:
> THE FETISHES OF SEX CRIME: 122
; 6. THE AGE OF SEX CRIME: 158
; EPILOGUE: 198
; NOTES: 203
; INDEX: 239
ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: SEX CRIM COMES OF AGE: 1
; 1: THE RIPPER REPOSITORY: 14
; 2. THE RIPPER REPITITIONS: 33
; 3. CRIME FORMULAS: 63
; 4. PROFESSIONAL VICTIMS: 93
; 5. COMPANION IDEOLOGIES:
> THE FETISHES OF SEX CRIME: 122
; 6. THE AGE OF SEX CRIME: 158
; EPILOGUE: 198
; NOTES: 203
; INDEX: 239
Read
October 6, 2024DNF @ 80%
starts strong, but soon devolves into a mess of anecdotal evidence and surface-level, dogma-adherent analysis
starts strong, but soon devolves into a mess of anecdotal evidence and surface-level, dogma-adherent analysis
December 19, 2024
I don’t agree with her definition of rape – namely, “rape is a social expression of social politics, an institutionalized and ritual enactment of male domination, a form of terror which functions to maintain the same quo” – because rape in the US has always been an aberrant expression that the guys doing it try to hide from the authorities. This is true even of war, in that society condemns, and the system will punish, men who rape in war if they get caught.
On the other hand, I do not disagree with her underlying argument that rape has a lot of social support. As she amply demonstrates, this is indisputable. But in a society as large and as diverse as that of the US, a lot of things that the majority reject have a lot of social support, because people can live within subgroups that have established their own norms, be they obvious subgroups like the Amish or far more subtle groupings like a man’s cronies at the local bar. The Amish (or each group of Amish) have their own written rules and established philosophies, while a group of guys who hang out in the bar have established but unwritten understandings, but either way, they believe in a reality and hold to a philosophy the rest of the culture tolerates rather than embracing.
And while I don’t disagree with her claim that sex crimes are “a paradigmatic phenomenon of the modern period,” I think her history of the movement starts too late. I would start with the Marquis de Sade. The courts did not convict him of killing multiple women, but I think the evidence indicates he likely did so. More importantly, his philosophical writings were immensely influential, not only directly but indirectly. For example, according to a friend, Algernon Charles Swinburne at one point upheld “the Marquis de Sade as the acme and apostle of perfect, without (as he says) having read a word of his works.”
Swinburne did eventually read de Sade, as did Lord Byron and any number of their contemporaries, they were deeply influenced by de Sade’s ideas, and that Sadean influence has traveled widely. Most who embrace de Sade’s approach to life nowadays may not know where those ideas come from, even as they are essentially bathing it it, not least because de Sade’s philosophy underlies nearly all pornographic media. As Sade said, “One must do violence to the object of one's desire; when it surrenders, the pleasure is greater.”
I think Caputi’s problem is that she sees men as united in “patriarchy” – but as Sade shows, for many men who abuse women, it is the very fact that the general society frowns on what they are doing that gives the act it’s power:
“Now we come to the crux of my philosophy: if the taking of pleasure is enhanced by the criminal character of the circumstances -- if, indeed, the pleasure taken is directly proportionate to the severity of the crime involved --, then is it not criminality itself which is pleasurable, and the seemingly pleasure-producing act nothing more than the instrument of its realization?”
Caputi does sometimes grapple with the fact that serial killers are dealing with multiple motivations. In particular, I thought she did a good job of demonstrating how society will so readily shift the blame for men’s horrific acts away from man doing it and onto women, be those women his victims or his mother, even though the facts don’t support that argument. I just think her commitment to the idea of the patriarchy undercuts her argument a bit.
I think the very idea of patriarchy – the concept that all men are joined against all women – blinds Caputi to the fact that sex murderers are far more interested in believing and enacting a “might makes right” sort of approach than in ruling over women with other men. As Sade said, “tastes are supplied us by Nature herself, and nothing we can possibly do will change them. Did the sodomite ask to become one? Is the anal erotic a pervert by preference? Of course not. Then, with what right does one man dare entreat him to mend his ways? With what right does society demand that he alter his behavior at the expense of his personal happiness?"
Blaming patriarchy can shield men from the guilt of their own actions just as effectively as blaming their mother. In the end, murderers murder because they choose to, and serial murderers are murderers who’ve discovered they enjoy it, and who have decided they have a right to it. While Caputi may be correct that there have been no female serial sexual killers, there have been women who were serial murderers, and they were coming from much the same mindset as the male serial murderers; “the ability to kill proves my right to kill, and I reject society’s claims otherwise.”
On the other hand, I do not disagree with her underlying argument that rape has a lot of social support. As she amply demonstrates, this is indisputable. But in a society as large and as diverse as that of the US, a lot of things that the majority reject have a lot of social support, because people can live within subgroups that have established their own norms, be they obvious subgroups like the Amish or far more subtle groupings like a man’s cronies at the local bar. The Amish (or each group of Amish) have their own written rules and established philosophies, while a group of guys who hang out in the bar have established but unwritten understandings, but either way, they believe in a reality and hold to a philosophy the rest of the culture tolerates rather than embracing.
And while I don’t disagree with her claim that sex crimes are “a paradigmatic phenomenon of the modern period,” I think her history of the movement starts too late. I would start with the Marquis de Sade. The courts did not convict him of killing multiple women, but I think the evidence indicates he likely did so. More importantly, his philosophical writings were immensely influential, not only directly but indirectly. For example, according to a friend, Algernon Charles Swinburne at one point upheld “the Marquis de Sade as the acme and apostle of perfect, without (as he says) having read a word of his works.”
Swinburne did eventually read de Sade, as did Lord Byron and any number of their contemporaries, they were deeply influenced by de Sade’s ideas, and that Sadean influence has traveled widely. Most who embrace de Sade’s approach to life nowadays may not know where those ideas come from, even as they are essentially bathing it it, not least because de Sade’s philosophy underlies nearly all pornographic media. As Sade said, “One must do violence to the object of one's desire; when it surrenders, the pleasure is greater.”
I think Caputi’s problem is that she sees men as united in “patriarchy” – but as Sade shows, for many men who abuse women, it is the very fact that the general society frowns on what they are doing that gives the act it’s power:
“Now we come to the crux of my philosophy: if the taking of pleasure is enhanced by the criminal character of the circumstances -- if, indeed, the pleasure taken is directly proportionate to the severity of the crime involved --, then is it not criminality itself which is pleasurable, and the seemingly pleasure-producing act nothing more than the instrument of its realization?”
Caputi does sometimes grapple with the fact that serial killers are dealing with multiple motivations. In particular, I thought she did a good job of demonstrating how society will so readily shift the blame for men’s horrific acts away from man doing it and onto women, be those women his victims or his mother, even though the facts don’t support that argument. I just think her commitment to the idea of the patriarchy undercuts her argument a bit.
I think the very idea of patriarchy – the concept that all men are joined against all women – blinds Caputi to the fact that sex murderers are far more interested in believing and enacting a “might makes right” sort of approach than in ruling over women with other men. As Sade said, “tastes are supplied us by Nature herself, and nothing we can possibly do will change them. Did the sodomite ask to become one? Is the anal erotic a pervert by preference? Of course not. Then, with what right does one man dare entreat him to mend his ways? With what right does society demand that he alter his behavior at the expense of his personal happiness?"
Blaming patriarchy can shield men from the guilt of their own actions just as effectively as blaming their mother. In the end, murderers murder because they choose to, and serial murderers are murderers who’ve discovered they enjoy it, and who have decided they have a right to it. While Caputi may be correct that there have been no female serial sexual killers, there have been women who were serial murderers, and they were coming from much the same mindset as the male serial murderers; “the ability to kill proves my right to kill, and I reject society’s claims otherwise.”
November 2, 2007
very interesting stuff. always meant to reread her analysis of serial killer culture - especially the celebrity of the jack the ripper myth.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews